McCain: Good, Great, Bad, and Awful

If one person could ever be described in such a way it is John McCain. After reading government documents all weekend, I have decided to assign McCain an acronym: GGBA. Maybe BAGG. Yea thats better; McCain is a BAGG.

He confounds me. I would love to support him. He is truly a great war hero. It is impossible for any of us living our comfortable American lives to imagine what he went through. After being shot down over North Vietnam he was held prisoner for almost a decade (which must have seemed like centuries). His captivity began with him in a body cast lying in the mud being fed essentially flavored water. This would have been bad enough for anyone, but it was worse for him because his father was chief of all Naval operations in the pacific or CINCPAC for you acronym freaks. His father's position heightened his importance and intensified his cruel treatment. If McCain's story interests you then I highly suggest reading Faith of My Fathers. It is a truly inspirational book.

The good is commendable also. He has been a critic of Bush's handling of the war since before it was cool. Although his criticisms of the war were not heeded, it was the right thing to do. On earmarks and spending in general McCain is a hawk. Again here too he took a stance when it wasn't cool. Republicans were enjoying their raid on the bank while McCain was of the remaining fiscal conservatives left standing. Going against the popular political grain is tough enough, but it was his stance against the military industrial complex that is exemplary.

"Military industry lobbyists say they have long dreaded the prospect that Mr. McCain might ascend to the chairmanship of the committee, much less the presidency. He is the Senate’s most outspoken critic of military procurement policies, big Pentagon contracts, and especially earmarks — the Congressional add-ons to military spending bills that contractors crave.

“McCain has been a one-man wrecking crew,” said a prominent military lobbyist, speaking on condition of anonymity because he lobbies the committee." says the NYT

He has eschewed political expediency and fund raising (which may in the end sink his presidential campaign) for principle. I'm not sure there is a higher attainment for a politician than this.

The problem is when his stubbornness and political will is pointed in the wrong direction. This is where the ugly comes in. After the issues mentioned above, I can't think of a single issue that I agree with him. Not only has he been on the wrong side of many issue, but he has been the leader. He was not a sponsor for campaign finance; he did not simply vote for it; he is it. McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform is an abomination. Beyond being merely ineffective and reorganizing political campaigns (by shifting money towards independent 527's), it has pushed the constitution aside. Political speech is the target of the first amendment, not pornography or hate speech. That doesn't mean that I don't think that non-political speech shouldn't be protected. I do. But squelching political speech is in direct contradiction to what the founders intended. McCain should realize that all speech is equal. It is of no consequence if the person speaking has the opportunity and ability to speak more, i.e. rich.

Even his stance against earmarks and government spending is sometimes perplexing. The purpose of cutting spending should be to shrink the government. McCain has no desire to shrink the government. In fact he has seemed to support a larger government role in people's lives. At times he has even hinted at some sort of compulsory service requirement for all Americans. When he talks about service to country i sometimes can't hear what he is actually saying but instead hear the slight whisper of draft...draft...draft.

For these reasons, I cannot support him. For some odd reason though I still hate reading about his political downfall (the article cited above, and his recent poll numbers). Perplexing.

WSJ disagrees with Fourth Cuircut ruiling and I

The opinion page of the WSJ today opined that the Fourth Circuit's ruling forcing the federal government to extend rights of habeas corpus to individuals who are either American citizens or in the U.S. legally. Their opinion was split into two parts. The first part predicts that the ruling will be overturned. I agree. They made broad sweeping proclamations that were not warranted.

"There's no doubt that the 2-1 Fourth Circuit ruling in Al-Marri v. Wright is remarkable and dangerous in its sweeping judicial claims. Judges Diane Motz and Roger Gregory, both Bill Clinton nominees, ruled that a person like al-Marri does not qualify as an enemy combatant, because the U.S. cannot be "at war" with a private group like al Qaeda."

I believe that the government can declare war against any foreign entity that threatens the security or sovereignty of the United States or any of American citizen. Furthermore...

"For the "enemy combatant" moniker to apply, the court said, a terrorist must have set foot in the soil "alongside" the forces of an enemy state--i.e., Iraq or Afghanistan."

As the WSJ states, this is odd considering that the modern terrorist organization does not necessarily have/need state sponsorship.

Where the WSJ goes wrong is their trust in the federal government. They trust that the government is an altruistic institution which would never misuse the "enemy combatant" label. Trust misplaced for sure. Why are we so scared of the American judicial system?

They, and others, claim that 1) plotting terrorists will get off (mainly through loopholes) and 2) sensitive information will be put out in court. Both legitimate concerns. Legitimate enough to scrap the constitution? I think not. Gangsters and mob boss trials threaten to also allow murderers to get off and out undercover informants or sensitive information, but do we hold them incommunicado without their rights of habeas corpus? No. Nor should we.

Furthermore the whole purpose of the enemy combatant label, or any suspension of habeas corpus, is meant for the battle field. It would be crazy to hold trials for combatants while we are still fighting a war. Although I am hesitant to do so, I will extend this to the war on terror although this should only hold for foreigners.

Under the WSJ's assumptions, Timothy Mcveigh could have been held as an enemy combatant. As despicable as his actions were, should he not have the protections of the constitution? Is somebody who conspires to shoot an FBI agent an enemy combatant? Where is the line drawn? I don't know and neither does the WSJ or the Bush administration. I will again ask conservatives who disagree with me one simple question:

Do you trust President Hillary Clinton with the power to hold American citizens incommunicado without rights of habeas corpus for alleged crimes against the state?

