Mike O'Brien

Bristol Palin and the Politics of Teen Pregnancy

2008-09-02T01:05:18Z

In response to unsourced conspiracy theories, the Palin's released a statement that:

Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents.

Mark Okeson was Bristol's assistant principal at Wasilla High School before she transferred to Anchorage High School mid-year. He had this to say about the situation:

"I'm sorry to hear this, but I have every confidence they have the abilities and the confidences to handle this," he said. "Just like children should not pay for the sins of the parents, the parents should not pay for the transgressions of the children."

This blogger has nothing but prayers to offer for Bristol, her family, and her unborn child. Remarks about Mr. Okeson careless thoughts are below the fold.]]> Buck v. Bell:

Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded white woman who was committed to the [the Virginia asylum]. She is the daughter of a feeble- minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble-minded child.

An Act of Virginia approved March 20, 1924 (Laws 1924, c. 394) recites that the health of the patient and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives...

Carrie didn't want to be sterilized and somehow mounted a challenge to the Virginia law. Justice Holmes upheld the law, and allowed Carrie's sterilization:

Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Perhaps the idea of an ideal person to carry a child goes back as far as Plato's Republic:

A woman, I said, at twenty years of age may begin to bear children to the State, and continue to bear them until forty; a man may begin at five-and-twenty, when he has passed the point at which the pulse of life beats quickest, and continue to beget children until he be fifty-five. Certainly, he said, both in men and women those years are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigor.

I modern America we recognize that there is a fundamental right in procreation. The idea that anyone could be sterilized at the state's whim was short lived.

[Jack T. Skinner] was convicted in 1926 of the crime of stealing chickens and was sentenced to the Oklahoma State Reformatory. In 1929 he was convicted of the crime of robbery with fire arms and was sentenced to the reformatory. In 1934 he was convicted again of robbery with firearms and was sentenced to the penitentiary. He was confined there in 1935 when [Oklahoma passed a law which allowed the Attorney General to steralize thrice convicted criminals such as Skinner]. In 1936 the Attorney General instituted proceedings against [Skinner]. [Skinner] in his answer challenged the Act as unconstitutional by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. A jury trial was had [and a] judgment directing that the operation of vasectomy be performed on petitioner was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma by a five to four decision.

Justice William O. Douglas saw things a little differently than Holmes:

[T]he instant legislation runs afoul of the equal protection clause.... We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, farreaching and devastating effects.

As Justice Douglas notes, procreation is one of the basic civil rights of man. Accordingly, with consent for intercourse as a given, there is no wrong way to have a child. Mr. Okeson, however well intentioned, is fundamentally incorrect. There is nothing wrong or bad about anyone having a child at any time. Human life is precious, dignified, and cannot be compromised by an out-dated inclination about the appropriate time for another to bear a child. Further, his idea, that the Palins would have to somehow "pay for the transgressions" of Bristol, is offensive. While Bristol and Levi chose to have intercourse, God chose them to have a child. Mr. Okeson's pompous remark appears to aver that he knew their family planning better than God. At a time when the Palins need the support of their community the assistant principal's comments are counter-productive. For someone who appears to know them well he has two options either he can either assist them or leave them alone as Barrack Obama put it:

Let me be as clear as possible. I think people's families are off-limits, and people's children are especially off-limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Gov. Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president.

John McCain, Barack Obama... and Paris Hilton

2008-08-06T13:54:35Z

In response to John McCain's recent ad that accuses her of lacking substance, Paris Hilton released her own ad which the media feels makes fun of McCain. You can watch the 'ad' below and I'll provide some analysis below the fold.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

]]> Legally Blonde. Also, her distraction midway in the ad to reading a magazine harkens memories to the legenary scene in One Night in Paris where Hilton stops the action in the film to answer her cellular phone. (I am not providing links!) At the onset the scenery appears to be almost self-depricating or ironic. She is responding to accusations of being shallow with an ad that appears to be shallow itself. Second, the message is intersting. She notes that Barack Obama supports tax breaks for alternative sources. This is a little misleading. Obama doesn't support any energy tax breaks except possibly for oil companies as I noted before. Interestingly, he now argues that he is against it (I was for it before I voted against it...). Rather, he supports exapnded federal research in the field. From a balance sheet prospective this may appear to be a trivial difference - I'll defer to Ms. Hilton's judgment on this matter. Third, the combined tax break for Detroit and expanded off shore drilling is exactly John McCain's energy plan. Ms. Hilton's ad, is, in fact, an ad for John McCain. The Hilton's are die-hard Republicans, so it should come as no surprise that Ms. Hilton advocates Mr. McCain's positions. Ben Smith's political blog has the campaign's reactions:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton reacts: "Whatever." McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds emails: “It sounds like Paris Hilton supports John McCain’s ‘all of the above’ approach to America’s energy crisis - including both alternatives and drilling. Paris Hilton might not be as big a celebrity as Barack Obama, but she obviously has a better energy plan.”

