Category: News and politics

Arizona and Religious and Personal Liberty

A successful society balances the interests of individuals and society. In the area of personal liberty and public tolerance, all low hanging fruits (all win – win policies) have been picked. Thus remaining discussions of the best boundary between the sphere of private belief and behavior and social behavior involve trade offs that are more difficult to evaluate. This is illustrated by the recent controversy in Arizona over the bill just vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer that would have allowed businesses to deny service to gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds.

The point I want to make here (yet again) is that our society functions best when it favors persuasion over coercion (voluntary action over legal compulsion). Should a professional photographer who objects to same sex marriage be required by law to accept business from a same sex couple to photo graph their wedding? My first reaction to this question was why in the world would the couple at issue want to give their business to a bigot. Examples of my earlier discussions of such issues are: https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/liberty-and-the-overly-prescriptive-state/  https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/when-values-clash/

I abhor prejudice of any sort both on moral and on economic efficiency grounds. People should be judged on the basis of factors relevant to the situation. A job applicant should be judged on the basis of whether she has the best qualifications for that particular job, rather than whether she is Irish, Ghanaian, Muslim, Christian or Korean (though if the job is to wait on tables in a Korean restaurant, being Korean might be relevant). I strongly believe that it is more effective to persuade people of this view than to legislate it (just as I think persuading teenagers and others of the dangers of some drugs would be more effective than has been our very costly and damaging War on Drugs). For one thing businesses that express their prejudices in the market place pay a price in the form of less qualified, more expensive employees and/or fewer customers.

I am obviously a bit out of the mainstream on this as I shared Senator Barry Goldwater’s reservations about the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s restrictions on the right of “public” business to choose their customers (especially Title II on public accommodations). I prefer, both for philosophical and pragmatic reasons, the legal approach taken with regard to the Boy Scouts of American. As a “private” organization they are entitled to whatever membership criteria they want. Public discussion and evolving attitudes is gradually leading them to amend their membership requirements, which now allow gay boys to join. This is a better way to bring about that result in my view in our very heterogeneous society.

That said, if we must have laws against discrimination, gays and lesbians surely must be given equal protection under those laws.  E. J. Dionne makes some good points in today’s Post: “Arizona’s anti-gay bill hurts religious people” Washington Post /2014/02/26/

Teachers of the Poor

The raging debate about income inequality has focused on the growing demand for well-trained workers and the declining quality of American education. The mismatch is contributing to rising incomes for the well-educated and stagnant incomes for the poorly educated. Improving the education of the poor is thus a sensible and promising target for improving the incomes of the poor.

Thus the case getting underway in California attacking teacher tenure as a source of poor teachers being assigned to the poorest schools is timely and important. Teacher tenure goes on trial in Los Angeles courtroom/2014/01/26/

The issue of the unionization of public sector workers more generally is contentious. In the private sector unions can balance the market power of employers and are restrained in their demands by their impact on an employer’s bottom line. If excessive wages make a company uncompetitive and it losses market share or goes out of business, the jobs go with it. In fact, a constructive relationship between unions and their employers can potentially improve wages and the bottom line.

Public sector workers, on the other hand, are not constrained by the government’s bottom line (tax payers). Charles Lane provides a good discussion of this issue in today’s Washington Post: Public Sector Unions Interfere with the Public Interest/2014/01/27/.  Unionized or not, public sector workers have long been protected from political interference by the Civil Service system. These protections were established in order to reduce the role of political favoritism in public sector hiring and promotion. However, the trade-off was the creation of a system in which promotion had much more to do with years of service than performance and in which it was difficult to fire anyone thus sheltering mediocre workers.

These trade offs are not easily resolved. If government supervisors can evaluate performance and reward it appropriately, they can also be easier prey for political interference. If they can’t, the worst performing employees rise to the top over time just as fast as the best performing and we get the civil service that we know and love. The plaintiffs in the California case “are nine students who say they were trapped in classrooms with “grossly ineffective teachers” who could not be fired because of the job protection laws.” (W.Post)

The solution, of course, is to leave as much in the private sector as possible. Private schools, including government funded but privately run charter schools systematically produce better results than public schools, especially for the poor.

