This latest of a string of similar stories from Canada over the past few years ought to be taken into consideration as the individual steps toward Rhode Island’s undemocratic importation of same-sex marriage are taken:
In 2003 [the Knights in Port Coquitlam, B.C.] discovered that their hall had been rented by a lesbian couple to celebrate their wedding. But as Catholics the Knights followed Catholic teaching and the Church opposes same-sex marriage. They offered to find another hall for the couple, pay for its rental and also for new invitations to be printed: Sorry for the bother and all that and I’m sure you understand.
Not quite. The couple in question decided to take their oppressors to the provincial Human Rights Commission, who ruled last year that the women should be compensated for “undue hardship.” Representatives of the complainants said that the punishment was too mild and that they intended to appeal the ruling.
Which only goes to prove that those silly old Neanderthals who oppose gay marriage are being fanatical when they say that their rights are being questioned. …
The fact is that no priest, rabbi or imam is going to be forced at bayonet-point to perform a gay wedding. That, however, has never really been the issue. As one of the leaders of the gay community said to me on television, “We’d never demand that someone conduct a ceremony, but if they oppose the law I do think we should question their charitable status.”
ADDENDUM:
In response to some comment box sarcasm from Jay, perhaps I should elaborate on what is actually wrong — even insidious — about this sort of “progress.”
The extreme idealization of anti-discrimination that has become fashionable, particularly on the Left, undermines what is perhaps the most fundamental principle required to ensure a civil, pluralistic, and free society: that differences can and should be addressed, perhaps resolved, in realms other than government as much as possible. It is a thinly veiled totalitarianism, indeed, that insists that citizens are entirely free, as long as their public behavior accords with the reigning belief system.
Jay’s sarcasm is a wonderful example of the sort of non-government pressure that can be brought to bear in the social sphere as an effective means of phrasing an issue so as to encourage social change toward a particular worldview. Of course, Jay’s specific commentary is also a wonderful example of the perils of wielding such rhetoric: when it is expressed in terms of social pressure, rather than legal reasoning, one can reasonably wonder whether its proponents actually believe in freedom at all.
While running errands on my way home from work yesterday afternoon, I heard Sheldon Whitehouse explain to Dan Yorke’s radio listeners that balance between the parties is important in the federal government (from part 2 of Yorke’s streaming audio):
… right now the Republicans have a monopoly on power in Washington. They do not provide any significant check on George Bush and his administration. They’re trying to create what is essentially an accountability-free zone down in Washington for George Bush’s policies. And it’s the most partisan and toughest, meanest group you’ve ever seen. And the only way — you know, for six years people have had a chance to have them listen to other ideas, or to have them come and work with the Democrats on solutions to problems, but when they have all the power, and they don’t want to listen, and they don’t want to work with people, there’s only one way back. And that’s to make sure that the institutions of government in Washington are balanced, and in fact that there’s some Democratic aspect to this.
One very disappointing observation about Whitehouse’s performance — especially in context of the broader Democrat message — is that the Democrats are not asking why American voters have taken all majority power away from them. Oh, you get the standard allusions to fear-mongering on the part of the Republicans, but that only emphasizes the absence of any admission of the responsibility that an active opposition party inherently must claim. It only emphasizes that the Democrats are essentially fear-mongering in turn, with, as Yorke pointed out, the Republicans as the villains.
He may do so only out of necessity, but at least Chafee is willing to discuss the trends and shifts within his own party and explain where he sees his role as being. The fact that the Democrats won’t even hint at the possibility of evaluating their own trends and shifts explicitly to “bring voters back” within their fold — nevermind correcting problems within their own party — is worrisome.
My second observation of Whitehouse’s appeal to the distribution of power is that, in taking up such a message, Rhode Island Democrats are walking a very fine line. To the extent that it has merit with respect to the federal government, it has at least an equivalent degree with respect to our state government. If they succeed at implanting that principle — that mode of political thought — in voters’ minds, they will undermine Charlie Fogarty’s campaign for governor.
