Category Archives: Commentary

All written commentary.

Vegas attack was domestic terrorism, tied to Bundy standoff

  By

flag-of-nevadaYesterday’s shooting in a Las Vegas shopping center was an act of domestic terrorism, and the perpetrators were radical anti-government right-wingers with ties to both Neo-Nazism and the nearby Bundy Ranch standoff against the Federal government on public lands in Nevada.

Residents who spoke about the Millers all mentioned the couple’s relationship with Bundy. Oak Tree resident Sue Hale said the two told her they were in Bunkerville during the standoff, which occurred in April after federal authorities began conducting a roundup of Bundy’s cattle. Bundy had defied the government by grazing the cattle on public land without a permit. “Yap, yap, yap. They were always running their mouths,” Hale said.
[…]
After killing the officers, the couple covered the bodies with a cloth displaying the Gadsen, or “Don’t Tread On Me” flag — a Revolutionary War-era symbol that has since been adopted by the tea party. Investigators also found swastikas at the suspects’ apartment.

 
Their social media posts before the attack indicate that they were so hardcore about the Bundy standoff that the Bundys made them leave for making them look bad. The Bundy family denied any connection.

Arsenal For Democracy Radio – Background Discussion on Bundy Ranch Standoff:
Part 1 – Move Your Cows, Bundy – AFD 81

It’s important to call these acts what they are, to end the false dichotomy of how other terrorist attacks (by non-whites, inside or outside the country) are labeled and handled. Ultimately, however, the best way to respond to terrorism is to treat it, without glory, as criminal activity. In the words of L. Paul Bremer in the Reagan State Department’s official policy on counterterrorism:

Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are — criminals — and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law, against them.

 
But until then, I don’t want a false double standard where some stuff is called terrorism and some stuff isn’t, depending on the attackers’ skin color or ideologies.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Another day, another mass shooting in America

  By

In the past two and a half weeks, including today’s, there have been 3 U.S. mass shooting events (using one definition of at least 4 dead). At least 14 events if you include those with lower death tolls but 3+ wounded.

Today’s shooting, in gun friendly Nevada, left two police officers and a random bystander dead, before one of the shooters killed the other and then herself. Despite having guns and attempting to use them, the police officers were unfortunately unable to stop the attack. (More guns won’t stop these events. In contrast, events from Columbine to Tucson to last week’s Seattle shooting more often end with someone tackling the shooter.)

In the first five months of this year, there were 12 mass shooting events with at least four deaths.

So, do we get to talk about guns being the problem yet? Or still no…?

Constitutional rebellions

  By

Constitutional-Convention-slider
Should constitutions include an official principle of the people’s right to rebel against their governments?

There has always been a bit of (or a lot of) tension between those who believe the right to revolt is natural and inalienable at all times versus those who believe all transitions must be orderly, legal, and constitutional.

As a pressure valve for self-preservation, the latter camp tends to adopt constitutional systems (formally or informally) that allow for regular turnover, either by frequent election or by scheduled leadership changes. Britain’s modern parliamentary system, for example seeks to keep rebellion in check by making it relatively easy to bring down governments that are messing up, via orderly no confidence votes and early elections. In another example with similar motivations, the current Chinese government leadership has five year terms now between internal party elections and has age limits, to guarantee turnover.

The U.S. model tends to release the pressure through a combination of semi-frequent elections (though no early elections for the presidency, ever) and very formalized removal procedures for misconduct. So, civilians can remove other civilians constitutionally from power and transfer the power down an established chain without elections, and it’s not a coup d’état.

