How Will Republicans Handle This?

Hillary Clinton's new book Hard Choices comes out June 10th but already news stories have emerged about some of the revealing details inside.  There is one in particular that stood out to me but does not seem to be getting the same traction as her prediction over the transfer of GITMO detainees for Bowe Bergdahl or anything she has to say about Benghazi.  This little snippet is so interesting to me because it shows a crack in the Democrats' party unity over foreign policy and is an opportunity for Clinton and the GOP to take the same side.

This is why Hillary's claim to have supported arming "moderate" Syrian opposition is so tantalizing.  Obama disagreed with her and overruled her support; deciding instead to provide non-lethal aid and pretty much nothing else.  This, of course, angered the GOP who have spent the better part of 6 years disagreeing with anything Obama said or did.  So here is the problem, since Clinton and Obama disagreed, the GOP is now in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Clinton.  Republicans have exactly zero races left to run against Obama, but potentially 2 presidential campaigns left against Clinton, we can already see that they are moving past the Obama bashing in favor of anything Clinton-Benghazi related.

The question I want answered is: How will the GOP resolve agreeing with Clinton over a foreign policy decision when they are going to want to paint her as weak on foreign diplomatic relations?  Three ideas come to mind, none of which are going to sound too appealing to Republicans.

1)  They can stick to their guns (both literally and figuratively) by arguing that both they and Clinton were right.  Then they can call her a weak Secretary of State for being unable to convince Obama to arm the Syrian opposition.  This, of course, is ludicrous.  Even the highest ranking diplomatic official (Secretary of State) can not overrule the commander in chief (President).  Besides, they are going to want no part of agreeing with Clinton in a potential 2016 presidential race against her.

2)  They could treat Clinton like Obama.  Forget anything you ever said that agrees with something they are in favor of for the opposite approach, no matter how ridiculous and obvious this tactic may be. For obvious reasons this approach won't work either.  They made too big a fuss about Obama being weak in Syria to turn it around and eventually say he was right.  Besides, the neo-cons in the party would not be happy to hear them distancing themselves from anything war related.  The military industrial complex is big money, and a lot of that money goes to the GOP; they literally cannot afford to walk away from being the party of war.

3) They could try to ignore it by doubling down on Benghazi.  This seems like the most obvious strategy for them to take.  They get to continue bashing everything Obama and Clinton without acknowledging any similarities in their own foreign policy positions.  There is just one problem to this plan and his name is Rand Paul.  I think it would be crazy for Paul (assuming he has serious intentions of running in 2016) to allow for this distancing to occur.  He is going to want to play up the fact that his Libertarian non-interventionist foreign policy preferences are diametrically opposed to what Clinton is claiming she supported.  In a race against Clinton, I think he will be happy to distance himself from her in every way possible, even if that means aligning himself up with Obama's stance.  Oh the cruel, cruel irony it will be!  What's more, it might even work.  Obama and Paul's foreign policy approach is actually favored  by the middle class and the "average" voter.  They don't want to see us entangled in dozens of foreign conflicts every presidency.  Paul could actually begin to encroach on the Democratic hold of the middle, rather than just trying to pry the middle to the right (as the rest of the Republicans would prefer).

For the record, I agree with Obama and Paul.  Putting any more weapons out there is only going to make us less safe in the long run.  Anyone remember arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union?  The question is whether Paul could capitalize in a hypothetical matchup against Clinton by throwing the rest of the GOP and all the neo-cons under the bus.

Who is your Congressman?

No I'm not referring to the fact that most people don't even know who represents them in the house of representatives.  I'm talking about something far more sinister.  This is about a Supreme Court case that can potentially be far more devastating to our democracy even than the Citizens United case (which opened up unlimited spending in elections from Super Pacs).  It is actually quite crazy that I am just now being made aware of this case since it is already 8 years old, especially since I consider myself quite educated about politics.  The case: League of United Latin American Voters v. Perry.

