Putting democracy in the cross hairs

I roused from a late afternoon rest to see Twitter declaring the Rep Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona had been assassinated. Then I saw that maybe she wasn't dead. But quite a few other people were. Tragic. Absolutely tragic on so many levels. It need almost go without saying that murder is horrible. And mass murder is vile. But there's something particularly tragic about the slaying of people who were participating in our democracy - as representatives, as aides, as supporters and I dare say as dissenters. Without a doubt among those killed and injured will be someone who disagreed with the politics of Representative Giffords and was there to let her know. To spray bullets on such a gathering is an attack on orderly, peaceful representative democracy. To kill the chance of ordinary people getting close to their representatives. I hope that everyone injured in today's shooting recovers quickly.

But what I also saw on Twitter was quick condemnation of Sarah Palin and rhetoric which borrows heavily from text of Guns n' Ammo. Yep, Ms Palin is certainly one to rouse emotions. I'm not a fan of her approach generally and I disagree with her on pretty much every political stand she takes. But she didn't pull the trigger. Yes, apparently she put Rep Giffords in the cross hairs on her website. In retrospect, it seems more than inappropriate. But a target seat is still a target seat. Everyone uses language like that. Everyone talks about picking off vulnerable opponents and some talk of political hit lists. I don't know how common cross-hairs are for political maps, but I wouldn't be surprised to see flames and bulls-eyes. Maybe we need a slightly different discourse. And we mustn't tolerate anything which goes further than this.

It takes a nut job to actually carry even extreme rhetoric to action. But sadly there's no lack of people who are willing to step up to the plate. From the recent assassination in Pakistan, to the stabbing of Stephen Timms. Call for violent action loud enough and often enough, even in the guise of metaphor, and someone will hear the call.

For sure, politics is a rough sport. And I wouldn't for a second wish to curtail freedom of speech. But surely we can all do more to counter aggressive, violent speech. To shun it. To repudiate it. To not tolerate or cosset it. No matter whom it's targeted against, as it lowers the tone for all of us. And that includes harsh responses, labelling Sarah Palin a murderer and demanding retribution.

And a similar post from a local politician I've met.

Sara Bedford blogs as well.

Sarah Palin talks smarts

I've never been one of the people who were tempted to slam on Sarah Palin for being an idiot or denigrate her achievement at becoming Governor of Alaska (oh, it's only a small state population wise), which seems a bit ridiculous unless you yourself have served as the governor of a larger state, and if you have it's still not classy.

But it's fair to say that I agree with her on practically nada. But today I do: In the Daily Mail, she was reported as saying about the proposed burn-a-koran day at a Florida church.

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals,' she wrote.

'People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.'

She finished by saying: 'We don't need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society.

'In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn't that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?'

And on this I tend to agree. Burning Korans, deliberately insensitive and provocative. Building a mosque near Ground Zero, probably not deliberately insensitive - just in the fact that I bet suitable properties in Manhattan aren't super easy to source and that's where that happened to be - but it strikes me as a touch inappropriate all the same.

One good thing about a McCain presidency

There would be one good thing about a McCain presidency. It would, once and for all, establish the right of my son to seek and hold the highest office in the land (the American land, that is). From an article in Washington Post:

The Senate has unanimously declared John McCain a natural-born citizen, eligible to be president of the United States.

That is the good news for the presumptive Republican nominee, who was born nearly 72 years ago in a military hospital in the Panama Canal Zone, then under U.S. jurisdiction. The bad news is that the nonbinding Senate resolution passed Wednesday night is simply an opinion that has little bearing on an arcane constitutional debate that has preoccupied legal scholars for many weeks.

Article II of the Constitution states that "no person except a natural born citizen . . . shall be eligible to the office of president."

Of course, Buddy didn't need a Congressional order to be declared a natural born citizen. We've got a piece of paper from the US Embassy to prove that he's an American boy. But the founders never specified what a natural born citizen really is and it's never come up, so it's never been tested by the courts.

But it will be soon, apparently there are three pending law suits disputing McCain's eligibility.