Personally, I think that would be a positive development; for Rhode Islanders, Governor Carcieri’s loss would be much more damaging than Senator Chafee’s.
An unsigned editorial in today’s Projo (drawing on a Rhode Island Public Expenditures Council study) repeats the kinds of numbers Rhode Islanders are all too familiar with…
- “Rhode Island spends significantly more per person on government than the national average ($7,077 vs. $6,493, in 2004, the most recent numbers available)”.
- “Should Rhode Island be content with poorly performing public schools when it is one of America’s leaders (eighth per capita) in spending on elementary and secondary education?”
- “Should the Ocean State…be satisfied to rank a lowly 42nd in per-capita spending on parks and recreation?”
- “According to 2004 statistics, the Ocean State spent $150 per capita in cash assistance for welfare recipients — third highest in America — compared with the $71 national average. Meanwhile, it ranked fourth in Medicaid vendor spending.”
- “Similarly, Rhode Island spent more on fire protection — $206 per capita — than any other state. The national average was less than half that, $97.
- “Rhode Island ranked 46th in per-capita highway spending. (To some extent that may reflect the state’s 50th rank in size.)”
- “The state also ranked 46th in per-capita spending on public higher education.”
Jeff Szymanski, Republican candidate for State Representative in District 7 (Providence), alleges that someone is trying to get him fired from his job for daring to run against an incumbent legislator. Mr. Szymanski thinks he knows who the someone is — the incumbent herself, Representative Joanne Giannini. The following is from a Szymanski campaign press release…
Szymanski alleges Giannini wrote a letter to his high school principal that attempted to have him fired. Though the letter was typewritten, the envelope was hand written. Szymanski obtained Giannini’s nomination papers from the Secretary of State’s office to compare her handwriting with the letter. “Everyone who has seen the papers and letter side by side says they’re a perfect match”, he noted.Represenatative Giannini may indeed be nervous about the upcoming election because she is tied to former Senator John Celona and the events that led to the Roger Williams hospital corruption trail, and her version of events doesn’t match Celona’s. According to Mike Stanton of the Projo…
The letter began with, “I am a parent of one of the students at Walpole High School, Walpole, Ma. I am very concerned about one of the teachers at Walpole High School.” It went on to say that “Mr. Szymanski is unjustly influencing our young people on gay marriage” and that “he is using our children to promote his gay agenda in Rhode Island.” It also stated he “uses students in political advertising.” It was signed “Concerned Parents of Walpole High School”. (There is no such group, Szymanski said.)
Szymanski said the letter, which was also sent to the Governor of Massachusetts, is utterly without any merit. The letter was postmarked in Providence, which was Giannini’s first mistake in pretending to be a Walpole parent, he added. Second, “no parent would write such a lengthy first sentence stating where they live.”
Third, “Giannini has never sat in on any of my classes. If she had, she would know that my campaign has absolutely no part in my lessons” Szymanski said. Fourth, Szymanski noted that the ‘gay agenda’ comment is perplexing, as he and Giannini both share the same position on gay marriage. (They both favor civil unions.)
“My campaign’s focus has always been about tax relief, getting rid of corruption, creating jobs, and reforming education. Gay marriage isn’t a main concern of people when I go door to door.” Lastly, in response to the use of students in advertising, Szymanski noted he was quite proud to display on his website a classroom photo of he and some students from a scholastic competition. “It’s no different than any other typical candidate’s photo of himself at his job or with seniors or neighborhood folks. Teaching is what I do.”
Szymanski turned all of the evidence over to the Providence Police Department in July. The Department and the Attorney General’s Office are still investigating what, if any charges, can be filed. “Joanne Giannini has failed the public trust by sending a letter with only one intent- to get me fired.” Though the letter is riddled with misspellings and grammatical errors, Szymanski affirmed its deadly serious purpose.
“Thank goodness I have been in Walpole for some time and have built a stellar reputation for excellence in and out of the classroom. If I had been a first year teacher, my principal would have been right to let me go on the spot, citing the need to eliminate any controversy”, he said. (Szymanski has taught in Walpole since December 2001.)
