If I Were King

Eric H. Holder, Jr, the US Attorney General, yesterday announced that the Department of Justice would aggressively prosecute federal marijuana laws in California if state voters approve legalization on 2 November. Somehow I think the nation’s top lawyer has better things to do.

Of course, I also think he has things to do that make sense, and throwing endless resources into prohibition decidedly does not. It is obvious to the intelligent observer that the vast majority of ill effects from drug use in the US today stems not from the drugs, but from attempts to eliminate them. This is true of every drug banned, with the possible exception of methamphetamine, and the only reason that meth is a factor is that it’s easy and cheap to make in the face of government actions that eliminate safer alternatives. (There is simply no way that users are going to buy meth, or PCP for that matter, if they have a full range of choices.) But this post is not about general drug policy, just marijuana.

Marijuana is not without problems. It makes you lazy. It makes you stupid. But it doesn’t make you violent, it doesn’t make you spend the rent and grocery money, and if it’s legal it doesn’t have any risk of drive-by shootings to establish distribution territories. I don’t smoke pot because I don’t want to, the microbrews in the Pacific North Wet are too appealing. But that is a personal decision, I certainly don’t need help from Washington City to make the choice.

If I Were King, Mr Holder would be instructed to do real research into a sensible drug policy. And if he insisted on attempting to enforce ancient prohibitions against marijuana in jurisdictions where the voters or the legislators decided it wasn’t a crime, he would be instructed to do some research into applying for unemployment.

Earlier this week, Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Federal District Court of the Central District of California did the only rational and constitutional thing she could: She ordered the Department of Defense out of the personal lives of soldiers and staff. Don’s Ask/Don’t Tell was a stupid and unconstitutional plan when it was created, the seventeen years during which it has governed the military has proven that it was stupid and counterproductive.

The Department of Justice intends to appeal. Reports vary, some say they are obligated to defend every Congressional act, others say it is strongly supported by tradition. What they should do is follow the Governator’s lead. After the courts overturned Proposition 8 in California, the proponents of that foolishness appealed, the papers listed the governor personally as a nominal defendant, supposedly expected to argue in favor of the law as passed by the voters. (Voters whipped up with huge amounts of out of state money.) California sat on its hands. In fact, the plaintiffs obviously had the support of the governor and the city officials that were officially defendants. It was probably a good thing, it would have been embarrassing to be associated with the logical and legal failures of the appeal. (I spent several hours reading testimony and the decision in that case, I wouldn’t use the defence legal team to fight a traffic citation for 5 mph over!)

If I Were King, government funds would not be used to further an unjustified discrimination. And we would have quietly applauded the judge’s choice to make her decision take effect instantly, and around the globe.

On Sunday, wing nut Republican candidate for governor of New York Carl Paladino, side by side with sort-of Hassidic rabbi Yechezkel Roth, made a speech to Orthodox Jewish leaders. Among other things, he said, “I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t.” Cameras were rolling, it’s on YouTube.

Note that the rabbi in question is not exactly a big deal, his synagogue has roughly two dozen members. That’s even fewer than the fundamentalist Florida fruitcake that made waves with plans to burn a Qur’an last month.

Well, Carl, homosexuality is not an option, it’s a fact. It’s valid in the same way as gravity is, and absent interference from outsiders with no legitimate role in the question, it’s successful.

It’s also a straw man here, nobody has any intention of brainwashing anyone regarding homosexuality. You’re straight? Fine. Nobody is asking you to have sex with a person of the same sex. Nobody even wants you to watch.

And your children aren’t going to choose to be homosexual because there are homosexuals in the classroom or homosexual couples living on your street. (Your legitimate children probably already have established their sexual orientation.) Nobody chooses to be a homosexual. It’s exactly the same as for heterosexuals, you and I didn’t choose that either. (Maybe I shouldn’t speak for you. I know I didn’t choose to be straight, and I’ve never heard of anyone who chose to be straight or gay. At some point we all become aware of our sexuality but we don’t choose it.) You don’t get to take credit for choosing to be straight.