But Sarah H. Duggin, an associate law professor at Catholic University who has studied the "natural born" issue in detail, said the question is "not so simple." While she said McCain would probably prevail in a determined legal challenge to his eligibility to be president, she added that the matter can be fully resolved only by a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision.

"The Constitution is ambiguous," Duggin said. "The McCain side has some really good arguments, but ultimately there has never been any real resolution of this issue. Congress cannot legislatively change the meaning of the Constitution.

And apparently, McCain's situation is further complicated because his birth isn't recorded in the consular records (as it should have been).

As I've stated before, I'd rather eat a razor blade than vote for McCain, but I really hope he's eligible to run.




As American as apple pie or baseball

_______
Hat tip: Kleinheider from Post Politics

In the interests of global peace and security

I don't believe it! Gordon Brown has finally said something doesn't make me queasy. He wants to expand the Anglosphere, by deepening relations between Britain and America, or so he says in the Wall Street Journal. And he has a whole host of policy prescriptions backed by nebulous spending commitments.

And since our little family embodies the Anglo-American bond, we should get a grant. In the interests of global peace and security, of course.



British and American

Do the decent thing

Do the decent thing, Barack Obama, and step down now before things get ugly. Clearly, you can't win in the big states - so why drag this on? Your candidacy is divisive and apparently the press have gotten bored of giving you an easy ride.

Heh.

Why I move right - but could never vote Republican

In accordance with the old truism, I've moved right - I've become more conservative - as I've gotten older. This is partly the natural cleaving to the old ways, it's partly getting an MA in Economics from the University of Tennessee, and it's a lot about moving to the UK and seeing the consequences of a true welfare state. You talk about dependency culture - whooo-weee, daaaang - there are generations of people here who don't have the foggiest about work.

So in Mitt Romney's withdrawal speech (full transcript from the NYT) there were some things I agreed with:

Dependency is death to initiative, risk-taking and opportunity. Dependency is culture killing. It's a drug. We've got to fight it like the poison it is.

Yep. I agree. It is a poison. A poison that rots the soul.

But he goes on in that mean spirited Republican way which just sickens me. Sickens me with its mantle of "personal responsibility" - which is just a slick cover for tight-fistedness, for I-got-mine-so-screw-you, and most shamefully for sticking their noses in the trough of public goods that they like (highways, infrastructure, business tax credits and subsidies, policing and defense) and turning off the tap for other social goods that they have access to privately ( i.e. health care) despite the fact that this approach is actually economically inefficient and delivers poorer outcomes overall.

Now, some people think we won that battle when we reformed welfare. But the liberals haven't given up.

At every turn, they tried to substitute government largess for individual responsibility. They fight to strip work requirements from welfare, to put more people on Medicaid, and remove more and more people from having to pay any income tax whatsoever.

And the crowd cheered and the band played on.

Is this the latest sick, selfish Republican mantra? Make sure that poor folk don't have access to health care? Make sure the low paid pay through the nose but get rid of taxes on unearned income (e.g. capital gains, estate taxes)?

One thing I've learned about a dependency culture in the UK is that you want to make the transition into working as easy and rewarding as possible. One truth about universal health care that the Selfish-right don't want you to know is that it actually encourages economic activity and entrepreneurs. In the US, some people get caught in the trap of losing health benefits when they start to earn too much money. In the US, people are stuck with dead end jobs or denied the opportunity to go out on their own because they must cling to their employer provided health care.

In the UK, the non-working have every incentive not to work (at least in the short run) as they lose benefits pound for pound as they start earning (which doesn't take into account that leisure does have value) and they come into a rather punitive and regressive tax system. My tax burden is far lower now than it was when I was barely scraping by (though of course I am paying far more overall - it annoys, but it doesn't hurt now.)

The point is, of course, that everyone has to start somewhere. And unless you're the privileged child of wealth, the place you start is at a very low wage job. You work your way up. And you should be rewarded for trading a life of penurious leisure for penurious labor by keeping as much of your wage as possible when you're at that rough, rotten bottom rung of the economic ladder.