“In the end, my principal and I chuckled about the letter. Only after this incident did he fully understand what I had been telling him for some time-that Rhode Island politics is exceptionally dirty and that political machines will stop at nothing to keep control in Providence.”
Giannini contradicted Celona’s account of a lunch they had at Camille’s Roman Garden in 1999 with Driscoll. Celona testified that Driscoll, unhappy with Giannini’s sponsorship of legislation opposed by the hospital, directed him to warn the lawmaker to back down, or face retribution from voters in her district who worked at the hospital.Over the last few days, we’ve been discussing some national-level civil liberties issues here at Anchor Rising. But when it comes down to the final analysis, who should someone like Jeff Szymanski be most worried about: the National Security Agency wiretapping his phone, the President of the United States declaring him an enemy combatant, or a corrupt urban political machine willing to destroy his livelihood in order to keep him out of politics? [Open full post]
Giannini said that Celona did tell her that one bill would hurt tax-exempt institutions, and was “a bad bill.” But she said that he never pressured or threatened her and described the luncheon as primarily a “social gathering.” Driscoll did voice surprise that Giannini had supported one bill, but was not critical or threatening, testified Giannini.
Harrah’s is spending $106,000 a day and still can’t move the poll numbers. Rhode Island College’s Bureau of Government Research and Services has released a poll that indicates 56% of likely voters oppose the casino, 33% support it and 10% are undecided. This is in line with the Brown University poll last month that had it 55% against to 36% for. All that money and no movement. Why? According to Darrell West
“All these millions are being spent on an electorate where 90 percent of the people have already made up their minds,” West said. “They don’t seem to be getting a lot of bang for their buck.”
West said people tend to make up their minds early with “hot button” issues such as gambling, abortion and gay rights. Those undecided at this point are the least likely to vote, he said.
I think he’s right. Which is why Harrah’s and Chief Sachem Thomas are trying to undermine the credibility of Save Our State–and it’s titular head former Gov. Lincoln Almond–by questioning who is supporting SOS in the hope of casting them as hypocrites. In a letter written by Thomas to Almond (PDF provided by Dan Yorke), Thomas “exposes” the owners of Newport Grand, Lincoln Park, Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods as those–out of state gambling interests all–who have put money into SOS. True, but I don’t think that Thomas’ tactic will work.
The bottom line is that many people oppose the casino for different reasons. Other casinos and gaming establishments don’t want competition. The same goes for many other businesses like restaurants and concert halls like PPAC or “The Dunk.” Theirs’ is opposition based on economic self-interest.
Then there are those who oppose it because it smacks of a “special deal” and insider politics. They also think they state could get a better deal with competitive bidding. I’d call these the good (or smart) government types.
Finally, there are those who oppose it because they simply think that gambling isn’t a good thing, much less something to be relied upon for funding state programs. These are generally “casino conservatives” and even a few “nimbys”.
In general, these groups may not agree on many other issues. In fact, most of these small businesses, good government folks, “casino conservatives,” and nimby’s would probably oppose any expansion of gambling in Rhode Island–even if the beneficaries would be their current (temporary) allies from the other gaming companies. These gaming companies may have the money, but the other groups that oppose Harrah’s have most of the votes. They joined together based on their opposition to Harrah’s. That doesn’t mean that they will stay together forever, much less past November 7th.
Dan Yorke has postulated that there will be a full-fledged casino at Lincoln Park within the next few years. Maybe, maybe not–but one thing for sure is that many of Lincoln Park’s current allies against Harrah’s will turn around and fight just as hard against Lincoln Park should it try to expand its gaming footprint. Politics is about coalition building after all. As the issues change, so will the coalitions. It’s not hypocritical–it’s politics.
