Columnist.
Here is a quick summary of President Obama's recent debate with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
With a month to go before California voters decide whether to legalize marijuana, Proposition 19's opponents have pinned their hopes on desperate arguments that illustrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the prohibitionist position. Unable to offer a persuasive moral justification for continuing to treat marijuana users and suppliers like criminals, the No on 19 crowd has tried to distract voters' attention with several bright red herrings. Here are five of the smelliest...
In the "Pledge to America" they unveiled last week, House Republicans promise they will "launch a sustained effort to stem the relentless growth in government that has occurred over the past decade." Who better for the job than the folks who ran the government for most of that time?
As Democrats head for what promises to be a midterm election fiasco of historic proportions, a pre-emptive excuse has begun to circulate: It's all because of Citizens United. Team Donkey fans claim the Jan. 21 decision, in which the Supreme Court overturned restrictions on the political speech of corporations, triggered a flood of negative advertising by what President Obama calls "shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names."
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration for its excessive secrecy, noting that it had "invoked a legal tool known as the 'state secrets' privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court." Obama also promised to end "extraordinary rendition," a practice through which "we outsource our torture to other countries."
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal may never have served in Vietnam (despite his recollections to the contrary), but he is a hero in the war on prostitution. Armed with nothing but sternly worded letters, indignant press releases and a seemingly inexhaustible store of self-righteousness, Blumenthal played a key role in pressuring Craigslist to shut down its "adult services" section, which he called a "blatant Internet brothel."
Alan Simpson violated a taboo last week when he likened Social Security to "a milk cow with 310 million tits." But contrary to the dictionary-deprived critics who accused him of sexist vulgarity, the former Wyoming senator's transgression had nothing to do with his use of a perfectly acceptable synonym for teat. Simpson's real sin was "belittling a bedrock program," as the AARP put it -- i.e., showing insufficient reverence for a sacred cow.
In a November 2008 telephone conversation that was recorded by the FBI, Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich daydreamed about what he could get for appointing Barack Obama's preferred choice to fill the president-elect's Senate seat. "Cabinet's out of the question," he said, "but Health and Human Services ... I'd take that in a second. That'll never happen."
I do not often agree with President Barack Obama or New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. But they have taken the right position in the controversy over plans for a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan, defending religious freedom and property rights against government meddling driven by irrational prejudice.
At first blush, the notion that there is no rational basis for California's ban on same-sex marriage, as U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled last week, seems extreme. But the more you consider the arguments presented by the ban's supporters the less far-fetched Walker's conclusion looks.
In 1941, the Supreme Court overturned a Pennsylvania law that required non-citizens to register with the state, carry an "alien identification card" and present it to police officers upon demand. The court said the law conflicted with a federal policy, based on treaty obligations and the constitutional principle of equal protection, that sought to "protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens" and keep them "free from the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance," including "indiscriminate and repeated interception and interrogation by public officials."
Last week, a federal judge confounded both sides of the political spectrum by ruling that the 10th Amendment requires the federal government to recognize state-approved gay marriages. Progressives worried that U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro's reasoning cast doubt on the constitutionality of many existing federal programs, while conservatives worried that it required equal treatment of same-sex unions. Since I am one of the few Americans who welcome both of these outcomes, perhaps you should take my opinion with a grain of salt.