Still other systems allow for less turnover but implicitly favor mass demonstration as the best way to express opposition. The various French Republics, descending from the awkward marriage of a powerful central executive (originally the king) and multiple revolutions, managed to arrive at a strange compromise under De Gaulle’s 5th Republic after 1958. That compromise was to have (more or less) a nearly omnipotent president elected to seven year terms (with more than one term permitted), almost no formal way to express opposition (e.g. no early elections, weak parliament, etc.), and then to just continue to let unions, students, and other protesters go wild in the streets (or at least go on mass strikes) when they became sufficiently furious over something. As in all 15 French constitutions, the one implemented in 1958 included a “right to resist oppression.” This compromise setup posed various problems for the 5th Republic, but it’s certainly been more stable and stronger than the third or fourth republics, which basically collapsed under their own inefficacy. (Both the first and second ended in fluid transitions into dictatorship.) Eventually, though, they did moderate it down to five year terms at the beginning of this century.

In the United States, of course, there’s been lots debate since 1776 (or even before) about whether (and when) people can overthrow their governments. Through repeated use of military force domestically by the government, as well as consistent court decisions, the consensus has been achieved that it’s pretty much not ok to overthrow or take up arms against the U.S. government… unless you count that last time when they waged a war of separation against the British Empire and various loyalist populations. So, had any of those later insurrections — whether in Appalachia, Western Massachusetts, the Confederacy, or among the American Indians — prevailed, I guess it would have been a different story. (And indeed, that one uncomfortable, local armed coup d’état in North Carolina in 1898 went largely ignored by the U.S.) But at the very least, it has been made clear that there is no legal or constitutional right to overthrow the government of the United States, even if perhaps there is a Jeffersonian-style “natural” right to give it your best shot and see what happens.

But there’s also a very curious compromise in a number of countries, occupying a middle ground between the “transition must be legal” faction and the “revolution is a natural right” faction. A study by Daniel Lansberg-Rodriguez, Tom Ginsburg, and Emiliana Versteeg (discussed here after the recent Thailand coup) found that 20% of countries today (up from 10% in 1980) with formal constitutions in effect have adopted constitutional provisions explicitly protecting the right of the people to rebel, revolt, or otherwise topple their governments. Some of them are as vague as the French provision I mentioned above. Others, under the Turkey model, are much more explicit in carving out a role for the country’s military to intervene against the civilian leadership when it oversteps (or is perceived as overstepping) against the people or “democracy” or secularism or whatever.
Read more

Jonah Hill’s apology should be required study for all public figures

  By

Comic actor Jonah Hill recently used in anti-gay slur in a moment of anger at a paparazzo. He went on The Tonight Show to make a public apology and fully own up to what he did and the impact of his word choice. We’re so used to people in this country giving terrible and insincere apologies that this was almost stunning to watch.

All public figures — celebs and politicians alike — should watch this video to learn how to do a sincere and meaningful apology. He doesn’t try to hide behind anything or distance himself from it or say he’s sorry if it offended people. He knows it did. He knows it was wrong. And he clearly regrets having said it (without just being sorry he got caught or that people got mad)

All people in general should especially take note of his observation that words have meaning even if you don’t mean them that way (i.e. intent doesn’t make everything ok), as well as his acknowledgment that he isn’t automatically owed forgiveness just because he apologized. Too many people assume that just saying “woops, my bad” is enough.

The danger of school autonomy

  By ,

A recent report funded by the Boston Foundation and the Center for Collaborative Education, a pro-Pilot School organization, recommends that the Boston Public School system grant more autonomy to individual schools.

Which raises the question: autonomy relative to whom? According to the Globe:

The premise of the recommendation is that schools best know the unique needs of their student populations and what measures might hold the most promise in boosting achievement. That, in turn, means the schools should have maximum latitude to make decisions regarding budgeting, staffing, curriculum, and length of school day, instead of being hemmed in by central offices or union contracts, the report concludes.

 
This might sound nice in theory, but being anti-teachers’-union is anti-student. The less bargaining power the teachers have, the lower the prevailing pay, and that in turn means some of the most promising young people take their talents elsewhere, instead of deciding to teach our children. If we want the best we have to pay more, just like the private sector.