In an interesting footnote, the plaintiffs legal team includesformer U.S. solicitor general Ted Olson and Theodore Boutrous, who most recently paired to win a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down California’s prohibition against same-sex marriage.  Olson and Boutrous had famously represented opposing sides before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore, which halted the Florida vote recount and resulted in Bush capturing the presidency. Olson’s wife Barbara died on September 11, 2001 when American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

Democracy vs the Rule of Law

Tunisia is providing a hopeful example of how countries can transition to freer societies for the general good. In the following Washington Post Op-Ed David Ignatius provides an excellent account of the process followed and still underway there. From Tunisia-Hopeful Signs/2014/01/24/ It contrasts sharply with the sadly confused and muddled account of “democratic transition” in Egypt presented by Michael Dunn and Thomas Carothers of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the Post three days earlier. Egypt’s Evolving Governance is no Democratic Transition.  They speak of democracy and human rights as if they are the same thing.

Literally democracy means rule of the majority. In fact, the majority of Egyptians voting in the first free elections in memory chose Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohamed Morsi as their President who proceeded to rule on behalf of Egypt’s majority religious group in disregard for the interests of minority Christians and other groups. That is democracy in its literal sense. Modern democracies, however, are not pure in that the majority is limited in what it may do in order to protect the rights of minorities. From an imaginary “veil of ignorance” the citizens of most modern democracies have written into their constitutions limitations on what they may do even when in the majority. The rule of just laws is more important than, and often in conflict with, democracy.

The bigger government gets the more it’s necessarily uniform treatment of all tends to reduce the freedom of individual citizens to behave differently. The United States from its beginning favored individual freedom over state authority and thus struck a balance between the two that imposed more limits on the role of government than had existed up to that time. Every special interest that gains government favor becomes an entrenched interest that is very difficult to reverse (farm subsidies and defense contractors leap to mind). Keeping government limited to what is really important is a never-ending but critical battle.

The Year of Edward Snowden

I am increasingly in awe of what Edward Snowden, at great personal risk, has done for our country. One of the three original journalists to whom he gave documents, Barton Gellman, has written the following article for the Washington Post. Edward Snowden after months of NSA revelations says his missions accomplished/2013/12/24  Every American who cares about the future of our country should read it. I have blogged a number of times this year about Snowden if you would like to read more.

Some people confuse the technical and legal ability to collect personal information about targeted individuals under well-developed controls, with the data mining searches for needles in haystacks Snowden exposed. Here are just two of his statements from the article:

“I don’t care whether you’re the pope or Osama bin Laden. As long as there’s an individualized, articulable, probable cause for targeting these people as legitimate foreign intelligence, that’s fine. I don’t think it’s imposing a ridiculous burden by asking for probable cause. Because, you have to understand, when you have access to the tools the NSA does, probable cause falls out of trees.”

“I believe the cost of frank public debate about the powers of our government is less than the danger posed by allowing these powers to continue growing in secret,”

Snowden likened the NSA’s powers to those used by British authorities in Colonial America, when “general warrants” allowed for anyone to be searched. The FISA court, Snowden said, “is authorizing general warrants for the entire country’s metadata.”

More on the balance between the public and private sectors

Private sector rights.

I strongly support the right of the Boy Scouts of America’ to define who it will accept as members (i.e. its right to exclude gays). I don’t have to agree with how people use their freedom to believe passionately in their right to be free including who they join with in clubs. I was happy to see that organization relax its rules and open its doors to gay boys. But that door was not opened very wide and the BSA still has a way to go. I was thus very happy to see Lockheed-Martin end its donations to the Boy Scouts until remaining discriminations are ended.

Richard “Guglielmetti, 66, who led Troop 76 in Simsbury, Conn., for a dozen years until 2005, said leaders and members of his troop ignored the national organization’s prohibition on gays as scouts or leaders because they felt it was wrong.” (US Today, January 28, 2013)  It would have been counterproductive and morally wrong in my view for the government to have forced this result or to push it further.

As another example, Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson (I never heard of him) said some perfectly ignorant and offensive things about gays. We should all defend his right to say what he wants to. We should also defend the right of A&E to suspend his show, though I am not particularly happy about mixing up commerce and politics or moral issues. Fortunately, A&E is a cable show. Cable programs are not subject to the government regulations covering over-the-air shows and are free to pretty much do what they want. This helps explain why cable shows are often much more interesting.

A process of public discussion and education best sorts out touchy issues such as these. The government is not needed or wanted here.

Domestic spying

Whistle blower Edward Snowden received further confirmation of the legitimacy of his belief that the government has over reached in its domestic personal data collection (see my several earlier blogs on this subject). In ruling that NSA’s massive metadata collection for all domestic phone calls (numbers called, date/time, and duration) was unconstitutional, Federal Judge Richard J. Leon stated that the government had failed to “cite a single instance in which analysis of the NSA’s bulk metadata collection actually stopped an imminent attack.” (Washington Post, December 20, 2013).