Kwame Kilpatrick

2008-07-24T00:07:50Z

It's a little early to start talking about 2009 elections, but this story is so salacious I think we can play local baseball for one night. This gives the reader an idea of who the Democratic party has running for office. I will rhetorically ask, what does one have to do to get beat in a Democratic Party primary? shot 18 times in the chest and died while in her car, the driver was not injured.Some police officers tried to investigate, and they were fired. Herein lies the problem, firing a government employee for reporting official wrongdoing is a violation of the Whistleblower Act. I'll pause here to note that the Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox, was unable to locate evidence that the party ever occurred. Nonetheless, the Whistleblower action proceeded, with a now infamous deposition where Kwame and this Chief of Staff testified that neither had an extramarital affair. Famous last words. As Kwame would later note, "this case is going to hell quickly" After some investigation, the County Prosecutor found Kwame's text messages which seemed to imply romantic trysts with a number of women. This is perjury, and for some reason, Kwame is still in office, despite the City Council voting to impeach him, and numerous requests to the Governor for his ouster. So, what does Kwame cling to?

“We’ve been able to deal with a $300-million problem in the budget, so I’m just thankful to God to still be able to wake up in the morning, kiss my wife, hug my children and do my job,”

Sadly, Kwame’s wife and the couple’s three sons are now living at the family’s home near Tallahassee, Fla.]]>

T. Boone

2008-07-22T18:09:38Z

This story initially caught my eye because of the unusual name of the main charector and his incredible honesty. T. Boone Pickens wants to build a gigundus wind farm that will cost $1 Trillion in equipment and another $200 Billion in transmission line costs. He believes that the country could be 20% powered on wind in ten years, the natural gas formerly used to power the country can be used to power cars at a fraction of the cost of doing so today. He believes private investors will pony up for this idea. So, what other ideas are out there?]]> Real Clear Politics has some choice words:

In his speech at Constitution Hall, Mr. Gore called for a crash program to convert the entire U.S. electric grid to carbon-free sources of energy within ten years. That's "ridiculous," said Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH). To get an idea of how ridiculous, consider this data from the Energy Information Administration. In 2006 (the last year for which complete data is available), 49 percent of our electricity was generated by coal-fired plants; 20 percent from natural gas, and 1.5 percent from oil. That is, more than 70 percent of all the electricity we have now is generated by the fossil fuels Mr. Gore wants to get rid of.

Hear is a fun Republican talking point from u>Real Clear Politics:

Al Gore wants you to do as he says, not as he does. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research reported last month that Mr. Gore used as much electricity last year at his mansion in Nashville -- one of four homes he owns -- as 19 average American homes do. Mr. Gore frequently travels between his homes and to speaking engagements by private jet -- which, on a per passenger basis, emits four times the greenhouse gases of a commercial jet.

So who do you believe T. Boone or Al Gore?

Making it a Federal Crime

2008-07-15T20:56:38Z

Today's issue comes from the Heritage Foundation which notes that the number of federal crimes has substantially increased lately. The conservative law blogs (blawgs) are conserned about this massive increase in federal power. The liberals seem to think that the federal government should be able to go wherever it wants. There are at least two notable ramifications of this massive increase in federal power: An issue cannot simultaneously be both a federal and state issue - therefore this takes power away from the states. This is a problem because states are in the best position to determine how to resolve a local issue. Also, many of the federal crimes do not require intent or mens rea. These crimes are like possession. It doesn't matter if you don't know you have it, as long as you have it you are guilty. This dissappearance of this requirement has been an increasing issue for at least fifty years in the United States.]]> notes :

Since the start of 2000, Congress has created at least 452 new crimes. So the total number of federal crimes as of the end of 2007 exceeds 4,450. Ninety-one of the 452 were contained in new laws that created 279 new crimes, and the remaining were contained in amendments to existing laws.[22] The total of 452 new crimes breaks down by year as follows: 65 for 2000; 28 for 2001; 82 for 2002; 51 for 2003; 48 for 2004; 13 for 2005; 145 for 2006; 20 for 2007.

I further note 18 USC 711 which reads:

Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Smokey Bear”, originated by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council for use in public information concerning the prevention of forest fires, or any facsimile thereof, or the name “Smokey Bear” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

Besides the ridiculousness of these statutes there are substantive problems. The Federal Government has always had the power to:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; [and] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

One recent Supreme Court case illustrates this point. In Gonzales v. Raich, DEA agents stormed onto Angel Raich's land and took his marijuana which he had for medical purposes under California’s Compassionate Use Act. Raich was never arrested, but rather Raich sued to prevent the DEA from enforcing this statute again. The Supreme Court ruled that marijuana was an article of commerce, and that Congress had the power to regulate it. It is necessary to use criminal proceedings in order to enforce the law. Therefore, the federal statute preempts the California statute, and there cannot be medical marijuana. Now, the debate is not whether medical marijuana is a good idea. The debate is whether the federal government should be telling the State of California how to govern in an entirely local matter. The Supreme Court has generally left the playing field giving the federal government free rein to make whatever criminal statutes it desires. There are two notable exceptions to this rule: The Guns Free School Zone Act and the Violence Against Women Act. In those cases schools and violence were not considered articles of commerce and therefore did not apply to this rule. Nonetheless, the larger issue is still present. The federal government usually chooses not to include a standard of intent or culpability, rather they leave it to the courts to decide or the crime is interpretted as one of strict liability as I discussed above. Heritage explains

If anything, mens rea requirements are more important today than in the past. Historically, nearly all crimes concerned acts that were malum in se, or wrong in themselves, such as murder, battery, and theft. Today, however, new crimes and petty offenses created by statute almost always concern acts that are malum prohibitum, or wrong only because it is prohibited. This category includes petty offenses and crimes like marketing medicines not approved by the FDA and shipping flammable materials without a sticker on the box. For malum prohibitum crimes and petty offenses, mens rea requirements can serve to protect individuals who have accidentally or unknowingly violated the law or, in some cases, were unaware that a law covered their particular conduct.

This is a disturbing trend that I doubt will be reversed any time soon.

Fannie, Freddie, and much ado about nothing

2008-07-15T00:57:43Z

Economists are theorizing about the potential ramifications about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians are eager to find something that appears to be a solution. But does it really make a difference? Let's say at one extreme Fannie and Freddie disappear. There would be a lack of capital in the mortgage markets and interest rates would skyrocket. Alternately, let's say that all of the mortgages are replaced with government bonds which effectively guarantees Fanny and Freddie's debt. Taxes would need to be raised to subsidize those mortgages. Effectively the result is the same on the average American, either it is more expensive to get a mortgage or taxes are higher. So how does one make it look like nothing happened so that live goes on as usual?]]> we can do: First, we can have some central entity buy mortgages, so that the loan personnel in the local banks carry no risk. This ensures that money is continuously available to provide mortgages mitigating the skyrocketing interest problem I discussed above. Second, the entity buying the mortgages will need to make money off of them, but individual mortgages carry substantial risk. To mitigate the risk the central entity can chop up the mortgage into $1000 pieces, and combine parts of one mortgage with parts of dozens of others into some kind of security. Now instead of losing a lot if one person defaults, there is a relatively minimal loss. Even in this less than wonderful market 95% of homeowners are able to pay their mortgage. Third, these entities can be configured to meet the income needs of customers: Some would like regular payments, some like a large payment at the beginning and then smaller ones toward the end, some want more principle than interest up front, etc. Whatever people in the marketplace want the central entity can provide it. Investors can buy these products a la carte and the central entity makes money while sharing the risk with others. So, what's the problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Well, a small increase in defaults can have a large effect since these companies manage over $5T in debt. A 1% increase in defaults is a $50B loss (granted a lot of people could share that loss), these companies make about $15B a year, so one really bad year can cause a lot of problems for investors. That investor heartache is the source of the current debacle. To resolve that the government insured the end-investors (who bought the products a la carte) that they would not take a loss due to default, and that the government would insure the end-investors would continue to receive payments as promised. However, this means Fannie and Freddie are going to have a bad year (their investors will pay for the bailout), but your life and mine will go one as it had.

FISA as modified by the PATRIOT Act as modified Yesterday.

2008-07-12T01:39:09Z

Barack Obama is taking a lot of heat on the blogs for supporting the extension of FISA with some new quirks. Most of the people who are complaining probably never read the bill, and don't really understand what it does. I'll try to demystify this legislation. For what its worth. I have only been able to find one conviction of an American using FISA evidence since PATRIOT, and in that case the agent involved obtained a warrant from the FISC. It is likely that this statute will join the thousands of volumes of United States Code that have entirely no direct affect on your life.]]> Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court gives us an idea what this means in Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238, 255 (U.S. 1979):

First, warrants must be issued by neutral, disinterested magistrates. Second, those seeking the warrant must demonstrate to the magistrate their probable cause to believe that "the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction" for a particular offense. Finally, "warrants must particularly describe the 'things to be seized,'" as well as the place to be searched. (I removed the internal citations - MOB)

The Supreme Court has not reviewed a FISC warrant, but the 6th Circuit has a very good explanation in ACLU v. NSA.

The more obscure FISA warrant requirement involves a petition by a federal official, with the approval of the Attorney General, 50 U.S.C. § 1804(a), to a special FISA Court, § 1803(a), for an order approving the electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, § 1805, based upon "probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power," § 1805(a)(3)(A). The FISA petition and order must include, among other things, provisions to limit the duration, §§ 1805(a)(10), -(c)(1)(E), -(e), and content, §§ 1804(a)(6), 1805(c)(1)(C), 1806(i), of the surveillance, and provisions to ensure the minimization of the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of the information, §§ 1804(a)(5), 1805(a)(4), -(c)(2(A), 1806, 1801(h).

So, there is no violation of the Fourth Amendment in FISA. There is an issue regarding a warrant not being necessary when an American citizen calls a someone in another country who is believed to be a terrorist. I am unable to find a single PATRIOT case that involves a criminal conviction without such a warrant. Here is a case where a warrant was sought: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali is an American citizen from Virginia.

In September 2002, at the age of 21, Abu Ali left his home in Falls Church, Virginia and traveled to Saudi Arabia to study at the Islamic University in Medina. Within a few months of his arrival in Medina, Abu Ali contacted Moeith al-Qahtani ("al-Qahtani"). Abu Ali and al-Qahtani had become friends two years earlier when Abu Ali attended an Islamic summer study session in Saudi Arabia and, upon his return to Saudi Arabia, Abu Ali renewed the friendship. The two "often talked about jihad" and, in November 2002, al-Qahtani introduced Abu Ali to Sultan Jubran Sultan al-Qahtani ("Sultan Jubran"), who was also known by the name of "Ali." 1 Sultan Jubran had been a mujahid soldier during the United States bombing of Tora Bora in Afghanistan (a major battle between al-Qaeda/Taliban forces and United States forces during the Afghanistan [*5] invasion) and, when introduced to Abu Ali, was second-in-command of an al-Qaeda cell in Medina. Abu Ali "accepted and liked the idea" of meeting the "mujahid brother."

Some time later:

Abu Ali and al-Faq'asi met a number of times thereafter to discuss the Medina cell's plans for jihad. [According to] Abu Ali, al-Faq'asi "presented me with [two ideas:]"The first idea was to carry out a major operation that he would arrange." The second was "that I would go to the [United States], settle down, find work, lead a normal life, blend into American society and marry a Christian," which would allow him to "plan successive operations inside the [United States] for which . . . al-Faq'asi would send individuals to carry out." In other words, Abu Ali, [would] establish a sleeper cell within this country, and prepare for operation instructions and additional operatives to assist. After this introduction to al-Faq'asi, Abu Ali "became directly connected" to the leader of the cell [and] "discuss[ed] how to carry out the assignment in the [United States]." According to Abu Ali, he met with al-Faq'asi on six separate occasions to plan such terrorist operations within the United States. In the course of these meetings, Abu Ali suggested assassinations or kidnappings of members of the United States Senate, the United States Army, and the Bush Administration, a plan to rescue the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and plans to blow up American warplanes on United States bases and at United States ports, similar to the USS Cole operation. Al-Faq'asi suggested an operation similar to the 9/11 bombings, but which would originate in planes departing from Britain or Australia for Canada in order to circumvent the requirements of a United States visa to enter the country, and plans to assassinate President Bush. [Abu Ali] also spoke on at least one occasion to Sheikh Nasser, a/k/a Ali al-Khudair, who "gave his blessing for the assassination of the President of the United States."

Sounds like someone a Christian woman would love to marry, can you imagine the craigslist personal ad? I will leave that for the comments. The story continues, there was a suicide bombing that killed 34 people. Abu Ali would try to create fake documents so the perpetrators could easily leave the country. FISA comes into play when Abu Ali's sname was found on a list at the raid of a safe house. After that the government sought and was granted a warrant to track Abu Ali's electronic communication. There was never a fourth amendment challenge because the procedure in ACLU v. NSA was followed. The issue actually came under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment which states that an accused person has a right to confront witnesses against him. Here the witnesses may divulge classified information. Let's return to the opinion.

[T]he government provided Abu Ali's uncleared defense counsel with slightly redacted copies of the classified documents, which it described as "newly declassified communications between the defendant and Sultan Jubran Sultan al-Qahtani occurring on May 27, 2003, and June 6, 2003," in their Arabic versions and with English translations, and advised counsel of the government's "inten[t] to offer these communications into evidence at trial as proof that the defendant provided material support to al-Qaeda." SCA 107. The first declassified document was dated May 27, 2003, and read as follows: Peace, How are you and how is your family? I hope they are good. I heard the news about the children's sickness. I wish them a speedy recovery, God willing. Anyway, please keep in touch. Greetings to the group, Hani. SCA 108. The government intended to demonstrate that "Hani" was a known alias of Abu Ali and that "news about the children's sickness" was a coded reference to the raids conducted by the Mabahith and the arrest of the Medina cell members. The second declassified document was dated June 6, 2003, and read as follows: To my brother, Peace to you with God's mercy and blessings. Thank God, I am fine. I was saved from the accident by a great miracle. I ask God that I would be thankful to Him. I have no idea about the others. However, according to what one doctor mentioned, 'Adil was not with them, thank God. The important thing is to get yourself ready for the medical checkup because you may have an appointment soon. Therefore, you must keep yourself ready by refraining from eating high fat meals and otherwise. SCA 109. With regard to this communication, the government intended to demonstrate that the term "accident" was also a coded reference to the safe house raids. According to the government's theory, Sultan Jubran was advising Abu Ali that he did not know which cell members had escaped and which were captured, but that he and al-Faq'asi (a/k/a "Adil"), had escaped, and warning that Abu Ali might also be at risk. A comparison of the classified and unclassified documents reveals that the declassified versions provided the dates, the opening salutations, the entire substance [*89] of the communications, and the closings, and had only been lightly redacted to omit certain identifying and forensic information.

Abu Ali moved the court pursuant to § 5 of CIPA to allow uncleared counsel to question the two government witnesses slated to introduce the substance of the classified communications into evidence "about their role in extracting, sharing, transferring, and handling [the] communications." [The] first witness was the compliance manager and custodian of records for the legal department of the communications carrier involved and the person tasked with the duty of responding to orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") Court. The second was a Special Agent with the FBI, who received the information from the compliance manager. Because this line of questioning would lead to the disclosure of the classified information, the government opposed the motion. [The district court allowed the in camera hearing and] CIPA-cleared counsel conducted a thorough and unrestricted cross-examination of the compliance manager regarding the issues raised, but found it unnecessary to question the FBI agent. [The jury received unredacted versions of the communications above]

So, who won

Having carefully considered the circumstances and evidence below, we conclude that the district court's determination that the redacted classified information need not be disclosed to the defendant, his uncleared counsel, and the public was not an abuse of discretion. Nor do we think that the district court's exclusion of Abu Ali and his uncleared counsel from the CIPA proceedings ran afoul of the Confrontation Clause. The district court's admission of the classified versions of the documents as evidence for consideration by the jury without disclosing the same versions to Abu Ali, however, was clearly contrary to the rights guaranteed to Abu Ali by the Confrontation Clause.

That gaff, resulted in the need to resentence Abu Ali, but his conviction was affirmed. It seems clear, in the end that he received every procedural protection afforded to any criminal defendant.

The Minimum Wage

2008-07-11T00:28:54Z

From the Wall Street Journal today:

[Barack Obama's] proposals include tax cuts, a minimum wage increase to $9.50 by 2011, an expansion of the earned income tax credit, child care tax cuts, an expansion of after-school programs, a pledge to enact the Fair Pay Restoration Act which intends to close the pay gap between men and women, and eliminating the capital gains tax rates for small business owners, among others.

John McCain has previously voted against an increase in the minimum wage. Conservatives generally oppose the minimum wage and point to a recent study in the UK which notes, the increase resulted in slowed hiring, reduction in hours of current employees, and increased prices at a microscopic level. At the macroscopic level there was little change. Liberals point to the same study, and not there was little effect on unemployment, which is the classical fear of the minimum wage.]]> for a long time this was the law. However, since the New Deal, the government has been able to make whatever regulations governing commerce it has desired, even telling farmers how much grain they could grow on their own land to feed their own cattle. Now, certainly, the government can order whatever minimum wage it wants. I return to the small business owner who is faced with a strangling increase in labor cost. I feel the owner would be tempted to engage in the same behavior as the motorist or book-buyer above. That is, to the extent it is possible, to circumvent the market. Alvin Lowi explains:

Black-markets exist wherever there are volitional demands for certain goods and services that have been legally prohibited and are satisfied only by methods and means condemned by law. Like moonshine during Prohibition, there is now a black-market for labor in this country. It is illegal for people to work for what many businesses are willing to pay to remain viable. Meanwhile, even less pay may be attractive to many non-natives who cannot find productive employment where they live legally. While domestic labor contemplates the hypothetical question "which would you rather have, a job at $2/hr or no job at $10/hr?", the immigrant scrambles to work for what he can get and hustles to keep it up. Economic realities that elude urban labor union aficionados are obvious to sojourners from rural Mexico accustomed to $2/day when and if they can get anything at all.

The Chattanoogan reports one such angle:

Further, unscrupulous business owners may be tempted to utilize illegal immigrants or other black market options for employees following a minimum wage increase to avoid the choice between raising prices or reducing the size of their workforce

. By raising the minimum wage Barack Obama would not be aiding the cause of woman, he would be facilitating their exploitation.

Can 300 Economists Be Wrong?

2008-07-08T00:43:44Z

John McCain issued a press release today which contained a statement from 300 economists who support his economic plan. The economists seem motivated by promises of reduced business taxes, reduced spending, and free market trade. The Politico's Ben Smith notes that the economists didn't sign on to everything:

The statement leaves out two big chunks of McCain's economic argument: the gas tax holiday and his promise to balance the budget by the end of his first term.

To contrast, Steve Forbes discussed in a conference call today how Obama voted to raise taxes on those making as little as a $32,000 a year. ]]> his position on this clear:

[T]he only way to keep the budget balanced is successful reform of the large spending pressures in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

As I have previously noted there are two ways to reform entitlement spending: reduce benefits and increase taxes. It appears that John McCain has a long term goal of cutting benefits, which may be a politically unpopular position to maintain in the general election. Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic provides a method for Obama to weasel his way out of his votes to increase taxes on everyone:

Obama voted twice in favor of a budget resolution that would have raised marginal tax rates on the 25% bracket by three percentage points. Budget resolutions, though, set wide targets and don't have the force of law. The same budget resolution called for middle class tax relief and AMT reform; it's hard to sustain the charge that Obama actually "voted" for tax hikes because he wasn't voting on a bill -- he was voting to give Senate taxwriters a set of guidelines for them to maneuever.

So what do people want higher taxes or smaller benefits? We will find out in November.

