Archive for September, 2005

Immortality courtesy of the Bush Administration

Friday, September 30th, 2005

It looks like one of Robert’s first cases as Chief Justice will be a case of Kevorkian-proportions. Oregon’s "Death With Dignity Act" is coming under supreme court fire, after weathering two bouts of judicial scrutiny.

Medical law is generally held as a States Rights jurisdiction, but the Bush Administration has been pushing the reversal of the Oregon law. It will be intersting to see where Robert’s falls. It has been predicted that the new Chief Justice may actually uphold the States Rights angle of this case -Oregon and its voters have repeatedly upheld this law.

Most who have been with me on this issue from the beginning know all about where I stand on consensual assisted suicide. Just a heads up. All eyes on Oregon.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

A Proper Place for Tom DeLay

Friday, September 30th, 2005

This is perhaps a better place to rap about the DeLay indictment.

Corporate campaign donations aggregate too much power in one place, taking the majoritarian constituency out of the equation and amounts to buying votes on the Congress floor. This is why the case is considered Criminal Conspiracy.

Of course this whole thing is political as well: DeLay got too powerful, too fast, and the "partisan fanatic" accusation he has leveled at his persecutors has firm grounding, but really, perhaps it is the ways in which he accrued his power and status and position - he should be scrutinized, as all in power should, and subsequently held accountable for any wrong doing.

This has been Andy D. 

whereIstand Tags

A little weighing in on DeLay

Friday, September 30th, 2005

So while DeLay calls the charges against him "one of the weakest and most baseless indictments in American History," I bet that DeLay was raging as a "partisan fanatic" during the baseless impeachment of Bill Clinton. Perjury and dodging a bullet via sexual semantics is much less grievous than criminal conspiracy and the abuse of power that comes with illegal spending during campaigns. Bureaucratic corruption is one of the basest evils of America, and if DeLay is guilty, if there is a chance of that, then it should be investigated with the utmost seriousness. Delay’’s attourney Dick DeGuerin said, “I’m going to keep from having Tom DeLay taken down in handcuffs, photographed and fingerprinted. That’s uncalled for.” I say, get him, put him in hand cuffs, as you would with any criminal. This is very called for.

These conservatives have really upped the morality in Washington - trading blow jobs for payola.

Three times last year the House Ethics committee admonished DeLay for his conduct.

Culture of Corruption - no doubt.

I think PACs may/should come under some fire next. This mixing of money and votes, elections, this close. I mean I know the relationship exists, but something undemocratic is afoot at the Circle K.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

Sacrificial… Goats

Wednesday, September 28th, 2005

This is not the right place for this, I know, but I can’t help it:

Scape Goat to the slaughter.

and double slaughter on Wonkette.

There’s your accountability. Perhaps this will re-open some Schiavo debate - back to where we began.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

Cred again

Monday, September 26th, 2005

Also, this notion Amir mentions about Bush’s only motivation being re-election, or even the furtherance of his own party. This point is sad but true. I think it’s disturbing and part of the mentality that has gotten us where we are (in the negative sense) in our public policy making - decisions made for the sake of furthering partisan standing. An election shouldn’t be a prize - it is a sacred trust, one that should be codified not only in ceremony but also in quotidian responsibility. Maybe we should examine the party politics angles of the Katrina backlash and discuss who should be accountable from here on out.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

Our Commander in Chief

Monday, September 26th, 2005

Accountablity in action - Bush has to answer for everything. Like a stink palm glad-hand.

Maybe he didn’t know what he was singing up for, he isn’t a smart guy.

This has been Andy D

whereIstand Tags

On The Head

Monday, September 26th, 2005

… is where I think Nick hit the nail. During the many and varied (and bloody) discourses on this topic, I had the feeling that what some (like Donovan, Lar, and Joe C) were really calling for was some kind of state-sponsorship of, or at least state complicity with religion instead of some action against religious discrimination. Then Nick called them out.

The Disestablishment Clause is a tricky one. It can’t be simply cast aside. No matter how much one wants to pull a Scalia and go Robo-majoritarian on our asses, the Disestablishment Clause goes against the majority, who may indeed be Christian by ensuring that explicitly Christian sentiments do not surface in public policy/laws.

The Free Exercise Clause, is another matter. An institution of religion cannot be discriminated against, nor can a person be kept from practicing their religion, however, nothing stops the government from distancing itself from all things deemed religious in its workings. This is the reading I take. A majority can certainly have its influence on policy, but those that are overtly or covertly religious have no place here, where they would be enforced to the exclusion of all other less popular religious or irreligious sentiments. This is one of those things the founders rightly kept separate from the state as much as possible while ensuring that the struggle between the two clauses in the First Amendment would never be over, and would be kept always in the American public discourse so that religious freedom would always be negotiated and never taken for granted.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

No Street Credibility Whatsoever

Sunday, September 25th, 2005

I agree with everything Nick says here.