It's not as if the low-paid don't pay taxes. They pay a lot of tax (proportionately). They pay taxes on goods and services. They are almost certainly paying other payroll taxes (FICA in the US, National Insurance in the UK). And they can't escape the taxman with sheltered income and offshore accounts.

I believe in the hand up, not the handout. But forcing the poor to hand-over disproportionately, making their precarious situation all the more tottering is just wrong.

Romney drops out

Mitt Romney drops out. The best I can say about him is that had he won, I reckon he wouldn't have been the total disaster that that crazy McCain would be.

They're still doing it.

Looks like they had quite a shindig going on in London for Democrats Abroad where I could have cast a ballot. Didn't make it because my dad and brother were visiting, but the news coverage made me kinda sad I missed out.

But I'm so grateful for the opportunity to cast my ballot online in the DA Global Primary. Come November, I'll vote in my home state. Hillary won there last night without my vote and this fall she'll win in Tennessee with my vote.

-0-

My brother backs Obama. Tsk, tsk. But he also voted for Nader in 2000, so I think we know how politically wise he is.

Obama could still win and as a good Dem, I'll vote for him, but I tell you I hope he cuts out the backsniping bullshit pronto. That's not helping anyone.

-0-

I've noticed the Hillary Clinton coverage is all spun negative. They're still doing it. In one sentence it's all "Hillary wins more delegates..." in the next it's all "Hillary is struggling, Hillary is losing her advantage..." blah, blah, blah.

Hello, people - she's winning. WTF?

The Tennessee Guerilla Women have a good low down on the misogyny and last night's coverage.

-0-

But you know the weird press coverage is not just about misogyny. John Edwards couldn't have got 30 seconds if he were the man biting a dog. And poor old Mitt Romney had been winning until the media anointed that crazy McCain. And Huckabee? Well, he's getting good coverage, cause he's winning in the snake handling states. (Yeah, I know.... I'm bad.)

One Saturday in January

Hey South Carolina and Nevada - what a great day to hold an election. Seems like maybe more people could get out and vote on a Saturday, maybe that's what the US should do. And then I wouldn't feel bad about staying up all night to watch the returns. But of course, so many states are going for the early voting that maybe it doesn't matter anymore.

-0-

My dad and brother will be visiting soon and will be here on election day. Both of them have opted for early voting. Apparently VolBro has already voted and we don't agree on a primary candidate.

VolBro says that Hillary Clinton is the Republican's best chance at the White House because she's so divisive. You know, I used to think that, too. But the Clintons have overcome that before.

Besides, seems to me like the last election we had was the Democrats to throw away - given that the Republicans were running that "uniter" George Bush. If ever a candidate was divisive, that must be the guy. Seems to me divisiveness maybe isn't the handicap people think it is.

-0-

I sure hope Fred does well. It'd be great to see prices going up on this thing..

And now I will blog about the 2008 Presidential race

For so long I've avoided blogging about the 2008 run for the White House and sworn I wouldn't until it was seemly. Maybe it was because I was a bit sickened by the campaigning kicking off before the 2006 Midterms even concluded. It's like retailers putting up Christmas decorations before Halloween. It ain't right.

I did have a post or two about Fred, but I tagged them Not the 2008 election, so I feel I kept my promise in a moral sense.

But now it's 2008, so I'm ready.

To the Republican party:

Y'all are making me laugh. Your candidates are crazy or lazy.


To the Democrats:

Can we please avoid having a nomination until the rest of the nation freakin' votes? We did this last time and look who we got. A loser. A guy who was so lacking in charisma and winning-ness that he couldn't resoundly beat that no-hoper George Bush.

To the "liberals":

Stop calling Hillary Clinton "shrill" or "close-to-tears" when she's not. Y'all need to take a look in the mirror and think about where this attitude is coming from. From what I've seen Hillary Clinton has acquitted herself admirably. Yes, I am voting for her.

But here are two people who probably/certainly aren't voting for her who've spotted the woman bashing, too. (Kathy Flake and the Tennessee Guerilla Women here and here and elsewhere). Heck, even my husband who subscribes to Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine noticed and has been stunned by the level of woman bashing.

