Alright. So here's another reason that I strongly oppose Governor Scott Walker's anti-Union "Budget Repair Bill" in Wisconsin.
The poor targeting of state employees.
To start with, let's stick to the assumption that collective bargaining unit-represented state employees really are the problem. Let's look at the two glaring exceptions to the now collective bargaining except for wages proposal. Police and firefighters. Who happen to be the highest paid Union-represented public employees. If the bill is really about the budget, these should be the first employees targeted. Yes, their jobs are essential to the basic operations of a state or local government, even by the most Libertarian standards. Yes, their jobs are incredibly dangerous (some of them). In fact, many police and firefighters put their lives on the line, literally, every day, in order to ensure the security of ours. This post does not mean I do not appreciate or support those efforts. But let's look at the numbers. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, police, detective, and firefighter base pay ranges in the high 50's to high 70's, without longevity adjustments. This is not counting benefits. Teachers, on the other hand, with the exception of higher education, range in the mid 30's. Also, benefits, understandably, are considerably more expensive for police and firefighters. In fact, many police and fire fighters are eligible for retirement after 20 years of service. Yes, that's right. For a 21 year old entering the field, that means that they are eligible for retirement at age 41. Fair enough, given the physically strenuous nature of their jobs. Unlike most non-union, private sector jobs, however, which are fixed contribution plans, these retirement plans are generally fixed benefit plans. Which means that these employees, regardless of length of service, amount contributed by them, their Union, or their employer, will receive a fixed monthly amount for the remainder of their lives. Regardless of how long that may be. How much is this fixed amount? Often 50% of their pay as of retirement. Yes, that is correct. A 41 year old police or firefighter can be making $60,000+ a year (ignoring the raises they get for longevity, so more likely in the $80,000 range), retire, never work another day again, and make $30,000 a year (again, more likely $40,000+) until they die at the ripe old age of 112. Moreover, union employees are almost universally eligible for overtime pay. Teachers tend to work on annual salaries (not eligible for overtime), and with the exception of special circumstances (special events, weather or illness related issues), teachers, public transit workers, administrative workers, etc. should not be regularly getting overtime, unless it is due to poor management. Police and firefighters, on the other hand, are eligible for overtime pay, and, due to the nature of their jobs, can reasonably be expected to receive that overtime. If this bill is really about repairing the budget, and not about sticking it to unions, why are the most costly union workers being left untouched?
Let's now look at teachers. No, their jobs are not particularly dangerous. They also are not particularly rewarding from an economic standpoint. Low incomes, little career advancement opportunity, etc. Many people argue that paying teachers what we do, when they only work 9 months a year, is unreasonable. How many companies do you know of that will hire a grown adult for seasonal employment at a reasonable wage? Many teachers would be more than willing to work 12 years, if the work were available. It is a decision of the school boards (mind you, school boards controlled by their employers) to run a 9-month school system. Through no fault of their own, teachers have been restricted to doing their chosen work (except for a few offered pennies to instruct summer school classes) 9 months a year. Unlike bears, teachers do not hibernate. Especially during the summer. Just because we have determined that vacationing, camp, and little league are more important uses of the nice summer weather than education our children does not mean teachers stop paying rent, eating, or paying off their student loans. Moreover, if the argument behind excluding firefighters and police is that they fulfill an essential government function, after police and fire protection, I believe even most hardcore Libertarians would agree that at least a minimal public education is an essential government function.