Ok so a little background is in order.  Every 10 years the Federal Government conducts a Census and then reassign the number of seats each state gets in the House of Representatives according to population changes during the last 10 years.  States that increase their population get more seats and vice versa.  All that is simple enough.  The tricky part is redrawing all the district lines, determining who represents where and whatnot.  This occurs in every state even if they did not change their number of representatives; this is in order to accommodate in state changes such as moving out of rural areas and into cities.  This is not a simple process.  It is one of the most politically divisive, difficult, and contentious activities related to representation.  One big problem is that our Constitution gives each state the right to accomplish this task however they see fit, meaning there is no standard operating procedure.  Many states allow the state legislatures to draw the lines, some (like my home in California) have turned to non-partisan or bi-partisan commissions (often involving former judges) so that the lines are drawn fair.

Ok, so there is no way to determine exactly what is fair.  There is a bunch of legitimate criteria that could be considered fair, some of which is contradictory.  I have spent time studying minority-majority districts and find this to be a perfect example of this problem.  There are legitimate arguments both for and against this intentional race conscious redistricting.  On the one hand these districts are far more likely to elect minority candidates who are then more likely to sponsor minority favored legislation (descriptive representation).  On the other hand, this often requires drawing funky looking districts that pull minority voters out of other districts making them whiter.  The argument here is that there are now less candidates who would favor legislation for minorities.  Furthermore, this process tends to help the Republican Party which, by a wide margin, is not the party of choice for minorities (at least for Southern African Americans).  Basically they claim that the push for descriptive representation actually hurts the minorities it intends to help (substantive representation).  So what's fair?

Well, I think there is one thing that we can all agree is not fair, and that brings me back to the Supreme Court.  In 2003 Republicans took control of the Texas state legislature and decided to redraw the lines again, this time to help out the republicans before the 2004 election.  It worked, the state went from electing 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans to 21 Republicans and 11 Democrats.  All because the lines were redrawn.  But this was no ordinary partisan redistricting; it occurred mid-decade.  That's right, only 3 years after the last time the lines were drawn Republicans decided to do it again.  At the time this was completely unprecedented in modern America.  The case went all the way to the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was within the state's rights to redistrict as often as they like so long as they do it at least once every 10 years after the census.  So in the title when I ask who you congressman is, I'm referring to the fact that at anytime your Congressman can change.  If you live in a Republican state and you are represented by a Democrat who just barely eked out a victory in the last election (that really doesn't happen either since most districts are drawn to be safe for one party or the other, you scratch my back i'll scratch your kinda thing) the Republicans can redraw the district to the next election there is suddenly a 10 point partisan swing in the new district that was represented by the Democrat.

Let's look at how nasty this can get.  In Georgia there is a Democratic Representative in the 12th district, his name is John Barrow.  He is actually the last remaining white Democrat in the South.  Georgia Republicans used a mid-decade redistricting to challenge the vulnerable Democrat (who held on to win anyway).  In 2006 Republicans took control of the Georgia state legislature and, surprise surprise, decided to redraw the lines.  They went after Barrow, even drawing his home in Athens out of his district.  He moved to Savannah and won again anyway- but by less than 1,000 votes.  After the 2010 Census they redrew his district again, this time eliminating his new home in Savannah- while adding Augusta.  Between these two redistricting's the district because far more Republican.  Had it been drawn the way it is now in 2008 McCain would have won it with 58% of the vote, as it was Obama carried it with 54%- that's a huge swing.  Somehow he was continued winning, and has been remarkably placid over all the political shenanigans.  The question remains however, when he eventually loses (or gives up his seat) will a Democrat ever again win in Georgia's 12th.  Maybe if they retake the state house and redraw the lines for themselves...

Wasting Time

I play guitar.  I play guitar everyday.  Mostly acoustic but I also have an electric, a bass and a classical guitar.  It is one of my favorite pastimes, it feels so good to just sit down and play.  I'm not like other guitar players; I've been playing for years but know very few songs.  I don't actually spend time learning other people's songs.  Some of the best advice I got about learning the guitar was this, "if you learn to play like everybody else, you'll end up playing like everyone else."  Of course that can be taken too far, it is important to learn a little bit about music, about chords, about scales and all that jazz; but if you spend all your time trying to learn one generic pop song after another you'll never develop the creative abilities that makes playing guitar so fun for me.