Equally damning was the just released report of a panel appointed by President Obama to investigate charges of NSA abuse, which included among its members former deputy CIA director Michael J. Morrell. The review panel said the program “was not essential to preventing attacks and could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”

Snowden has performed an enormous public service at great personal risk. Thank you Mr. Snowden

Maybe our ship is starting to right itself.

More on cell phones in planes

My blog Friday was meant to contrast two attitudes toward the desired role of government—regulating our behavior for our own good (Big Brother), or regulating our behavior when necessary for the protection of third parties.  But the more I thought about the cell phones in airplanes issue, the more convoluted it seemed.

There is no evidence, despite lots of testing, of any danger from cell phones, iPads, PCs, etc. for the operations of airplanes. See the article by a WSJ staff reporter: http://www.cs.ccsu.edu/~pelletie/local/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html. The Big Brother argument that it protects those of us preferring quite from the conversations of other passengers is also bogus. Not only are people free to carry on conversations with other (willing) passengers, but we have been able to talk to people on the ground from phones in our arm rests for well over two decades. So what is going on? Without denying that many well-meaning, public-spirited people go into government service, the answer seems to lie in the usual place. Government regulations very often come to protect the interests of the incumbent members of the industry being regulation. Most monopoly power of private companies is bestowed by government. Please save me from Big Brother.

Cell Phones on Planes: A Defining Issue

The Federal Communications Commission is moving towards allowing the use of cell phones on airplanes. Many of us have known for a long time that their use poses no safety issues (yes the government does sometimes—how shall I say it in a way that will not attract NSA attention—misrepresent things). The FCC’s ruling rests on whether it would be good or nice for us to be able to use them. Whether we want our government to establish rules on what is nice public behavior is one of those issues that help define and reflect differing attitudes toward the desirable (not to mention, because it seems largely irrelevant these days, constitutional) role of government.

As I write this note, it seems that the FCC is moving towards a compromise ruling that would allow the use of phones and other electronic devises (Mac, iPad, etc – yes I am an Apple fan) for internet access to email, text messages, and web surfing but not talking. This strikes me as odd in that it has been possible to do that for some years now. I have used the service (for a fee) to send and receive email on Delta and other planes with the equipment: http://www.gogoair.com/gogo/splash.do. Oh well.

I cringe when people base their views on whether government should control certain behaviors (pot smoking, public profanity, talking lauding in public etc) on whether such behavior is good or bad for the person doing it. For me the test (along with the constitution) is whether my behavior endangers other people. Thus the issue of whether secondary smoke is harmful and if so should be banned in the workplace, for example, is a legitimate public policy concern. The outcome should rest on the facts; is it harmful to third parties or not.

I would not like for people to talk on their cell phones on planes, but am appalled by the idea that the government would not allow airlines to set their own policies in this regard. I don’t like talking on planes in any form. I have not talked to anyone on a plane other than the flight crew for many years. No government ruling caused this or is desired. Somehow I have been able to successfully and without words communicate to anyone next to me that I do not want to talk. My loss, I am sure, but it is fortunately still my choice.

I am reminded of a flight home from a wonderful European vacation with my son, Brandon, years ago. The man and woman behind us were chattering away and their conversation became more and more homophobic. My son finally turned around and said, “Would you please shut up.”  Those lobbying the FCC to forbid phone calls on planes should probably include fines for offensive speech on planes or in other public places (the First Amendment be damned). Those, like me, who prefer a more limited, less intrusive government, prefer to rely on common courtesy as it evolves through private interactions. Perhaps because I am the oldest of my siblings I never liked the idea of a Big Brother.

Spying

Two articles on the same page of Tuesday’s Washington Post reported on similar activities from opposite perspectives. In one, “A 28-year-old British man whom prosecutors described as a ‘sophisticated and prolific computer hacker’ has been charged in connection with cyberattacks in which he illegally accessed the personal information of U.S. soldiers and government employees, and obtained other information about budgets, contracts and the demolition of military facilities, authorities said Monday.” Why did he do it? Why do such people do such things? For commercial/financial gain? In this case, it seems, the motivation was political, though I am not sure what the political point was. “British-man-described-as-prolific-hacker-indicted-in-cyberattacks-on-us-agencies/2013/10/28/”

The second article discussed the NSA program to eavesdrop on friendly heads of state, such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel, launched in 2002. President Obama apparently did not know the extent and details of such surveillance until very recently nor did Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who oversees the NSA as the Senate Intelligence Committee chair. Why did they do it? “Their [NSA staff] job is to get as much information for policymakers as possible,” a senior administration official said. “They’re used to coming at this from the other direction — that is, being criticized for not knowing enough. This is a new dynamic for them.” “Obama-didnt-know-about-surveillance-of-us-allied-world-leaders-until-summer-officials-say/2013/10/28/”

In the first case, we were angry and in the second case Chancellor Merkel and most of Europe were angry and both with good reasons. We want our intelligence agencies to collect all of the information needed to protect us from harm. All countries spy on each other, but the tools and activities of espionage agents are potentially double-edged swords. Because of the potential dangers of turning these tools on our own citizens (and friends) for political advantage, strict limits have been placed on domestic surveillance and our allies might have assumed they were spared as well.  Unfortunately following the 9/11 attacks many American’s were more concerned about security than privacy and liberty and willing to move the balance away from protecting privacy.

When these systems of spying were first developed, those using them had (I assume) the best of intentions—gathering information from and on enemies to help protect the nation. And this is exactly what we wanted from them. Whether it is really possible to detect useful information from the millions upon millions of messages (verbal and electronic) being collected is an interesting question, however. Targeting specific individually is dramatically easier than looking for needles in massive data haystacks, but the heads of state of our allies?

Those who work for the NSA and other intelligence agencies are surely motivated by the highest objectives. But what do good people do when they have such access to information on the private activities of those they don’t like politically—republican’s able to browse around in the private affairs of democrats and visa versa?  IRS agents abusing their power against Tea Party organizations comes to mind, for example. Snowden has shown us that as time has gone on the temptation to use more widely the enormous capability available to our intelligence agencies has grown. And not one hundred present of our government officials are always honorable to begin with.  In the following article in The Washington Post, Harold Meyerson quotes the WSJ as follows: “The agency [NSA] has been rebuked repeatedly by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for misrepresenting the nature of its spy programs and for violating the court’s confidential orders.” “A-turbulent-spy-agency/2013/10/29/”

On top of this, the government’s insistence that American Internet access providers and large data collectors leave back doors through which the NSA can enter to collect data, has reduced Net security against the likes of the British hacker mentioned in my opening paragraph. Fortunately, once again, when things go too far there is a backlash. Even Senator Feinstein is saying stop.

Edward Snowden

Edward Snowden continues to amaze me and to rise in my admiration (see his interview by the New York Times). “Snowden-says-he-took-no-secret-files-to-Russia” 

He most certainly violated his pledge and the law, but the thoughtfulness and care with which he has revealed very selective documents contrasts very sharply with the damaging data dump of Chelsea Manning (AKA Bradley). Manning, who never convincingly explained what he thought he was doing or why, impeded the flow of candid information and discussion within the U.S. government (e.g. in cables between our embassy’s and the State Department). This will make future diplomacy more difficult.

Snowden, on the other hand, who revealed information gathering programs and their assessments rather than the content of information collected, has thankfully forced more open discussion of what tools the government has and how they should be used. He has risked his own future in the heroic service of the higher interests of his (and my) country.  Richard Cohn expresses these views very well in a recent Washington Post oped: “Snowden is no Traitor/2013/10/21/”

Our government has been caught lying repeatedly in connection with its spying activity. https://wcoats.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/abuse-of-power/  In many respects this is an expected part of the game with regard to enemies we wish to protect ourselves from. But the law sets important limits and safeguards on the government when it comes to spying on its own at home or friends abroad (e.g. the President of Mexico, 70 million French phone records per month, etc). Records revealed by Snowden document that these are being violated as well.

Last week I attended a fascinating discussion at the Brookings Institute between Matt Apuzzo, Investigative Reporter for The Associated Press and author with Adam Goldman of Enemies Within: Inside NYPD’s Secret Spying Unit and Bin Ladin’s Final Plot Against America (Touchstone, 2013), and Bruce Riedel, Director, The Intelligence Project, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. Apuzzo and Goldman’s book is a spy thriller account of the only specific case revealed by the government of the 50 potential attacks they claim their programs helped prevent. The government thwarted the September 2009 al Qaeda terrorist plot – led by Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American – to attack the New York City subway system. Without taking a position on whether NSA and related domestic spying activities helped with this case, Mr. Apuzzo reported that the link to the would be terrorist came as the result of an email he sent to a known British terrorist. This was enough to enabled the government to monitor Mr. Zazi’s communications on the basis of older and established intelligence authorities without resort to the more intrusive programs reveals by Snowden. So the government lied to us again.

