Category: Democracy

Why Governors Are Better Than Senators

Generally speaking, Americans prefer to elect former/sitting Governors to the presidency rather than former/sitting Senators.  The main reason this is so was illustrated by Mike Huckabee over the weekend: Huckabee helps choking NC candidate with Heimlich

Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee put the squeeze on a politician at the North Carolina Republican Party convention, but in a good way.

The former Arkansas governor performed the Heimlich maneuver on Robert Pittenger, Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, at a lunch Saturday.

Pittenger said he was laughing when he choked on some food.

"I stood up and the governor came over and did the Heimlich and got the relief," Pittenger said. He said the food dislodged when Huckabee applied the trademark Heimlich squeeze to the midsection.

It's a good thing Pittenger wasn't at a Senatorial gathering, where they probably would have rushed into action by calling for a committee meeting - scheduled for sometime in the fall - to discuss how best to help the category of "choking people."  If they can get a quorum.

All The News That’s Fit To Blackout

If you live in Britain and tried to read the New York Times story on what evidence the terror investigation turned up, you probably got a nasty little surprise. The New York Times chose to use its advertising software that targets ads to where someone lives for a new - and positively chilling - purpose.

They blocked people in Britain from reading the article, saying it was against British law to let people there read it.

NEW YORK - The New York Times' Web site is blocking British readers from a news article detailing the investigation into the recent airline terror plot, turning its Internet ad-targeting technology into a means of complying with U.K. laws.

"We had clear legal advice that publication in the U.K. might run afoul of their law," Times spokeswoman Diane McNulty said Tuesday. "It's a country that doesn't have the First Amendment, but it does have the free press. We felt we should respect their country's law."

Visitors who click on a link to the article, published Monday, instead got a notice explaining that British law "prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial." The blocked article reveals evidence authorities have in the alleged plot to use liquid explosives to down U.S. airliners over the Atlantic.

The Times site already targets ads based on a visitor's location, but McNulty said this was the first time the technology was used in an editorial capacity. The Times also blocked U.K. access to an audio summary of the top Times stories, which included the article in question.

Other news organizations have blocked content before, mostly for financial reasons, said Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

For example, the British Broadcasting Corp. has been testing online access to landmark television reports of major world events from the past half-century. But it said it cannot make the video available for free outside of Britain because it is funded through an annual levy on British TV owners.

The BBC and other organizations also have blocked audio and video of Olympics competition because they bought licenses only for specific geographic regions. Likewise, to protect broadcast contracts, Major League Baseball has used similar technology to prevent live online access to games involving hometown teams.

The underlying blocking technology, known as geotargeting or geolocation, checks the numeric Internet address of a visitor's computer against databases showing the company or service provider to which that address was assigned.

The technique is not foolproof.

A British computer modem could, for instance, make an international call to make the visitor appear to be coming from, say, the United States.

I have no idea why an American newspaper would suddenly try to comply with another country's laws first of all. More importantly, this is supposed to be the mighty defender of the free press and the right of the people to know. And this is what they are doing? Blacking out news based on where you come from? Anyone else see the deadly danger this presents?

The New York Times has the potential to turn the whole world into China. Think about it. This is a particularly bad move on the part of the Times.

Folks in Britain better be thinking of ways to spoof this technology. So had we all.

UPDATE: Don't miss this beautiful irony. It seems the Times of London has no problem publishing the same information the NYT did and even credits the NYT as the source! The NYT can't even get the legal facts straight.

Many thanks to those who have linked this post.

Image, Polls And Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens writes in the Examiner today about why we shouldn't pay attention to opinion polls that purport to show how the rest of the world views us. Since I have long been a critic of polls and polling, this rings for me.

For example, I am quite certain that an opinion poll of any kind, taken in the Muslim world in 1992, would have discovered enormous resentment at the failure of the United States to intervene militarily in Bosnia. But this ingredient in the famous mixture of Islamic grievances is seldom, if ever, mentioned, and certainly wasn’t head-counted at the time. As a result of that just and necessary intervention, large numbers of Orthodox Christians, not just in Serbia, now record strongly “anti-American” opinions. Which goes to show that you can’t please everybody.

It also goes to show that you probably shouldn’t try. A country that attempted to be in everybody’s good books would be quite paralyzed. The last time everybody said they liked the United States (or said that they said they liked the United States) was just after Sept. 11, when the nation was panicked and traumatized and trying to count its dead. Well, no thanks. This is too high a price to be paid for being popular.

