The Bottom Nowhere in Sight?

Former Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul gives a bleak outlook on our economy in the Financial Times.

“The US government just won’t allow the correction the economy needs.” He cites the mini-depression of 1921, which lasted just a year largely because insolvent companies were allowed to fail. “No one remembers that one. They’ll remember this one, because it will last 15 years.” At some stage – Mr Paul estimates it will be between one and four years – the dollar will implode. “The dollar as a reserve standard is done,” he says. He sees little hope for other currencies where central banks have also created too much liquidity dating right back to the early 1970s."

Before you dismiss him as a crank, just remember that he saw this current economic crisis years before it arrived and almost all of his economic predictions are usually accurate. Let's hope this is one of those times he is wrong.

The Day of Reckoning...

Is coming closer for those in the Bush Administration and the CIA who authorized the use of torture. Michael Isikoff of Newsweek is reporting that "Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against 'high value' Qaeda detainees."

Will this lead to a "Truth Commission" or criminal investigations against government officials? I sure hope so (hopefully I'll have the time to explain why in a future post). Perhaps these memos could be so inflammatory that a Truth Commission will become undeniable. Isikoff reports, "One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the memos were 'ugly' and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a 'truth commission' on torture."

However, I still don't think criminal investigations are likely. Why? Simply because Congress' hands are not clean on this matter and Obama's campaign promises on government transparency have fallen miles short of the mark. Certain members of Congress, especially those on committees dealing with detainee detention and national security, were aware of the torture techniques being used against detainees. Additionally, Obama has embraced many of the tools Bush used to protect government secrecy. Perhaps the most alarming is the continuing use of the expanded state-secrets doctrine. Those are just a few reasons why I don't think prosecutions are likely, but that may change with the release of more memos from the OLC.

Either way, this should be an interesting story to follow. Will we reward lawlessness and immoral behavior? Or will justice and the rule of law prevail?
I'll leave you with James Madison in Federalist 51:

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

GOP at the Crossroads

Here is an excellent article in Newsweek written by David Frum discussing the internal battles for the future of the GOP and American Conservatism. Are Republicans going to become the party of O'Reily, Hannity, Palin and Limbaugh? Or will they become the party of Frum, Larison, Reihan and Duthat? I sincerely hope it is the latter, or else the GOP is destined to become an ever-shrinking southern theological party.
Preview:

In the days since I stumbled into this controversy, I've received a great deal of e-mail. (Most of it on days when Levin or Hannity or Hugh Hewitt or Limbaugh himself has had something especially disobliging to say about me.) Most of these e-mails say some version of the same thing: if you don't agree with Rush, quit calling yourself a conservative and get out of the Republican Party. There's the perfect culmination of the outlook Rush Limbaugh has taught his fans and followers: we want to transform the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan into a party of unanimous dittoheads—and we don't care how much the party has to shrink to do it. That's not the language of politics. It's the language of a cult.

The Prop. 8 Fight Continues

Yesterday the Supreme Court of California revisited the contentious issue of same-sex marriage and heard arguments on the validity of Proposition 8 which passed last November. (Background on Prop 8 see here). On Monday, the California legislature passed two resolutions declaring that, "[Prop 8] was an improper revision of the state constitution. Sweeping revisions can only be adopted if they originate in the Legislature, gain two-thirds approval in that body and then win approval by voters." Thus, they argue Prop 8 is invalid because it did not obtain the two-thirds approval in the legislature.

Not only did Prop 8 fail to get two-thirds approval of the legislature, but earlier in 2008 the legislature voted to extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples. Obtaining two-thirds support in the legislature was never going to happen. But the problem/issue is obvious. The judiciary has ruled in favor of same-sex couples, the legislature (multiple times) has ruled in favor of same-sex couples, the executive branch has deferred to the judiciary, but the people (citizens of CA) have voted "no" on extending those benefits to same-sex couples. Who is going to budge? Who should have the final say in the matter?

This whole problem stems from California being a referendum/initiative/proposition happy state, thus leaving legislation up to the citizens instead of the legislature. Some people like this form of uber-democracy stating that the power is with the people and the government should be bound by their wishes and demands. I completely disagree. I'm going to avoid the argument that there are so many stupid people out there they should not have legislative powers. Instead, I will argue it completely goes against the structure of our government and the intent of our framers. Our government is based off the idea of a constitutional democracy/republic. (Yes I know they are two very separate classifications, but we have moved closer to a democracy since our founding) The legislature was created to conceive a deliberative body of elected citizens who would address issues, debate them among themselves and come to a political and constitutional agreement on how to deal with the problem/issue. By allowing the legislative body to deliberate, all sides of the argument can be exercised and (theoretically) the free exchange of ideas will give us the most practical solution to the problem. By presenting legislative powers or issues to the public at-large, we completely ignore the benefits of a slow, principled body of lawmakers. Instead, we see majority tyranny where powerful groups suppress the rights of politically unpopular groups, hyperbolic rhetoric, demagoguery (The call stated the vote was for the "soul of the nation," and Pastor Rick Warren constantly uttered the lie that recognizing same-sex marriage rights would prohibit religious organizations from preaching against homosexuality) and no accountability. Who will vote out the voters of propositions if they lead to dreadful/damaging policy? I think we need to heed the advice of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 71:

The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.

In my personal opinion, I don't think a specific branch of government or the people have the ability to preclude same-sex couples from marriage rights. The Supreme Court has established marriage as a fundamental right, stating in Loving v. Virginia, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." However, opponents will argue that the court in Loving was referring specifically to marriage as an institution between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. This is a valid argument and has not yet been visited by the court. Many will argue that a state should be free to establish their own legislation dealing with the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens (which I agree with) but I don't believe the state possesses the power to infringe on a fundamental constitutional right, "When a state exercises power wholly within the domain of state interest, it is insulated from federal judicial review. But such insulation is not carried over when state power is used as an instrument for circumventing a federally protected right." Gomillion v. Lightfoot. Yes, I know we aren't dealing with a Fed/State battle, but the argument is analogous. I also believe same-sex marriage is protected by the fundamental right to liberty. Furthermore, preventing same-sex couples from marrying is a violation of their 14th amendment equal protection rights. See Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas and this law review article.

