McClellan and Clemens

When news of Roger Clemens "indiscretions" with an underage country music star came to light, some articles pointed out that Clemens' teammates were aware of his actions and that the unspoken rules of the clubhouse stipulated a gag order on the players' extracurricular activities. While I am not condoning such a policy, it is understandable and more important, does not cause harm to public at large. However, when members of our government engage in this sort of protective behavior, it does damage the public. Why is that so many members of the Bush administration, including George Tenet, John Ashcroft and now Scott McClellan, find it appropriate to voice their objections and concerns only after the fact? Is it some sort of fraternity house/gang mentality ("stop snitchin'" I believe is the vernacular)? I wonder what sort of information members of the government---employees of the people, mind you--are privy to, and what they keep from us. Would our voting habits differ? Would Kerry be president now if some of Bush's inner circle has spoken up sooner?
It would be refreshing to have actual people of integrity in office, people who believe their first loyalties are to the citizens of the country they serve, not their cronies and petty chieftains.

A Policy Proposal for Hillary

Hillary Clinton is making the argument that she is winning the popular vote and that the votes of Michigan and Florida must be counted. I for one feel that this is the worst sort of politicking, with Senator Clinton attempting to change the rules of the game only after she is losing. When the DNC made the decision to disqualify Michigan and Florida for violating party rules, Clinton had little to say, presumable because she thought she would seal up the nomination by Super Tuesday.
But if Senator Clinton is indeed sincere about her desire to have every vote counted, she should fight to change the way are presidents are elected. Although the electoral college system is enshrined in the Constitution and would be difficult to change, there is a simple way of fixing the system without tinkering with the Constitution (I believe a political scientist whose name escapes me proposed this idea. I found a reference to plan here with no credit assigned). Pass a law that requires members of the electoral college to cast their vote for the candidate who wins the popular vote. This would make the presidential campaign a truly national event and ensure that the winner of the office is truly the choice of a majority of voters.
Senator Clinton should work for this policy, either as President, Vice-President, or Senator. That is, if she truly believes that every vote counts.

Science, Religion, and the Public Sphere

A new survey finds that 16% of science teachers in the US are creationists, and roughly 12.5% of science teachers teach intelligent design as a "valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species". This survey, mind you, is of public school teachers. I have no problem with a community of consenting adults deciding exactly how to live their lives--if a student wants to attend Oral Roberts University, then I say go for it (as a Darwinian thinker, I believe that strategies for living that are less successful will eventually die out). But what I do have a problem with is infiltration of religion--and in this case, blatant misinformation--into the public sphere.
I happened to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" last night and it reminded me of philosopher Daniel Dennett's challenge to religion: teach children about all religions and then, after they are able to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each, let them pick which, if any, they want to follow. One wonders how strong a hold on our society religion would have if children were not indoctrinated with it at an early age.

Equal Protection

In a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled that a voter approved ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. As the justices rightly stated, "an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights." Such a ruling strikes at one of the most troubling problems with governance for me. On the one hand, I fully believe that the consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for political power and further, that no one should have another person dictate to him or her what to do or how to live. On the other hand, democracy, as such, is no guarantee of justice or fairness and majority rule obviously leads to a number of offensive systems. What if the people of California, as is allowed by their state Constitution, hold an initiative to amend the Constitution and make gay marriage illegal? And what if a majority of voters support it? Then we would have a situation in which the process of democracy leads to a result that is sanctioned by a majority of voters but is reprehensible to anyone who believes in protections for the minority. Situations such as these lead many a political thinker down the path to what some call "enlightened dictatorship."

For All You Numbers Geeks

I came across in interesting blog the other day, www.fivethirtyeight.com. It's run by a statistician and avowed Obama supporter, but the analysis is not biased. Instead, the anonymous publisher of the site weights and aggregates other published polls, then runs the numbers 10,000 times to get a probabilistic take on election outcomes. His method was quite successful in predicting the results of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, with numbers more accurate than most of the "big" polls. On the site, there is an interesting model involving youth and minority turnout. You should check it out yourself, but the basic premise is that if Obama can increase significantly the youth and black turnout--supposedly his strength--he can trounce McCain in the general election. If he can't, if the turnout in 2008 mirrors the turnout in 2004, then Obama will likely lose the general election.

Does Power Corrupt?

Here in New York City, we've dealt recently with political scandals on the city, state, and federal level. Christine Quinn, speaker of the city council, claimed ignorance of a "slush fund" created by members to direct taxpayer monies to pet projects. Eliot Spitzer, former governor, famously resigned after being caught using a high priced prostitution ring. And now Representative Vito Fosella has been found to have fathered a child out of wedlock. It makes me wonder if the adage about power corrupting is true. Do politicians have a higher rate of criminal and unethical behavior, or are their transgressions simply more visible? And which direction is the causality? Does achieving a position of power make one more likely to flout the law? Or are the people who are more likely to run for office also those that are more likely to take advantage of their positions? Some studies suggest that among animals, occupying a position at the top of hierarchy leads to elevated hormone levels and increased physical prowess. Birds and apes at the top of the dominance ladder become more aggressive and physically intimidating, while those at the bottom are more passive. Could our very genes doom us to having corrupt leaders?

A Follow Up....

I came across a questionnaire published in the Boston Globe that details the candidates' positions on the limits of executive power. Obama, McCain, and Clinton all indicate that they believe the president must seek authorization (although not a declaration of war) from Congress. On another issue that I find most interesting, signing statements, McCain gives the most unequivocal answer: he "won't have signing" statements. Obama and Clinton both indicate a willingness to use them to "clarify" or "explain" laws, or do speak as to the Constitutionality of the law. Nowhere in the Constitution is the President granted the power to do any of these things.

An Issue I'd Like to See Discussed....

Many important questions regarding government and policy are never broached during presidential campaigns. While we quibble over trivial issues, serious ones are ignored. For example, every time I hear mention of the "war" in Iraq or the "war" in Afghanistan or a potential "war" in Iran, I shudder. The founders expressly placed the power of declaring war in the hands of the members of Congress. Why? Because the members of Congress are accountable to the people every two years (or at least, all of the representatives and one third of the senators are). The founders thought the members of Congress would be less willing to send citizens to war if they had to answer to the electorate in short order. But since World War II, U.S. presidents have usurped this power. Now, we have a situation in which Bush sends the troops to the war, the people indicate dissatisfaction with the policy, and the Congress, the branch most responsive to the people, is impotent. This situation could be avoided if the power of declaring war is placed back in the hands of Congress. Will any presidential candidate address this issue? I've sent an email to the Obama campaign and await his response. Similar emails to the Clinton and McCain campaigns are forthcoming.

Congressional Oversight

I consider myself fairly well read and informed about the issues of the day. But I missed this story last week and only caught it through the satirical website Ironic Times. It appears that John Conyers has threatened to subpoena members of Dick Cheney's office to testify about their deliberations over the torture issue. The lawyer for one of Cheney's aides, David Addington, claims that Congress lacks the authority to question members of the vice president's staff, in an apparent nod to Cheney's earlier argument that the vice president's office is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch. I guess that amidst all the stories about Obama's flag pin, Rev. Wright, Clinton's "testicular fortitude" and the gas tax, such a vital showdown over the very nature of our government isn't very newsworthy (the link to the story about the lawyer's claims is from the Guardian, a British paper).

Cinco de Mayo

Before you start downing Coronas with reckless abandon, check out this brief historical account of the meaning behind Cinco de Mayo. You may be surprised to see the links among this date, the new state of California, and the Civil War. Enjoy!