My guess, were you to ask Walker supporters these tough questions, would be that they would argue that the danger of inflaming the police and firefighters unions is higher than that in inflaming teachers and other public employee unions. My response would be twofold. First of all, from an immediate safety standpoint, that may be true. From a long-term economic effect standpoint, this is utterly false. One year, or even one semester, without public schools could set Wisconsin's education system, and economy, back for years. Moreover, the economic effect of having hundreds of thousands of children at home without school to go to for a semester or a year would be huge. Second, this argument is all the more reason that police and firefighter unions should at least be considered eligible to have collective bargaining rights stricken. Without a union, if police and firefighters were upset with their working conditions, what are the chances of a work stoppage that actually affected operations of their departments? Yes, most union contracts include no-strike clauses, and I would wager that labor stoppages by public employees are illegal in the state of Wisconsin. This has not, however, stopped Unions before. When contracts expire, the no-strike clauses go with them. Given the physical, mental, and training requirements for police and firefighters, the prospects of firing any unionized, striking employees before a new CBA was negotiated are slim to none (that is typically the threat employers use to prevent work stoppages during CBA negotiation lapses). Moreover, the law against public employee strikes has proven ineffective in the state of Wisconsin before. How many times have Teachers Assistants and other UW System employees gone on strike, and not been punished by either the University or the State? I tend to think that a strike of police and firefighters is a highly, highly unlikely scenario. If, however, even the threat of this is a factor in their exclusion from the "budgetary microscope," the reality needs to be re-evaluated.
Now, let's stop taking for granted that Unions are the problem here. Let's question that basic assumption of Walker's bills. Yes, there are non-teacher, non-police, and non-firefighting union employees working for the State of Wisconsin, and its local and municipal governments. But there are countless more non-Union employees. From a Libertarian perspective, and from the perspective traditionally flaunted by Republicans, big government is a problem. This is supported by simple business management and economic knowledge as well. A 3% pay cut for all employees in the state will not have the same long term benefits as a 3% cut to the number of employees. It's just that simple. Take a department. We'll call it Local School District X. When we cut the pay, the pension contributions, or the health insurance requirements for all 100 employees of School District X by, say $300, we have saved $30,000. The savings are only $30,000. We still have to pay insurance, licensing, basic benefits, etc. for all 100 employees. Next year, we will likely give all employees a cost of living increase of 2.5%, plus some performance based increases, etc. If, on the other hand, we realize that there are 2 employees whose only job is to photocopy homework assignments for teachers, and we can eliminate one of those positions, we can save $30,000 in pay. We can also save 33% of that, or about another $10,000, in benefits. This is a conservative estimate, as it is the standard used in the more efficient, less worker friendly private sector. We can also save on a phone line, office supplies, physical plant and maintenance costs for one office. Next year, we will continue to see the savings, as we are not paying this employee, or giving them performance or inflation based raises. We have also actually increased the efficiency of Local School District X, and forced them to work with 99 employees, rather than 100. These employees all still make the same amount of money as they were before, and generally their morale will be only slightly less than what it was before.
The reality of it is that the cost of running our government is not mostly due to teachers, firefighters, police officers, or even bus drivers. The cost is mostly due to a bloated bureaucracy. Moreover, an even larger majority of what most Republicans, Libertarians and fiscal conservatives would consider wasteful government spending comes from this bureaucracy and the non-transparent financial situation it creates. It does not come from overpaying people in admittedly needed, typically unionized, public service positions. It comes from paying people (even if it is less than their organized counterparts) to do things that either don't need to be done, or don't need to be done by the government.
