Primary Day: Tiffany Cabán

A new law simplifies NY primaries (one day in June for both federal/state) but it has yet to really promote turnout if the key race where an AOC type upstart appears to have won (after a long term incumbent died in office) as Queens prosecutor (more people than 15 states) is suggestive. Like 10% of registered voters took part, which along with no instant run-off voting (she barely won a plurality; the third place candidate got over 10% and was endorsed by police unions and such) very well might have helped the winner here. No Bronx races, but kept a close look at her returns online as she kept on holding on to a thin lead. Reform possible.

"More great news about declining homicide rates as we close book on 2014"

As reported in this Washington Post piece, headlined "In major cities, murder rates drop precipitously," the end of 2014 has apparently brought a continuation of wonderful news about modern homicide trends. Here are the basics:

Among the "all is horrible" brigade, it isn't all horrible. As to causes, the diverse explanation approach to me -- admitting I'm no expert though have read enough to get a taste -- seems sensible. I have doubts about the sure professor in comments here and how the police tactics are used is really key. Also, if we care about "broken windows," there are various approaches, including community beautification and empowerment. Isn't all stick/police.

Ryan/Rand ... Not Who I Want To Lead this Land!

I am somewhat familiar with various philosophers and theorists, including the usual "names" that are bandied about like Mill, Rawls and yes Rand.  Rightly or wrongly, I never was much interested in reading too deeply into these people, quite honestly, finding primary sources rather boring.  I took an intellectual history course once and read some material here, but it is simply not something I'm interested in. 

I have not to my knowledge actually read Rand though have seen a few clips of her giving an interview and might have seen part of a movie based on her life. I also saw part of the recent first part of the "John Galt" film trilogy (?) until I had to shut it off since it was so boring. I might have first heard about her because a character in Dirty Dancing (recall, taking place in the 1950s) was enthused with one of her novels. This was not seen as a good thing, the idea probably that he really wasn't that deeply aware of her philosophy.  Reading her apparent trudge prose was something

Of course, though he at times rather not admit it (making him a good fit on the ticket, I guess), Paul Ryan is a fan.  He once said she was a major, if not the major, influence in his political career.  We have "Rand" Paul, who cannot answer a simple question on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and now we have a Rand acolyte as vice presidential candidate, the person picked to show the party and/or base Romney is good people. This suggests a long time trend -- pick someone safe (though still pretty conservative in various ways) in a political way for the top of the ticket and then find a more movement friendly figure.  Seems to be the case in each case after Reagan, where the approach was switched. 

This again shows the fine tuning needed in labels -- this is not a "conservative" path as such  William F. Buckley, e.g., was no big fan of Rand, not surprising from the author of God and Man at Yale.  As LD on MSNBC noted, the gal was a Russian atheist.  His positions are far from libertarian as well.  We will continue to get the big spin job that will try to cover this up, much talk about "freedom" and less government, except for the usual suspects.  Democrats are not for "less government," full stop.  They are for appropriate government.  As a social libertarian, this is the best move for me at the current time, even if Obama might annoy on certain issues.  Gary Johnson, the libertarian choice, praising Ron Paul, who in several ways is far from libertarian underlines the point.

Chris Hayes found some video of Ryan defending stimulus when Bush was promoting it.  This is far from surprising -- Ryan repeatedly (says it was so hard for him at times, poor thing) was the loyal solider, the Republican way, during the Bush years, including repeatedly supporting questionable government spending. His tax breaks philosophy is not about fiscal solvency, but empowering certain people.  Rand went in some troubling directions, but the basic absolute individualism she speaks of might sound good to some shallow thinking sorts (the sorts that might think all taxation is slavery or the like) is a problem writ large. 

[MHP suggested Ryan isn't serious about Rand ... he is more of a sort of trope and is not actually taken seriously by the candidate. This might be a bit too generous.]

Hayes noted yesterday how she managed to justify getting government benefits, so apparently hypocrisy (or rationalization) is there too.  He had a woman who benefits from government programs on today as he had on regarding other issues, such as the DREAM Act.  We often see talking heads, including lobbyists and insiders, but repeatedly they are of the favored view sort.  But, policies affect the average person, you and me.  The policies Ryan et. al. support hurts the general welfare.  In various ways, imperfect as it might be, the other side has helped it.  This is the bottom line.  The line in the sand is ever more clear with Ryan though.