There are options — choices to make — regarding sexuality. Promiscuity is a bad choice. Abusing positions of power for sexual conquests is a bad choice. Fidelity to marital vows is a good choice. You could, for example, take credit for being monogamous and faithful. That’s hypothetical, of course. You could have, if you had been monogamous and faithful. Having sex with an employee is an abuse of your position of personal power. I hope you are providing well for your former employee and the daughter you conceived.

If I Were King, my commitment to freedom of speech would allow Paladino to say the same silly things. Subjects like that could lead to great savings, a court jester would not be needed.

Today is Coming Out Day, an occasion for showing support for civil rights of the LGBT community. I’m straight, and I support human rights for humans and civil rights for those who are civil (and for some who aren’t, actually), without consideration of race, creed, age, sex, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. (Is “confused” a sexual orientation? Seems that fits a lot of folks.)

But Van, you’re a Christian, isn’t homosexuality against your religion? Short answer: No. The longer answer? Christ loves every one in every situation, and if you happen to be a lesbian that detail is hardly enough to make a god of love back off, or even hesitate. God is love. “And they’ll know we are Christians by our love,” as we sang back in the ‘sixties.

But Van, doesn’t the Bible clearly say that homosexuality is wrong? Short answer: No. The longer answer? For good and valid historical reasons, the Torah is reproduced in the Bible. Specifically, the book of Leviticus is included. Leviticus has two parts, the Jewish Holiness Code and the Jewish High Priestly Code. I’m not a Jew, and I’ll never be eligible to serve as high priest (because I’m not Jewish and because my name is not Cohen or one of the acceptable variations thereon, both absolute barriers), even if the temple were rebuilt in my lifetime. I’m a Christian, and Christians are not called to follow Jewish law.

But Van, it’s in the Bible. Doesn’t that make it true? Sure it’s true, it’s part of the history of the Children of Israel. They were actually given all these laws over three thousand years ago. And there are even those who follow those rules today, observant Orthodox Jews. They keep two complete sets of pots, pans, plates, and silverware. I appreciate the dedication to tradition that this entails, but I do not follow them, for a number of reasons. I appreciate the fact that Jesus specifically swept the old laws away (story is found in Matthew, “It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that defiles him, but what comes out.”) But even if he hadn’t, there are plenty of good reasons to live by the law of my time instead of the laws of Canaan circa 1425 BC: Lobster. McDonald’s Quarter Pounder with Cheese. Clams. Ham. Every sandwich I make. Bratwurst.

Scholars have proposed reasons for different parts of the Holiness Code, but we can’t really know what they were. But we can be confident that all the rules regarding sacrifices, the separation of dairy and meat, the absolute prohibition on meat from animals with cloven hoofs (i.e., the glorious pig), the prohibition on any seafood that doesn’t have scales, all these things may have had a reason at a certain point in Israel’s past but are not normative for life in the United States today.

And the God I worship would not smile to learn that I was taking a minor point of ancient law, out of context, and using it to be hurtful to my fellow creatures. Sex is a good and wonderful thing. Marriage is a good and wonderful thing. It is unacceptable for a Christian, gay or straight, to forbid these things to anyone old enough to consent intelligently.

Being a Christian is not a logical decision. We specifically believe that you cannot come to faith in Jesus Christ of your own will, that such a faith comes from a call issued by the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the choice to enter ordained ministry, with all the requisite preparation, is subject to call as well, first a call from God and then a call from a congregation. If homosexuality were wrong, there is no way that an omniscient God (who would know who was straight and who was not) would continue to call homosexuals to faith and to ministry, yet he does. Logic says that if a call is necessary for faith, and there are homosexuals in the pews, then God loves them and wants them to be part of his church. There is no escaping that argument.

If I Were King I would still be Christian, I would still be straight, and you would absolutely be treated the same whether you shared my religion or my sexual orientation or not.