Having worked with financial and personnel decisions while on the UW Campus, I've seen first hand what positions are "classified" (i.e. bargaining unit) and "unclassified." From janitors to TAs, to research assistants, classified positions all due things clearly essential to the operation of the University. Unclassified staff do such things as photocopy, answer phones, schedule meetings for other people, etc. Often these people's workloads could easily be increased through more efficient operation. Other unclassified staff include administrators. How many deans, assistant principles, etc. does one school or University need? If anything, because the positions must generally go through both Union and employer approvals, bargaining unit positions are more carefully vetted than their non-union equivalents. Sure, there is fat that could be trimmed from Union positions as well. But "big government" (which the Republicans stand up against in campaigns, but rarely in office) is not really a problem of union employees doing the dirty work (whether it's driving a bus, putting out fires, patrolling the streets, cleaning a toilet, or teaching a class). It's a problem of the paper pushers (some of whom are covered by CBAs, but many of whom are not). In fact, even when pay and benefits are being compared between public and private sectors, the only employees who it can accurately be compared for tend to be non-union, or at least not part of the four big unionized areas which seem to receive the most media attention (police, firefighters, teachers, and public transit). Police officers may make more than the average private sector employee with a comparable (often high school or Associates degree) education. Do they make more than someone professionally trained in criminal investigation, physical fitness, first aid and lifesaving, dangerous and defensive driving, and firearms safety and usage? Is there a comparable profession which requires the extensive, although perhaps not University-provided, training that police officers go through? Or which requires one to put their life on the line, entering unknown and potentially dangerous situations as a daily routine? In fact, many police officers, military members, fire fighters, etc. can find jobs in the private sector. And if these jobs involve the same risk that their old professions did (think private military companies, etc.) they are often much better compensated than they were as public employees.
Public sector teachers may make more than their private sector equivalents. Are the jobs really comparable? Can a public school say, "no, this person is not entering with high enough test scores, we don't want them?" By taking every student in a district, are public school teachers given a pass on the expectation that their students do well at the end of the day? Can a public school refuse to take more students simply because the average class size has risen above 15? Can a public school expel a child whose behavior makes them a distraction, or even a threat, to the other students, themselves, or their teachers? Do public schools do extensive background checks on their students and their families, providing some measure of safety and security for their teachers?
Do city bus drivers make more than cab drivers?
The four most-attacked public service professions do jobs that we cannot possibly compare to any private sector equivalent. So comparing their compensation is also unreasonable.
The bottom line is this. The problem with the state budget in Wisconsin (and everywhere else) is not union wages. It is an inflated government bureaucracy. It is a bureaucracy that pays people to "regulate," "observe" and evaluate every minute aspect of people's business and personal lives. It is a bureaucracy that has more people sitting behind desks pushing paper than actually out interacting with the public they are paid to serve. It is a bureaucracy which, partly due to unions, and partly due to the nature of politics, tends to be eager to add new functions and departments, but rarely evaluates if those departments are still needed, running efficiently, or worth the money spent on them. It is a bureaucracy which uses the prior year's budget as a starting point, and builds (almost always up) off of that for each department. The solution is not to limit wages and benefits of all state employees, union or not. It is to get rid of some state employees entirely, mainly the ones that provide little or no tangible benefits to the citizens of the state of Wisconsin.
Let's just briefly point out one example of exactly the kind of thing which causes government budget problems. Conveniently, this is a proposal of the very same Governor who is "repairing" the state budget. In fact, this proposal was worked into the very same budget "repair" bill. Any guesses? Yes, that's right. The proposal to separate UW-Madison from the UW System. I haven't read the details of this. Even if we give Walker the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he put this on paper in a way that would remain budget neutral, long term, that's not going to happen. The reason that government agencies (including colleges and universities) that serve similar purposes are often consolidated is because of a duplication of services. And the idea of "shared services." For instance, state fleet vehicles. Yes, the system and UW-Madison will probably need the same number of vehicles, regardless of whether they are one system or two. On the other hand, insurance rates are likely to go up when the risk pool gets split in two. The people who account for the location, condition, and maintenance of these vehicles will now be working for two different employers. Which most likely means that the UW System will keep their current employees and Madison will hire more. The regents who oversee the system will all still be in place, compensation, travel reimbursements, support staff in all. A new board of regents will also need to be added to oversee Madison's operations. Likely, somebody will need to step back and look at the bigger higher education picture in the state of Wisconsin. These studies and evaluations will have to be done by some statewide body, whether an actual department, or a legislature committee (complete with staffers, of course). The bottom line, this proposal does anything but repair the Wisconsin state budget. Notice I have not touched on the merits of the idea itself.