Time and time again I've pointed out that our country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. An extremely important part of securing liberty is allowing others to do whatever they please as long as it does not harm anyone else. Mere disapproval is not enough to invalidate laws or protections from others. I'm not sure which way the court will rule on this issue. I hope it is in favor of same-sex couples, but who knows. If the court rules the other way, perhaps in time it will be viewed as a success and a more solid claim of legitimacy for same-sex couples as Andrew Sullivan explains:

Who wants the critical moment in the securing of marriage rights to be imposed by a court against a clear majority vote of the citizens? Give it time, and conviction, and we'll win where it matters most: at the ballot box.

Not Encouraging

Andrew Sullivan is asking readers to send in their own stories on how the recession is effecting them personally. Here is one I wish I would not have come across:

I’m a third year at a law school in Boston. Basically, everything we’ve dreamed of and been promised by our advisers/professors is no longer available. Job offers already accepted have pushed their starting dates back from September to January. Students are receiving surprise rejections for bar study loans, and I know a few who literally cannot afford the bar exam application fee ($820) because of it, let alone the bar prep courses. For the first time in any professor’s memory, students received offers for clerkships in the Massachusetts Superior Courts contingent upon funding to be established this spring. I hope to work in a government job with an agency or attorney general’s office, but am finding that there are literally no entry-level positions available, even for students from highly-ranked schools such as BC and BU.
I myself worked at the Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General for the past nine months and interviewed for a really exciting fellowship. I received a call from the AGO’s HR Director: I was third in line for the position, but they were cutting
the number they were hosting from three to one. In four other positions I’ve interviewed for, I’ve received word that the position itself was canceled, or would not be filled at all this year. There’s also a state-wide hiring freeze in Massachusetts, and a lot of established attorneys suddenly on the market after record layoffs in Boston law firms. I am extremely flexible in terms of geographic location (no kids, I don’t own property), and I’m being very aggressive in my search. But it’s slow going – I fully expect to have nothing lined up when I finish the bar exam at the end of July. The thought of having nothing, absolutely nothing, to do on August 1st petrifies
me. Without a job, I will not be able to afford malpractice insurance on my own and would not risk practicing law without it. I’ll have over $130K in debt from my law degree. Thankfully, I live in Massachusetts and can utilize MassHealth – anywhere else in the country, I would have to do without health insurance (I have no pre-existing conditions, but the quotes I’ve received are so high as to be ridiculous). If I stay in the city, I do not know what I'd do for rent. I’m 26 years old, and am frightened to death I will have to move back to Ohio and away from my gay community, and live with my parents. With a law degree. I feel like a chump sometimes.

Quote of the Week

Courtesy of former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum:

A federal bank takeover is a bad thing obviously. I wonder though if we conservatives understand clearly enough why it is a bad thing. It’s not because we are living through an enactment of the early chapters of Atlas Shrugged. It’s because the banks are collapsing. Obama, Pelosi, et al are big-spending, high-taxing liberals. They are not socialists. They are no more eager to own these banks than the first President Bush was to own the savings and loan industry – in both cases, federal ownership was a final recourse after a terrible failure. And it was on our watch, not Obama’s, that this failure began. Our refusal to take notice of this obvious fact may excite the Republican faithful. But it is doing tremendous damage to our ability to respond effectively to the crisis.

Misc. Economics Post

I'm passing along a couple of economic items I found interesting this past week. First, Harvard Econ. Professor Greg Mankiw discusses what issues and economic policies economists almost universally agree on. See here.

Second, here is a vimeo video giving the best visualization I've seen thus far on how we ended up in this economic mess.


The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo.

Flu Research

Last week, National Geographic wrote an article on why the flu is prevalent in the winter and what allows its transmission. In the article, they heralded a study that is going to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Here is some of the article:

"Absolute humidity conditions explain most of these changes," Shaman said. The researchers do not know exactly what it is about low absolute humidity that the flu virus likes. But they suggest that absolute humidity levels be raised in buildings such as hospitals and medical clinics where the disease most often spreads.
"This gets us a big step closer to one type of mechanism" for how the flu spreads, said epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of Harvard University. "One really key
question is how much influenza is transmitted in tropical locations"—places with
high absolute humidity year-round—"and how this compares to temperate parts of
the world,"

While this may be news to some, these research findings are not unique, nor are they recent. I'm surprised the journal selected the study for publishing because these findings and additional insights have already been answered - or at least discovered.

Peter Palese, a flu researcher who is professor and chairman of the microbiology department at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York published a study a year and a half ago linking flu transmission rates with temperature and humidity. Here is an article talking about his findings, as well answering some of the questions raised in the "newer" study:

Air temperature and humidity in the guinea pigs' quarters were varied, and they discovered that when the air temperature was at 41 degrees the virus was transmitted. As the temperature rose there was a significant decrease in the transmission of the virus and at 86 degrees, the virus was not transmitted at all.
A[sic] low humidity of 20 percent, the virus was transmitted and when the humidity reached 80 percent the virus was not transmitted at all. Dr. Palese said that this
flu virus spreads through the air, unlike the cold virus, which spreads by direct contact when people touch surfaces that had been touched by someone with a cold or a handshake with someone who is infected. Cold air makes a stable
environment for the flu virus. Low humidity also helps the virus particles remain in the air. The viruses float in the air in little respiratory droplets. With the humidity in the air, those droplets pick up water, grow larger and fall to the ground.

I guess the lesson to be learned is get a humidifier or live in a more tropic climate if you want to avoid the flu.

Enemies Foreign and Domestic

This past week, former Vice-President Dick Cheney gave an extensive interview with John Harris, Mike Allen and Jim Vandhei of Politico. I'll be quoting excerpts of the interview, but in general, Cheney warned of future terror attacks because the Obama administration is departing from many of the Bush Administration policies and is therefore putting the country at risk in the eyes of the former vice-president.