Back in January the Supremes handed down a decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, ruling that corporate funding of political advertising was protected by the First Amendment. Many commentators were horrified at what that would mean for the democratic process, and now that the elections are in full swing we are seeing the results. (See Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post for just one of many.) At the time, although I didn’t blog about it, I felt that it was the only legal decision possible. On the other hand, I felt, and feel, that the money behind political advocacy needs to be limited somehow, and must be identified. I presumed, vainly as it turns out, that campaign finance rules requiring publication of these contributions, would be in effect by the time the floodgates opened.

At the time, the biggest objection to the Citizens United ruling seemed to center on expanding the rights to free speech to corporate persons. Many were outraged that all “persons” would have the rights of natural persons, and others were offended that foreigners could contribute to campaigns as well. Neither of these bothered me at all. As long as the public disclosure rules were enforced.

At the same time, I also floated another idea, and as the scope of political speech unleashed by the decision expands, I continue to think it merits some thought. I have always been uneasy about the idea that there could be any limits on political speech. On the other hand, the idea of foreigners with no legitimate involvement in a campaign, other than the profits they might extract, contributing mountains of cash seems problematic. The most obvious example of this came last year when Mormons in Utah contributed a large part of the funding for the nasty Proposition 8 campaign in California, the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. (To me, there is absolutely no logical difference between Germans or Russians influencing national decisions and Utah churches or California movie stars influencing state or local decisions outside their own communities.)

So here’s my more complete opinion: If I Were King, anyone would be able to contribute any amount to any political campaign as long as two simple requirements were met: 1) All political contributions over $25.00 would be subject to public disclosure. 2) Political contributions in an amount over $25 could be made only by persons registered to vote in the jurisdiction affected. Partnerships, associations, corporations, churches, and labor unions would be left out. Hollywood stars would be unable to send large checks to influence campaigns in Colorado, unless they established their primary residence there, although they could buy a T-shirt or attend a $20 fund-raising potluck.

Yes, I would regret the loss of revenue for the media, but I don’t think overwhelming the voters with paid messages is the best way to save the newspapers.

Today’s Quotes of the Day were on the theme of “Birth” because this is the anniversary of the birth of Chester A. Arthur. During the 1880 presidential campaign, in which he ran as vice president with James Garfield, it was charged that he was not born at Fairfield, Vermont but rather in Canada. Some said he had been born in Ireland. In his case, there were no written records of his birth at all.

It turned out he was a pretty fair president after Garfield died, so he only served part of one term. He recognized the problems of the “spoils system” then in place, a system that he had benefited from and in which his backers thrived, and created what we now know as the Civil Service System. His administration was probably not absolutely devoid of corruption, but it was dramatically better than any in the decades before him.  Even Mark Twain, who had little use for any officeholder, approved: “It would be hard indeed to better President Arthur’s administration.”.

In the course of my introduction to the quotes I characterized the birthers of our day as “halfwits”. As I mentioned back in April, I encountered my first birther in a public place, having previously not really believed that such persons existed. To my surprise, there actually were a few who were subscribers and they took offense. They basically said that I was the halfwit if I believed that Obama actually had a “birth certificate” that showed him to be a US citizen.

Oh, puhleeze! No, there is no document that says “birth certificate”. I don’t have one either, mine says “Certification of Birth”. Obama’s says “Certificate of Live Birth”, presumably because the state of Hawaii has enough sensitivity not to issue birth certificates to parents who have gone through the ordeal of a stillbirth. What we refer to as a birth certificate is any document issued by a government or agency thereof that attests to the birth of a child. It lists the name, the place, the date, and the names of the parents. There is no verification that I’m aware of, although if the child is born in a hospital it’s a pretty safe bet that the place, date, and mother’s name will all be accurate. Somebody fills in a form, the form is sent to the appropriate registry, the information is entered in some sort of register or database, and certificates are issued as required by law.