But while Walker is proposing limiting the rights of the employees who few, if any, of even the most conservative or Libertarian Wisconsinites would argue are not needed, he is asking the legislature to turn the page and approve a split in a statewide system that would create many more taxpayer-paid jobs, and create countless duplications of service. My guess, however, is that as long as we can keep the number of TAs, PAs, custodians, campus bus drivers, campus security guards, and other unionized employees the same, Walker's okay with that.
Walker has gotten national media attention with his plan to "fix" Wisconsin's budget. Now, if only he would focus on fixing the budget problem that Republicans claim to see (i.e. big government) instead of expanding the government and paying the most essential state workers less, and removing their rights to collective bargaining, he might be able to set a positive example for the rest of the country.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Walker's Anti-Union Plan
Alright. I am most certainly not pro Union. But the proposal by new Wisconsin governor Scott Walker disgusts me. As a Libertarian, I believe that in the areas where government does need to be involved (police and fire protection, education, infrastructure, etc.) it needs to be run like a business. Most Republicans, I'm sure, would spout that line as well. They point to the fact that the government must be fiscally responsible. I would also argue that beyond fiscal responsibility, this means that they must find the most effective way to provide services, and treat their employees with the same dignity and respect that they expect private businesses to.
On that note, I have two major issues with what little I have read about Walker's proposal. First, the issue of not forcing public employees to pay union dues, and requiring a vote every year to keep these jobs represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In principal, I am all for both of these options. I believe in right to work states, and I believe that they ensure that a) union dues are kept reasonable and affordable, b) that unions continue to represent their constituents, and c), coming out of a and b, that unions are serving their actual purpose, rather than being corrupt bastions of the Democratic political machine, kept in place because people (both employers and employees) have no other options. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make Wisconsin a right to work state for public employees, and continue to allow other unions to compel membership due payment. Similarly, I am all for requiring an affirmative action on the part of employees to maintain a CBA. It reduces complacency, and ensures that unions are actually acting as unions, rather than as campaign fundraisers for Chicago and New York Democrats. It holds unions accountable to their membership. Again, however, this criteria should be applied to all unions, not just those representing public employees.
My second issue is the idea of a law limiting the positions public service unions are allowed to push for in CBA negotiations. This is ridiculous. This is akin to two teams playing football, and one team deciding that the other team is no longer allowed to use their fourth down, but must punt it. Negotiations are a game, albeit an important one that affects people's livelihood. One side cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game. Unions should not be statutorily limited in the pay increases or other concessions they seek. I do believe that union, especially government union, wages should be kept in line with non-union wage increase rates. But I believe that negotiations are the outlet to express this, not by limiting what options are even on the table.
Not only is this an issue of taking away the rights of unions and their employees, it is also an issue of taking away legal authority granted to other parts of the State and Local governments in Wisconsin. The right to negotiate teachers' contracts is given to the Boards of Education, or, in the case of higher education, the Board of Regents. By limiting the options that are even up for negotiation, Walker and his allies seek to take away the authority of these bodies, as well as the bodies which govern police and fire protection throughout the state.
This is a slap in the face to voters and politicians throughout the state. Walker is essentially saying, "I don't trust you to do your jobs, so I'm going to make it easy to do it the way that I would."
The answer to out of control public services unions is not to limit what they can and can't ask for. It's to elect and appoint responsible people to the positions which are responsible for negotiating CBAs on behalf of the state. Elect and appoint regents, councilmen, and board members who know the word "no," and aren't afraid to use it. Elect and appoint people with the same fiscal viewpoints as the majority of Wisconsinites that elected Walker. Drive a hard line in negotiations, but make sure those negotiations are fair.
Just like private businesses, state agencies should have to deal with absurd Union demands in negotiations. And just like private businesses, those agencies should be willing and able to put their feet down, and say "No," even if that means risking a walkout or a strike. Just like private sector union employees, public employees have medical concerns, children to feed, and mortgages to pay. The state has to have the confidence to essentially dare them to give that up for an indefinite amount of time, rather than receive outrageous pay increases or pension payments. But, the state should not stop them from even asking for those raises.