First, it seems very likely, perhaps inevitable that the U.S. is going to receive another serious terrorist attack. As former President Bush stated regularly, "we only have to fail once for the terrorists to succeed." However, it appears (at least to me) that Cheney is simply using political posturing to claim that if there is a terrorist attack in the future, the blame should lie squarely at the feet of Obama because he departed from many of the aggressive/illegal policies of the Bush Administration designed to thwart terrorist threats. Just because an attack did or did not occur during an administration's term doesn't mean it was a direct result of the policy. It is part of the analysis, but not conclusive in itself.

At the heart of Cheney's argument is the notion and belief that because a terrorist attack did not occur once they implemented their policy, it was their policy that was responsible for preventing attacks. He believes that unilateral war, torture, no due process, surveillance programs and lack of diplomacy are fundamental to the security of the United States. This claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The last major terrorist attack on US soil (committed by an Islamic fundamentalist) was the first world trade center bombing in 1993. In dealing with this act, President Clinton didn't impose the draconian measures similar to Bush/Cheney to ensure our security. The terrorists themselves were tried in criminal court, convicted and are rotting away in a domestic U.S. prison. Therefore, using the same logic, we can say that Clinton's approach in dealing with terrorism kept the U.S. safe. However, to stay consistent, I would argue that that logic is also flawed. To poke some more holes in Cheney's assertion - that extra-ordinary measures are needed to prevent terrorism - let's take Spain for example. After the terrorist attacks on Madrid in 2004, Spain convicted the terrorists in criminal court and decided to withdraw from Iraq. Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing their reaction to terrorist attacks and their subsequent national security (yes, the last part of his remarks are tongue-in-cheek):

Number of terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals on Spain since March, 2004 --
i.e., the last 5 years: none. Using the prevailing media-logic applied to Bush's counter-terrorism policies such as torture and Guantanamo (i.e., if a country is attacked by Terrorists, its Government then does X, and there are no Terrorist attacks for some period of time thereafter, then that is "proof" that "X stops Terrorism"), I believe these events in Spain constitute proof that the way to stop Terrorism and to keep the citizenry safe is to stop invading and occupying Muslim countries and take accused Terrorists and put them on trial with full due process rights before putting them in cages for life. After all, that's what Spain did, and there's not been another Terrorist attack for five years. Therefore, those policies have kept the Spanish people safe.

Cheney comment:

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.

Let me alleviate your worries Mr. Cheney. President Obama, his administration and people like myself aren't concerned with reading them their rights. I haven't seen anyone suggest we read Miranda rights to any of the detainees. However, we are concerned with an unchecked executive declaring people "enemy combatants," holding them indefinitely and not giving them judicial review. Federalist 84 states, "the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." We simply want a proceeding to make sure we are actually detaining terrorists instead of innocent people. The recent Boumediene ruling reinforced one of the most basic and fundamental rights of habeas. We aren't concerned with hurting the feelings of terrorists, we stand for restoring constitutional principles that have their origins in the 13th Century.

Cheney comment:

At least 61 of the inmates who were released from Guantanamo during the
Bush administration — that’s about 11 or 12 percent — have gone back into the
business of being terrorists.

No, you are wrong. Secretary Gates himself has debunked this figure along with a prominent study by Stanford School of Law Professor Mark Denbeaux, where Gates says the rate is closer to 4-5%.

Cheney comment:

The 200 or so inmates still there, he claimed, are “the hard core” whose “recidivism rate would be much higher."

I'm skeptical that Dick Cheney really knows much about the remaining GTMO detainees. Last week the press reported that the files on the detainees were a) non-existent or b) missing. If the previous administration didn't even take the time to create files on these detainees, then how can one be sure that they are the hard-core terrorists? Especially when he previously asserted that all detainees were dangerous terrorists; yet hundreds have been released without charge and others have been proven to be innocent. All I ask for is that we simply determine if they should be detained in the first place.

Cheney comment:

If you release the hard-core Al Qaeda terrorists that are held at Guantanamo, I think they go back into the business of trying to kill more Americans and mount further mass-casualty attacks, he said. If you turn ’em loose and they go kill more Americans, who’s responsible for that?

This is a straw-man. No one is advocating that we simply release hardened terrorists. We just ask that we make sure they are terrorists in the first place. If they are terrorists, then we should absolutely imprison/execute them. However, Cheney ignores the fact that the war in Iraq, Abu Gharib and torture in general has been the #1 recruiting tool for terrorist organizations. There is more Al Qaeda in Iraq now than before we invaded, Iran has become the regional power and there is the little problem of breaking the law. Gee, who is responsible for that Mr. Cheney?

Cheney comment:

Is that really a good idea to take hardened Al Qaeda terrorists who’ve already killed
thousands of Americans and put ’em in San Quentin or some other prison facility where they can spread their venom even more widely than it already is?

I can't call it a bad idea because we have been doing just that for years without any escapes, terrorist attacks on the jails or venom spreading problems. Finally, and I'm not downplaying how dangerous terrorists are, but the terrorists that have already killed thousands of Americans are already dead - they died on 9/11. But yes, I do concede that terrorists are capable of killing thousands of Americans, yet I don't see why that should prohibit us from placing them in domestic jails. Finally, the primary reason Gitmo was established wasn't because we were scared of terrorists escaping. It was established because the Bush Administration believed the geographic location of of the prison in Cuba was beyond the reach of U.S. courts. We all know how well that plan worked out.

I still believe that terrorism is one of the most serious threats we face - and will face for some time. However, I strongly disagree with Mr. Cheney on how we should deal with that threat. I do not believe it is worth throwing away our Constitutional principles to try and secure our safety. A police state would guarantee our safety, but at what cost to our liberty? I'll end with an excerpt from the Boumediene opinion.

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.

