The Republican leadership was at it again today, cutting that wasteful spending from the Congressional budget. The were almost thwarted by moderates in their own party when late yesterday, the House of Representatives failed to pass a health care, education, and labor spending bill. That law would have cut spending from such wasteful programs like the Center for Disease Control (it’s not like health experts are worried about another flu pandemic or anything!), Head Start (get out of pre-school and get a job!), job training (this is, after all, why God gave us India) and drug abuse programs (isn’t that what prison is for?). Those wussy moderates, however, didn’t have the backbone to pass a bill aimed at cutting those kind of wasteful programs! (Although to be fair, they weren’t all opposing the bill for bleeding-heart liberal reasons. To quote the New York Times: “Bill Thomas, Republican of California, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he objected because of an unexpected acceleration in the timetable for halting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for sexual impotence drugs.” The poor really don’t need education, job training, or drug abuse programs; they need Viagra.)

Thankfully, our conservative Republican “waste-busting” heroes came to the rescue today, when they passed $50 billion in cuts to such wasteful and unnecessary programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and student loans. Why should good, hard-working Americans have their tax dollars wasted on such obvious frivolity as feeding the poor, curing the sick, or providing education for our children? This is a faithful Christian nation after all; if God wanted them healthy, wealthy, or wise, He would have made them that way! Also, we should all be grateful that none of the truly important programs in the budget have gotten cut. All of those nice big road and bridge projects in that transportation bill last year are looking good. And while Congress bowed to pressure to cut funding to the two infamous “bridge to nowhere” projects in Alaska, you needn’t worry; the good, hard-working Alaskan people are still getting their half of a billion dollars, it just isn’t earmarked for those particular projects anymore.

In all seriousness, though, this is just the kind of thing that I’ve said before: when Congress cuts the budget, they very rarely cut out pork, and almost always cut broad social programs aimed at those who don’t vote in large numbers, in this case college students and the poor. It’s American politics 101. Congressmen win elections by providing tangible jobs, tax breaks, and social programs to the working and upper-classes, and that means big, expensive projects aimed at particular districts. The only ones who win elections by providing government assistance to poor, urban neighborhoods are those Congressmen who represent poor, urban neighborhoods. There just aren’t that many of those kind of Congressmen and they are almost all Democrats, which means they wield almost no power in a Republican controlled legislature.

 

“…it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war [the 2003 invasion of Iraq] began”
- President Bush’s Veteran’s Day Address at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Nov. 11, 2005

The Bush Administration has lately been hiding behind the resolution that explicitly authorized the use of force in Iraq, in order to accuse their political opponents of hypocrisy (or worse things). So, I thought it might be useful to actually take a look and see what Congress authorized the President to do. You can read the full text here, but let me summarize it for you.
Continue reading »

 

I grew up in a church dedicated to bettering the lives of the people in a poor, minority part of south Minneapolis. Evangelism always, to me, meant living among the worldly, loving them, caring for them, and showing them by your words and (more importantly) your example what God’s love and power can do. As a result of this upbringing, I always considered it an important social goal, as well as a personal responsibility, to take care of the poor and the needy. As Christians we were to be generous with our money, free to give and uncaring about our own economic status, and I applied these lessons to government as well. As a result, political liberalism, of the old-fashioned, hard-core “tax-and-spend” variety, always appealed to me. And it still does. Of course, by now I have a good enough understanding of market economics and institutional incentives to realize that there are right ways and wrong ways to go about taxing and spending, but it still feels like my Christian duty to fight for a good life for everyone using every tool at my disposal, including the power of government.