An anti-union governor? All for it. An anti-union, anti-process, back alley governor? No thanks.
Organizing America a History of Trade Unions
On that note, I have two major issues with what little I have read about Walker's proposal. First, the issue of not forcing public employees to pay union dues, and requiring a vote every year to keep these jobs represented by a Collective Bargaining Agreement. In principal, I am all for both of these options. I believe in right to work states, and I believe that they ensure that a) union dues are kept reasonable and affordable, b) that unions continue to represent their constituents, and c), coming out of a and b, that unions are serving their actual purpose, rather than being corrupt bastions of the Democratic political machine, kept in place because people (both employers and employees) have no other options. I do not, however, believe that it is fair to make Wisconsin a right to work state for public employees, and continue to allow other unions to compel membership due payment. Similarly, I am all for requiring an affirmative action on the part of employees to maintain a CBA. It reduces complacency, and ensures that unions are actually acting as unions, rather than as campaign fundraisers for Chicago and New York Democrats. It holds unions accountable to their membership. Again, however, this criteria should be applied to all unions, not just those representing public employees.
My second issue is the idea of a law limiting the positions public service unions are allowed to push for in CBA negotiations. This is ridiculous. This is akin to two teams playing football, and one team deciding that the other team is no longer allowed to use their fourth down, but must punt it. Negotiations are a game, albeit an important one that affects people's livelihood. One side cannot unilaterally change the rules of the game. Unions should not be statutorily limited in the pay increases or other concessions they seek. I do believe that union, especially government union, wages should be kept in line with non-union wage increase rates. But I believe that negotiations are the outlet to express this, not by limiting what options are even on the table.
Not only is this an issue of taking away the rights of unions and their employees, it is also an issue of taking away legal authority granted to other parts of the State and Local governments in Wisconsin. The right to negotiate teachers' contracts is given to the Boards of Education, or, in the case of higher education, the Board of Regents. By limiting the options that are even up for negotiation, Walker and his allies seek to take away the authority of these bodies, as well as the bodies which govern police and fire protection throughout the state.
This is a slap in the face to voters and politicians throughout the state. Walker is essentially saying, "I don't trust you to do your jobs, so I'm going to make it easy to do it the way that I would."
The answer to out of control public services unions is not to limit what they can and can't ask for. It's to elect and appoint responsible people to the positions which are responsible for negotiating CBAs on behalf of the state. Elect and appoint regents, councilmen, and board members who know the word "no," and aren't afraid to use it. Elect and appoint people with the same fiscal viewpoints as the majority of Wisconsinites that elected Walker. Drive a hard line in negotiations, but make sure those negotiations are fair.
Just like private businesses, state agencies should have to deal with absurd Union demands in negotiations. And just like private businesses, those agencies should be willing and able to put their feet down, and say "No," even if that means risking a walkout or a strike. Just like private sector union employees, public employees have medical concerns, children to feed, and mortgages to pay. The state has to have the confidence to essentially dare them to give that up for an indefinite amount of time, rather than receive outrageous pay increases or pension payments. But, the state should not stop them from even asking for those raises.
An anti-union governor? All for it. An anti-union, anti-process, back alley governor? No thanks.
Organizing America a History of Trade Unions
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Throw Those Hands Up Already
So tonight I watched a CNBC documentary on Mexico's drug wars. Not really a lot of new information in there for me, but one thing really got my blood boiling. A Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security from the U.S. said that legalization was not an option, because "it would be like throwing our hands up and saying nothing can be done."
First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send. Alright. So what? Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done? We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs. It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes. We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins. We burn fields of coca and marijuana. We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries. And what happens? Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost. The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down. These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns. Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done? If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.
Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up. The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong. We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so. Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs. How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved? The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug. Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug? Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step. After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs. And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law. So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use? Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors. By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world. We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.
If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth. They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.
