The applause for the death penalty at the recent Republican debate truly took me by surprise. Here’s the clip in case you haven’t seen it:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meX1EwDXLp4)

First, from a purely political standpoint, it’s quite a contrast to go from a debate railing against the excesses and encroachment of government to literally cheering the greatest possible power a government can have over its citizens: the right to take a citizen’s life.

I debated the death penalty a bit with some friends a couple of months ago. They were both in favor of it, but I won’t really be able to represent their side of the argument here, since I still can’t quite comprehend it, to be honest. The death penalty isn’t cheaper for society than life in prison, nor has it been shown to be any significant deterrent on crime. The only reasoning left, as far as I can tell, is “an eye for an eye”, which strikes me more as a slogan than a philosophical stance.

Death penalty proponents must place a lot of faith in the system, but I think that place is misplaced.

I recently read the 2009 New Yorker article about Cameron Todd Willingham, which describes the trial and execution of a man who, now with increased scrutiny, was likely innocent. It’s a long article, but definitely worth your time. Willingham was executed in Texas under Governor Rick Perry, so expect to hear this name more if he stays in the race.

The article zooms out to the larger issue a bit, too:

Since 1976, more than a hundred and thirty people on death row have been exonerated. DNA testing, which was developed in the eighties, saved seventeen of them, but the technique can be used only in rare instances.

The amount of effort (and luck) needed to get exonerated is exceptional. It’s not hard to imagine how many people must have not been so lucky.

The discussion with friends that I mentioned above was, as far as I recall, the first time I’ve debated the issue with someone on the other side, but from the polling data I’ve found, I’m clearly in the minority on this one. This page shows the polling numbers broken down by a bunch of different demographics (including religion), and this is the only chart that shows a group that doesn’t support the death penalty:

That page suggests that this difference may be because “Blacks represent 42% of the inmates on death row, but only 12% of the nation’s population.”, but I think it’s a lot simpler than that: a lot of black people have seen a justice system that is anything but just. It would make no sense to trust it with the death penalty.

On a lighter note, this sketch about firing squads is really funny:

Some good stuff for you politics and economics people. My favorite joke was the one at 4:05:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW9dxFrAk-I)

From a CNN poll:

Americans estimate that foreign aid takes up 10 percent of the federal budget, and one in five think it represents about 30 percent of the money the government spends. But the actual figure is closer to one percent. [...] The public estimates that the government spent five percent of its budget last year on public television and radio. [...] The real answer is about one-tenth of one percent.

This is hardly news, unfortunately.

The most important areas: Defenese, medicare/medicaid and social security are all about 20% each.

By the way, if PBS got 5% of the US budget, that would be over 170 billion dollars. That could buy a nice set for Charlie Rose!

Some people with similar political views and a similar sense of humor to me say that they would love to have Sarah Palin run for President, as it would be hilarious and would be an unsuccessful campaign. As far as I can recall, I’ve never bought in to this for a couple of reasons: the prospect is too scary to begin with and I am still hoping for some sort of legitimate intellectual conservatism to emerge.

I’m not sure I really have as much restraint in the face of Donald Trump. He’s just such a great caricature of the tea party that I can’t help but watch. When talking about how he was a better businessman (and therefore more qualified candidate) than Mitt Romney, he recently said: “[I have a] much, much bigger net worth. I mean my net worth is many, many, many times Mitt Romney.” I seriously can’t wait for this year’s Republican primaries.

John Jay (NY delegate to the Continental Congress, NY Governor, and first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court) is quoted as having said “Those who own the country ought to govern it.” While this sort of sentiment would likely be disagreeable to all but the most objectivist modern American, it’s very much a reflection of what we have right now. This is nothing new: if anything, it has become less blatant. By some estimates, over half of white men were barred from voting at the time of the Constitution (source), largely caused by property requirements. At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said:

Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.

While I of course wouldn’t support it, there are some arguments for land owners to have more control in the government: they have a stronger long-term vested interest in the affairs of the state. Similar arguments support the expectation that those who earn more will contribute more money in taxes.

Vanity Fair had a must-read piece about the causes and effects of income inequality in America. It begins:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. [...] While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top.

And on the effect of this inequality with government:

Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

And finally, one thing I’ve seen too many times myself:

This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Far too many smart people have worked to create financial instruments beyond comprehension and control. These people could have been working on solving actual problems, but instead worked on finding better ways to gamble. Blind adherents to free-market theology would argue that anything that makes money within the boundaries of the market must inherently be good, but I don’t think any honest person looking at the financial industry in the last decade can continue to make such claims with credibility.

Some would claim that raising these sorts of issues would constitute “class warfare”, as if engaging in class warfare makes the argument inherently invalid. Whatever it’s called, it doesn’t seem like the current trajectory is sustainable.