So I had the day off yesterday and didn't do jack.  I literally sat around all day and played guitar, it was glorious but when the day was done I sat back and thought about the whole day I had apparently wasted.  That's when it hit me.  I'm not wasting time, this is what time is for.  This is why I live. We can't spend every waking minute working on some task or some project at the expense of actually living our lives.  Besides, since when is learning a musical instrument a waste of time.  This is what we should be teaching all our children to do.  There are so many studies that show how music education is good for children, not just their well being but also their academic skills.  Playing music sharpens your brain, it is a productive use of time.  I'm done feeling bad about spending my time doing something I love.

I have no illusions about how far guitar playing is going to take me.  Nowhere.  But that fact isn't going to keep me from continuing to play everyday.  That's not why I do it.  I play because it makes me happy.  Being happy is one of only two things I care about in my life; the other being satisfied with my life at my death.  So I have to ask you, what makes you happy?  And when was the last time you enjoyed doing it?  If those are hard questions for you to answer, I think it might be time you re-evaluate your life.  I'm no therapist, but if you can't remember the last time you did something that truly makes you happy, for no other reason than it makes you happy, I feel comfortable saying that it is time for evaluation and change.

I could say more but I'd rather just go play some guitar.  That would make me happy...

A "Voter Fraud" Solution

When Democrats began complaining about Republican efforts to create and enforce voter ID laws I thought that this might be a losing issue for the left.  I mean sure they have the facts on their side but that doesn't make for good campaign speeches or sound bytes.  After all, what is so controversial about making sure that people who show up to vote are actual citizens?  It turns out that there are actually a lot of legitimate American citizens who don't have a photo ID, and those citizens are almost exclusively the poorest and most marginalized citizens; particularly minorities and legal immigrants.  Of course, a majority of these citizens are Democrats (if aligned to a party at all), hence the political and partisan drama.  Many of these people who lose the ability to vote because they can't prove they are who they say they are.  So our efforts to curb a virtually non-existent problem with voter fraud would actually cause much more damage to our democracy than it would help.

So what is a reasonable solution then?  There is a proposal floating around that would put photo identification on social security cards.  This has been sponsored by former Presidents Carter and Clinton and sounds like a pretty genius idea to me.  It would cost about 10 cents per person and would allow every American citizen a free photo ID card, this is helpful far beyond just voting.  Having a valid photo ID is a necessity in modern America and the fact that so many people don't have should be seriously troubling to anyone who cares about our great democracy.  Somehow this proposal has engendered some level of opposition from both sides, lets explore this a little more fully.

Juliet Eilperin and Karen Tumulty's article in the Washington Post points to three critiques of this idea.  Let's start with the most reasonable and work our way down to the more ridiculous.  Rep. John Lewis (D-GA.) points out that this could lead to security concerns surrounding identity/data theft.  If we allow Social Security Cards to be used as valid identification for a whole host of government interactions they would need to be more secure than the current card are.  But lets face facts here, identity theft is already a serious problem, how much would this proposal really add to this already developed problem?  I think in this case we need to make a simple cost-benefit analysis, and there is just no way that I think the costs of this problem would outweigh the benefits of allowing every citizen a free government issues photo identification card.

Dale Ho of the Voting Rights Project at the ACLU has a somewhat different concern.  He argues that this proposal would still discriminate against people at the margin of society.  Relating an anecdote about one ACLU member who had to take an hour bus ride to obtain the necessary hospital records for getting a Social Security Card.  I just can't buy this argument.  Sure we could go to Alaska and find some native Inuit community living in an area that is only accessible by helicopter and make the argument that this would still be too challenging for them, but does that fact mean we shouldn't help the vast majority of the less affluent people in this country obtain a valid ID?  The answer is no.  So I assume the objection here is not that the government would offer these photo ID cards, only that it would be coupled with stricter voter ID laws.  That is reasonable, these laws are not good for the country.  But ignoring the fact that these laws already exist and that people are already being affected by them, and that the courts have shown no interest in intervening, and that more and more they are being adopted by Republican states, and that more people are slipping into poverty as the wealth gap grows and so more people are going to continue to be affected, and that they are effectively having their voices silenced, and that nothing can change unless we get the majority of these people to the polls means we have to act.

