Public Policy; Policing Personal Preference and Planned Parenthood's Persistance

In a post today on RedState, John Hayward covers the recent address of Planned Parenthood by President Obama on Friday. In it he calls out "the most strident abortion radical ever elected to the White House" (in a somewhat paradoxical fashion) for not once using the word abortion, but he also works to back up other claims about Planned Parenthoods business practices and attempts to legitimize the narrative of the left's "failed economic policies and social degeneration(.)" The piece goes from reporting to a complete Op-Ed somewhere after the third paragraph, but the point is the same; public policy on the case of abortion has yet to be fully hammered out and in fact may never be. The divide created over Roe V. Wade in America is deep and incredibly complicated thanks to the diversity of the U.S. population and the significance of religious belief in shaping ideology and public policy as a whole. And while there are certainly a lot of detractors out there, there were also plenty of positive pieces written about the speech from a few "choice" outlets.

So where does all of this leave us? Well it leaves public policy still in turmoil as is the natural state for anything in which both sides think of themselves as socially-forward; thus we remain at political war. As Roe v. Wade continues to stand, those opposed to it continue to fight it in anyway they can short of ransacking the SCOTUS. But it also is a great example of the cycle of politics and how one organization can use its influence--and of course, its money-- to keep standing even in the face of those who say it supports killing infants. While of course those who are pro-choice face a number of challenges such as a sudden surge of restrictions on abortion rights that just go to show how public policy mirrors the discourse of the public at large, an established right being picked at by the minority in the hopes of reclaiming that lost ground and potentially leading to the deaths of hundreds of women at the hands of quack abortion doctors.

The future is bright my friends.

Bound (and waterboarded) for Justice

A recent article in the Huffington Post has pointed out that the systematic interrogation of terror suspects and detainees at places like Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites using "enhanced interrogation techniques" has been deemed torture by an independent investigation. The Constitution Project has pointed the finger of responsibility for this lapse in integrity at senior officials throughout the Bush administration, as there was a press to do "whatever necessary" to keep the country safe after 9/11, even in the face of denying the ideals America tends to pride itself on. The key arguments the task force has put forth revolve around the use of smoke and mirrors like euphemistic language used by the U.S. government to cover up their own acts of torture, and the hypocrisy of doing so while condemning other nations for human rights violations that were close if not the same.  The release is also something of a rebuke to the Obama Administration's calls to move forward rather than dwell on the past and furthermore pushing the administration by being "critical of some Obama administration policies, especially what it calls excessive secrecy." The investigation further calls for an end to indefinite detention at places like Guantanamo Bay, and with the exceptions of Richard Epstein and Asa Hutchingson (two authors on the project) there was an overall agreement that the detainment center should be closed by 2014.

This could certainly be called a dark chapter in the history of the United States of America, and the recent bombing in Boston certainly smacks of what kicked our need for "homeland security" into high gear. But what we have here is a detailing of why aggressive policies that seek a sort of preemptive strike against insurgency can never work. In its zeal to find a satisfying close to the war on terror and ensure the safety of its citizens, instead the U.S. began dropping rights from the people through unconstitutional legislative spyware like the PATRIOT Act and a sudden zest for extraordinary renditions that often accompanied tortures and forced feedings. The U.S. is no longer the shining city on the hill Reagen conjured in the minds of the people when we allow ourselves to sink into the mire of suspended rights and no judicial oversight. The sword and the scales are the tools of lady justice, but as we've moved her blindfold onto the eyes of the people, we see that the use of the sword only fulfills itself; the fastest way to create a terrorist is to treat him like one and above all giving him a reason to hate America.

Stopping Frisks

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/24/1196149/-Stop-and-frisk-on-trial

Courtesy of the Center for Constitutional Rights

In this news story from the left-wing Daily Kos, the recent revelations that have shed light on racial profiling in NYPD's Stop-and-Frisk policy are examined and myths surrounding the case are debunked. The policy itself is picked apart piece by piece, painting it as ineffective and a harassment that predominately targets young black and Latino men in the City. The Kos doesn't limit the problem to NYC however, also point out that cities such as my own hometown of Philadelphia have tried to keep stop-and-frisk policies by propagandizing the virtues of such a program. While Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD defend the program and attribute the sharp drop in crime to the policy, the public who's civil liberties stand to be violated seem to be remarkably supportive of the practice. It is a practice that should not stand in a country such as ours, a public humiliation of sorts that stands to keep racial wounds open in urban environments.

Stop-and-Frisk disproportionally effects minorities and perpetuates a sense of inequality and institutionalized racism in the police force. It is a violation of the civil liberties of those stopped for behaving "suspiciously," a presumption of guilt based off a moments observance that goes against the entire system of justice in place. It keeps the jails full and gives policemen another quota they can fill. It's a bad policy that widens a divide between what the police department is supposed to represent and the perception of the force by minorities, and its potential unconstitutionality makes this an unacceptable use of taxpayer money by cities across the country. A police force is meant to serve and protect, but it seems like instead they're doing a disservice to themselves and the people of the Untied States of America.

Elephants Ride to War

The Grand Ol' Party is currently being savagely fought from the inside. As is detailed in this piece by the New York Times, the Club for Growth, a 501(c)4 organization with powerful political ties and aims, is championing a new future for an ailing republican party. But rather than taking the tact of pushing its members to any form of moderation, instead they make the claim that it is better for republicans to embrace sharp ideological differences with democrats and is taking aim at any republican up for election soon that may not be adhering to conservative ways. The willingness of the club to pursue its goals--even to the detriment of the party it has the most in common with--has gained it some negative press from within the party from people like Rich Galen and inspiring a delightful quotation from the spokeswoman for Representative Adam Kinzinger. But the clout that PACs now have within the political area--enough clout to begin challenging people for not conforming to that PACs expectations enough--is disheartening and a little troublesome to many.