If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving. Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be a white flag of shameful surrender.
Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making? It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses. It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.
Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope. Perhaps they're right. Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope. But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.
First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send. Alright. So what? Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done? We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs. It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes. We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins. We burn fields of coca and marijuana. We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries. And what happens? Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost. The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down. These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns. Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done? If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.
Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up. The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong. We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so. Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs. How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved? The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug. Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug? Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step. After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs. And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law. So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use? Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors. By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world. We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.
If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth. They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.
If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving. Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be a white flag of shameful surrender.
Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making? It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses. It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.
Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope. Perhaps they're right. Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope. But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Travis Corcoran and his right to bear arms
Alright. A 39 year old blogger named Travis Corcoran just had his gun license suspended after he posted "1 down 354 to go" on his blog, following the Giffords shooting. This goes back to a basic theoretical question of political science, or does it?
The concept of positive liberty is that we are granted liberty by our governments, and that the only liberties we are entitled to are those specifically granted to us by our governing bodies. Negative liberty, on the other hand, postulates that we are naturally intended to be free, and that the only rights and liberties we don't have are those specifically removed from us by our governments.
Either way, this is a transgression against liberty. If we take the negative liberty view, Corcoran should have had the liberty to bear arms, as well as to say whatever he felt like, simply because there is no law which proscribes either behavior.
On the other hand, even if we take the positive liberty view, the U.S. Constitution, the highest "Law of the Land," granted him the right to do both. Even our Constitution, which grants specific rights, granted Mr. Corcoran the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech. Thus, regardless of whether we believe in positive or negative liberty, this case is a case of rights encroached upon. Until Mr. Corcoran went out and tried to make it 2 down, 533 to go, his right to bear arms should not have been taken away, or even suspended.
He is (as far as I know) a law abiding citizen, and this attempt to take away one Constitutionally-guaranteed right (the right to bear arms) for the exercise of another (freedom of speech) is absurd.
Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty
The concept of positive liberty is that we are granted liberty by our governments, and that the only liberties we are entitled to are those specifically granted to us by our governing bodies. Negative liberty, on the other hand, postulates that we are naturally intended to be free, and that the only rights and liberties we don't have are those specifically removed from us by our governments.
Either way, this is a transgression against liberty. If we take the negative liberty view, Corcoran should have had the liberty to bear arms, as well as to say whatever he felt like, simply because there is no law which proscribes either behavior.
On the other hand, even if we take the positive liberty view, the U.S. Constitution, the highest "Law of the Land," granted him the right to do both. Even our Constitution, which grants specific rights, granted Mr. Corcoran the right to bear arms and the freedom of speech. Thus, regardless of whether we believe in positive or negative liberty, this case is a case of rights encroached upon. Until Mr. Corcoran went out and tried to make it 2 down, 533 to go, his right to bear arms should not have been taken away, or even suspended.
He is (as far as I know) a law abiding citizen, and this attempt to take away one Constitutionally-guaranteed right (the right to bear arms) for the exercise of another (freedom of speech) is absurd.
Personal Autonomy: Beyond Negative and Positive Liberty
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Giffords Shooting and Violent Political Rhetoric
What happened in Arizona last week was a tragedy. There is no doubt. But what has happened in the media and on the internet, at the hands of the Left, is even more tragic, and worse yet, hypocritical.
A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician. The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting. This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.
In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds. They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal. Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.
It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.
On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office. Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.
The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.
Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground. Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters. Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point. Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.
Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President. This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.
I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else). I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left. We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech. We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.
A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician. The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting. This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.
In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds. They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal. Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.
It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.
On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office. Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.
The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.
Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground. Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters. Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point. Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.
Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President. This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.
I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else). I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left. We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech. We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Why Israel Needs to Freeze Settlements Now
An obvious sensitive subject in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the issue of ancestral vs. real homelands. The land currently occupied by Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Assyrian Christians, the Palestinian Muslims, and Israeli Jews. For the most part, it has been the real homeland of Palestinian Muslims and Christians. That is, it is the territory in which they were born and raised, and have called homes their entire lives.
