King and American Politics

Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream" -

Obama Attacks Execs Involved in Oil Spill

President Obama has been attacking the executives of the companies--British Petroleum, Transocean, and Halliburton--involved in the massive oil spill just off of the coast of Louisiana Reuters reported today.

The open question is whether or not the protracted effects of the oil spill will damper public support for Obama's plan to open up much of the Eastern Seaboard and parts of Alaska to oil exploration and drilling for the first time.

The Department of the Interior has suspended giving out new drilling permits until May 28, when a safety review is due to be completed.

All the companies have tried to shift the blame, which may be worse press than just trying to accept responsibility. It seems to me that after hearing other big businesses mess up recently--notably financial services businesses--the oil firms and subcontractors would want to be careful to strike a more conciliatory and repentant tone. Alas, they have not. If their reaction to the crisis hurts public opinion of increased offshore drilling to the point that lawmakers postpone opening the new waters, they will have themselves to blame. In this environment where the American public trusts big corporations only a little more than they trust their unpopular government, honesty is probably the best policy. Too bad big oil hasn't learned its lesson.

Protests, Baseball, and the Arizona Immigration Law

I'm surprised to hear that the Arizona boycott is actually gaining force – as my understanding, which is the same as the textbook's – is that most boycotts and other large-scale protests end up swept under the rug or directed to the "sit-in room" because much of the protest machine is, much of the time, fabricated and insincere.

According to a May 14 blog post on the NY Times website, the "Arizona Republic is reporting today that Gov. Jan Brewer and tourism-industry leaders are so worried about the loss in convention and tourism business that they are setting up a task force, funded by $250,000 from the state’s commerce department, to counter what they say is “misinformation’’ about the new law."

And just to illustrate how far the issue has gone, my dad mentioned tonight that he read the MLB players union strongly opposes SB1070, and that many players, particularly those of Latin origin, have promised to boycott the 2011 All-Star Game if it's held in Arizona.

This is what finally got my attention. This is proving to be a very costly 'misunderstanding' that's forever branded the state's image in the eyes of most people, and isn't as much a policy issue as it is a P.R. issue.

Tightening Up the Legal System by Matt Hollander

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100504/ap_on_go_co/us_too_many_crimes

There is a peculiar media exchange occurring between Congress and criminal defense lawyers. The charge is that congress is enacting laws that are not clearly defined. The controversy has focused on provisions, or rather the lack there of, for crimes relating to “criminal intent.” This qualification is important in defining defendants who intentionally broke the law from those who make unfortunate mistakes. In a practical scenario, these are the provisions that separate manslaughter from homicide. The difference is not just legal terminology, but significant punishments. The interpretation of intent can mean the difference in decades of jail time.

The criminal defense lawyers say that these laws are unfair to the defendants. The vagueness of these provisions creates situations where people can be prosecuted for crimes that they were unaware of. The lawyers have collectively requested a review of many recently enacted laws, and every practical, as well as constitutional, argument support proper adjustments.

On a fundamental level, the authors of the Bill of Rights had this scenario in mind when they crafted the sixth amendment. It was very important to distance the nation from tyrannical rule, and one such method was to ensure rights to the accused. It is established that the government can neither illegalize an act, nor increase due punishment, after the act has been committed. The ambiguity the referenced provisions essentially make this injustice possible.

Matt Hollander

To have your cake and eat it too: American polls on Illegal Immigration by Matt Hollander

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-05-03-immigration-poll_N.htm

In a recent USA Today poll on illegal immigration, two-thirds of Americans want the government to do a better job of securing boarders, but they are sympathetic to illegal immigrants who have been solid contributors to the economy. While, this seems like a reasonable position, the ideologies are conflicting and produce a classic case of “wanting your cake and eating it to.” A topic that is as politically and racially charged as illegal immigration elicits the full range of feelings, often ones that contradict each other. The issue of illegal immigration raises the logical dilemma of breaking laws, and the emotional dilemma of enforcing that law through deportation.

So if the people of this country are so inconsistent on the issue, how are legislators supposed to address this issue? The mixed signal has many lawmakers at a standstill. Illegal immigration is one of the most prevalent issues and seemingly no one knows how to proceed. Legislators would be remiss to not confront this problem with a logical solution. The fact of the matter is that no matter what, the plan will cost an exorbitant amount of money to enact. Americans need to make a stand and be prepared to pay the price for their wishes.

Matt Hollander

Obama's Drug Policy

After repeated delay, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released its first National Drug Control Strategy earlier this week. In a May 14 article in The New Republic, UChicago professor and substance-abuse expert Harold Pollack (who also happens to be Stephen Hawking's dopplegänger) dissects Obama's drug strategy, weighing in on its pros and cons.

What did the Obama administration overlook? Pollack states that the strategy is too focused on fighting drug suppliers, which really won't go anywhere. Pollack argues that money would be better spent in prevention programs, which could actually yield results. Pollack also says that the Obama administration should have focused on other addictive substances, such as alcohol and tobacco, as these "continue to undermine public health" (is he suggesting prohibition-type legislation?)

So what's the Obama administration doing differently? What is it doing right? Pollack argues that both the evolved attitude towards drugs and the focus of the strategy are huge improvements. Obama's strategy, while still focusing on the prevention of simple drug use, will focus more on the prevention of "more explicitly harmful consequences: deaths, illness, and injuries associated with drug use." Obama's strategy also focuses on "[integrating] addiction services with general medical care," and will provide financing for addiction treatment. Additionally, Obama's policy will deal "more diplomatically and effectively" with drugs abroad (including Central and South American countries).

Financial Reform

Very few are happy with large banks and the Federal reserve at the moment. With bailout after bailout for banks, and literally trillions of unaccounted dollars within the fed, it is no wonder why the people want change. It started with Congressman Ron Paul of Texas proposing a bill to audit the Fed and making it accountable for its missing funds. However, he lacked enough support to make progress and the bill died.However, the idea has rekindled; Senator Bernie Sanders has proposed a bill that would audit the fed, and the bill is receiving much greater support from both sides than before. In addition, a second bill to break up large banks into smaller more efficient ones made its way to the floor with great support as well. With these bills, the proposers hope to limit the secret deals and lending that the Fed more than likely has been making and also stop banks from becoming welfare moochers.