Just saw this clip from Anderson Cooper.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAqarG8l6w)

Favorite quote from Cooper:

You also talked about victory mosques that Muslims built hundres of years ago on sites of military conquest. Don’t all religions do that? You’re Catholic, Rome was conquered from the pagans and their altars were destroyed so the Vatican could be built. Christian conquistadors and pilgrims to America all destroyed local religions and built their own houses of worship. Is the Vatican a victory church?

I wouldn’t follow the same line of argument that he does (as he seems to be arguing ‘victory religious structures are normal’ instead of ‘this isn’t a victory mosque’), but it’s still an interesting point. The rest of the interview is pretty good.

During this clip of CNN (shown on The Colbert Report), Wolf Blitzer says “The nation’s poverty rate jumped to 14.3% last year. [...] More than 43.5 million Americans are in need, that’s the highest number in half a century of recordkeeping.” while this is shown on the screen:

If you look at the chart, you can see that the poverty rate was over 15% in 1991 (the y axis is a bit hard to read here, but trust me). So, yes, the raw number is the highest it’s been in a half century, but that record has more to do with population growth than the raw poverty rate. If they hadn’t been showing that chart when Blitzer said this, I don’t think I would have noticed that subtle trick.

I don’t mean to minimize the significance of the poverty rate, but still, I think the rate is the really meaningful figure here.

It’s been nearly two months since I’ve written here.. back to work!

For those not in California, here’s a description of Proposition 19:

The act would authorize possession of one ounce of marijuana for personal consumption by people 21 and older, permit marijuana use in private residences or public places licensed for on-site consumption, and allow marijuana cultivation in private residences for personal use. It includes strong restrictions regarding the sale or use of marijuana to or around minors, and would permit city and county governments to regulate and tax it.
(source)

I’ve read or heard many arguments in favor of this proposition, but I haven’t seen much against it (I know, I know.. I live in San Francisco). Yesterday, the LA Times published an editorial coming out against the measure. I hadn’t seen some of these arguments before, but I still didn’t find them to be too compelling. Excerpts and responses follow:

[The] proposition is in fact an invitation to chaos. It would permit each of California’s 478 cities and 58 counties to create local regulations regarding the cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana.

They do have a point that the complexity in implementation and enforcement isn’t ideal, but it seems like this is the most reasonable way to move forward. Communities that don’t want legalization can make their own rules, much like “dry counties” in the US can have strict rules about alcohol.

Regardless of how the vote goes on Nov. 2, under federal law marijuana will remain a Schedule I drug, whose use for any reason is proscribed by Congress. Sure, California could go it alone, but that would set up an inevitable conflict with the federal government that might not end well for the state.

Oh, no… conflict! There should be conflict. We need conflict. There is essentially zero debate about this at the national level right now, and if California can force the issue, then that would be great. President Obama replies to reasonable questions about this with chuckles and derision right now, but a change in California would force an actual debate to take place. Or at least it would force some yelling or something.

Finally, the editorial seems to go off the deep end:

Far from helping the state’s economic outlook, Proposition 19 could cause substantial harm. For instance, it would put employers in a quandary by creating a protected class of on-the-job smokers, bestowing a legal right to use marijuana at work unless employers could actually prove that it would impair an employee’s job performance. Employers would no longer have the right to screen for marijuana use or discipline a worker for being high.

I read through the relevant parts of the proposition itself (pdf link) and can’t see how this would be the case. The relevant line from the proposition is:

Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

How would this be any different from alcohol? Employers don’t typically screen for alcohol, but can take action if it impedes job performance. To say that a worked could not be disciplined for being high seems like a ridiculous interpretation.

What’s most notable about this editorial is what it doesn’t discuss. It’s focused on legal technicalities, which are relevant, but basically ignores the big picture about legalization.

First, it ignores the whole basis for prohibition and fails to make any scientific arguments about differences between marijuana, tobacco and alcohol. I’ve yet to see anyone even attempt to make the claim that marijuana is more harmful. It’s not surprising that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors have given money in opposition of Prop 19.

Second, and more importantly, it ignores the grave human toll that the current drug policy has inflicted on the US and Mexico. By every measure, the war on drugs has been a failure. We’re paying an astronomical amount of money for a policy that has let drug prices go down, potency go up, our prisons fill up and a bloody war break out in Mexico. Marijuana usage in the US is higher than it is in The Netherlands and Portugal (where decriminalization has occurred).

This is a big deal for Mexico, though. I recently had a chance to hear former Mexican president Vicente Fox speak and he was quite forceful in his support for Prop 19 and made it clear that it would save Mexican lives. Just today I saw this picture and caption on Andrew Sullivan’s blog:

A corpse lies on the floor next to a car outside a house in Acapulco, Guerrero state, Mexico on September 23, 2010. Seven people were killed Thursday with assault rifles AK47 during a clash between drug dealers. The Mexican government declared war on the drug cartels on December 2006, which has since left 22,743 people dead according to official records. By Pedro Pardo/AFP/Getty Images.