Finally, we get to Rand Paul.  "This is a really bad idea…This idea would make it easy for the federal government to convert the Social Security card into a national identification card."  I'm not sure he gets this proposal, it wouldn't make it easy for a national ID card, it would BE a national ID card.  That's the point, we would be enabling people to have a free government issued photo ID card.  I get that he is anti-big government and all, but seriously what is so controversial about a federal ID card?  It would be controversial if we were required to carry it on us at all times or risk being thrown in jail (I'm looking at you Arizona!) but that is not even close to what is being proposed.  Basically this critique argues that the program would work, and somehow that is bad.  I just don't get it, but it'll probably stir up some Tea Party juices somehow.

The reason I love this idea so much is that it exposes the Republican voter ID laws for what they really are, poll taxes that are intended from keeping our most vulnerable citizens from having their voices heard.  In no way is this about voter fraud except as cover for disenfranchising American who don't agree with Republicans.  Never mind all the lessons we learned from Jim Crow era poll taxes and literacy tests.  We might as well return to the early days of the Federation when only white male property owners could legally vote.  This is such a joke I would laugh if it wasn't also so damn serious. So lets all get out that and have our voices heard on this issue, we have to VOTE… if you can that is...

Smart Guns

Chris Hayes of MSNBC did a piece a couple weeks ago about the smart gun; a handgun that only operates when in proximity to a specialty watch that is linked electronically to the weapon.  The idea is that children wouldn't accidentally find the weapon and kill themselves or someone else but there is also great demand within the police forces who want a weapon that can't be taken forcefully from an officer and then turned back onto them.  Considering the great challenges out country is facing over gun deaths this is a modest step in the right direction but far from a panacea to all our problems.

What is interesting about this story is that the technology already exists, there is a smart gun that is ready to go on the market and there have been at least two distributors who have tried to sell it.  Before they could sell any, however, they were bullied and pressured by gun rights groups to stop.  This seems strange, right?  Why would gun rights groups oppose the sale of any gun, even one that has arguably "liberal" safety features?  Well, it turns out that they fear that once a smart gun goes on the market, this will lead to laws mandating that all gun sales be smart guns and that this could potentially lead to some sort of registry of gun owners.

It turns out this isn't just fantasy conservative fear mongering.  In 2002 New Jersey passed a smart gun law, saying that once a smart gun was available for sale anywhere in the country that New Jersey would only sell smart guns within 3 years.  This means that had either of the attempted distributors of the smart gun been successful then NJ would only sell smart guns beginning in 2017.  Here is where it gets interesting.  Chris Hayes had NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg on to talk about that smart gun law that she sponsored over a decade ago.  She made an offer to work to repeal that law on condition that the NRA and the Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups stopped working to prevent the manufacture and distribution of smart guns.  Sounds like a pretty good deal right?  NJ repeals the smart gun law, gun rights groups stop depressing the smart gun supply and America gets a safer weapon available on the open market competing against traditional guns.

Alright, even this liberal gun control advocate can see what a joke of an offer this is.  Let's begin by assuming that Rep. Weinberg is capable of getting this law repealed in NJ (as the Senate Majority Leader she probably could).  The more important question is; what is to keep her from re-passing the same law once the smart gun goes onto the market?  Well New Jersey has a Republican Governor so that might not happen so easily, but what about Massachusetts or Washington State or any of the other deep blue states with Democratic leadership?  Representative Weinberg clearly has no sway or control over what those legislatures do.  It is foolish to think that Democratic leaders in safely blue districts and states would not want to make all gun sales smart gun sales.