Pentagon confirms talks to build gay bomb

This has to be the best story of 2007. The Pentagon has confirmed that it was in talks to fund the creation of a gay bomb. The bomb would release hormones that would entice opposition soldiers into wanting to have sex with their fellow soldiers over fighting the enemy.

I don't think I could have made this up if I tried.

Executive Overreach Smacked Down

The Fourth Circuit federal court of appeals has ruled against the military detention of Ali al-Marri. Marri trained at a terrorist camp inside Afghanistan and was arrested in the United States for credit card fraud (he was preparing to eventually disrupt U.S. financial markets). He was held incommunicado for 16 months after his arrest in 2001 and is still incarcerated. The fourth circuit ruled that he could no longer be denied habeas corpus.


According to the NYT

The court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, said a fundamental principle is at stake: military detention of someone who had lawfully entered the United States and established connections here, it said, violates the Constitution.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians,” Judge Motz wrote, “even if the president calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our republic.”

I am hopeful that conservatives will embrace this court decision. Although conservatives and courts in general haven't been chummy, it would be a mistake to argue against this decision. If you are reading this thinking something like "Well how are we going to fight terrorism?" or "Why can't we hold terrorist who wish to harm this country?" I would like you to answer these questions.

1) Do you trust a distant federal government to use the title "enemy combatant" for only terrorists who are actually about to attack the United States?

2) Is somebody who attacks a federal building or federal interest (broadly defined) an enemy combatant?

3) Would you trust Hillary Clinton with such broad powers?

Immigration bill failure is a loss for Bush/Kennedy/Kyle but win for Madison

Flipping between the Sunday political talk shows, I noticed a theme. Nearly all of the pundits (all from the main stream media) agreed that the political system is "broken" or "Washington is failing us" because the Immigration bill did not pass.

There was near universal agreement that the "loud voices" from the left and right dragged the bill down. Minority groups that don't represent "us" ruined the chance for "real" reform.

First, they all endorsed change without detailing exactly how the change is positive. Is change, regardless of the details, better than the undesirable status quo? I don't think so. Secondly, when were the rules of incramentalism banished? Any freshman political science or public policy student should know that major sweeping changes normally only happen in crisis i.e. major war or a depression. Why is the Polysci-101 truism not known in Congress? Make no mistake, this bill would have been that big a change. It would have changed the lives of millions (12, 14, 16?) from the northern tip of Maine to the southern portion of California. Furthermore it would have had a major impact upon the labor market and economy as a whole which affects everybody. Maybe career politicians should consult with pimple faced college freshman first. Just a suggestion.

Although these issues are important, the most important point is one made by James Madison in Federalist 51.

"In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful"

According to Madison's views, the death of the immigration bill demonstrates how the system should work, not a failure as the pundits believe. An impassioned minority should have the ability to overturn the will of the majority (that is assuming the majority favored the bill which i doubt).

Ahmadinijad has a blog?

Its true. He is apparently too busy creating atomic weapons to update it too often but still click here for a hoot.

Make English the official language

Last night the Senate thankfully voted to amend the immigration bill. They adopted Senator Inhofe's amendment to make English the official language 64-33.

Although making English the official language regularly enjoys approval ratings of 85% some people still think its somehow unconstitutional or racist. The fact is that it is simple common sense. If we are going to insist on having the nation state as our societal organization then there must be a common language. A common language is the most basic tool that can be used to gel a society.

The La Raza types who claim that it is racist are way off base. First, first-generation immigrants support official English. They do in polls which show 70+ approval nationwide, and at the polls (in Arizona exit polls showed that a majority of immigrants voted for OE). Secondly, to be racist means to show contempt or hatred. Official English simply codifies a common language. It does not in any way restrict or demean any non-English languages.

The ACLU types that claim official English is unconstitutional are wildly incorrect. The United States has somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 languages spoken within its borders. How many languages are printed? Maybe twenty at any given time. Lets be liberal and say 50. So does that mean that all the people who speak the other 250 languages are being denied basic constitutional rights? No. So if we reduced the number of languages printed to 1 would the people who speak the 49 languages that are currently printed be denied constitutional rights? No. The only area of our society that you are and should be guaranteed the right to interpretation is in the legal system. Past that your on your own.

Some Libertarians may feel as though societal cohesion is not important, but I do. A world devoid of states confined by hard boundaries not likely in the near future. While borders do exist, we must find a way to operate efficiently and somewhat peacefully.

If official English laws in any way restricted peoples right of free expression I would strongly oppose it, but it does not. OE laws instead restrict government, not people. The only problem with currently constructed OE laws is that it does not take away multilingual ballots. How someone can make even a slightly informed choice without knowing the language is beyond me.

Not withstanding the ballot issue, an effective OE law may lessen the welfare state burden by not allowing those who have not learned the language to collect. Although i don't think anyone should be collecting, any restriction of benefits is a net positive. This is not to say that immigrants are "draining" the system. The Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobb's types perpetuate this lie. Immigrants come here to work. They are also very entrepreneurial which is another plus.

The bottom line is that making English the official language is a good move. Too bad it is attached to the immigration bill which, in my estimation, has very little chance of passing.