As I say, I find it depressing that the two choices is an imperfect centrist Democrat (whatever fantasy labels others want to put on him or those who felt betrayed because they naively expected so much more) and this ticket.  MHP has a bit on Biden yesterday, noting he's our guy, even with his gaffes.  Yes.  He is clearly a credible choice to have in the wings if something horrible happens.  The fact he puts his foot in his mouth at times doesn't change this and the whole "Bushisms" bit over at Slate always seems childish to me anyways.  Bush wasn't bad because he (like his father before him, in a different fashion) spoke funny.  Policy choices.

I have a new label -- "Ryan."  I don't have a "Romney" label, though perhaps I should, since he brings his own baggage.  But, this election has a better symbol of what the "anti-canon" should be. Ryan.

Haiti ... beyond one disaster

Straight Dope, the trivia column, of all places does more than many to address not only the story behind one stupid Pat Robertson comment, but the structural problems behind the problems in Haiti. "An earthquake of comparable intensity in northern California in 1989 killed 63 people, compared to more than 150,000 in Haiti."

Perspective Please

And Also: Fall begins.

The NYT puts forth a reasonable approach for corporate personhood, one that rejects the simplistic stance of some that rails against the (fictional) case of corporate persons being treated the same as natural persons (you and me):

That does not mean that corporations should have no rights. It is in society’s interest that they are allowed to speak about their products and policies and that they are able to go to court when another company steals their patents. It makes sense that they can be sued, as a person would be, when they pollute or violate labor laws.

This, as it notes, does not mean corporations can be free of various regulations that provide them with only limited personhood rights. [I probably disagree with how much the editors there want to limit them in this context.] I provide more in the comments to this post, which discusses an article on something Justice Sotomayor said during oral argument with some more links provided. Again, there seems to be some confusion here and a fair middle ground.

The ACORN controversy is the subject of a radio show that can be found here. The video provided does make the two representatives look a bit stupid -- it looks like almost a parody. The half-assed way this has been reported however starts you on the road to proper perspective. For instance, as to the tax advice for prostitutes provided ... your average tax attorney can tell you stories about advice on how to get around tax laws, including as applied to illegal businesses. Any number of banks (e.g., predatory lending), contractors, police departments, etc. also have questionable practices, including advice on how to get around the law.

[Update: H/t GG, the defund ACORN bill has problems ... optimists might say it has a broad reach, but that's probably not intentional or how it will be used. Also, it might have constitutional problems. Kneejerk rush jobs tend to be trouble.]

As with concern for corporations, again, perspective is a wonderful thing.*

---

* The same can be said when discussing taxation on certain foods. And, here's an interesting piece on Drop Dead Diva.

Abortion as a health issue

And Also: I type this before the closer comes in, but if I wanted to see a close game where an error and failure to tack on runs led to a NL loss (with a tease late -- of late, a Phillie would have feasted off the bullpen), I would watch a Mets game. If they win, cheers.

The hearings provide an educational function* ...

Sen. Graham appeared shocked that abortion might be seen as a 'health issue,' but for millions of girls and women worldwide it is. As Michelle Goldberg discusses in Means of Reproduction, the U.S. government was more comfortable with that reality once upon a time, but it is no less true today. In fact, Sen. Feinstein just this morning had a back/forth with Judge Sotomayor of the important of "health" when interpreting abortion regulations.

He is also shocked that some advocacy group would strongly support the need of state sponsored abortions. Various state courts have held that the right to privacy includes an equal application of state funding of such health benefits. The US Supreme Court has held this is not constitutionally necessary. Justice Ginsburg recently noted this surprised her at the time, that "woman has a constitutional right to place a higher value on avoiding either serious harm to her own health" in such questions was the minority decision.

It is not shocking that a women whose pregnancy is a severe threat to her health and well being would deem it a form of "slavery" to -- because of her poverty -- force her to have a child. We speak of "wage slavery." The term fits here too:

By restricting the right to terminate pregnancies, the State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care.

[More here] BTW, when she says "Latino," she sounds very Latina.

---

[Update] * (1) The NL lost again. (2) I turned it off because his tone annoyed me -- his suck-up voice -- but Sen. Schumer's time actually was informative too. It was clearly a "for the defense" effort (e.g., look she made some hard choices against sympathetic litigants), but that's part of the game.