Addicting Website

Today in class (yes, on a Saturday - snow days aren't free in law school), we had a speaker come in to talk about the various forms of technology available to attorney's to access discoverable information or evidence. While discussing methods to retrieve files from computers, the speaker pointed us to the website - www.enronexplorer.com. Here is the description of what the website provides:

In October 2003 the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission placed 200,000
of Enron's internal emails from 1999-2002 into the public domain as part of its ongoing investigations. The archive offers an extraordinary window into the lives and preoccupations of Enron's top executives during a turbulent period. Read more about Enron's demise on Wikipedia. Trampoline engineers used this data as testbed during development of the company's SONAR technology. The result was so fascinating we decided to open it up and allow anyone to dig in. The Enron Explorer lets you investigate the actions and reactions of Enron's senior management team as the noose began to tighten.

As you can guess, I spent the rest of class prying into the lives of various former Enron employees. However, it made me realize how many emails I've written that I probably wouldn't want published in the future...

Enjoy!

President Joe Biden

No, I'm not declaring that Joe Biden is the current President, but I do believe he was the President for a few minutes on January 20th. I'm going to completely avoid commenting on the oath flubbing, but on a related note, I sure hope Chief Justice Roberts isn't a textualist.

The 20th Amendment provides that "the terms of the President and Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...and the terms of their successors shall then begin." (Italics mine).

This leads to the simple conclusion that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney no longer held their offices at that point. However, Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 8 provides that "before he enter on the execution of his office, [the President] shall take the following oath..."

This creates a minor problem because Obama did not take the oath prior to noon. According to many different sources and my own recollection, it was about 12:03pm when he took the oath. Therefore, Obama was not eligible to assume the office of the Presidency at noon because he did not meet the express condition of taking the oath before his term began.

This takes us to Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 which grants succession power to the Vice-President. It states in part, "In case of inability to ... discharge the Powers and Duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President..."

Accordingly, with (now) President Obama unable to assume those powers by failing to take the oath prior to noon, Vice-President Joe Biden assumed the powers of the Presidency for about a period of three minutes.

Disclaimer: I'm merely a second year law student in the second semester of constitutional law. Perhaps - maybe even probably - my analysis is entirely off-base. But for the record, I think it looks pretty good. And yes, this is without a doubt the most dorky post I have ever written on this blog.

Gas Tax?

This week it was revealed that truck and SUV sales have gone up and are outpacing cars. Yes, people are short-sighted or simply stupid...or both. However, people who can afford $4-5 a gallon gasoline in SUV's aren't that dumb so I'll spare them, but I'm going to guess that all these people buying SUV's don't fall into that category. Due to this, some (here, here and here) are calling for a gas tax to raise the price of gasoline to help wean our addiction to oil.

While I agree with Sullivan on most issues, and I agree that we need to end our oil dependence, I can't fall into line with this idea for two reasons. First, a gas tax is indiscriminate and punishes those who are moving the market in the proper direction (high mpg car owners). Yes, I know that those who have motorcycles or fuel efficient cars will pay a smaller penalty, but they are paying a penalty nonetheless for behaving in a desireable manner (reducing fuel consumption). Why should we punish good behavior? If this was the only way to discourage which types of cars we bought or how much gas we consumed, then I would be in favor of it, but there seems to be a less restrictive mean to accomplish the same goal - I'll get to that in a bit. Second, the economy is still in the shitter and it is getting worse everyday. The most learned financial advisers and economists still don't have a clue on how bad it is going to get or when we are going to start seeing the light of day. For this reason, I don't think we should implement taxes that raise the cost of doing business or living needlessly. If we raise prices again to summer levels, would that push us over the edge economically? I don't know the answer, but I don't want to find out either.

Instead of a gas tax, wouldn't it make more sense to tax the cause or the leading contributor of gas consumption - the SUV's and trucks themselves? This way, those who have moved the market in the proper direction and intelligently bought fuel efficient cars will not be punished at all. Doesn't this establish a clear incentive for those looking to purchase automobiles? This atleast seems a little more fair because those who are increasing our burden are bearing the cost themselves. Why spread the burden across the populous when a specific group is (more) responsible? Furthermore, even though the tax on the trucks and SUV's may have an adverse effect on the economy, it will be far less dramatic than that of a gas-tax on almost every citizen, thus we could hopefully avoid falling off of that economic cliff.

Hey, perhaps gas is going to stay cheap for years to come and we are climbing out of the recession, but as of right now we do not know. Until then, I think we should take actions that accomplish our policy goals but only through the least restrictive means possible.

The Beginning of the End for Authorized Torture Part 2

Obama's selection of Leon Panetta has been both hailed and criticized by members of both parties. If nothing else, a non-partisan pick is an encouraging sign. However, I just wanted to pass along this article by Panetta himself written in the Washington Monthly.

Lengthy Preview:

If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock? The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines
Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force. We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground

It's about time we have someone willing to stand up to the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and end the immoral and illegal practice of torture.

End Prohibition Part II

I'm a couple of days late (16 to be exact) but 75 years ago on Dec. 5 1933, prohibition of alcohol ended in the United States. Yet, without understanding history, we have repeated our same mistake and created prohibition part II aka the war on drugs. Here is an excellent article discussing the burdens, costs and failed promises of the war on drugs.

Preview:

When repeal came, it was not just with the support of those with a taste for alcohol, but also those who disliked and even hated it but could no longer ignore the dreadful consequences of a failed prohibition. They saw what most Americans still fail to see today: That a failed drug prohibition can cause greater harm than the drug it was intended to banish. Consider the consequences of drug prohibition today: 500,000 people incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails for nonviolent drug-law violations; 1.8 million drug arrests last year; tens of billions of taxpayer dollars expended annually to fund a drug war that 76% of Americans say has failed; millions now marked for life as former drug felons; many thousands dying each year from drug overdoses that have more to do with prohibitionist policies than the drugs themselves, and tens of
thousands more needlessly infected with AIDS and Hepatitis C because those same
policies undermine and block responsible public-health policies.

This isn't about morals or simply wanting to get stoned (I don't even do drugs). It's about failed policy and its burdens on our economy and liberty.

The Bush Legacy

Torture and the height of fiscal irresponsibility.