The natural tendency of government is to grow and to expand their authority. Whenever our government seemed to go too far, American’s have pushed back. Edward Snowden has alerted us to the need to push back again and I am very grateful to him for that.

Can Washington Still Govern?

October 11, 2013

The popularity of the government is at an all time low. Different people want different things, thus none of us can have everything we want. What to do? Congress enacts laws and if they later decide that they enacted a bad one they can vote to amend or repeal it. The voting public can vote out representatives who don’t properly represent them and vote in new ones who will adopt the laws they want.  But at the end of the day compromise is required to satisfy the largest number of people.

Refusing to authorize government expenditures for existing laws and thus shutting down the government (sort of) is better described, according to Andrew Reinbach, as sedition:

“The definition of sedition says among other things that ‘If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire… by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States… they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.’”

The best overview of the outrageous behavior by both the Republicans and the Democrats remains, in my judgment, the article by Charles Krauthammer that I posted earlier. “Who Shut Down Yellowstone? /2013/10/03/”.  This all came back to my mind as I drove down Clara Barton Parkway toward the District yesterday morning for an 8:30 am meeting with the Afghan delegation here for the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings. There are a number of parking areas along the parkway. People park there to take their canoes down to the Potomac or to walk along the river. You might have thought that closing the government would have no consequences for such pullovers. At most it might leave the trash deposited in the trash cans there uncollected. Instead, the government spent the money to place concrete barriers beside the road preventing anyone from pulling off and parking there.  I am told that the same was done across the river on the Virginia side along the George Washington Memorial Parkway and no doubt in many other places as well employing the well-known government trick of making the cuts as painful as possible to the public.  This is the government we have now. The moron who made those decisions should be fired (the gentlest penalty that passed through my mind).

I have always believed that one of the things that makes America great is that it has managed to create a system in which people of different cultures and faiths, but common core values, live peaceably together. This gives our country the enriching benefits of the creative power of diverse ideas from diverse cultures without the costs of social strife. A major source of this success comes from a constitution and system of government that has limited the power of the government and does not overly interfere in the private activities of its citizens. No ones religious beliefs are imposed on anyone else, etc.

These days our political class seems to have lost the capacity of compromise, an essential aspect of living together peaceably. Many of our politicians no longer see compromise as a virtue (the fools). The problem is not a new one, of course. When farmers from the Near East moved into Central Europe 7,500 years ago they were not assimilated by the hunters-gatherers who lived there. Rather they coexisted in parallel cultures, forced by necessity to get alone.  “Stone-age Farmers-Hunters Kept Their Distance /2013/10/10/”

Fortunately, the dysfunction of our government is not reflective of our broader society, though I know there are many ugly exceptions. I was happy to read in today’s Washington Post that a heart wrenching dispute between the natural father of a four year old girl and her adopted parents who actually loved and cared for and raised her has been resolved and a mutually sensible way, keeping hope for civilization alive: “Cherokee Nation and Father of adopted 4 year old girl drop court battle for custody /2013/10/11” Veronica’s adopted parents will retain custody of her but will cooperate in making ways for her natural, Cherokee father to be involved in her life.

Using an increase in the debt ceiling as leverage to reduce the government’s deficit to sustainable rates is quite a different matter.  It has been recognized for many years by both political parties that government spending commitments in the future, given the aging of the population (i.e., the fall in the working age population relative to the retired population), could not be met. The Congressional Budget Office’s current long-term, baseline forecasts, which assume current tax and spending laws (including the reduced spending growth required by the sequester) are for the debt to grow more rapidly than income, i.e., to rise as a percent of GDP without end. One bipartisan effort after another (Bowles-Simpson commission, the Senate Gang of Six, Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force, the Super Committee, etc.) tried to reach tax and spending compromises and failed. Yes, even with the sequester (across the board cuts in planned spending increases) the growth in debt is not sustainable. Something must change. A compromise must be agreed. Using approval of an increase in the debt ceiling as leverage to achieve such a compromise is a reasonable tactic. If not now the market will force it later (significant increases in the interest rates demanded by the market to lend to an increasingly over indebted government). Better and cheaper sooner than later. “The-sequester”  “Thinking About the Public Debt”