But instead, teachers have been under a lot of pressure lately to teach for peanuts as a labor of love. Indeed, a pro-Pilot article featured on the Boston Foundation webpage quotes one teacher who takes the “love” bait:

“I care about my union,” Mr. Ali said, “but there are contractual complications. The union is advocating for us, but the conversation is too narrowly confined, because it’s all about money. Teachers don’t become teachers for the money.”

 
But teaching is a career. People who don’t do things for the money are called volunteers.

Are teachers’ unions the only way that teachers can receive a good salary? Not necessarily — but they’re certainly the best way for teachers to keep it.

Just take a look at North Carolina. Writes parent and university professor Deborah R. Gerhardt,

As recently as 2008, North Carolina paid teachers better than half the nation. Things can change quickly, especially if you’re not looking. Now, the brand that attracted us — “the education state” — sounds like a grim joke. After six years of no real raises, we have fallen to 46th in teacher pay.

 
She describes how North Carolina teachers have suffered a pay freeze, the loss of tenure, and the loss of higher salaries for those with graduate degrees.

Also in North Carolina? An interdiction on collective bargaining for teachers. These teachers who build their lives around the idea of an okay salary and some paltry benefits can see it all go downhill in a matter of years. No unions means no stability.

So what does this mean for students? Are they thriving in the union-free North Carolina school system? Not so much — teachers in North Carolina aren’t passively accepting these changes. They’re leaving — and who can blame them? But this flight increases the student to teacher ratio, making things more difficult for remaining teachers and resulting in worse education for students.
Read more

Amending the Constitution: The National Convention Option?

  By ,

congress-slider
This new essay by Lawrence Lessig partially answers a question I had recently been pondering. That question was about whether it would be feasible (on paper) to do a constitutional convention through Article V (the one about how to amend the U.S. Constitution). It’s permissible but hasn’t ever been tried. Here’s the relevant part of that provision:

Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…

 
Lessig points out that this alternative route, which has never been used, isn’t actually all that special or worrisome. It’s not like a free-for-all that can just junk the whole document. A Constitutional Convention could only be convened by the formal request of 2/3rds of the U.S. states (34 now) and it could only propose amendments to the existing Constitution, which would then be sent back — just like Congressional amendments! — for approval by 3/4ths of the U.S. states (38 now). That last part is always the hardest, and this doesn’t change that.

That’s consistent with the interpretation posted on the U.S. Senate website’s page explaining different parts of the U.S. Constitution:

The Constitution also authorizes a national convention, when two-thirds of the states petition Congress for such a convention, to propose amendments, which would also have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

 
So, the national convention route is actually probably even more complicated to get it rolling, in that it requires all the cat-herding of more than 30 states be done twice over (once going in and once coming out), and then once it’s rolling it’s no easier or more dangerous than the usual amendment process.

The advantage it (potentially) has is that it circumvents the need to have members of Congress vote on specific amendments that might affect them or the special interests they favor. It would also be within the much stronger state-level tradition of public interest reform by direct democracy.

Interestingly, Lessig doesn’t address Article V’s provision for allowing states to create special conventions for ratification. He specifically — intentionally I assume — uses the more generic term “states” when discussing the ratification side, although he mentions legislative party control in passing. The likeliest format would be for the legislatures to vote up or down on the convention’s proposed amendments, just as they would for amendments from Congress, but it’s not required.

Let’s take a second look at Article V: Read more

Life imitates art: Thai anti-coup rallies adopt Hunger Games salute

  By

I kept expecting to find articles saying this was just a rumor but every source seems to be confirming: The pro-democracy Red Shirt protesters opposing the recent Yellow-aligned military coup in Thailand have officially adopted the defiant anti-authoritarian salute from the Hunger Games books and movies.

“Catching Fire,” the second movie in the franchise and perhaps the one most prominently featuring the salute, was released in November 2013 in Thailand, and became the country’s eighth highest grossing movie of last year. The first movie, released in March 2012, was in the top 20 that year.

The new military government and police forces have announced that the salute will be banned along with the already prohibited political gatherings of more than five people at a time.
Read more