Jesse Helms Remembered

2008-07-06T18:55:24Z

Jesse Helms, a former senator (R-NC) died on the Forth of July of natural causes. The blogosphere has been relatively silent about his death given the controversy that his live managed to create. Those on the left seem almost gleeful that the old man who suffered dementia passed. The headline on a village voice article reads Jesse Helms finally dies. While Barack Obama appears to be silent the Associated Press Notes:

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain said in a statement: "Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of Senator Jesse Helms. At this time, let us remember a life dedicated to serving this nation."

So if the left is so glad that Helms has passed, why is he so mimicked in their techniques?]]> Here he plays to the bias of North Carolianians who are steadfastly opposed to affirmative action. He never won reelection by much, and he rejoiced in liberals sorrow at his successes. He was the first in Congress to engage in fact-finding missions, as described in the Wall Street Journal:

It was Helms who first sent his own foreign policy advisers overseas to second-guess the executive branch's foreign policy. Many liberals have no qualms in doing the same today.

His assistance to Ronald Regan in his primary challenge against Gerald Ford is reminiscent of the grassroots effort Hillary Clinton used against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania. From the Wall Street Journal:

Reagan lost the first five primaries, and he entered the North Carolina contest broke and under pressure to pull out. But Helms and his chief strategist Tom Ellis refused to give up. They employed Helms's huge, direct-mail list to build a grass-roots army of volunteers and raise money to air 30-minute speeches by Reagan across the state. Emphasizing the Panama Canal "giveaway" and smaller government, Reagan won an upset victory and was able to battle Ford all the way to the GOP convention. He showed such strength at the convention that Ford invited him to deliver off-the-cuff remarks to the delegates. Reagan was so inspiring that some of Ford's own delegates exclaimed, "We just nominated the wrong candidate." Reagan later acknowledged how Helms's intervention rescued his political career.

Jesse Helms legacy is more the methods of advancing his views than their substance in his early years.

Matthew 25 Network

2008-07-02T23:56:13Z

Law and Religion is an area of scholarly interest that I rarely have an adequate opportunity to discuss. For some reason it is now prominently noticeable in the political campaign season. The passage the Matthew 25 Network cites as justifying Barack Obama socialism is:

31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

In this article I will discuss socialism and Christianity, and do a quick Bible Study on Matthew chapter 25.]]> Summa Theologica he stated that God gave the world for the use of man, and did not recognize private property. However, as a matter of social convenience it was necessary to prevent strife. So, utopia exists in a balance, no one should be able to take the property of another, however, the state can take some for the general good. So, how much good is general? Saint Augustine answered the question long before Aquinas. In City of God, Augustine writes about two fictional cities: one is a city of angels where virtue is omnipresent, the other is a city of humans where sin is omnipresent. They require different social norms. The leaders are plagued with sin, and they can accomplish little. Later, other scholars would theorize that morality could exist simply by enforcing promises in courts. Matthew chapter 25 contains three stories, which I will quote in their entirety below:

The Parable of the Ten Virgins 1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep. 6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!' 7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.' 9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.' 10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut. 11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!' 12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. The Parable of the Talents 14"Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15To one he gave five talents[a] of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19"After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.' 21"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 22"The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.' 23"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!' 24"Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.' 26"His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. 28" 'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' The Sheep and the Goats 31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' 41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' 44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' 45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' 46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Here is a quick analysis Parable of the ten virgins: some people prepare for a pending event, and others try to leach of those who have prepared. The reward goes to those who were prudent and prepared rather than those who were careless. More specifically, the holy spirit is the oil which is carried by believers to help them through times of darkness when all they have is hope and patience. The bridegroom certainly represents Christ. Therefore, those who believe in Christ will have something to cling to in times of darkness that will not expire before they meet God. Parable of the talents: Some people do something with what they have, others do nothing. The reward belongs to those who do something. More specifically, God has given every believer a spiritual gift and a calling to use it. Though it may appear that the greatest reward comes from the greatest gift, that is not the case. The reward is simply for answering the calling, Christ also notes "Many are called but few are chosen" indicating that most people are like the lazy servant who does nothing with his spiritual gift. The Sheep and the Goats: Some people do something with what they have, others do nothing. The reward belongs to those who do something. More specifically, Jesus is challenging the faith of believers. If you believe Christ is your savior, what are you doing about it. Salvation is another matter entirely, think of it like a disease (odd imagery I know). Serving others is a symptom of God's grace working in your life. The common theme throughout all of these stories is that Jesus wants people to prepare, perform, and praise. Or, as I have noted before, the three functions of the modern church are giving praise to God, attending to the needs of believers and evangelizing non-believers. So, what does this have to do with public policy? If you want to take the position that society can lead its citizens to virtue, then it must provide for the basic needs of the least in society. Alternately, if you don't think society can do it, you can tell those who are capable to work for themselves to the extent that they can. Of course, this is all within the discretion of the sovereign which I discussed last week.

Barack Obama v. James Dobson Part II

2008-07-01T01:44:43Z

Jimbo decided to make an issue of this speech of Senator Obama's which is nearly two years old. You may read Senator Obama's speech or listen to Jimbo's monologue at the links I have posted. Part I examined Jimbo's assertion that Obama's interpretation of scripture is absurd, Part II will examine Obama's response.