Measurements of opinion are in any event static, and they assume passivity, and a consensus upon knowledge. If you had asked people in 2001 whether they thought it was likely that Afghans and Iraqis would be holding free elections in a couple of years (not that any polling group ever did even suggest such a question), I doubt you would have got a very good response. And how, in any case, could people have known enough to know what they were supposedly talking about?

If I was to interrupt this article every few sentences, asking you whether or not I was making a good impression on you, I hope and believe that you would think I was a servile jerk. Yet this is what our politicians are doing in every speech (most notably in the absurd recent debate on “flag-burning”) and this is apparently what we hire Karen Hughes to do in our public diplomacy.

Read the whole thing, I think Hitchens has nailed this one.

Happy Birthday!

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred. to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Pro-Democracy March In Hong Kong

A pro-democracy march was held in Hong Kong on Saturday, marking the ninth anniversary of the British hand over of the former colony.

Police estimate 19,000 people started the march, but the crowd grew as the demonstrators moved through the city chanting slogans and blowing whistles.

Earlier in the day, thousands took part in a parade organized by the pro-Beijing Federation of Trade Unions. Police said 40,000 people participated.

In a move that political analysts say probably gave the pro-democracy march a boost this year, one of Hong Kong's best known and respected political figures, former chief secretary Anson Chan, participated for the first time.

Hong Kong has been governed since 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that affords it a high degree of autonomy from the Communist Party-led mainland. However, Beijing has dictated the scope and pace of political reforms.

In 2003 and 2004, half a million or more people joined the march, upset at the weak economy and the government's mismanagement of various issues. But last year after the city's unpopular leader Tung Chee-hwa resigned, the number of participants fell to around 20,000.

With the economy in good shape, many expected even fewer people this year, but Chan and others drew a distinction between economics and politics.

"The fact that the economy is now on a strong path does not mean that the voice and the aspiration for universal suffrage and for democracy is any less," Chan told reporters before the march.

"I would say that without democracy one cannot really have sustained economic growth."

Benjamin Leung, a 40-year-old elderly care worker, said that while Hong Kong was performing strongly on the financial front, life for ordinary people was no better.

"Of course the Heng Seng (stock market) index has reached new highs, but for Hong Kong people, things are not improving," he said.

Cardinal Joseph Zen, the outspoken leader of Hong Kong's Catholic community, said perseverance would lead to results. "If we persist, our aim will be met," he told Catholics praying for the march.

The struggle for freedom continues all around the globe. China will be under increasing internal pressure to reform it's system as the economy continues to grow. Middle classes don't much care for communism as a political system.

Food For Thought On This Holiday Weekend

From Bruce Kesler at Democracy Project.

Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me.

To me, that’s a most American statement of principle, and I think applies to most Americans. The 4th of July is Independence Day. That independence includes from most cant and credo.

Americans are essentially iconoclastic. We don’t pay obeisance to any organization’s doctrine and enjoy puncturing the pompous and self-righteous. Our views are not ideologically consistent. Polls repeatedly confound commentators to show majorities holding views that on the surface of the questions or demographics conflict or contradict imposed categorization.

Ideologues say that this demonstrates confusion, or pernicious effects of their opposition’s propaganda, and call for more intense organizing and education. But, the apparent contradictions persist.

Read the rest. It's quite a good take on America and Americans.

Not A Good Idea

In today's Washington Post, Dana Milbank goes into full sarcasm mode over the Senate debate over a constitutional amendment to bar flag burning. At times crossing into bitterness, Milbank still hits a few good points.

The naive among us may have trouble appreciating how four flag-burning episodes would constitute a constitutional crisis. But the men and women of the Senate, ever alert to emerging threats, are on the case.

"I think of the flag as a symbol of what veterans fought for," Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said as he opened the debate yesterday, "what they sustained wounds for, what they sustained loss of limbs for and what they sustained loss of life for."

….

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) saw the calculus somewhat differently.

"They say that flag burning is a rare occurrence; it is not that rare," he told the chamber. An aide hoisted a large blue poster detailing 17 incidents of flag desecration over three years. Hatch, citing "an ongoing offense against common decency," read them all. "That's just mentioning some that we know of; there's a lot more than that, I'm sure," he said.

Never mind that, in most cases, the perpetrators could be prosecuted for theft or vandalism. For Hatch, this was sufficient evidence of the need for an amendment. "Now, I have to tell you," he vouched, "the American people are aggrieved."

….

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) countered with a different set of figures. "There have been only seven acts of flag desecration annually in America in the last six years, so to argue that we have this growing trend toward desecration and burning our flag defies the facts," he said. "In fact, it rarely, if ever, happens. And so why are we about to change the handiwork and fine contribution to America of Thomas Jefferson?"