In the case of my daughter, a nurse asked me to go to the hospital office and fill out a form, on which I wrote in my name as father and probably signed it. That was it. No DNA test to prove that I actually was the father. For that matter, there was no test to ensure that the mother wasn’t a surrogate renting out her womb for the occasion. And though I think the resulting “birth certificate” actually used those words, it was small plastic rectangle with embossed lettering – a credit card with no charge privileges.

The birthers are halfwits if they think the current president is ineligible for office based on the fact that his birth certificate doesn’t have the exact wording they prefer. More likely they are looking for anything to beat on the president with, know there is no basis for it, and just don’t mind looking stupid while they beat on a dead horse. I’m not wild about there being a president, as long as there is I can’t be king. But I’m intelligent enough to see that there isn’t any issue here.

If I Were King it would be all the same: There would still be halfwits, cretins, morons, and imbeciles willing to cherish the absurd and consider it as truth.

Yesterday the Star Tribune ran “Schools struggle with gay policies,” an article of some concern that shows that, for all our recent progress, we still have a long way to go in dealing with sexuality. Given four suicides in the past year by GLBT students in or connected with the Anoka-Hennepin School District, it isn’t a minor issue.

The district has adopted a policy of neutrality, sexual orientation simply isn’t part of the curriculum. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean — it cannot mean — adopting a policy of neutrality toward harassment and bullying.

In the story, Minnesota Family Council President Tom Prichard is quoted as saying, “I don’t think parents want their kids indoctrinated in homosexuality,” and that teachers shouldn’t be saying that homosexuality is acceptable. Codswollop. Or to quote a great litigator of the past, “irrelevant and immaterial”. Schools don’t teach that gravity is acceptable, but they still teach that it exists, and that it has to be respected.

According to an article in The Minnesota Independent, there is a secretive group calling themselves Parents Action League that is campaigning to make sure the problem is made worse. They claim to support the district’s neutrality while campaigning to bring the “The Day of Truth” program to district schools, a program that teaches that homosexuality is a sin, that Christian students should be outspoken in condemnation of it, and that gays can be “cured” through prayer. In other words, a program that claims to be Christian but is completely uninformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The school doesn’t need to teach anything about homosexuality at all, I’m sure the curriculum has sufficient goals to keep everyone busy. This isn’t about teaching. This is about maintaining an environment in which it is possible to teach math and language and other subjects, it’s about maintaining an environment in which everyone can learn.

If I Were King, I’d still be straight, but education is simply too important to let bigots interfere with the process. I’d still be Christian, but possibly even less tolerant of those who call themselves Christian yet support vicious programs with proof-texting from parts of the Old Testament that they don’t follow in their own lives.

Last week (20 September) the New York Times reported that GMAC was suspending foreclosure actions after it was revealed that those responsible for preparing affidavits for the court filings had been signing affidavits at a rate incompatible with a review any more detailed than making sure there was an amount due and a borrower’s name on them. Actually, they announced that they would be suspending foreclosures in the 23 states in which foreclosures take place in a courtroom. That seemed odd.

Yesterday the Times reported that JPMorgan Chase was following suit. Strangely enough, Morgan unit is also only suspending foreclosures in 23 states. This is wrong. Given that it is almost certain that it is in those 23 states, where defendants and their counsel have a venue for challenging the lenders’ paperwork, that the problems were the fewest, smallest, and most subject to being found out.

Two national lenders have now both decided to carry on with their suspect actions against homeowners in the states where they have the best chance of getting away with it, and taking a second look at the paperwork in the states where they might get caught at something underhanded. If I Were King, or a governor of one of the other 27 states, I would order that all foreclosures be vacated that had not yet led to new owners paying for the repossessed properties, and that no new filings would be allowed from these vendors until they had submitted plans for preventing recurrence. I would also instruct my investigators to survey the courts to see if other banks that have not yet admitted to the problem needed to be dealt with in the same way.

Chris Madison bought out a pizza place here in Freeland a bit over a year ago, and he’s been telling me for months that he wanted me to build a site for him, as soon as he could get a little ahead. I finally put my foot down and told him to stop messing around. Besides, he’s probably going to be paying for it entirely in pizza, so why should he wait.