By continuing settlements, Israel is really only hurting the Israeli Jewish population. While now it may seem like a good way of providing more, cheaper land and housing to Israeli Jews, it is only harmful to Israel and her people in the long run. Israeli politicians allow the settlement because they are stacking the cards in their hand for future political battles, at the expense of Israeli people, and especially young Israelis.
Although I don't think it is necessarily still feasible, or the best solution, the international community seems to have its heart and mind stuck on a two state solution. If and when this plan eventually materializes, there will now be thousands of Israelis who find themselves inside of Palestine's legal borders. They will face the same issues which Palestinians have been facing since the creation of Israel, suddenly finding themselves foreigners in their homeland. The towns which they have grown up calling "home" and thinking of as rightfully theirs, will suddenly be a part of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian state which is almost sure to recognize the right of return for exiled Palestinians. Which means the return of land rightfully belonging to Palestinian refugees that fall within the new Palestinian state. This can only mean forced relocation of the settlers inhabiting that land at the time.
In other words, the Israeli state's policies on settlement are setting settlers up to go through the same crises of national identity, relocation, and refugee status to which the government is currently subjecting Palestinians.
Until a two state solution is either confirmed or finally rejected, Israel must stop the building of settlements, not only for the sake of the Palestinians, but also for the sake of the Israeli settlers themselves.''
Beyond the Green Line: Israeli Settlements West of the Jordan
By continuing settlements, Israel is really only hurting the Israeli Jewish population. While now it may seem like a good way of providing more, cheaper land and housing to Israeli Jews, it is only harmful to Israel and her people in the long run. Israeli politicians allow the settlement because they are stacking the cards in their hand for future political battles, at the expense of Israeli people, and especially young Israelis.
Although I don't think it is necessarily still feasible, or the best solution, the international community seems to have its heart and mind stuck on a two state solution. If and when this plan eventually materializes, there will now be thousands of Israelis who find themselves inside of Palestine's legal borders. They will face the same issues which Palestinians have been facing since the creation of Israel, suddenly finding themselves foreigners in their homeland. The towns which they have grown up calling "home" and thinking of as rightfully theirs, will suddenly be a part of a Palestinian state. A Palestinian state which is almost sure to recognize the right of return for exiled Palestinians. Which means the return of land rightfully belonging to Palestinian refugees that fall within the new Palestinian state. This can only mean forced relocation of the settlers inhabiting that land at the time.
In other words, the Israeli state's policies on settlement are setting settlers up to go through the same crises of national identity, relocation, and refugee status to which the government is currently subjecting Palestinians.
Until a two state solution is either confirmed or finally rejected, Israel must stop the building of settlements, not only for the sake of the Palestinians, but also for the sake of the Israeli settlers themselves.''
Beyond the Green Line: Israeli Settlements West of the Jordan
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
My take on the WikiLeaks debate
Alright. First of all, let me say I am not touching on Assange's current prosecution, the theories that it is probably being pushed by the U.S. government, or anything else.
I am speaking purely about the debate over the morality, and in particular, the legality, of WikiLeaks and the newspapers it has provided information to, publishing "secret" information.
I am not a lawyer. But I once had plans to become a journalist, and as such, we studied issues related to this case. In general, there are three freedoms recognized as relevant to the freedom of press.
First, the right to access. This is the right of the press to access key information.
Second, the right of protecting sources. This is the right to maintain sources' anonymity.
Third, the right to publish.
Coincidentally, these three have been listed here in reverse order of their traditional support from the U.S. courts. Let's break down each issue as it is relevant to Assange and WikiLeaks.
The right to access. Unquestionably, the courts have maintained that in certain cases regarding a public interest, or an individual's rights, the government has right to limit press access to information. For instance, some states do not allow cameras in court rooms. The U.S. government can control "imbeded" journalists. The federal government can classify documents (like those released by WikiLeaks) and attempt to keep them from the public eye.