To the British media:

Stop pontificating on this election as if a) you have a vote or b) you deserve a vote. You are merely outside observers. You do not get to anoint your chosen candidate - Barrack Obama. Although, maybe I shouldn't say anything since I believe that The Guardian with their stupid letter writing campaign along with the some vote tampering managed to lose Ohio.

And since I'm supporting the shrill and close-to-tears Hillary Clinton (yes, this according to the British media), go ahead, please shoot yourselves in the foot on this one, too.

At that point in time

Did y'all know Fred Thompson wrote a book about Watergate? Well, he did. At That Point in Time It's not in print anymore, but I got my grubby little paws on a grubby little copy this weekend.

See:



And yes, it's a little rough around the edges, but the darn thing is 32 years old. (Younger than I am, though.) My dad brought it over. It had been languishing on his bookshelves for years, apparently.

It's a signed copy, to my grandfather. He apparently thought so much of it, he passed it on to his son-in-law within a month. I guess he was a pretty fast reader.



My dad thought I'd get a kick out of it. And I have. But I've gotten an even bigger kick out of the fact that an autographed copy is selling for almost $750 - and that's without the dust jacket.




My dad doesn't want me to sell it, but it's sooo tempting when I know the book will return to its normal low,low value after Fred's campaign crashes and burns.

I know what my granddad would do. Oh yes, he'd sell. This was a man who sold junk antiques into his dying week and had a price tag on the walker he used to get around the shop. (For $5 more than my mom and my aunt paid for it)

TennViews

R Neal is the East Tennessee blogger who inspired me to start blogging. The outlet which captured my imagination is long gone, but he's set up other community blogging outlets - like KnoxViews and now TennViews.

TennViews is described as Liberal views and opinion by Tennessee Volunteers for a progessive America.

Now while I wouldn't classify myself as a progressive in a global sense and I'm disillusioned with leftists and what I perceive as a growing divide between the liberal and the left. I'm fairly right wing by British standards, but I also fully recognise that compared to most Tennesseans I'm a way-out wacky lefty. At any rate, I'm glad to see this new outlet and I hope it becomes a vibrant online community that contributes to the political conversation in Tennessee and beyond.

And, I wouldn't mind if this meant that KnoxViews was more focused on Knoxville and Knox County than the recent drift towards national politics.

Fred marrying ambition

More on Fred. Here's another article in the LA Times about Fred's early days, marrying young in Lawrenceburg. A lot of it's about his former in-laws, the Lindseys. I can't say I'm a political fan of Fred Thompson, but I liked his work in Law and Order and I can't help but be a little excited about reading these stories about my old home town in newspapers of natonal note.

This article is full of little known and rarely recalled facts about the wild nature of Lawrence County politics. Including matters of the ballot being settled by the bullet. I wish my grandfather was alive today so that I could ask him about all that. He was heavily involved in Lawrence County politics in those days and had a political rivalry with one of the Lindseys mentioned in the story. But I didn't know about the shoot-out (my grandfather wasn't involved, I can't imagine that he would have been at least he's not mentioned in the story).

Here's another little known fact: I used to have a picture of Fred's ex-mother-in-law hanging up in my kitchen.

__________
H/T Volunteer Voters

It's not about the next election

I'm still not blogging about the 2008 Presidential election until, ya know, it's an election year. But this is about the process, so it doesn't count. John H hits on the forever backwards creeping primary dates in post entitled

In a blazing round of ‘Who’s on First’, Tennessee proclaims its Presidential Primary to start RIGHT NOW

and says:

If Tennessee could somehow become an actual meaningful primary instead of the afterthought of the backwash and therefore often ignored or taken for granted (nice job AL!) by moving the primary up a bit, I guess I wouldn’t object.

I didn't vote in the Tennessee primary last time. Partly cause I never registered with a party (yes, I know you don't have to in Tennessee, but you do if you want to receive a meaningful primary absentee ballot), but also because I gave up my vote so I could participate in the UK Democratic caucus with hundreds of other American expats. It was so much fun I'd advise everyone to move to Iowa for one electoral cycle (or here, or Paris whose caucus attendance numbers we beat, so a hearty yah boo to the Americans in Paris) Seriously, it was like a big ol' grown up pep rally

We've got spirit, yes we do
We've got spirit, how 'bout you?