He moaned about how little time he had, and I told him that’s why he had me. So he handed me a menu. Today I got a site up for him. It doesn’t look like it will probably end up looking like, we haven’t shot any pictures yet, but the menu is there. There’s some slightly sassy temp text you’ll need to look fast to see. (As far as I can tell, he hasn’t looked at the site yet, he’ll probably make me clean the odd stuff up tomorrow.)

The food is damned good, at least what we’ve eaten. We tend to alternate between the barbecue chicken and Mediterranean pizzas when Larkin and I are both eating, but I’ve had the Supreme and thought it was very tasty. I haven’t had any of the sandwiches yet, but after typing the descriptions in I’m definitely ready to try a couple of them. The Mediterranean salad is also great. I’m not saying this because he’s a client now, he’s a client now because we thought the food was good.

Chris is into the Flintstones, so the flag on the site is set in that font, and it’s also why it isn’t Madison Pizza, but Madistone Pizza. Given half a chance he’d change the street signs from Scott Road to Bedrock Lane.

When anyone speaks to the press, it’s a good idea for that person, or any spokesman for an organization or another person, to actually think about what they’re saying. I understand that there may be some pressure to say something ‘right now’ rather than think about it, which means you’d better think about the questions before you get the call. I came across a stunning example of this last week in Sides Form Over Threat to Saturday Mail Service by Yeganeh June Torbati (New York Times, 5 July 2010).

There is some weakness in the article in that, as far as we can divine from the text, the “sides” aren’t balanced. Against the change are postal employees wanting to preserve current work schedules, credit card issuers and insurance companies not wanting to miss a single opportunity to send you a bill, and health care networks hoping to reduce costs by mailing prescriptions. On the other side, nameless businesses that have kept some national organizations from coming down solidly against the change with no reasons given and Netflix preferring the cut to even the smallest of rate increases. Come on, shouldn’t the writer have done a little more to flesh this out? And aren’t we all pretty used to the occasional rate increases for what is, in daily use, an excellent service?

The article quotes Andy Rendich of Netflix (Chief Service and DVD Fulfillment Officer) in support: “Big rate increases will absolutely squash business and will absolutely slow growth for a company like Netflix.” The article did make fairly clear the interests of those opposed to the cut, but let Netflix completely off the hook. A journalist has some obligation to make the issues clear: Had I been writing this piece, I would have called bullshit. (In a most dignified and regal way, of course.) Netflix’s motivation is the same as a landlord campaigning for a switch to thirteen months from twelve in the year. Their costs are absolutely tied to the number of days their shipping facilities are open, their income is absolutely tied to the passage of months. On average, this cut will reduce every operating expense the company incurs by at least 15%: wages, DVD purchases, and postage. It won’t have any affect on executive salaries or rent, but everything else is driven by the number of mail days. Are they ready to lower their subscription rates by 15%? I doubt it.

There has been a case of landlord’s benefiting from a reduction in the length of a month, but it was a one-time gain in every country when it switched from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar. Netflix would make out like bandits every month. Until their subscribers woke up and noticed they were getting screwed.

In terms of public relations, perhaps Netflix should be all in favor of this change, being careful never to let a soul know about it. In actuality, Netflix is a major part of keeping the postal service afloat, along with eBay, as most correspondence moves to e-mail. The six-days-per-week delivery of DVDs is their primary competitive advantage over their competition. If they think that moving from physical delivery of DVDs to streaming the same content over the internet is to their advantage, I wish they’d share what they’re smoking. Their only advantage in the online-delivery arena is their pool of dedicated subscribers. Crap on those subscribers, which their support of dropping Saturday delivery does, and their days are numbered.

The Times should have done a better job of laying this out, Netflix should have been more intelligent about revealing their motivations, and Netflix really needs to think about where their interest lies. The Empress Larkin and I are satisfied Netflix patrons (standard two DVD plan), but we’re not likely to ignore changes that run counter to the royal viewing needs.