This all begs the question, what happens next?  Well, in my estimation, pretty much nothing.  Gun control advocates won't seriously consider repealing this hard fought for law.  Gun rights groups will continue to fight the development and distribution of this technology for the foreseeable future.  Children will continue to die needlessly because of unsecured firearms.  What I can't understand is why some gun control group doesn't just start selling this gun.  Are you listening Bloomberg?  Sell this gun and you will have achieved a major step towards greater gun control.  Not only will a smart gun be available on the market (probably not the ideal situation but better than the status quo) but in NJ at least, all gun sales will have to be smart guns within three years.  When it comes to developing the smart gun market the NJ law has really been an obstacle.  It has provided the ammunition that the gun rights groups need to claim that their rights are being restricted.  It appears to me, that NJ State Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg and the other Democrats who passed this law really jumped the gun.

Defending the Country: Start with Chipotle

Well, it's been too long since I've posted anything.  I'm annoyed at myself for that, but it was important that I finished my school semester strong (I did) so I guess no regrets.  It's summer now and I'm getting myself back on track.  I want to start with the story about guns in Chipotle.

There are groups across this country that make a point of being "open carry" advocates.  I think it's fair to refer to these groups as zealous defenders of second amendment rights.  For them, it is more than just being able to have a gun, in order to protect gun rights you have to carry it openly, preferably loaded and the bigger the gun the better.  One of these groups went to a Chipotle restaurant carrying their weapons (some semi-automatic) ordered food and ate their meal.

Now, I've actually watched a few open carry demonstration videos on YouTube and think it is important to present their actions honestly.  First, they did call the restaurant in advance (or it has been reported) to let the manager know that they would like to come and that they are an open carry group.  Second, they appear to be friendly and harmless, it seems they are making a point of appearing as upstanding citizens merely out to protect their rights.  I haven't seen any foolish or childlike behavior, they aren't threatening anyone, they aren't playing with their guns; they just come in, eat, and leave.

Ok, with all those caveats in place lets move on to Chipotle's response to the whole ordeal.  They put out a very carefully worded statement "respectfully" asking customers not to bring guns into their restaurants.  The whole statement is very carefully written to try not to inflame groups on either side of the debate.  I have to say, I do feel sorry for Chipotle, I'm sure the last thing they want is to become a focal point in a highly contentious debate that really has nothing to do with their food.  It's not like they are Chick-Fil-A and intentionally interjected themselves into a morally charged debate.  Let's look at some of the statements they made: First, they said "we hope that our customers who oppose the carrying of guns in public agree with us that it is the role of elected officials and the legislative process to set policy in this area, not the role of businesses like Chipotle." Second, "this issue is not central to the operation of our business, and we do not feel that our restaurants should be used as a platform for either side of the debate."  Obviously this is not something Chipotle wanted, they realize that no matter what stance they take they are going to anger some people and they would much rather have not taken any stance. But I want to focus on that first part that claims that it should be legislators and not businesses that have to set policy in this arena.

I don't know about you, but it sounds really strange to hear a business saying that they don't want authority over some policy and that politicians should set some policy that they all have to follow.  The standard line for business is that business knows best and that government should get out of the way.  They don't want government telling them what kind of food they can serve, how high of a quality it should be, how nutritious it needs to be, when they can open or close, when they can serve alcohol, or any of the infinite other operating decisions that they must face.  But all of the sudden, when there is an issue that they know is going to ruffle some feathers one way or the other, "it's not our job to make this decision, government knows best!"  I think this is a bigger win for Liberals than Chipotle's decision to ask customers not to bring guns into their store.  This is Corporate America (Chipotle is owned by McDonalds Corp.) saying that government can and should regulate some aspect of their operation.  I agree, it is government's place to step in and set some guidelines for safety across every industry in America.  I believe that our governments number one job is to protect us from foreign threats, but their second job is to protect us from big business that sees all of humanity as dollars and cents.  What I find terribly ironic about this whole situation is that it is entirely their own fault.  It is business' fault that government hasn't set policy in this area, it is their fault that our politicians sit on their hands because they are the ones that tied their hands behind their backs.  They are the ones who spend millions of dollars getting enough politicians elected who promise to do nothing when it comes to government regulation.