Obama said the speech made the argument that people of faith, like himself, "try to translate some of our concerns in a universal language so that we can have an open and vigorous debate rather than having religion divide us."

]]> Christianity Today notes that this is a convenient view that many politicians take.

This approach is probably good politics. Indeed, one politician not commonly associated with Obama already practices this strategy. You won't hear from President George W. Bush direct appeals to United Methodist Church teachings to justify his opposition to same-sex marriage or abortion. Speaking in 2004 in support of a Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush said, "The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society." Signing the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Bush likewise declined to cite chapter and verse. "By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak," Bush said. "The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience."

One can think of the Christian Church as fundamentally seeking to accomplish three tasks: First, to give praise to God. This is non-controversial and gets virtually no media attention, though every Church does it in every service. Second, to convert non-believers into a relationship with Christ. Finally, to assist followers in spiritual growth (in the Catholic Church it ensures salvation is maintained by administering seven sacraments, and in Protestant churches it seeks to move the individual in a closer relationship with God. In either case, there is a structure for attending to the spiritual needs of members). Churches regularly encourage their members to adhere to a certain moral code. I am not sure when they decided they wanted to impress morality upon others who were not members. I seems clear that the Bible has no interest in imposing Christian values upon non-Christians. For example, it is a sin for Christians to divorce their Christian spouses, however, "if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so." (1 Corinthians 17). As I noted in the previous article, society can impose whatever irrational regulations it chooses, and Christians will abide by them unless there is a direct conflict with Biblical instruction. However, this does not mean that Christians are forbidden from interacting in the political process to seek whatever legislative change they desire. Accordingly, there is nothing in scripture that supports Obama's assertion that the most effective way to legislate is in a secular manner. However, that does appear to be what politicians do.

Barack Obama v. James Dobson Part I

2008-06-25T01:52:43Z

Jimbo decided to make an issue of this speech of Senator Obama's which is nearly two years old. You may read Senator Obama's speech or listen to Jimbo's monologue at the links I have posted. Part I of this article will examine Jimbo's assertion that Obama's interpretation of scripture is absurd, Part II will examine Obama's response. With regard to Part I, Jimbo found this portion of the speech particularly ludicrous:

[G]iven the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

]]> teachings of Jesus to find this point reinforced.

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn " 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— a man's enemies will be the members of his own household...

In context, Jesus is sending out his disciples telling them that their efforts to preach the good news will be met with hostility on earth, but He will ensure they are recognized for their earthly efforts in heaven. So, there you have it, people will commit crime just because of a plurality of religions in an area. The FBI has compiled statistics on this:

Year Religion-based Hate Crimes 2006 1462 2005 1227 2004 1374 2003 1343 2002 1576 2001 2004 2000 1472 1999 1411 1998 1390

While no criminal motive is better than another, compared to other motives like love or greed, these numbers are almost statistically insignificant 2. What passages of scripture should we use to guide public policy? While Jesus spent almost all of his earthly ministry addressing individual behavior he did have a few quips for leaders:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

These important matters of the law can be taken from Isaiah chapter 10:

1 Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, 2 to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless. 3 What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? Where will you leave your riches? 4 Nothing will remain but to cringe among the captives or fall among the slain.