Donovan brings up several interesting points of accountability and responsibility. One of which is the political power one can accrue from taking responsibility - it’s one of those many counter-intuitive aspects of social life that most are oblivious to until they really consider what is going on:

Accepting "accountability" has the ironic function of increasing power.  This applies in personal lives and in political struggles. Consider the power differential between "It’s your fault - you screwed up!"  and "It’s my fault - I will find a way to fix it."  The former redirects one’s mental energies toward proving blame, toward "holding the other accountable," toward collecting evidence and deploying that evidence as a weapon to punish the other.  The latter focuses one’s mental energies toward seeking solutions to problems.

The latter also shows the rest of the social world how mature one can be - a huge benefit to a leader - everyone loves a martyr, even when it is from self-crucifixion. The bush camp kind of plays the other game, however. I feel that the cabinet is made up of movers (Rove) and scapegoats who take the fall for the president - Condoleeza, Rumsfeld, now that FEMA guy. And he dodges the largest of bullets. But people recognize that someone had to hire these scapegoats who keep messing up - since Harry Truman told us where the buck stops, the president should be held accountable for those decisions. The thing is, dood didn’t have the job thrust on him - his dad was the president - he had some idea what he was getting into, and then when he was re-elected he certainly had four years experience-worth of what he was re-upping for. So in the electoral sense, I’m responsible for my vote, but George W Bush is responsible for signing up on the ballot.

That said, as a public servant - the highest public servant, Bush is responsible for whatever he can do in his job - keeping the country and its people secure in their lives and rights. Of course I am (as we all are) accountable for whatever I can do - be it donations to relief efforts, joining up with the Red Cross, or blogging for awareness and the continuance of the dialogue about the socio-political impact of recent events on this site.

Donovan says:

First step: collect knowledge - but not the kind of knowledge that makes one an effective debater.  Knowledge that leads to a second step: acting on that knowledge.

I agree with this. But I think that these words are actions too - a special kind of action, but actions nevertheless. I think that debating can be a kind of doing as well. During the 9/11 ordeal, I had evacuees from downtown stay in my dorm room. I donated time, money, space and goods to relief efforts. I was right there and doing a very little bit to help out. I’m doing the same right now with Katrina, and Rita (with levees breached again), however far away I am. It’s very little, I know, but I have faith that others are doing the same.

The question is how much is enough? Should I have trained in life-saving techniques after 9/11 so that I would be prepared should some disaster ever happen again? Probably. Did I? No. Why? many reasons. The point is how far must i push my will? Do I have to become Batman - pushing myself to the limits of human potential for the hell of it or to save people? Probably. Have I? No. But while the bulk Batman’s power comes from his will and traumatic past, we can’t over look that other fact - Bruce Wayne is damn loaded, and has a crap-ton more resources than the average ninja. It’s not his core magic, but those state-of-the-art gizmos and batarangs help.

Bush has almost no will to push himself to the limits of human potential, but he is damn loaded as well, not just with personal bank, but also with the entire resources of the Nation. He signed up for that, and I’m not going to look inward the whole time without holding the dood accountable for what he could have done, and still hasn’t - that’s his job - to do whatever he can - this "I’m only human" thing he’s doing now doesn’t cut it, and never has. We all know where the buck stops, and so does he. Maybe he could at least break even in popular opinion if he acknowledged all this crap as well. Not that that would be enough for my non-Christian heart, but I could smirk like Cassandra a little better for it.

If we sit waiting for people to "figure it out," we’ll sacrifice the opportunity to do more.  And generally, it’s a long pattern of constantly acting that establishes one’s credentials and enables one to in fact do more.

I agree, but I think this blogging thing, is "doing." Enough drops do make a flood, and I submit that this blog Donovan just wrote is as good as those phone calls he made to mobilize votes.

History is written by whom?  In other eras, we’d say the "winners." Today though, image is manufactured like a commodity, and history is a collection of images.  We have about as much control over the crafting of those images as we do over FEMA, or Katrina for that matter - but we have far greater control over ourselves: what we see, what we think, what we say, and to whom we say it.

This is true. But something else is going on right now Donovan, and that top-down PR model ( I work in PR) doesn’t work too well any more. This is why blogging and file sharing are raising the cackles of the Fourth Estate and the RIAA so much - because grass-roots, bottom-up PR power is more relevant than commercial advertising, and a lot of business models are having to change, the same way the DNC political mobilization model has to change if that party is to be effectual once again. So if we keep it up, the accountability whispers can turn into a roar, and if we can do that, we are holding ourselves accountable for what we can do as well.

This has been Andy D, Viva WIS!

whereIstand Tags

Kanye West - the headache of Mike Myers

Saturday, September 24th, 2005

MA week after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Kanye West appeared along with several other celebrities on one of those benefit shows right after a disaster strikes to lend their star power, instead of their own money, to aid relief efforts. When he was on there, Kanye went on an unscripted rant railing against George Bush and the racist attitude surrounding the relief efforts. Kanye said what many feel and have felt for a long time. I came across the clip a couple of days ago - see it here at Ebaum’s World.

I think this is just a reflection of what we have been talking about on this site.

We should recognize what Kanye did - that most of what we saw during the looting, and the race of those shown in the media is a result of those left behind - those without the resources available to them to leave in time, and the resulting perception of their actions as exposed in mainstream media. Kanye took his opportunity to say something more meaningful than the scripted drivel on the teleprompter and voiced what many more than just he have felt for some time.

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags

Dirty Burdens

Thursday, September 22nd, 2005

I understand the example of the parental consent debate and the deductive reasoning used therefrom Donovan presents in his analysis, but I take issue with it. Not only do I not agree with the implications of the parent-child relationship presented in this reading of the law, I have a problem accepting this as a justification for parental consent statutes. Parents DO NOT own their children, and while minors are generally seen as unable to give consent, they are afforded most Constitutional rights like those who have reached their majority.

Donovan presents both an inductive and deductive arguments for the parental consent debate - the inductive one affirms the lack of consensuality with minors, but the deductive one present a case that is simply untrue, and there is precedent: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists have been denied religious rights to the medical treatment of their children by doctors - suggesting that a higher power than the parents, doctors,  or even the state (perhaps the personhood of the minors themselves) has final say. So I don’t think it is a matter of parent’s rights trumping a child’s rights - no one really has "rights over" children - Child protective services constantly call into question the natural rights of parents, repossessing children from their parents when they are found negligent. I don’t think such a relationship of parental should exist excepting only the case of rape or incest - I think the same burden on children exists socially with or without rape or incest.

That said, I agree with Donovan on his critique of both undue burdens and strict scrutiny judicial tests, and he says it best here:

I stand by O’Connor’s approach - the "strict scrutiny" standard goes too far without any clear Constitutional basis, while the "rational review" standard overlooks the narrow rights in question - the right of an adult woman to select medical treatments that affect her well-being.  No person has "total control over their bodies" - we can prohibit sale of drugs, and regulate sales of other drugs.  But a person does have control over the medical treatments they select - and one group cannot constrain the options available to another group merely because the former views the latter as "immoral" - unless, that is, they succeed in modifying the Constitution.

And what about the case of Arkansas, where the number of doctors performing abortions on demand might conceivably drop to 0?  I see no constitutional problem with that outcome, but it does seem quite tragic.  I’d suggest that if folks truly value the "autonomy of women" and believe that abortion must be safeguarded - they contribute to Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and other affiliated groups to ensure that such doctors can be available in Arkansas.  If folks truly value this "functional autonomy" of women, they should check to see if their doctors have supported legislation to curb abortion - and also check with their HMOs and other health plans, to see whether they will hire doctors who perform these services.  Finally, they should check with their insurance providers.

It’s refreshing to see Donovan being critical of Insurance providers when just a couple of months ago he was defending them to me as being just businesses with financial interests at heart. Of course I went a little off the deep end with my calling Insurance evil, but it is still an industry that controls our well-being as citizens (too much power for those with their minds on the bottom line) and as such should be under some seriously strict scrutiny from it’s consumers. Word? Word!

As far as having control over one’s own body is concerned, it’s functionally true that we don’t have control over our bodies - not only are victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution an example fo this, but so is the draft. Of course these issues are also the ones closest to the podium in many debates. Perhaps we will always be most concerned about those things closest to ourselves -that being our actual physical self. The last resort of punishment is imprisonment of a body, or in some states the death of a body, so it follows that bodies and their positionality matters most in the discussion of abortion.

As Donovan says, an argument over the good/evil dynamic is pointless, and usually very short. That said, there is some merit in discussing the body and our control over it.

Gab points out:

liberty extends only as far as the next individual’s autonomy and rights are hindered. So, a woman should have complete control of her body, including the decision to carry a fetus to term. This conclusion, of course, presupposes that the woman has more rights than a fetus, if the fetus has any at all.

And I totally agree in philosophy - moreover, those who argue on the good/evil or ethical dynamic cannot argue away the sovereignty of the woman’s body nor the physical positionality of the fetus - no matter it’s rights, to exert those rights on it’s behalf the state must invade the body of a fully-functional human person’s body. How undue can a burden get?

This has been Andy D.

whereIstand Tags