Fear not, citizens of Earth.

In the case presented here, I think lies one of the best arguments for keeping political action committees around. In this article, the Club for Growth is presented in no partisan light, but rather a glowing light that shows PACs and extra-political organizations can merge with the existing system with little or no detriment! The party system is a great example, where money flows in and money flows out, but there is a general lack of corruption caused by such simple divisions. The main fear with PACs and interest groups is a lack of transparency, which many feel may engender such conditions of corruption and greed. My argument is this; the people behind these political action committees and interest groups are clearly moneyed, clever, and active within the political sphere. What would they have to gain from PACs; more money? As for influencing politics with money--i.e. buying an election--I think that its unrealistic to imagine a future where one party has all the money and creates a solidly single-party government, because I believe that no matter how apathetic or disinterested or disheartened the American people may be about the current state of discourse, they all agree bad discourse is better than none at all.

Media Bias Goes to Washington

In a new piece from the Washington Post, attention is drawn to the effects of the tech revolution on modern justice. In it, the effects of widely available media on the decisions and dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS are drawn into question. The transgressions of the justices are laid out in detail, as the court justices increasingly find support for their arguments outside of information presented within the case itself; justices on both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty. While there aren't rules for how statements must be researched, the ramifications of finding sources that may be wrong or improperly researched in supreme court decisions are indeed worrisome. The Post quotes Allison Orr Larson, a William & Mary Law School Professor in saying “If the justices want more empirical support for a factual dimension of their argument, they can find it easily and without the help of anyone outside of the Supreme Court building[.]”

It's a conundrum of sorts. In merging the ability to use super advanced technology built around quick algorithmic sorting of news and info-sites with a group of elderly law scholars in robes, we create legal decisions as plugged into the times as your average smart phone. I fear however, that this may cause our justices to get their information (and potentially decisions) from sources that may be biased or too far in line with that justices views. If a rift in the justices along partisan lines is allowed to deepen or entrench itself, the court will lose its flexibility that is key to the functions of the court. Furthermore, by basing case decisions off of evidence that wasn't presented within the given case, perhaps the core issue at hand could get lost in the shuffle of clerical data-crunching and the personal desires of the justice. One of America's greatest virtues is the system of justice we maintain and ensure all of our citizens; I hope it can remain enured to the bias-catering of the media.

Fixing the Votes

According to the Obama administration (with its laundry list of hopeful achievements) now is the time for voting reform, as evidenced by this New York Times story about the decision to create a panel aiming to streamline the voting process. The panel, in a display of bipartisanship, features Robert Bauer and Ben Ginsberg, who are notable for acting as the legal representation respectively to the Obama and Romney camps during the 2012 election cycle. Five others have yet to be named to the commission, which will not be proposing legislation but rather offer broad suggestions to improving the system as is. According to aides in the Obama camp, this lack of legislative creation is due to the belief that any proposals put forth would be shot down by Republicans, who support state level election laws. This also has some benefits to those seeking more early voting days in states like Florida and South Carolina surprisingly enough.

The recent battles between voting restrictions and streamlining the process has been fun to watch, mutating from strain to strain of ID laws and early ballot casting issues. But this also walks a fine line between constitutionality and states rights. Impeding a federal election in any major fashion should not be something the states strive for, but at the same time the introduction of ID laws may be seen as obstruction, which would have some interesting ties to poll taxes and literacy requirements of the past and inspiring a new legal battle. What I believe would be the best option would be is some sort of national ID everyone is issues. I understand that this may be a subject of some worry, as the government would have essentially issued a human being a number, locking him/her into a national databank for all eternity.* But by streamlining elections, we make them the most accurate representation of the desires of the American people and ensure fairness by equal opportunity.

If you ever wish to vote with relative ease, I recommend using www.rockthevote.com for all your easy voter registration needs. True patriotism is having the will to participate in government on the most basic level after all.



*And while I hate to belittle an issue like personal privacy, we already are numbers in a databank; it's known as Social Security, and if it keeps solvent it'll be another benefit of living in the system.

The Great Chicago Firearm

In the city of Chicago, there is something of a problem with gun violence. According to the New York Times, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former White House Chief of Staff to President Obama is now the mayor of Chicago, and is seeking to do something about it by making gun crimes carry longer minimum sentences. This comes on the heels of recent violence on the streets of Chicago, including the death of a Hadiya Pendleton, a 15 year-old who had returned from Obama's inauguration only a week before being fatally hit in a random act of violence. The story also highlights the complexity of gun control as a whole. While some believe that Chicago is our best indicator of the failure of gun control, other believe that it merely evidences the need for better gun control on the federal level rather than local regulations that can be circumvented by importing guns from a more lenient state.

Gun issues are complex, and multifaceted, and make people very angry indeed. From my view, the importance of this news lies in the way Emanuel shaped his plan; while extended sentences only help the problem by being deterring or providing a sense of punishing wrongdoers, what intrigues me are the measures planned to prevent gang-related gun violence such as mentoring, more after-school activities and early education. Gun violence in America is interesting because it has so many causes and effects, it shifts the landscape on the already shaky ground that is the 2nd Amendment, but I believe that this news is something of a mixed bag. While gun crime itself is abhorrent, I can't help but think that this will have a detrimental effect on both our already overpopulated prison system and the down-and-out youths who join gangs for protection and camaraderie, in the hopes of a better (if unrealistic and violent) life. That said, I also see this as a step in the right direction, with greater enforcement against violent crime while also focusing on root causes and prevention methods. Hopefully, these measures will help to turn over a new leaf for the city of Chicago.