Here, I think Al Sharpton and James Dobson are on the same plain. The Bible makes it clear that rulers have extremely broad discretion. The differences between Al and Jimbo concern what to do within that discretion. That is more a matter of informed opinion than Christianity. The key underlying concept of Christianity is love, and love cannot be coerced. Let me summarize this position: sin has separated God from man, but the grace of God gives man the opportunity to return. By the belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, men are justified. That justification comes as a result of a personal relationship with God that cannot be coerced. This is so commonly misunderstood be non-Christians, I feel compelled to lay out the entire scriptural structure for it. Jesus invited men to follow him, but did not force anyone to do so. Christ appeared to five hundred people after the resurrection as the risen God before he ascended into Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:6). However, after the ascension there were only 120 believers (Acts 1:15). It is difficult to imagine a more compelling argument for believing in God, than being confronted by God directly, as God. However, the vast majority of the people who met Him chose not to believe (at least at that time). Therefore, the grace can only be accepted by the love of the heart of the believer. “For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified” (Romans 9:10-11, emphasis added). Similarly, after Jesus began his ministry his family did not immediately believe that he was God in flesh. They came to visit Him once, and He turned them away stating that whoever does the will of God is my family (Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:1-21). Jesus had given everyone an equal opportunity to follow Him, and at that time, His family had not chosen to do so. Moreover, the grace of God extends to every person equally. At this time there was a difference between knowing Jesus personally, and submitting with one’s heart that he was God. His family did not recognize the latter and they were turned away. Jesus did not compel them to do anything; however, it was clear that there could not be salvation without belief. The Old Testament contains the same message in a much more graphic manner. In the story of the Rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Bible discusses the evil an irrationality of forced love: Amnon fell in love with his sister Tamar, and decided to pursue her sexually. One day He feigned illness and she brought him food in bed. Once she was close to him, he grabbed her and tried to attack her. Her response provided a foundation for the reasoning of the evil of forced love in the Bible, “Don't force me. Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don't do this wicked thing. What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel." (Id.) Eventually, Amnon completed the act, and some time later another sibling killed him. In contrast, the Apostle Paul provides a very famous explanation of love in his First Letter to the Corinthians, “Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres…” (1 Corinthians 13:6-7). Tamar’s first reaction was that forced love is contrary to the Law of Moses. She argues that loving relationships should be entered as a matter of free will. Though the punishment for rape (a fine of 50 pieces of silver, Deuteronomy 22:28) was comparatively light to how the issue is handled today, it was, nonetheless, a sin contrary to the law. The Mosaic disdain for forced love indicates that it cannot be consistent with the nature of God because He lacks sin. Tamar’s second reaction appeals to Amnon’s sense of decency. It is irrational to state that he loved her while subjecting her to this disgrace. Love always protects, and by committing the act, Amnon failed to protect her. Following Mosaic Law, Tamar publicly exclaimed her plight by refusing to wear virgin robes, and by putting ashes on her head. Similarly, God would not subject anyone to personal embarrassment by forcing His love. Tamar’s final plea is to Amnon’s own ego. She states that he is not only dishonoring Mosaic Law and Tamar, but he is also dishonoring himself. Because he pursued her out of love, his ego could only be satisfied by a loving relationship with her. As he did not pursue this solution, he was bound for despair which the Bible tells us followed him in every proceeding day until his grisly death. God recognizes the principal that a forced love would be unsatisfying to Him, and he avoids it by allowing free choice. At its most fundamental level, rape is evil. Rape is the most vile assault man can place on society by offending another person. As Tamar stated, it is the behavior of wicked fools. Paul has stated that love cannot delight in evil. There cannot be any love in rape; love must be an unforced voluntary decision, by mutually willing parties. Therefore legislating morality to compel people into a relationship with Christ is offensive, and no Christian would suggest it as a viable public policy. Rather, society leaders can make decisions within extremely broad discretion based on whatever factors they feel are relevant. Christians will continue to abide (albeit imperfectly) to a set of religious norms out of their personal desire to enter a relationship with God.

Free Trade and Protectionism

2008-06-24T00:33:07Z

Protectionism in the Untied States originates in Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures. On page 37 of the copy in the link Hammy discusses how a combination of tariffs and subsidies (or bounties) would enable fledging American industries to grow. The idea that American should protect certain industries for various reasons has been around ever since. However, since Richard Nixon the idea has lost nearly all serious support. In fact the few pockets where it remains are in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, states where Barack Obama decided that heavy pandering was needed in order to get some votes to win the nomination. Now that he has it, he has decided his first position was a bit extreme. ]]> stated:

"Ten years after NAFTA passed, Senator Clinton said it was good for America," Obama said. "Well, I don't think NAFTA has been good for America—and I never have." "Now, if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that we can't stop globalization in its tracks and that some of these jobs aren't coming back," he said. "But what I refuse to accept is that we have to stand idly by while workers watch their jobs get shipped overseas."

Further, in a debate he threatened:

we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced

John McCain has a press release that reads:

For months, Barack Obama said that he would 'make sure that we renegotiate' NAFTA, demanded unilateral changes and threatened to unilaterally withdraw if he did not get his way. Barack Obama knew better. America has not had a protectionist president since Herbert Hoover...

The Congressional Budget Office states in a report that the GDP in America has actually increased albeit mildly because of NAFTA. So, if it is actually making things better, then why is the Senator from Illinois against it? Nina Easton had the same question in her article in Fortune Magazine:

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy. Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered. Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

So we are all in agreement, NAFTA is good, protectionism is bad, and it only took a general election contest to get to it.

Tax Breaks for Oil Companies

2008-06-18T23:44:17Z

Today's issue comes from gossip style quips:from the presidential candidates about exactly who supports tax breaks for Big Oil. Here is the statute in question:

(a) TREATMENT AS EXPENSES.—A taxpayer may elect to treat 50 percent of the cost of any qualified refinery property as an expense which is not chargeable to capital account. Any cost so treated shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year in which the qualified refinery property is placed in service.

Simply, this allows owners of refineries to deduct 50% of operating cost of a refinery, thus not having to pay tax on it. So, which presidential candidate voted for the measure, and which one voted against it?]]> alleged:

Obama has said McCain's support for additional offshore oil drilling is evidence that he would effectively give the country another term of the Bush presidency.

John McCain responded today:

"I guess the senator [Obama] has changed his position since voting for the 2005 Bush energy bill—a grab-bag of corporate handouts that I opposed," McCain said. "Come to think of it, that energy bill was the only time we've ever seen Senator Obama vote in favor of any tax break—and it was a tax break for the oil companies."

It turns out John McCain is correct. The record is clear that Obama supported the measure while John McCain did not. Is this the kind of change you can believe in? Comments are welcome.