(my emphasis)

22,748 is a staggering number. For comparison: in the US, a country with 3x the population and a lot of guns, we had under 13,000 total firearm-related deaths in 2007 (source). We’re paying billions of dollars for a policy that clearly isn’t accomplishing its goals, is filling up our prisons and is costing thousands of lives. But the LA Times is worried that it’ll make local laws too complicated. Let’s not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

I unfortunately haven’t been able to spend quite as much of my time following current events as I’d like to. In addition to working a lot, I’ve reallocated a lot of my news reading (and blog-writing) time to trying to learn Italian.

Anyway, sometimes I run into a news story that I should have known more about and think to myself “Wow, the media seems to be acting like this is an actual issue, surely it can’t be.” For example, when I first heard about the immigration law in Arizona, I assumed it was some loon state senator proposing something crazy that would be dismissed out-of-hand by any mainstream politician or commentator. Clearly, I was horribly wrong.

The same thing happened with the recent controversy surrounding the proposed mosque and community center a few blocks from ground zero in Manhattan. This seems like a zoning, land use and first amendment issue to me, but as is already clear, I’m wrong about a lot of things. I feel a bit silly wasting my time on something this obvious, but there are so many fish in this barrel that it’s time to start shooting.

First, let’s look at this apparently non-kidding statement from Newt Gingrich, which starts with this gem:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

Yes, apparently he believes we should be modeling our religious liberties after Saudi Arabia. And since when is expecting rights explicitly granted to you in the constitution equated to demanding “weakness and submission”? The First Amendment seems quite unambiguous on this subject:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Saying that there’s a large zone of Manhattan where mosques aren’t allowed seems to violate the “free exercise” part.

The Anti-Defamation League released a statement on the issue:

However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.

The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.

(My emphasis) Basically, it’s saying, yes, these freedoms are important, but some issues and places are just to sensitive, and we shouldn’t upset/offend people. This argument reminds me a lot of one I’d heard before: Muslims outraged by cartoons of Mohammed.

I worry that I’m creating a straw man here, so I should clarify a bit. Those who oppose the mosque are generally being pretty vague about what they think should actually happen. If you read the ADL statement, it doesn’t say “the government shouldn’t allow this”, it just says that it “is not right”. Whom are they trying to convince here? As far as I can tell, they are either trying to convince the mosque’s organizers to change their minds or they are requesting that this plan be blocked on the basis of religion at some level of government. I’m objecting to the latter, not the former.

The name of the mosque and community center is “Cordoba House”, which Gingrich seizes upon:

It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third-largest mosque complex.

Today, some of the Mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to “symbolize interfaith cooperation” when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.

I haven’t talked with any Islamists about this, let alone “every Islamist in the world”, but I was in Cordoba last Summer and visited the mosque. When I first got to the city, I was confused by people who kept referring to the mosque as mesquita catedral (“mosque cathedral”), only to discover that it’s basically a cathedral within a mosque. Here’s a picture I took while there, with the mosque part starting on the right:

From the mosque looking in to the cathedral:

A brief history of the site:
It was originally a Christian Visigoth church. After the Islamic conquest, the church was bought and built into a mosque and expanded over two centuries. When Cordoba was conquered by the Catholic Kings, it was re-purposed and they added the nave of a cathedral as well as a chapel to its interior.

At the height of Islamic Spain, Cordoba was a regional political, cultural and religious capital (with the mosque being one of the largest in the world at the time). Despite this, the religious freedom in Cordoba was much greater under Islamic rule than Catholic (the Moors were slightly less “inquisitive”). From wikipedia:

In spite of the restrictions placed upon the Jews as dhimmis, life under Muslim rule was one of great opportunity in comparison to that under prior Christian Visigoths, as testified by the influx of Jews from abroad. To Jews throughout the Christian and Muslim worlds, Iberia was seen as a land of relative tolerance and opportunity. Following initial Arab victories, and especially with the establishment of Umayyad rule by Abd-ar-Rahman I in 755, the native Jewish community was joined by Jews from the rest of Europe, as well as from Arab territories, from Morocco to Babylon (Assis, p. 12; Sarna, p. 324). Thus the Sephardim found themselves enriched culturally, intellectually, and religiously by the commingling of diverse Jewish traditions.

Cordoba isn’t a perfect picture of religious tolerance, but at its best, it was a good model.

Islamists want to portray the US as being in a war against Islam. Let’s stop acting like they’re right.

The political narrative from the primaries:
“Voters are very, very angry, so only expect between 90 and 95 percent of Congress to be reelected.”
-Alex Pareene, Salon.com