And, her comments on use of foreign law (aside from dubious absolutes like "American law does not permit the use of foreign law or international law to interpret the Constitution") was actually quite useful ... if anyone paid attention. Contra Dahlia Lithwick who apparently rather hear protesters scream more "truthful" slogans. At times, her shtick annoys me.

Voting Rights in Florida

And Also: The "low" number of U.S. deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan clouds the very troubling (scandalous) breath of the wounded. A little book by Ronald J. Glasser MD, Wounded, discusses the fact ... mentioning as of 12/05 that over 17,000 were seriously wounded, not counting the psychological. And, our ability to care for them far in the future -- as will be required -- is unclear. Also discussed is the policy of the sometime physician -- his/her oath of care apparently no longer there if helping to question prisoners in Gitmo or the like, including "harsh" conditions. So noted a Pentagon memo. What have we wrought?

The change will bring Florida's procedure for restoring the civil rights of felons who have served their sentences more in line with the 47 other states that allow for automatic restoration. Only Virginia and Kentucky do not. ... Florida's new rules of clemency require that felons be categorized in one of three tiers, which will determine the process they must follow to obtain restoration of their civil rights. Florida's measure won't automatically restore civil rights to the estimated 950,000 former felons believed to be living in the state, but it will significantly expedite the process.

-- Felon [voting] rights on faster track

All the same, "Attorney General Bill McCollum, who intensely opposed the measure, warned that it will incite more crime." Yes, we all know that depriving those who committed felony and served their time (and paid restitution, per the new rules) ... and repeat offenders/violent offenders will have a harder time of it while sex offenders, murderers and various types of violent offenders will have to be crime free for fifteen years to get a shot ["Tier 2" and "Tier 3"] .. is a major way to stop crime. The governor himself admitted that the new policy is but a compromise -- the restitution requirement, for instance, is a wealth classification, but clearly this supporter of chain gangs is a libbie at heart.

Seriously, it is probably more likely that easing those who served their time/paid their debts back into the community as full citizens would help lessen recidivism. McCollum also doesn't want to accept the structural (and probably some direct) racism of the old policy. "A constant undercurrent of the debate has been the issue of race and incarceration: 50 percent of the state's prison population is black, though only 14 percent of Florida's total population is African-American." Nah ... it is just about people committing crime. See, it's something in their blood that causes certain races to disproportionally be in prison.

Again, reality dictates a series equal protection issue here, the voting issue making it also a Fifteenth Amendment concern. This problem -- while "hanging chads" was the immediate focus of the media and court challenges -- was also a major issue in the 2000 election. There are many reasons why Bush "won" in Florida, but a core one was the felon disenfranchisement policy. The most odious aspect being the use of a way to list felons that was purposely overinclusive. Thus, an underlying policy that left a lot to be desired was carried out in a way that led to by some numbers over 90% false positives. The election officials had to follow the law, but not that way. A way that was patently unconstitutional with any respect of the true meaning of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment.

But, the only "equal protection" concern the Supremes had involved one man. Well, another, Gov. Crist (who announced the new policy referencing someone else with a similar name, noting the "'holy week of redemption"), is to be honored for recognizing what really matters.

[More here, see also comments.]

Todays News: Legal Cases

First off, a check of my posts over at the Slate fray showed a reply that re-considered a strong disagreement with my stance on congressional subpoenas etc. here, thanking me for the discussion. I thought said person did not really respond to my arguments before, but perhaps it was in effect a matter of quick replies given shortness of time etc. I don't know, but appreciate my words had some effect. I do hope such fora, including my role in them, provide a useful discussion device that helps both sides.

Anyway, the top legal story in the NYT today might be one discussing the breadth of New York City's efforts to infiltrate and document possible protesters to the 2004 convention. I have on my wall a personal account printed in the NY Daily News from that time entitled "My 47 Hours in hell." It discusses the lousy conditions of the cells (ad hoc sorts of things at Pier 57) where protesters were held. First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams' book is but one source where we can understand how the First Amendment was threatened under "American's mayor," Rudy G. Things like that ... not the marriage biography of him and his wife ... is what should concern us. (Again, Rudy v. Hillary scares me.)