The approved use of torture has never been a part of American history until Bush authorized its use against detainees in violation of U.S. and international law. If you want to know the last time a government of ours has used torture, you will have to go back over 500 years to the Star Chamber in Britain.

Here are some figures on Bush's spending:

The result of deficit spending is debt. When President Bush took office, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. Now it is $10.6 trillion -- and Congress voted in October to raise the debt ceiling to $11.3 trillion, the seventh such hike since President Bush to office and the second since last July. If, as is quite likely, we reach the new ceiling by January 20, the outgoing President will have managed to amass more debt than all of his predecessors combined.

Is there any acceptable excuse for either? Total and complete government failure.

Pro-life Fundamentalism

I attended a private Christian school from pre-school all the way through my undergrad college. Even though Mount Union is pretty much Methodist in name only, my grade school and high school were very religious and leaned to the right. Apart from teaching me that dinosaur extinction was caused by relocation stress when they exited Noah's Ark, they made concerted efforts to denounce Planned Parenthood and portray the organization as a baby-killing factory. Even today, go into almost any church and tell a member or the pastor you work for Planned Parenthood and they won't be very friendly. If that isn't enough, pro-life supporters are now requesting that government funding be revoked from Planned Parenthood in order to fight against abortion.

Doesn't this seem like spending a dollar to make a nickel? Planned Parenthood doesn't just perform abortions. The majority of their work is aimed at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and women's health issues (mammograms, pap smears etc...). Only 2-3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortions. Thus, in practice, Planned Parenthood has the very real effect of reducing abortions. Instead of being content with that, these irrational pro-life zealots (just to be clear, there are rational pro-lifers) completely ignore these facts and insist that we only focus on abstinence only based education, which in the aggregate produces more abortions!!

Today in Slate, Will Saletan gives the Pro-life case for Planned Parenthood. Preview:

I'll say that again: If you define pro-life as preventing abortions, Planned
Parenthood is the most effective pro-life organization in the history of the world. No, it doesn't give teenagers the idea of having sex. That idea comes to them quite naturally, thank you very much. What Planned Parenthood does, more comprehensively than anyone else, is to distribute the means and knowledge to control your risk of getting pregnant when you don't want to be pregnant. And those two things, combined with pressure to exercise that control assiduously, are the surest way to prevent abortions. If you wait till women are already unhappily pregnant, you're too late.

Last week I didn't understand the logic behind the outrage on the far-right when Planned Parenthood decided to accept gift cards. The method of payment wasn't likely to increase the number of abortions. In all likelihood, the gift cards would probably have the effect of preventing abortions by allowing the poor to have better access to contraceptives. However, now I get it. It seems that it was just another occasion for manufactured and uninformed outrage against Planned Parenthood.

Che

What's up with people's obsession and idolization of Che Guevara? Sure the picture looks cool, but does anyone know what he stood for? Reason interviews Paquito D'Rivera who fled Cuba to escape persecution:

"Che was an inspiration for me," D'Rivera tells reason.tv. "I thought I have to get out of this island as soon as I can, because I am in the wrong place at the wrong time!" D'Rivera did escape Cuba, and so far he's won nine Grammy awards playing the kind of music Che tried to silence. But D'Rivera says Che's crimes didn't end with censorship. "He ordered the execution of many people with no trial." Che served as Castro's chief executioner, presiding over the infamous La Cabana prison. D'Rivera says Che's policy of killing innocents earned him the nickname-the Butcher of La Cabana.

Here is Nick Gillespie adding his two cents:

We're rightly horrified by fascist murderers like Adolph Hitler. Why aren't we
also horrified by communist killers?

Doesn't anyone else find it amusing that merchandise with Che's grille on it is being spread by the forces of capitalism?

Mets Fan Pays for CC Sabathia

ESPN is reporting that an agreement has been reached between the Yankees and CC Sabathia for a record setting 7 yr deal worth over $160M. What ESPN fails to tell you is that in the meantime, the Yankees are building a new stadium that is financed by public bonds. Basically, the tax-payer is subsidizing the new Yankee Stadium, even though there was nothing wrong with the current stadium. Here is Ilya Somin discussing the situation:

In this 2006 post, I criticized these public subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium,
as well as sports stadium subsidies in general. Studies by economists almost uniformly show that stadium subsidies create no net economic benefit for cities, but are instead a pure transfer of wealth from taxpayers to owners and players. The latter, to put it mildly, are not exactly needy. Public subsidies for stadium construction might even leave cities worse off by diverting valuable land and public funds from more productive uses.

Money is a finite resource and must be budgeted accordingly (someone please tell the government). Thus, without the bonds to cover the construction of the stadium, the Yankees would have been forced to choose between a new pitcher or a new stadium. However, by allowing tax payers to fill the pockets of the private organization, they can have the best of both worlds, thus creating a situation where non-Yankee fans are paying for good 'ol CC. One more tidbit from Ilya:

As regular VC readers know, I'm a big baseball fan. However, I also believe that baseball teams (and other professional sports teams) should pay their own way with funds earned from willing fans. Taxpayers who aren't baseball fans shouldn't be forced to subsidize the entertainment of those of us who are.

It's no wonder I don't watch baseball.

In Defense of Bush

A reader (one of millions I'm sure) pointed me to this article about the great work President Bush has done in regards to fighting AIDS. I've been critical of Bush here and I'm still not a big fan of his, but since I have made posts about Matthew 25 and "helping the least of us" and "the sick" I should give credit where credit is due.

Please, no comments on how it isn't really his money or that it could be considered a forced transfer of wealth. She specifically calls out those on the left - those who have no problem spending other people's money (see bailouts).

Mona Charen:

But for the most part, the beautiful people in America — the Hollywood and the university types, the book and magazine publishers, and of course, the major media — have shown complete indifference to George W. Bush’s dedication to a cause they purport to value. In fact, they’ve pointedly ignored it. It goes without saying that if Obama does even half of what Bush has done for AIDS sufferers in Africa, he will be — in the eyes of those same people — a candidate for canonization. Of course the Left can say whatever they like about George Bush and the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But when he does something completely in line with their own stated principles and values, it is simply mean-spirited of them to deny him his due.