Second, the right of protection. Many states partially protect this, but many do not. There is also no federal shield law, meaning there is no "journalistic privilege" in a Federal court. Also, in most states, the right to shield a source is protected in a bench or jury trial, but not in a grand jury deposition. This means the federal government could, in theory, prosecute the individuals who illegally gave Assange information and expect him, even compel him, to testify against them.
Third, the right to publish. This is the most protected right involved in freedom of press. In short, a media outlet has a right to publish any information that they have access to, assuming that they did not break the law in obtaining the information. For instance, courts have ruled that a newspaper could publish both a rape victim's name and a juvenile offender's name (both protected by law) because a reporter got access to the information through a lawful viewing of court records. A court also allowed a newspaper to publish photographs from an execution, although photographic equipment was banned from the execution viewing room. The act of taking the pictures was illegal. The act of publishing the pictures once they fell into possession of the newspaper, was not.
In short, the government has every right to force Julian Assange to give up his sources. They also have every right to discipline those sources, both as government employees violating the terms of their employment, as well as possibly as traitors and/or spies. If Assange (a former hacker) is found to have stolen the information through illegal methods, it would be a different story. The problem with this is that because Assange is not within U.S. borders, without accusing him of having violated a serious law, he cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sources.
At the end of the day, though, Assange and the publications he worked with have published information that they obtained legally (it was given to them). They should not be prosecuted. The lying, treasonous government employees who leaked the files should.
I am speaking purely about the debate over the morality, and in particular, the legality, of WikiLeaks and the newspapers it has provided information to, publishing "secret" information.
I am not a lawyer. But I once had plans to become a journalist, and as such, we studied issues related to this case. In general, there are three freedoms recognized as relevant to the freedom of press.
First, the right to access. This is the right of the press to access key information.
Second, the right of protecting sources. This is the right to maintain sources' anonymity.
Third, the right to publish.
Coincidentally, these three have been listed here in reverse order of their traditional support from the U.S. courts. Let's break down each issue as it is relevant to Assange and WikiLeaks.
The right to access. Unquestionably, the courts have maintained that in certain cases regarding a public interest, or an individual's rights, the government has right to limit press access to information. For instance, some states do not allow cameras in court rooms. The U.S. government can control "imbeded" journalists. The federal government can classify documents (like those released by WikiLeaks) and attempt to keep them from the public eye.
Second, the right of protection. Many states partially protect this, but many do not. There is also no federal shield law, meaning there is no "journalistic privilege" in a Federal court. Also, in most states, the right to shield a source is protected in a bench or jury trial, but not in a grand jury deposition. This means the federal government could, in theory, prosecute the individuals who illegally gave Assange information and expect him, even compel him, to testify against them.
Third, the right to publish. This is the most protected right involved in freedom of press. In short, a media outlet has a right to publish any information that they have access to, assuming that they did not break the law in obtaining the information. For instance, courts have ruled that a newspaper could publish both a rape victim's name and a juvenile offender's name (both protected by law) because a reporter got access to the information through a lawful viewing of court records. A court also allowed a newspaper to publish photographs from an execution, although photographic equipment was banned from the execution viewing room. The act of taking the pictures was illegal. The act of publishing the pictures once they fell into possession of the newspaper, was not.
In short, the government has every right to force Julian Assange to give up his sources. They also have every right to discipline those sources, both as government employees violating the terms of their employment, as well as possibly as traitors and/or spies. If Assange (a former hacker) is found to have stolen the information through illegal methods, it would be a different story. The problem with this is that because Assange is not within U.S. borders, without accusing him of having violated a serious law, he cannot be compelled to answer questions about his sources.
At the end of the day, though, Assange and the publications he worked with have published information that they obtained legally (it was given to them). They should not be prosecuted. The lying, treasonous government employees who leaked the files should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)