Seems that things are only somewhat better now ... a kinder and gentler sort of threat. One which some fear going near certain protests, since one is liable ... outside of "free speech zones" (look at the protesters! oh ... that one got too close to the cage line!) ... to be arrested. The article spells out the increased post-9/11 efforts of the city itself to keep track of possible harms from such events. I am sympathetic, up to a point, since we are dealing with an influx of people, a few of whom do want to commit civil disobedience. But, honestly, these are not the people I fear most these days. And, the efforts against them, including those infamous "files" on people who did nothing illegal, are quite troubling.*

Another important article concerned an upcoming case involving home health workers paid through an agency. The matter involves a statutory interpretation -- again shared by the NY mayor -- that holds that such people are not covered by overtime rules. The concern is that there are only a limited amount of funds available for such workers, often paid by public funds, though the case would not involve those not paid through agencies. These -- like babysitters and the like -- would still not be covered.

The matter eventually goes to statutory interpretation, but it still underlines the number of important non-constitutional issues the federal courts must handle. Likewise, it seems patently unfair that such individuals would not obtain such benefits. As someone who has worked through agencies myself, and obtained time and a half for jobs much less stressful than this type of work, it surely seems a tad bit ridiculous. But, many will tell you that current policies do not properly honor such people, many who are pushed into the work given stricter welfare rules. Like "ordinary" sorts whose spouses suffer thru cancer, their options are less ideal than the likes of the Edwards.

A final story is more of a special interest sort of thing, involving an adult incest prosecution in Ohio. The NYT also covered this story, but this link provides a good summary as well. As the one dissenting vote in the ruling assumed, the ascertained interest of familial unity is not really why this prosecutorial path was taken. As is usual in such "consensual" sex cases (see also fornication, sodomy), it was used "as a means to prosecute a strict-liability, slam-dunk sex offense that does not allow the defendant to present any evidence regarding the consent of the victim."

The woman accused her stepfather (22/44) of rape, but it would have been somewhat hard to prove, so they took this path. The man got a somewhat lax sentence, but also the mark of Cain: "sentenced to 120 days in jail, three years of community control, 250 hours of community service and was designated a sexual offender." He made a statutory and constitutional change. The dissent (it was 6-1) focused on the former, arguing "Imbued in [the statute] is the notion of parental, or quasi-parental, responsibility and control over the victim."

One can imagine, especially with difference in ages between spouses, where the two individuals are about the same age. Is this the intent of such statutes? In the past, probably, though this one was a more modern version updating earlier regulations. I think there is a valid case, not that Lawrence v. Texas would necessarily take you that far given its "rational basis" language would necessarily take you there (its slam dunk nature makes it harder to apply in trickier cases, as it should, but see the sex toy case not covered). This is a closer case, surely, even if the rape allegation technically is not at issue.

"Incest" is one of the bugaboos raised when same sex relationships arise, but the word simply is not a slam dunk scare tactic. This is seen by looking at the breadth of its use in the Bible as well as the second cousin marriage of a top presidential candidate. The majority here noted that: ""traditional family unit has become less and less traditional, * * * the legislature wisely recognized that the parental role can be assumed by persons other than biological parents, and that sexual conduct by someone assuming that role can be just as damaging to a child." But, this surely can be taken only so far, especially when "child" means someone twenty-two.

I think the authorities should have been forced to try it as a rape case. Yes, as the majority noted, he could have divorced his wife and then had a chance to have these relations. (You know, relations without relationship.) It is not exactly a major civil liberty violation or anything (the tragic fire in the Bronx, killing several children, also raised another matter -- the Mali immigrants were practicing polygamy), but it is troubling enough to be worthy of note.

But, as a legal analyst noted in the NYT, we probably shouldn't worry too much until it is used in a clearly consensual case ... still, that assumes guilt. Is that kosher as well?

---

* The article online had various links, but apparently ones often automatically generated. Thus, the link to "Under a United States Supreme Court ruling, undercover surveillance of political groups is generally legal" did not go to the ruling itself, but to the paper's general coverage on the Court.

I emailed them suggesting this was problematic. I wanted to know the name of the ruling itself; ditto a case about incest. [STATE OF OHIO, APPELLEE, v. LOWE.] I found simple emails of this sort often received nice replies, though don't quite know how useful they were in the long run.