Secret Santa

For those of you that have been or will be blessed with wealth, here is a story of who you should aspire to be like.

It's Gonna Get Worse

Peter Schiff, the man who called the current economic mess 2 years ago, says we're not near the end of our problems. Not good.






* Update - Here is footage from over two years ago. Also, does anyone take Arthur Laffer seriously anymore? If so, why? The guy obviously had no idea what he was talking about. I hope he paid off his bet with Schiff...

The Emerging Brand of "Christianity"

The Onion gets it. What type of Xian are you?

Preview:

Now, granted, there are some Christians on the lunatic fringe who take their beliefs a little too far. Take my coworker Karen, for example. She's way off the deep end when it comes to religion: going down to the homeless shelter to volunteer once a month, donating money to the poor, visiting elderly shut-ins with the Meals on Wheels program—you name it! But believe me, we're not all that way. The people in my church, for the most part, are perfectly ordinary Americans like you and me. They believe in the simple old-fashioned traditions—Christmas, Easter, the slow and deliberate takeover of more and more county school boards to get the political power necessary to ban evolution from textbooks statewide. That sort of thing.
We oppose gay marriage as an abomination against the laws of God and America, we're against gun control, and we fervently and unwaveringly believe that the Jews, Muslims, and all on earth who are not born-again Pentecostalists are possessed by Satan and should be treated as such.

Always Trust the Government

I'm sure many of you have seen the recent news that a Judge ruled that 5 detainees from Guantanamo must be released. The reason for his decision was simple, the Government's evidence was insufficient to justify ongoing imprisonment of a detainee as an "enemy combatant" and there was no credible evidence that the 5 detainees intended to take up arms against the U.S.

These men have been wrongly detained, without credible evidence for seven years. In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush was given incredible amounts of power in order to fight the "war on terror." In this process, he told a gullible Congress and the American people that he could be trusted with this power. Although it isn't the first time we have discovered that he misused this power, it is clear that we cannot trust the government to use its power without abuse. How do we plan on winning the "war against terror" when we arrest and detain innocent people without giving them due process? Why would any person or country look up to us as a beacon of liberty or a morally superior country? George Bush's approach to the war on terror has set us back years.

One of the men released was named Lakhdar Boumediene. The name may sound familiar if you followed the presidential campaign or recent Supreme Court decisions. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court ruled that Habeas did apply to Guantanamo detainees and those rights could not be suspended by the Military Commissions Act. Thus, the court invalidated Sec. 7 of the Act and declared the only way to suspend Habeas Corpus is to follow the procedure proscribed in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of the United States Constitution.

At that time, so-called conservatives and Republican's, even 4 of the Supreme Court justices stated that the detainees should not have Habeas rights and this ruling was dangerous for our country. John McCain said the ruling was "one of the worst in the history of this country" and Sarah Palin made yet another asinine statement during her VP acceptance speech stating that "[Barack] is worried that someone won't read them their rights." (Yet again, in proving she is an ass, the case had nothing to do with Miranda rights or notifying them of their protections.) But if these people would have gotten their way, these men would still be locked up in a cage for having done nothing wrong. How can anyone support the stance that these detainees should not have a right to a trial to even determine if they should be there? How can you still trust Bush when he says all the detainees in Guantanamo are terrorists? There are innocent people there, but if John McCain and countless others would have had their way those innocent people would still be rotting away in prisons as we speak. Unbelievable.

No Bailout. Bankruptcy Please.

One of the most visible arguments for a government bailout of the big 3 is that it will help save jobs. However, Jim Lindgren from Volokh says that giving the big 3 a government bailout will end up costing us more jobs in the future:

If an industry is contracting and there is an oversupply of productive capacity, then the worst thing we could do is prop up that industry by taking jobs away from the healthier portions of the economy (including better run automakers). If government planners really were a lot smarter and better planners than business people (they aren’t), then the government’s strategy should be to try to drive bad businesses out of business quicker, not try to destroy the healthy companies by propping up the dying companies.

He then continues to pile on by beating down the people that are abolishing their own jobs - the unions.

Heavily unionized businesses usually have trouble competing with non-unionized
businesses. Unions are successful in getting above-market wages and benefits, which makes it difficult for the businesses to compete. In the auto industry, there are many more dealerships than necessary. And, according to Larry Kudlow, the average compensation and benefit rate for auto workers in Detroit is $72 an hour, compared to $44 an hour for foreign car workers at US plants. Even if two of the three Detroit automakers were to go out of business, most of their workers and the workers for their suppliers would be able to get some sort of job. That the jobs they would get would pay a lot less suggests just how much they are overpaid now. If General Motors has become a health and pension plan that makes cars on the side – in other words, unions pressured bad management to make promises they couldn’t keep – then inducing GM to go out of business should be on balance good for the economy. Any government bailout should go to the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, to provide money to cover partial pensions for the employees of companies in the bankruptcies certain to come.

Unions usually include provisions in their labor agreements where there is a mandatory pay or benefits increase each year, regardless of how large or small the overall profits are. Does anyone else find it ridiculous that a company losing billions of dollars a month gives pay increases to its employees? If your blood isn't already curdling, does it incense you that many of these employees view this pay raise as an entitlement?

In regards to above, lets note the reference to the pension plan and how much the employees are paid. GM provides retirement benefits to its former employees. Part of these benefits are health care benefits. Why the hell did GM agree to such a thing?! Well, I'm guessing the dumb-ass unions demanded it, but why is this such an important issue when health care benefits are not hard to come upon when one is retired? Social Security provides Medicare to all persons over the age of 65 who qualify (GM workers would qualify). This money is automatically taken out of their SS benefits and even the most complete supplement plans are not that expensive. Why pass this cost off to GM? Did the Unions not think that paying these entitlement costs out the ass would end up taking their toll one day? Every time I read or hear someone on the news say we need a bailout or else retired GM employees are going to lose their health care I want to shoot someone. That is utter bullshit. Stop the propaganda. And why is the MSM lending a microphone to these people saying that?