But, as is so often the case, what came naturally and logically to me seems foreign to the other people that I run into. Growing up in south Minneapolis, I was mostly surrounded by a liberal crowd that shared my general feelings about government, but viewed the religious component of my beliefs as something of an oddity. On the other hand, those with whom I was supposed to share a philosophical identity, other evangelical Christians, tended to have much different views about the proper role and nature of government. They tended to believe that it was wrong for government to take money from the people, or certainly any more than was absolutely necessary, and that charity should be a purely personal decision on the part of the giver. For a long time, this conservative religious resentment towards government intervention on behalf of the poor confused and upset me. My liberal friends, of course, found it the natural thing, which only increased their natural skepticism for established religion. After all, they were knowledgeable enough to know that Christ fought for the poor at every chance that He got, so therefore the so-called religious, conservative, establishment must be hypocritical. As I’ve gotten, older, however, I’ve come to realize that there is a lot more going on behind the conservative position than I first believed.
Continue reading »

 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice brokered a deal today between Israel and Palestine. That is an important statement regardless of the details of the particular agreement that was brokered. In this case, the agreement has to do with the rights of Palestinians to come and go from Gaza now that Israeli troops have withdrawn. The agreement opens the main checkpoint between Gaza and Egypt, which will be completely manned by Palestinian troops. Israel will receive videotapes of the checkpoint from EU administrators, and Israel will provide a non-binding list of people who should not be allowed into Gaza. Additionally, the agreement provides for convoys of buses and trucks to ferry people and goods to and from the West Bank, and allows the Palestinians to build a seaport in Gaza. No agreement was reached on allowing the Palestinians to rebuild and open Gaza’s airport (the Israelis shut it down and tore up the runway when the latest uprising started in 2000).

I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of this agreement. After all, Israel and Palestine haven’t successfully negotiated anything in a couple of years. In fact, twenty years ago this agreement would have seemed absolutely absurd to both the Israelis (Give up sovereignty over the Egyptian border! Preposterous!) and the Palestinians (Why should we allow Israel to claim any bit of sovereignty over us! We should rule ourselves!). The fact that this agreement can be signed, and that it is pretty non-controversial as far as these agreements go, is a testament to how far Israeli-Palestinian relations have come. But realistically, this is only one of many similar agreements that the United States needs to broker in order to effect real peace in the region.
Continue reading »

 

There has been a lot of discussion on leftfielder about what sorts of things are fair game when considering whether or not to confirm Alito to the Supreme Court. Most of this has dealt with the notion of judicial philosophy. The argument is that he should not be confirmed or rejected on the basis of his beliefs about particular issues, but rather about his style of interpreting the law.

I’d like to propose the notion that a second criterion be added to judicial style, not just for Alito, but for future judicial nominees to all courts, especially the Supreme Court: Science Literacy. Science is progressing at an unbelievable rate — some estimates suggest that the amount of scientific knowledge doubles every five years! This massive influx of science and technology into our lives leads to a host of legal concerns.

In molecular biology we now have the ability to study stem cells, which have potential for significant medical advances but also significant ethical challenges. We might soon have the ability to manipulate the human genome, altering prenatal DNA to remove diseases, increasing physical/mental abilities, or changing a baby’s gender. DNA can now be used to identify criminals or exonerate the accused. We know more about the nature of pollutants on individual health and on the environment and science gives new insight into the possibility of global warming and changing climate.

Information technology and computer science has changed the world of intellectual property and made transmission of dangerous information much easier. Privacy and piracy in the age of the internet take on new and different faces.

Psychology and neuroscience are rapidly increasing our understanding of how people think, and dangerously how to manipulate people’s behaviors. Numerous documentations of irrational behavior suggest that certain interventions might improve quality of life, but at a cost of individual liberty. Psychological testing determines a great deal of hiring and university admissions decisions.

The point is, science is everywhere. And it seems likely that as science progresses ever faster, a larger proportion of issues that make it to the higher courts will involve scientific issues, or otherwise have a great deal of scientific evidence. While I fully agree with previous arguments that knowledge of the law and interpretation of the law are important factors for confirmation, it strikes me that we also want our judges to have a certain level of scientific literacy. I certainly don’t want judges to be ruling on the legality of issues if they don’t have the requisite training in science to understand the nuances of the case.

And so I propose that judges be made to demonstrate scientific literacy before being confirmed to a court. I’m curious to see what everybody else thinks of that.

© 2012 leftfielder.org login Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha