I'll probably be excoriated by some, but it seems we need to look at the fact that the country is divided roughly 50/50 between those feeling abortion should be legal and those opposing it. So long as half the country does not feel the fetus is a person it's hard to legislate that it is.
Some things I've seen translate abortion arguments to murder. This is actually a good analogy. If half of the population felt murder should not be a crime I guarantee homicide laws would be full of controversy, etc. We see a little of this (not a good analogy) with inner city demands that the police go away. The Jim Crow South (at least the stereotype) was similar, killings of blacks weren't pursued because it wasn't considered a major crime (as opposed to killing a white person).
Unfortunately, a Supreme Court dictate was the wrong way to handle abortion. The result over the last 40+ years has been for both sides to harden their positions. Anti-abortion activists will not budge from "life begins at conception" while pro-abortion activists object to any restriction on abortion before birth. Because of Roe v Wade states on one side craft laws to effectively ban abortion by making it nearly impossible for a doctor to perform legally. Other states have gone the other way, resulting in a few dangerous clinics (e.g. Gosnell) and kids able to get abortions without parental or other permission at an age when they can't legally get pierced ears without a parent.
I've concluded that imperfect as it is, the original Roe v Wade is a reasonable compromise. Allow early term abortion and make it progressively harder for late term abortion. The trimester distinction, while arbitrary, provides this compromise.
Friday, May 17, 2019
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Did the FBI spy on the Trump campaign?
This is a little past the news cycle, but a week or so ago there was a dispute between Attorney General Barr, who talked about the FBI spying on the Trump campaign, and officials who said it didn't.
I've found the answer to this in the Lisa Page congressional testimony which is now publically available.
When asked if the FBI spied on the Trump campaign she said that the FBI does not spy. Spying is a foreign government trying to get information in the US. The FBI does not spy on people, it investigates.
But this is simply a matter of definition. By her definition the FBI cannot "spy" because "spying" is between governments or nations. So we're down to the definition of a word, but the truth is the FBI was actively (spying / investigating) the Trump campaign. Does it really matter which term is used?
I've found the answer to this in the Lisa Page congressional testimony which is now publically available.
When asked if the FBI spied on the Trump campaign she said that the FBI does not spy. Spying is a foreign government trying to get information in the US. The FBI does not spy on people, it investigates.
But this is simply a matter of definition. By her definition the FBI cannot "spy" because "spying" is between governments or nations. So we're down to the definition of a word, but the truth is the FBI was actively (spying / investigating) the Trump campaign. Does it really matter which term is used?
Impeachment then and now
The first US President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson in 1868. I recently read a book about his impeachment, Impeached by David O. Stewart. As I read it I was struck by the similarities between Andrew Johnson's impeachment and the demands for the impeachment of Donald Trump.
Andrew Johnson became President when Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. As is frequently the case, Andrew Johnson's selection as Vice President had more to do with regional politics (Johnson was from a former slave state) and little to do with what Mr. Johnson would do if he became President.
Immediately after the Civil War the nation was split into highly partisan political camps. On one side was the South, which had just been forced to give up slavery. Many in the South wanted to return to a system as close to slavery as possible. On the other side in the North were the Radical Republicans who wanted (or said they wanted) equality for Blacks. The Radical Republican viewpoint must be tempered by the fact that most of the non-slave holding North didn't allow Blacks the vote or full civil rights at the time. There was also a push for revenge against the South for seceding. Andrew Johnson became President in this environment and largely sided with the South. He allowed Southern States to return to the union on fairly easy terms and was willing to allow former Confederate politicians and officials to return to positions of power.
The impeachment of Andrew Johnson came about under this backdrop. Many in Congress wanted Johnson impeached for his handling of Reconstruction. The "high crimes and misdemeanors" which Johnson was guilty of mattered little, they wanted him out of office. The Johnson presidency was dominated by political battles between Johnson and Congress. In the end, the impeachment articles against Johnson were largely political, with the crimes consisting largely of not doing what Congress wanted.
Compare the Johnson impeachment with the situation today.
So today's constant demands for impeachment (mirroring constant demands for Andrew Johnson's impeachment).
Today Congress is split on impeachment with no consensus of the crime committed (introduced impeachment resolutions range from "we don't like what he says" to violations of the emoluments clause or collusion with Russia). This mirrors the Johnson impeachment, where there was no consensus the charges.
And in both cases, the impeachment demands are largely political. Today Democrats largely demand impeachment, sometimes moderated by considerations of the effect on the 2020 election. The basis for impeachment has changed, with today's demands based on the fact the Mr. Trump hasn't (in violation of the law) given Congress the full unredacted Mueller Report. The other factor inhibiting impeachment is knowledge that the impeachment process is still political. Since the Democrats don't hold a two thirds majority in the Senate any impeachment would fail (as happened with Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson).
So if Donald Trump is impeached there are two possibilities. One is that the Democrats will impeach Trump on largely political grounds and the Senate will acquit him of the charges. This will probably happen if the firebrand left of the party is able to gain enough momentum. It might also happen if Mr. Trump is re-elected in 2020 and Democrats are looking at four more years out of power.
The second possibility is that the Democrats will finally find the smoking gun, an actual crime which all sides believe is a crime. That is what happened to Richard Nixon. He lost the support of his own party in Congress and wisely decided to resign rather than risk impeachment and conviction. It's not clear what Donald Trump would do in such a situation. First Democrats must find a charge more serious than dislike for some policies or vague catch all crimes like "obstruction".
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Apologize for Everything
Apparently there are recent news stories that Beto O'Rourke has apologized for statements he recently made. Apologized for joking that he occasionally helped in raising his kids, apologized for his white privilege, and apologized for something he wrote as a teenager.
Is this the sort of person we want as President? Contrast this to the way Donald Trump won election. Every time some misstatement or past misdeed came out he didn't apologize, he either ignored it or bulled his way through the controversy. Perhaps he should have apologized for a few things, but Mr. Trump knows that most people will forget the scandal of the day and those who don't forget probably won't change their minds because of an apology. Those complaining about Trump's statements on the Access Hollywood audio recording are complaining about the statements made, not that he didn't apologize.
Yet conventional political wisdom is to apologize for any sort of misstatement and withdraw from a race if something too embarrassing comes out. Looking recent presidential races a number of candidates who seemed to be gathering traction had some past action or statement released and promptly dropped out of the race. Finding a scandal about an opponent has become a reliable technique for getting ahead in a race. And often the survivor of the presidential primary process is the candidate who doesn't give into the demands of scandal -- Hillary Clinton ignored the claims about classified emails, Uranium One, and Benghazi (admittedly coming mainly from the right) and Donald Trump ignored the Access Hollywood recording and similar claims. In fact, doing this probably helped Mr. Trump win some voters -- he's a flawed human being and not ashamed of it.
So today as the 2020 presidential race gets going, with what's shaping up to be an auditorium's worth of Democrats running, we'll see who survives. I don't give Beto O'Rourke much of a chance -- those he's apologizing to (the Social Justice left wing) are going to give their support to a woman or person of color regardless of what Mr. O'Rourke says.
Amy Klobuchar has a chance -- she's letting the scandal about her temper and poor management style blow over, though I think this doesn't say much about her qualifications for the presidency, she's essentially accused of doing the things which many say makes Donald Trump a menace.
As for the others, most candidates so far are either unknown or have their own skeletons. Elizabeth Warren has her "Pocahontas" scandal and Kamala Harris was far too tough on crime for the typical liberal democrat to name a couple that come to mind.
So time will tell which Democrats have the fortitude to stand up against accusations and make it to the election.
Is this the sort of person we want as President? Contrast this to the way Donald Trump won election. Every time some misstatement or past misdeed came out he didn't apologize, he either ignored it or bulled his way through the controversy. Perhaps he should have apologized for a few things, but Mr. Trump knows that most people will forget the scandal of the day and those who don't forget probably won't change their minds because of an apology. Those complaining about Trump's statements on the Access Hollywood audio recording are complaining about the statements made, not that he didn't apologize.
Yet conventional political wisdom is to apologize for any sort of misstatement and withdraw from a race if something too embarrassing comes out. Looking recent presidential races a number of candidates who seemed to be gathering traction had some past action or statement released and promptly dropped out of the race. Finding a scandal about an opponent has become a reliable technique for getting ahead in a race. And often the survivor of the presidential primary process is the candidate who doesn't give into the demands of scandal -- Hillary Clinton ignored the claims about classified emails, Uranium One, and Benghazi (admittedly coming mainly from the right) and Donald Trump ignored the Access Hollywood recording and similar claims. In fact, doing this probably helped Mr. Trump win some voters -- he's a flawed human being and not ashamed of it.
So today as the 2020 presidential race gets going, with what's shaping up to be an auditorium's worth of Democrats running, we'll see who survives. I don't give Beto O'Rourke much of a chance -- those he's apologizing to (the Social Justice left wing) are going to give their support to a woman or person of color regardless of what Mr. O'Rourke says.
Amy Klobuchar has a chance -- she's letting the scandal about her temper and poor management style blow over, though I think this doesn't say much about her qualifications for the presidency, she's essentially accused of doing the things which many say makes Donald Trump a menace.
As for the others, most candidates so far are either unknown or have their own skeletons. Elizabeth Warren has her "Pocahontas" scandal and Kamala Harris was far too tough on crime for the typical liberal democrat to name a couple that come to mind.
So time will tell which Democrats have the fortitude to stand up against accusations and make it to the election.
Monday, February 11, 2019
Number of detention beds and a new shutdown
The latest news on the negotiations to fund the government and avoid another shutdown is that Democrats are insisting on a limit on the number of detention beds for illegal immigrants who are caught away from the border.
Rather than demand more detention beds, perhaps President Trump should insist on funding to double the number of judges handling immigration cases. That way we can avoid detaining more people by getting their cases through the court faster (and thus deporting or properly releasing them sooner).
Rather than demand more detention beds, perhaps President Trump should insist on funding to double the number of judges handling immigration cases. That way we can avoid detaining more people by getting their cases through the court faster (and thus deporting or properly releasing them sooner).
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Thoughts on the Roger Stone indictment
The latest Russia collusion, get Donald Trump news is about the indictment of Roger Stone. There are the usual attempts to show how this is horrible for Donald Trump. Yet what is really in the indictment?
Reading the indictment, it basically says that Roger Stone lied to congressional committees about having advance knowledge of Wikileaks hacked email releases, having contact with Wikileaks, and having told people involved with the Trump Campaign that hacked emails might be released (5 counts of false statements). He apparently told an associate to lie or use the 5th amendment to avoid contradicting Stone's testimony (witness tampering), and in doing all this obstructed justice (obstruction count).
In terms of actual actions by Mr. Stone, the indictment says that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly, and might have known in advance when hacked emails would be released. These actions are not the subject of any criminal complaint. Apparently the actual contact with Wikileaks was not a crime. As in so many cases in the past, the crime was covering up the contact.
As to the Russians, the indictment doesn't state that Roger Stone had any direct contact with Russians, just contacts with Wikileaks. Any Russian connection is most likely true but I'm not sure it's been definitively proven. The indictment doesn't make any allegation against Donald Trump name anybody high up in the campaign actively colluded with Russians. Instead it says that the Trump campaign was interested in dirty on Hillary Clinton and might have actively solicited it. If that's a crime then most political campaigns are committing crimes.
This indictment still leaves us asking "where's the beef?" There will be claims that Mueller can now "turn" Roger Stone to get closer to Trump, but it seems more likely that all the Mueller probe will produce is more allegations of false statements of obstruction.
Reading the indictment, it basically says that Roger Stone lied to congressional committees about having advance knowledge of Wikileaks hacked email releases, having contact with Wikileaks, and having told people involved with the Trump Campaign that hacked emails might be released (5 counts of false statements). He apparently told an associate to lie or use the 5th amendment to avoid contradicting Stone's testimony (witness tampering), and in doing all this obstructed justice (obstruction count).
In terms of actual actions by Mr. Stone, the indictment says that Roger Stone was in contact with Wikileaks, either directly or indirectly, and might have known in advance when hacked emails would be released. These actions are not the subject of any criminal complaint. Apparently the actual contact with Wikileaks was not a crime. As in so many cases in the past, the crime was covering up the contact.
As to the Russians, the indictment doesn't state that Roger Stone had any direct contact with Russians, just contacts with Wikileaks. Any Russian connection is most likely true but I'm not sure it's been definitively proven. The indictment doesn't make any allegation against Donald Trump name anybody high up in the campaign actively colluded with Russians. Instead it says that the Trump campaign was interested in dirty on Hillary Clinton and might have actively solicited it. If that's a crime then most political campaigns are committing crimes.
This indictment still leaves us asking "where's the beef?" There will be claims that Mueller can now "turn" Roger Stone to get closer to Trump, but it seems more likely that all the Mueller probe will produce is more allegations of false statements of obstruction.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
What if with Gary Hart
Former senator and presidential candidate Gary Hart has been in the news lately. I first saw this with an article in The Atlantic. According to this article, Lee Atwater engineered the scandal which took Gary Hart out of the presidential race, fabricating Mr. Hart's extramarital affair. Mr. Atwater reportedly told this story to his counterpart in the Hart campaign shortly before his death from a brain tumor.
I'll ignore whether the account is true or not. Lee Atwater did report creating the Willie Horton scandal against Michael Dukakis but didn't publicly take responsibility for the Gary Hart scandal, just a private statement to his opposite number.