Thus, I think that Chief Thomas’ hypocrisy allegations have neither exposed anything new nor will they change many minds. As the aforementioned polls indicate, the position of the electorate has chrystalized already and most people are opposed to a Harrah’s casino. During the course of this debate, the disparate groups who oppose the Casino have become well acquainted with those with whom they’ve jumped into the Save Our State bed. And they rightly regard the relationship that they’ve developed with each other for what it really is: a one night stand, not a marriage.
1. How does the Military Commissions Act of 2006, recently passed by Congress, impact the right of American citizens to petition for a writ of Habeas Corpus?
In a word (two actually), it doesn’t. Here is the first line of the act after the definitions are finished…
(a) Purpose- This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.Most of what follows in the bill is part of the chapter defined above. Nothing in the bill applies to American citizens.
2. So what’s the controversy?
Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman wrote a Los Angeles Times column where he said the MCA “authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants” and hold them indefinitely…
BURIED IN THE complex Senate compromise on detainee treatment is a real shocker, reaching far beyond the legal struggles about foreign terrorist suspects in the Guantanamo Bay fortress. The compromise legislation, which is racing toward the White House, authorizes the president to seize American citizens as enemy combatants, even if they have never left the United States. This grants the president enormous power over citizens and legal residents. They can be designated as enemy combatants if they have contributed money to a Middle Eastern charity, and they can be held indefinitely in a military prison.But since the MCA applies only to aliens, Professor Ackerman is wrong. His column can only be described as hysterical.
3. Bruce Ackerman is a Yale law professor. You are a yahoo-blogger. Why should anyone listen to you?
Because even Bush-bashers who don’t like the MCA very carefully parse their language to exclude American citizens from the discussion when lamenting its passage. Here’s Senator Patrick Leahy commenting on the bill…
And I agree with more than 30 former U.S. Ambassadors and other senior diplomats, who say that eliminating habeas corpus for aliens detained by the United States will harm our interests abroad, and put our own military, diplomatic, and other personnel stationed abroad at risk.And here is Andrew Cohen, speaking very carefully in his Washington Post blog…
There will be a whole new class of residents who can be thrown in jail by the President and have to stay there indefinitely without ever having to face charges or get a trial.Note that Mr. Cohen is careful to say residents, not citizens.
And there are other honest liberals, like Columbia Law Professor and Findlaw columnist Michael C. Dorf, who think that the MCA stinks, but don’t write about a suspension of Habeas Corpus rights of American citizens in their criticism of it.
4. What might have led Professor Ackerman to believe that the MCA applied to citizens?
I can only speculate. The definitions section of the bill does contain language that includes a rather vague designation of “unlawful enemy combatant” that could apply to citizens?
`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means–But the bill also gives an express definition of alien…
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
`(3) ALIEN- The term `alien’ means a person who is not a citizen of the United States.Nothing that follows in the MCA allows someone who is not both an “unlawful enemy combatant” and an “alien” (see question 1 above) to fall under its jurisdiction. In other words, even if the President designates me as an unlawful enemy combatant, nothing in the MCA applies to me because I am not an alien.
5. So where does that leave the state of law regarding American citizens who participate in terrorist attacks against the United States?
Right in the same place we were before the MCA was passed, in a tug of war between the President and the courts, with Congress hiding from the issue.
There has been one case of an American citizen being designated an enemy combatant while on American soil, the case of Jose Padilla, who was arrested in Chicago in 2002 and detained as an enemy combatant.
As Michael Dorf explains, the not-entirely-clarifying results of the case have been an Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the President had the power to hold [Padilla] in military custody and the Supreme Court declining to hear a Habeas Corpus appeal filed by Padilla. The Supreme Court declined taking the case because the government transferred Padilla to civilian custody during the appeal process, rendering the question Habeas Corpus moot and leaving the fundamental question of Habeas Corpus rights unresolved.
The way our system of government is supposed to work, it is Congress’ responsibility to pass a law that clears up this ambiguity. Until they do, it will continue to be treated on an ad-hoc case-by-case basis by the courts. [Open full post]
Apologies that I didn’t get this post set up sooner. Anchor Rising readers should feel free to use this thread to give their reactions to the WHJJ 920 AM gubernatorial debate between incumbent Donald Carcieri and Charles Fogarty on today’s Arlene Violet show.