But in place of spirit plug in, rational foreign policy and non-punitive tax code for expatriates (we deserve it - after all just who do you think is minding the empire?)

So maybe Tennessee should get a caucus - or since we're such a great online community, why not a blog-cus. The candidates with the biggest online word counts win*. What do you bet we'd be the only contest to return two native sons who aren't even running.

_____________
*written by registered TN voters, of course

I am not a crook

Cletus is less than four weeks old and already he'll be on his second Prime Minister. Yes, Tony Blair leaves office today and Gordon Brown takes over.

I guess I can add to the apologias and eulogias by saying, I'll be sorta sad to see Tony go. But mostly because I hate Gordon Brown - I think he's sneaky and secretive and less interested in following the rules than even Mr Blair. He never owns up to the damage that he's done (pensions funding, Private Finance Initiatives, NHS funding). And I have to say, I'll never forget how comforting Tony Blair was on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. He said just what I wanted to hear in just the right way when George Bush was still taking secret flights or hiding in a bunker or something.

Anyway, the timing of the prime ministerial change made me think...is there an effect on the personality of those born during the reign of this or that political chief. You know, like a horoscope or the Chinese Year of the Pig? Will little Cletus born in the wane of Blair, with Gordon rising have a gift for the glib soundbite (Blair), disregard the importance of process and constitutional tradition (Blair and Brown - and Bush for that matter) and be open about his actions and ambitions to a only a small, personally loyal cabal (Brown and Bush)?

And what about myself? I was born in the midst of the Nixon era. And I have to say, I've always had a fondness for the fellow. But what about the effect on my personality? Well, I'm not a crook. Seriously. Though I do have a firm sense that rules are not quite meant for me in the same way that they're meant for other people.

And what about the Vol-in-Law? He was born during the office of Edward Heath. My knowledge of British politics pre-my-arrival is poor, but Heath strikes me as curmudgeonly and someone will take you into treaties and agreements (European Union) under less than auspicious conditions. Well, the ViL is a bit of a grumpus sometimes...but as far as I know he's not secretly gay and he did a great job negotiating the installation of our wood floors a number of years ago. So maybe this is just as reliable as the old horoscope.

On the other hand, VolBro was born during the Carter years - and sure enough, he's a left-wing cracker. A member of that very small bass-fishing, Big Orange loving, poker playing, shit-shooting, Lynyrd Skynyrd listening, Ralph Nader voting faction of the electorate.

-0-


Cletus is not a crook either, he just looks like one.

How wrong is that?

Via Nashville's Tiny Cat Pants - I learn that all but four counties in my home state charges rape victims for the evidence collecting rape kit:

Also, just now, the governor is going to sign a bill that would have the state cover the cost of the rape exam. Yes, America, you heard that right. Until Thursday, June 21st, 2007, unless you were “lucky” enough to be raped in one of four counties that provide free rape kits here in Tennessee, you had to foot the bill–anywhere from $600-1,000–for the collection of evidence of a crime committed against you.

Sick.

i said i wouldn't do it

I keep saying I'm not going to blog about the presidential elections - until - you know, it's an actual election year. And I'm not - it's just that Fred was in town yesterday - and that's really more like blogging about a colorful former neighbor than it is about the election - since Fred hasn't even declared.

Anyway Sean Braisted picks up The Tennessean coverage of the Fred visit:

"The United States, Great Britain and our coalition should be proud of what we have averted. Imagine Saddam Hussein and his murderous sons in power today, successfully defying the international community and free to pursue weapons programs."


Hrmm...imagine a region more stable with Saddam in power. Imagine Iraq not being a proving ground for future 9/11 type terrorists. Imagine a more diplomatic resolution to our worries over WMD in Iraq. Imagine a country not in the throws of a 21st Century civil war...Imagine, its easy if you try.

My faux Estonian* carpenter once said to me - well, right after Saddam Hussein was captured "I don't know why everybody is so happy about Saddam, he was the right man for the right place."

(He also said that things were much better when Estonia was part of the USSR because at least you got an apartment.)

I didn't much subscribe to either Igor's or Mr Braisted's view, but I'm beginning to wonder if the bloody calculus is starting to tip to Saddam's favor? And when you do really start to reckon that maybe things would have been better off under that butcher, then you know we can't go on keeping on with what we're doing.

-0-

Meanwhile, Fred Thompson's lecture to the Policy Exchange garnered some attention on this side of the water, too. Mostly for Fred being homophobic. Is he? I mean if he hadda been on his way out of Lawrenceburg, that wouldn't have surprised me. But now? After all those years filming in La-la Land and NYC and living in DC. I doubt it. But you never know.

Iain Dale has the views and the links to Fred's actual speech.

-0-

I was gonna post this yesterday - but I had a bad day with the baby....

*faux Estonian - turns out that he was really ethnic Russian - and you know what they say about Russian carpentry

You might be a...

...libertarian if.

This is why I just say I have some libertarian tendencies.

Pick me

Newscoma reports her disappointment that she wasn't picked for the latest gummint made-up post: War Czar

I am very sad I wasn’t asked to be war czar. I think I would make a fine Czar. Maybe I can be Pilsner Czar. I think I would like that better.

I told the Vol-in-Law yesterday that I would like to be War Czar. He said that he didn't think I was qualified. That I needed to be male and Republican and have a head filled with empty, disproven ideas from 1970s MBA programs. That I also needed to ignore the reality and stay loyal and not actually improve anything - and he didn't think I had the ability to do that.

But I said, no - I've worked in consulting to and regulating government for a long time. I know how to stay busy but not actually improve much. That wouldn't be my first preference, that isn't the way I like to work, but it is a skill I maintain.

Hate crimes

When I visiting friends in Austin years ago, George Bush was the Governor. We drove down past the state house and they told me about how pissed they were that he was about to veto a hate crimes bill.

Plus ca change

My friends were pretty pissed. They were, perhaps not coincidentally, lesbians. When asked for my opinion, I had to say that I don't support hate crimes legislation either.

Do I find it somehow more deplorable that a person is attacked or killed because they're different (black, gay, female, male, of a different religion) rather than because they were involved in a drug deal gone wrong? Yes. I guess I do. It offends my sensibilities. It seems somehow more meaningless.

But I do think they should be punished more for it? Not necessarily. Although I think we as a society should have discretion to punish more harshly for truly disgusting and particularly heinous crimes like the murder of James Byrd, Jr - which did happen to be racially motivated. But I don't think we should necessarily slap more time on if the assailant and the victim come from two different religions, races, ethnicities or sexual orientations.

Basically, I believe that there ought to be equal protection under the law. And when that equal protection doesn't manage to actually protect someone, then I believe that their life is worth the same as the the next person's and that and the nature of the crime itself - as proven by discernable facts - should determine the punishment. I don't think that speculation as to prejudice in an assailant's mind should figure.

But we do have to acknowledge that there is inequality in sentencing. For example, people who commit crimes against black people in the US are punished less harshly (generally) than people who commit crimes against whites. Does this mean we need hate crimes legislation? Nope. Because this discrimination, this undervaluation of black life, limb and property applies whether the perpetrator is black or white.

In particular, victim characteristics are important determinants of sentencing among vehicular homicides, in which victims are basically random and in which the optimal punishment model predicts that victim characteristics should be ignored. Among vehicular homicides, drivers who kill women get 59 percent longer sentences. Drivers who kill blacks get 60 percent shorter sentences. (from an Abstract in The Journal of Legal Studies)

Normal vehicular homicide is not a hate crime, but yet killing a black person (or a man) leads to shorter sentences. Let's deal with this before we start trying to look inside people's heads and hearts.

-----

On the other hand, I don't see why if we are going to pass hate crime legislation we should exclude sexual orientation. Though I'd prefer we stopped with the me-too-ism of victimhood and just dealt fairly with crime and punishment. Let's have some research and peer review of sentencing judiciary rather than an inadequate legal patch.