Still we are now seeing a stories speculating about what might have been if Gary Hart had won the presidency instead of George Bush, including an interview with Gary Hart. This speculation is filtered through the lens of today, of course. Thus, speculation centers around there never having been a Gulf War, extending to neither George Bush being president and by extension no Donald Trump.
Let's look at the what if's. First, in 1988 when Mr. Hart was running and through 1989 the big foreign policy issue was not the Middle East but the fall of Communism. The Berlin Wall fell in November, 1989, 9 months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated. So the unasked question is whether the Berlin Wall would have fallen under President Hart, or would he have come into office announcing defense cuts (reversing the Reagan buildup), giving Soviet Russia time to rebuild its strength. Of course we'll never know.
On the subject of the Gulf War there are two questions. First, would Iraq under Saddam have still invaded Kuwait? I haven't investigated but Saddam's invasion was based on Kuwait being a province of Iraq. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with George Bush being president. So the Kuwaiti invasion would still have happened. The argument seems to be that Gary Hart as president would not have invaded to drive out the Iraqis.
If there had not been a Gulf War then Osama Bin Laden would most likely not have turned as strongly against the United States and would not have created Al Qaeda. So there likely would not have been a Twin Towers attack and Middle Eastern history would have changed.
On the other hand, there would have been a Middle East with a strong, beligerent Iraqi regime bullying its neighbors. Iraq had just concluded its war against Iran (fought to a stalemate). Iraq would likely have turned against Saudi Arabia or more directly against Israel. So instead of a Gulf War in Kuwait we might well have had another oil embargo or a new Arab Israeli war. Either of these results would not have been the peaceful result that commentators and Mr. Hart envision but could easily have been a much less stable world.
This is the nature of "what if" speculations. It's easy to change one event and argue how great the world would be but we need to consider other events which may go a different direction.
As to the argument there would never have been a Donald Trump, Mr. Trump was elected 20 years after the election Mr. Hart pulled out of. Many things could happen over 20 years. Much of the support for Donald Trump was opposition to "coastal elites", to use a broad stereotype. None of the coastal elite philosophies tie even indirectly to the Gulf War, so the rise of Trump or a similar nationalist leader likely would still have happened even if there were a President Gary Hart.
I'll ignore whether the account is true or not. Lee Atwater did report creating the Willie Horton scandal against Michael Dukakis but didn't publicly take responsibility for the Gary Hart scandal, just a private statement to his opposite number.
Still we are now seeing a stories speculating about what might have been if Gary Hart had won the presidency instead of George Bush, including an interview with Gary Hart. This speculation is filtered through the lens of today, of course. Thus, speculation centers around there never having been a Gulf War, extending to neither George Bush being president and by extension no Donald Trump.
Let's look at the what if's. First, in 1988 when Mr. Hart was running and through 1989 the big foreign policy issue was not the Middle East but the fall of Communism. The Berlin Wall fell in November, 1989, 9 months after Mr. Bush was inaugurated. So the unasked question is whether the Berlin Wall would have fallen under President Hart, or would he have come into office announcing defense cuts (reversing the Reagan buildup), giving Soviet Russia time to rebuild its strength. Of course we'll never know.
On the subject of the Gulf War there are two questions. First, would Iraq under Saddam have still invaded Kuwait? I haven't investigated but Saddam's invasion was based on Kuwait being a province of Iraq. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with George Bush being president. So the Kuwaiti invasion would still have happened. The argument seems to be that Gary Hart as president would not have invaded to drive out the Iraqis.
If there had not been a Gulf War then Osama Bin Laden would most likely not have turned as strongly against the United States and would not have created Al Qaeda. So there likely would not have been a Twin Towers attack and Middle Eastern history would have changed.
On the other hand, there would have been a Middle East with a strong, beligerent Iraqi regime bullying its neighbors. Iraq had just concluded its war against Iran (fought to a stalemate). Iraq would likely have turned against Saudi Arabia or more directly against Israel. So instead of a Gulf War in Kuwait we might well have had another oil embargo or a new Arab Israeli war. Either of these results would not have been the peaceful result that commentators and Mr. Hart envision but could easily have been a much less stable world.
This is the nature of "what if" speculations. It's easy to change one event and argue how great the world would be but we need to consider other events which may go a different direction.
As to the argument there would never have been a Donald Trump, Mr. Trump was elected 20 years after the election Mr. Hart pulled out of. Many things could happen over 20 years. Much of the support for Donald Trump was opposition to "coastal elites", to use a broad stereotype. None of the coastal elite philosophies tie even indirectly to the Gulf War, so the rise of Trump or a similar nationalist leader likely would still have happened even if there were a President Gary Hart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)