Ok, I'm being a bit unfair… It's not just Chipotle, it might not even be Chipotle who has spent so luxuriously to ensure that government is incapable of completing the task they are now criticizing them for not accomplishing.  But make no mistake, this is CORPORATE AMERICAS FAULT: they asked for a government that does nothing, and now that they have it they complain about it.

One final note, in their statement they said "The vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens and we appreciate them honoring this request."  I have to say, I think this is bull.  I don't see how you can be a responsible citizen and carry a semi-automatic gun into a restaurant, I'm sorry but, for me, those are mutually exclusive categories.  Even so, most gun owners don't go around carrying assault weapons with them everywhere they go, so they're responsible right? Wrong.  Responsibility is more than just not carrying around your assault rifle or blowing people brains off, responsibility is taking extra steps to ensure others don't either.  What does that mean?  That means supporting universal background checks.  Let's turn back to Chipotle,  each restaurant is subject to a yearly surprise inspection, ensuring that they are practicing safe food handling and that the restaurant is clean and the food is safe.  Chipotle is a big company, I'm sure their restaurants pass at least 99% of the time (it is disgustingly easy to pass with an A I might add) yet they still have to subject themselves to that extra scrutiny so that the public knows that all restaurants are sporadically checked.  Responsibility means agreeing to a little extra burden so that we can be more secure, whether through background checks and waiting periods for gun ownership or through surprise inspections of your restaurant.  Responsibility is more than personal responsibility, it is making sure that the entire system is responsible and right now the gun ownership system is entirely too irresponsible.

Motorcycle Traffic

I ended up heading home at an unusual (for me) time the other day and found myself caught in afternoon work traffic.  I keep unusual hours and rarely have to deal with the normal daily commuter traffic.  This day, however, I ended up with an extra 30 minutes on my commute and had the pleasure of sitting in the Southern California afternoon heat on very little sleep (stayed up late writing a paper the night before).  One thing that was different about sitting in traffic from my normal ride was the motorcycles zooming between me in the fast lane and the cars in the number 2 lane.

In the half hour I was stuck in stop in go traffic, I counted 16 motorcycles that passed.  Since I was in the fast lane, I would pull over a few feet into the center divide as a courtesy to the bikers that passed by.  I was able to move for 15 of the 16 bikes, I didn't see one coming and he had passed before I could do anything.  Of the 15 bikers that I moved for 9 of them gave me a quick peace sign as they passed acknowledging my courtesy.  This is how it should be.  I'm not saying that they all need to do this, if they aren't comfortable taking a hand off the handle because the gap ahead of them is tight, then it would be crazy for me to expect them to do so.  But in a perfect world, cars would move out of the way as a courtesy and bikers would acknowledge it and we would all go on our own way.

Bikers have a bad rap.  Usually people associate bikers with scruffy Hells Angels types or young irresponsible and reckless riders.  I have to say, between the two I prefer the Hells Angels type, they are much more likely to appreciate my courtesy, plus I like the cruiser bikes better.  Besides, they tend not ride around like madmen putting their own safety and that of other motorists on the line.  What is the point of my moving out of the way when they pass or double checking before I change lanes if they're just going to speed away doing a wheelie?  The young bucks that speed down the road swerving across all the lanes really bring down the whole group of riders.  Even so, considering how dangerous motorcycle crashed can be, we all have a responsibility to avoid collisions at all costs, even if they show disregard for their own lives.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who was pissed about bikers splitting lanes in traffic.  First of all I should note that this is legal in California (where I live).  He was annoyed that they were able to pass and didn't have to sit in traffic like the rest of us, which he assumed made traffic worse for cars.  This is not true.  Even though the bikes that pass you while you are sitting in traffic don't make your commute any faster, they don't slow it down either.  The bikes that didn't have to sit in front of you because they split lanes actually made your commute faster.  Think of it this way, having bikes split lanes means that more vehicles can move through traffic in the same amount of time; you just never saw the bikes that saved you time because they were always in front of you.  If your concern is about fairness, buy a bike yourself and same us all a little time.