Next on the floor, Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) presented yet another set of statistics. "Exceedingly rare," he concluded. "Two hundred cases in 215 years. Less than 10 cases over the last 10 years."

But Durbin and Dodd were in the minority in their inability to recognize the threat to the flag. Nearly two-thirds of the senators — tantalizingly close to the number needed to pass the amendment — are expected to vote for the flag-burning amendment this week, including Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.), the Democratic leader.

I have mentioned before that I think this amendment is unnecessary and is a waste of time to pursue. As outraged as I get when one of these events actually occurs, it is not a good idea to begin altering the constitution over this. It also opens the door to other prohibitions on speech and I would rather we as a nation do not go down that path.

We should be able to see that the actions of a few jerks cannot take away the symbolic power that the flag has. In fact, their actions reinforce that power and demeans any person or cause that resort to such an action.

An Astonishingly Stupid Bill

I already posted my opinion of the idiotic effort to form a "native Hawaiian" government by passage of a wrong-headed bill now pending in the Senate. There's a paper out by the Heritage Foundation that really lays out the problems with this idea in detail.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to begin debate as early as June 7, 2006, on the misleadingly named “Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005” (S.147).[1] The proponents of this bill, some motivated by seemingly benign purposes and others by a desire to benefit from special preferences, argue that it redresses ancient wrongs done to early Hawaiians by various powers, including the United States. The bill purports to authorize the creation of an exclusively race-based government of “native” Hawaiians to exercise sovereignty over native Hawaiians living anywhere in the United States. This “Native Hawaiian Government” could allegedly exempt these Hawaiians from whatever aspects of the United States Constitution and state authority it thought undesirable. Not only is this a terrible idea; it is also unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court ruled decisively that this approach violates the Constitution in Rice v. Cayetano (2000). Yet the proponents of S.147 believe they can bypass this ruling simply by enacting a law that calls the descendants of so-called “aboriginal” Hawaiians an American Indian tribe. The bill would require the federal government to create a database of persons with one drop or more of “aboriginal” Hawaiian blood, organize elections for an “interim government” of this alleged “tribe,” and finally recognize the sovereignty and privileges and immunities (or lack thereof) that the new government establishes for its “tribal members.” Although Hawaii correctly argued in the Rice litigation that descendants of aboriginal Hawaiians are not an American Indian tribe, state officials have changed their minds—because that is the only way they can practice racial discrimination on behalf of a favored interest group. Hopefully, the United States Constitution is not so easily circumvented.

It goes on from there detailing even more reasons that this appalling piece of legislation should be killed.

UPDATE: If you need any proof that this is a stupid and wrong-headed idea, look no further than the New York Times. They have endorsed it.

How To Deal

With people who have no decency. The New York Times has an article about the push in many states to clamp down on protests at funerals. All of these laws would appear to be in response to the absolutely appalling behavior of members of the Westboro Baptist Church. You know, the lovely little family cult that has been picket the funerals of soldiers. They say the deaths are God's punishment for America's tolerance of homosexuality.

First things first. These people are scum, deserving of our scorn and, in general, a complete waste of oxygen. That they choose to inflict themselves on grieving families is beyond any interpretation of decency.

Sadly, they also have a right to speak, even if they are beneath contempt. There is a group that was formed in response to these nasty cretins, the Patriot Guard Riders. They have taken it upon themselves to block the Westboro people from view and, if necessary drown out their noise by revving their motorcycles. I think this is the right approach. The Riders are my kind of people.

Let's face it, these pimples are doing this for publicity. If the press would simply ignore them they would move on to something else. Maybe just getting back to more inbreeding, but everyone has to have a hobby.

Belarus Update

The news is not encouraging. The crackdown by the government appears to have stymied the opposition, at least for now. At least one opposition politician cannot be located after he was arrested (that’s usually a bad thing). The opposition vows that they will keep trying to exert pressure and Western governments remain highly critical of the "election".

The ever reliable Gateway Pundit has a lot more on this, including links to show just how brutal the "crackdown" was. We’re talking violent repression here, folks.

Unrest in Belarus Continues

The strong-arm tactics of the police may be breaking the strength of the Belarus opposition. The authorities appear to successfully blocked the demonstrators from starting another demonstration on the square where it was planned to occur. The police have been forcing would-be demonstrator back up streets and alleys, away from the intended gathering place. They also appear to be cracking down hard on students who join the opposition, confiscating their student IDs and having them expelled if they are caught.

Despite Western sanctions, the president of Belarus continues the assault on democracy. The only thing people of good will can do is to keep publicizing this as best we can. Do not let the outrage be forgotten.

WordPress Themes