I know it is a touchy subject for many people. I live in Ohio and I have family members who rely on the continuance of the big 3, but the government should not reward failed businesses, greedy unions and mismanaged corporations. I don't see why I should have to subsidize the wages of overpaid union employees. I am within the top 4% of educated people in the world (it may be different now that I am in law school) and I have yet to make over $15 an hour. Also, I eat the same meal almost every day in the week to save money. Well, who am I kidding, I don't have any money, yet you don't see me expecting other tax payers to subsidize my rent or food budget.

We have heard the ridiculous PR stunts of the big 3 execs this week, such as arriving to Capitol Hill in a Ford hybrid, even though the execs took their own private jets from Detroit in order to ask for federal bailout money but this has gone far enough. If Ford, GM or Chrysler buy an ad during the Superbowl, I'm going to get a pitchfork and drive my foreign car to Detroit looking for someone. My money will not be used for a friggin Superbowl ad.

Let's let Lindgren get in one more word.

The only job-saving justification I can think of for a Detroit bailout is if the problem were only temporary; then destroying jobs might be imprudent. If Detroit’s business model were strong, if there were little or no overcapacity, and if Detroit’s problems were only temporary, then one could reasonably think that a bailout might be efficient. But there is no temporary market failure here to redress. Detroit’s problems have been here since the late 1970s. Anyone who thinks that giving money to a company losing 2-3 billion dollars a month — with overpaid workers and overpaid executives – would usually save jobs in the long run, rather than lose them, doesn’t understand economics.

The Problem with Single Issue Voters.

In discussing the now Republican base, Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Larrison and now Daniel Keennelly talk about the waining influence of white, married, evangelical voters.

Keennelly:

Larison is right that they’re reliable and not influential. That’s what happens to political groups who join coalitions for negative reasons rather than any positive support for their platform or ideology. They don’t vote for Republicans; they vote against Democrats. Republicans only attract the religious conservative vote to the extent that Democrats are portrayed as—and, more important, to the extent that they actually willingly play the part of—the Boogeyman on the Left in the culture wars (e.g. the “Party of Death” who will sacrifice your First Amendment religious liberties on the altar of enforced acceptance of gay marriage). There’s a reason that white, married, Christian support for the Republicans began to surge in the late ’60s and ’70s, after all. That era saw the heating up, especially with Roe v. Wade, of the culture wars. (H/T Andrew for the study that shows this).

The far-right's Newest Argument - howobamagotelected.com

I can understand people who voted for John McCain being upset with the outcome of the election, but using unscientific and biased "push polls" funded by undisclosed 3rd party interests to demonstrate that Obama voters are misinformed or the media was noticeably unfair is just ridiculous. Both sides have voters who are misinformed.

Furthermore, why would anyone use the research and documentary produced by a non-objective source as credible or compelling evidence? If this was Michael Moore using the same deceptive techniques, the right would be up in arms. Instead, in this situation, the right is complicit and there are no signs of outrage.If you want more background on the poll and the source of the documentary and website, check out the interview with the author/creator. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/interview-with-john-ziegler-on-zogby.html

Does critical judgment and vetting mean anything to these people?

Dumbest Person in the World

Oregon woman losses $400,000 to Nigerian email scam.

Transforming the Republican Party

One of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama is because the current GOP does not reflect the principles of limited government, rational policy-making, fiscal responsibility and conservative foreign policy. They needed to get a thrashing in the hopes that they would see their mistakes and fix them. Well, it seems the process is starting to take place and Jon Henke is giving some advice:

- Some of you will say "we have learned our lesson", and then try to pass off cosmetic changes as Reform. You are the problem.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to fight/hold Democrats accountable", as if it is sufficient to be against Democrats. The pendulum may eventually swing back
to you, but you won't know what to do with it.
- Some of you will say "Republicans need to carry our message to the American people", as if the problem is that Republicans haven't been saying "tax cuts and limited government" loudly enough. The problem is not the inability to
communicate; the problem is that you have no idea how to actually deliver on those ideas.
- Others will say "Republicans need to be more principled", as if the problem is a mere lack of personal courage and principle by Republicans. Even the best people can't limit government if there is not an effective strategy for implementation - for getting "from here to there". You don't need better people. You need a better strategy.

There is nothing wrong with real conservatism, but no party in Washington offers that anymore. We have a strong interest in seeing the GOP rebound because like I said before, having the Democrats in power with no strong opposition party will not lead to good things. Moderation and the checks of power are essential to our government functioning properly.

Attention All Palin 2012 Supporters

Former aid of Jerry Falwell and leading Christian public relations executive, Mark DeMoss discusses the issue of values and competence. He also urges those supporting Sarah Palin to wake up:

Too many evangelicals and religious conservatives are too preoccupied with values and faith and pay no attention to competence. We don't apply this approach to anything else in life, including choosing a pastor." Imagine, he said, if a church was searching for a pastor and the leadership was brought a candidate with great values but little experience. "They've been a pastor for two years at a church with 150 people but he shares our values, so we hired him to be pastor of our 5,000 person church? It wouldn't happen! We don't say, 'He shares our values, so let's hire him.' That's absurd. Yet we apply that to choosing presidents. It blows my mind.

“Family Values” Voters Divorce Thousands of California Couples

No, this headline isn’t from the Onion, it is the unfortunate result of Proposition 8 in California. This past spring, the California Supreme Court ruled that the ban against same-sex marriage rights was unconstitutional. If you are going to argue that this was an unfortunate occurrence of judicial activism, hold your breath. Prior to the court’s ruling, the people of California lobbied their state legislatures, and twice the legislature approved the measures granting same-sex couples equal rights before Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill declaring it was the job of the Supreme Court to decide the issue. In response, the Christianists petitioned to get a ballot initiative to amend the constitution of California to strip gay couples of their legal marriage rights. Last night, by a narrow margin, Proposition 8 passed.

The majority of voters who voted to strip their rights were 1) evangelicals and 2) blacks. (Exit polls) While Obama can be credited with increasing black-voter turnout, this was a cost of that benefit. I’m stunned that out of all minority groups, blacks would be the ones to refuse marriage rights to a minority group. Prior to the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia in 1967, only 40 years ago, blacks were prohibited from choosing who they could marry if their partner was white. Now, they have declared that a person – white, black, Hispanic or Asian - cannot marry who they want if their partner is of the same sex. How soon they kick the ladder from underneath them.

As I mentioned above, the other group that voted to strip gay couples of their legal rights were evangelical Christians. I’m not going to determine who is and who isn’t a Christian, but being a Christian myself and looking at the readings and teachings of Jesus, I cannot find any support for stripping legal rights from same-sex couples. These Christianists give tradition arguments that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, and has been throughout history. They also give policy arguments that if gays are given the right to marry, it will destroy the family. We need to protect the sanctity of marriage - we do not need to redefine marriage they argue. Just the other day, I visited the website of The Call, since my sister and some friends of mine had attended their gathering in Washington D.C. earlier this year. Their website talked about the upcoming gathering in San Diego for a day of “fasting and prayer in the fellowship of other believers.” Also, there was a video promotion talking about the gathering. The entire focus of the advertisement was the upcoming vote on Proposition 8. The narrorator declared “a confrontation between light and darkness” . . . “A battle to save the very sanctity of marriage, to the victor goes the soul of the nation.” “Cry out to God for the deliverance of the homosexual, and for the salvation of their lives, and for the love of God to be poured out over their hearts. Where there is no hope, there is no human remedy, God still has a Holy Prescription. We are calling the whole nation to 40 days of prayer and fasting for California, in a day of humility, and cleansing.” “Pray for a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.”

First, I’m confused on how restricting the choice of who gays are allowed to married is in any way related to “a wave of freedom and deliverance the state has never seen.” Restricting is the opposite of freedom, and that is exactly what the Proposition is doing. Second, nothing says I love you and care for you more than actively pursuing the remedy of taking away people’s legal rights and divorcing their marriage. I’m sure that is the most effective way to win over gay people to “the will of God.” Really though, what planet do you have to be on to think that gays will see your efforts of taking away their legal rights as an act of love and compassion?! Incredible. Third, I’m not quite sure how acts of love, commitment and compassion for someone else is “evil.” Yes, I’m aware that Christianists find the sexual acts between the partners as evil, but in heterosexual marriage, are the sex-acts between the husband and wife really the defining feature of their relationship? Is that all that marriage is? Any rational thinker will tell you no. It is the public announcement and recognition of their love, commitment and compassion for each other that defines a marriage for heterosexual couples and in this regard, there is no difference between those who are gay and those who are straight. Finally, why state that your efforts are out of “humility?” Earlier this year Andrew Sullivan, a Catholic, had a debate with atheist Sam Harris and in a response described humility. He stated, “You ask legitimately: how can I, convinced of this truth, resist imposing it on others? The answer is: humility and doubt. I may believe these things, but I am aware that others may not; and I respect their own existential decision to believe something else. I respect their decision because I respect my own, and realize it is indescribable to those who have not directly experienced it . . . The attempt to force or even rig laws to encourage others to share my faith defeats the point of my faith - which is that it is both freely chosen and definitionally dealing with matters that cannot be subject to common consensus.” Please don’t call Proposition 8 an attempt at humility. That is insulting.

Let’s go back to their arguments on why same-sex legal recognition should not be allowed. First, they argue that traditionally, marriage has been defined between a man and a woman. Clearly this is their strongest argument. Yes, traditionally it has been, but I would argue there are competing interests or emerging traditions. Utilizing tradition doesn’t always lead to the right outcome, however. For example, look at slavery or preventing marriage between blacks and whites. Christianists in each instance argued that scripture supported those views and they should be upheld by it. Due to that, I’m hesitant to strip people of their rights simply because it does not gel with tradition. We need to be asking, what is the cost of keeping that specific tradition and what will happen if we discard that tradition? This leads to the next argument that the sanctity of marriage needs to be protected. While that sounds great, I don’t think it really has much substance behind it. What needs to be protected? Who needs to be protected? Who is going to be harmed? I cannot be certain, but I don’t really see anyone being harmed by extending legal marriage rights to same-sex couples. I am getting married (to a woman) next July. If gays are given equal rights and allowed to marry 2 months after I am already married, how will my relationship be harmed? What is going to happen to me? The answer is clear. There is no way I am going to be harmed. My marriage and my legal rights under the law and between Beth and I are in no way going to be affected. My rights are guaranteed regardless of whether or not same-sex couples are allowed to marry. Will extending those rights to same-sex couples cheapen my marriage? Please. If there is no valid reason to “protect” anything or anyone, then what reason is there to prevent gays from being viewed equally under the law? It seems clear the answer is not to “protect” marriage; instead it is to simply stigmatize a certain group of people and make them second-class citizens under the law. The sad part is, people on the other side of the debate are unwilling to acknowledge it. Did Jesus demand that the adulterer’s legal rights be stripped when she was confronted by the angry mob?

Our country was founded on the principals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, stating that these rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator. Our Declaration hints at these rights and our Constitution guarantee’s them - especially the rights to marry, due process and equal protection under the laws. I’m not going to discuss the cases (Meyer, Loving, Moore, Zablocki, Skinner…etc), but part of liberty is allowing people to do whatever they want, even if you don’t agree with it, as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. That is what our country stands for, and that is what our Constitution protects. I can’t find any real evidence that gay marriage harms anyone and I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Therefore, stripping same-sex couples of their legal rights merely because you find it unchristian isn’t a compelling reason. One day we will promote the ideals taught by Jesus of inclusion, tolerance, love and commitment instead of marginalization and second-class citizenship. The Gospel is supposed to be the “Good News,” yet Christianists only seem to use it as a weapon to attack, hurt and belittle others.

All civil rights movements have their ups and their downs, but one day these couples will no longer be stigmatized and declared second-class citizens under the law. However, in the end there is not much I can really say to those who supported Proposition 8 other than what Jesus taught me to say . . . I forgive you.