[Open full post]For the last several weeks (at least), the Providence Journal editorial board has been strongly advocating for implementation of a “universal health care” system. Here is an example from the October 3 Projo…
Until the United States puts everyone in the same risk pool (say, by extending Medicare to all), the situation will only worsen as the cost of increasingly high-tech medicine soars. That’s especially so because those who have health insurance often ignore the cost of treatment; since they’re not paying for most of it, they often overuse the medical system, injecting even more waste and expense.Here’s another from September 30…
The big question now is what percentage of middle-class voters who are losing health insurance will prove the critical mass that brings in a variant of the universal coverage and wide risk pool of other developed nations.
A national universal health plan is, of course, the logical solution to America’s chaos of private insurance, state health plans, and federal programs. Every other large industrialized democracy has a national health system, as opposed to the rather barbaric U.S. “system.”I am not a big fan of universal health care proposals. The health care crisis we face now is the result of excessive government regulation that separates people from having any influence on the form that their health insurance takes. Individuals are presented a very limited package of options through their employer once a year and are told to take-it-or-leave it. There are no serious alternatives allowing people to pay for better quality or seek lower costs, if they don’t like the narrow range of choices they are given.
Imagine if we sold automobiles like we sold health care. Once a year, you would be given the choice to buy a car, but the only car you could buy would be a fully loaded BMW. If you couldn’t afford it, too bad; buying a Ford Escort or a Chevy Cavalier would be illegal as per regulations set by the legislature. And if you didn’t decide to buy your car at the beginning of the year, you couldn’t buy one until next year. Under these circumstances, we would almost certainly face an “automobile ownership crisis”, but it wouldn’t be a market failure, it would be a regulatory failure.
However, there is one circumstance where I might be persuaded to support a statewide universal health care experiment, a proposal by economist Arnold Kling published in TCS Daily in response to Markos Moulitsas’ argument that libertarians should vote Democrat…
What I propose is that Democrats promise to support one major libertarian experiment. In exchange for Democrats agreeing to support this experiment, libertarians would agree to vote for Democrats.I think most people can agree upon the basis of Professor Kling’s challenge; our society is facing a number of crises rooted in the fact that certain of our systems, like the systems for delivering health insurance, or social security, or public education, were designed under assumptions that no longer hold true. They need to be changed and changing them will require a choice to move in either a more socialist or more libertarian direction.
The experiment that I have in mind is school choice. If Democrats would instead prefer an experiment with voluntary investment accounts substituting for Social Security, that is an acceptable alternative. But for now, let us work with school choice…
Traditional Democrats may say, “If we are willing to give libertarians an experiment, what do we get in return? Do we get a chance to experiment with our policies?”
I would welcome experiments with socialist policies, provided that they are only experiments. That is, the policies must be evaluated, and if they are found to have failed, they must be abandoned.
For example, I would welcome an experiment in which four or five diverse states adopt single-payer health care. My guess is that if people were to experience single-payer health care for ten or fifteen years, that would provide powerful evidence that it is a bad idea for the United States.
Given all of this, here is my question to the Projo editorial board: will you consider the idea that it makes sense to try a number of different paths towards public policy reform and call for something like a voucher system in education or individual Social Security accounts to accompany your call for universal health care, or rather than fixing broken systems, is the top-priority of the reforms you seek pressing individuals into state-controlled collectives wherever possible? [Open full post]
Anchor Rising readers are invited to use the comments section of this post to give their own real time reactions to tonight’s Rhode Island Gubernatorial debate between Donald Carcieri and Charles Fogarty (WNAC-TV, FOX 64 @ 8:00 pm).
Insightful comments, witty comments, and even comments that spin like a perfect Tom Brady spiral heading towards some receiver you may or may not have heard of are all welcome, but personally insulting or crude posts will be deleted as soon as I see them.
The comments are open now!
