US politics

US politics — 2 Comments
3
Apr 06

Bush Senior says atheists are not citizens

This is an unusual quote from George Bush’s 1987 Presidential election campaign:

Robert Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

George H.W. Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

I found this quote via Kevin Drum’s Political Animal, and it would be fair to say that its provenance is hotly disputed in the comments.

But, what I find most interesting, speaking from the perspective of a Brit who has lived in the States, and is therefore not entirely clueless about US politics, is that I have no problems in believing that a Republican US politician could think that this was either:

  1. Actually true
  2. A politically astute way of appealing to the religious vote

Either of these options is damaging for the integrity of American politics.  If a politician doesn’t believe atheists should be citizens or, worse, doesn’t care but is prepared to sell them out for votes, then one day atheists could actually lose their right to be citizens.

US politics — Comments Off
31
Mar 06

Borders bookstore caves in to censorship by violence

Borders bookstores have announced that they will not stock the April/May edition of Free Inquiry magazine – because it contains four of the Muhammed cartoons.  They’ve cited the safety of their customers and staff as their primary concern, which has caused outrage from the magazine’s editors. 

What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression,” said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry. “Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire … To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy.”

He’s right.  Borders have caved in here, albiet with the best of intentions.  They’ve tried to protect their customers, but they’ve tried to protect them by responding disproportionately to the level of threat. 

Of course Borders should do their utmost to protect the security of their customers.  But any decision such as this should be made on a the basis of a rational risk assessment.  Borders, instead, have based theirs on an irrational fear.

How many bookshop patrons or employees in the United States have actually been violently assaulted as a result of their decision to stock a newspaper, book or magazine that some Muslims consider offensive?  Not a lot (possibly even none). 

How many bookshop patrons or employees in the United States have actually been violently assaulted as a result of their decision to stock a newspaper, book or magazine that anybody considers offensive?  Again, not a lot.

And have Borders received a specific threat that would make them fear for the safety of their patrons or employees?  Well, they haven’t mentioned it, so I very much doubt it.

So, given that the level of risk is ridiculously low, the response should proportionate.  If we don’t nip this in the bud, it won’t be long before we see bookstores adopting a nuclear deterrent, on the off chance the Soviet Union reforms.  

Update:  Dale Amon at Samizdata has tracked down Borders’ customer care email address, and urges you to write.

US politics — 6 Comments
27
Mar 06

US Supreme Court raises middle finger to middle america

You gotta love Antonin Scalia, Bush’s new appointee to the Supreme Court one of George Bush’s favourite Supreme Court Justices.

While sitting in church, Scalia was asked how he deals with criticism over the separation of church and state. In response, he slowly lifted his middle finger:

You know what I say to those people?” Scalia replied, making the obscene gesture and explaining “That’s Sicilian.”

Respect.

Americablog, a patriot, and a Christian to the last, expresses the indignation of millions of God-fearing households:

Scalia owes every Christian an apology. If a “gay activist” had done this, it would be the headlines around the world and the gay community would be apologizing for it for the next 20 years.

President Bush, is this still your favorite justice?

Thing is, if Scalia had been gay, he’d never have become a Supreme Court Justice. And so, nobody would have even noticed him waggling his finger.

UK / US politics — Comments Off
12
Mar 06

The cost of democracy

In the United States at least, it’s astronomical, says the Washington Post:

“There is a growing sense that there is going to be a $100 million entry fee at the end of 2007 to be considered a serious candidate,” [Michael E.] Toner said in a recent interview.

And how much will it cost to actually win?

[...] many analysts believe that 2008 will be a clash of such titanic intensity that the nominees will reject public funding — and the spending limits that govern it — even for the fall campaign. If so, most bets are that each major-party candidate would need to raise in excess of $400 million by the Nov. 4, 2008, election. Candidates would want to raise as much of that money as early as possible, so as not to waste precious campaign time holding fundraisers.

And how much does it cost to be a serious candidate in the UK?

If a party were to contest all 646 constituencies, its expenditure limit would be £19.38 million.
The rules to political party spending are considered separately to spending by individual candidates. Candidates can spend 6.2p for every entry in the electoral register plus £5,483 in county constituencies.
In borough constituencies, the limit is 4.6p per elector plus £5,483. At the last election, the average amount spent per candidate was £3,581.

Bargain.

Europe / Former Soviet Union / UK / US politics — Comments Off
11
Mar 06

Hungarian politician to present cartoon of Belarussian President to British Prime Minister

A very odd story indeed.

A Slovakian organisation arranged an auction of satirical cartoons of Alexander Lunkashenko, the authoritarian President of Belarus:

One of the most expensive pictures drawn by SME caricaturist Shooty, became a subject of tough competition between the leader of the Hungarian Coalition Party Béla Bugár and U.S. Ambassador Rodolphe Vallee. Bugár won and bought the picture for 30.000 SKK. He commented that he would give it as a present to British Prime Minister Tony Blair at a joint dinner the same day. Bugár also got the next picture on auction – to give it as a present to the USA President George Bush next week.

Tony and George will, I am sure, be thrilled.

Tech / UK / US politics — Comments Off
11
Mar 06

Free our data!

An interesting campaign began in this week’s Technology Guardian, aimed at making all data collected by government free to consumers and businesses. The basic argument is that as taxpayers have already paid to collect the data, why should they then pay again to access said data?

Imagine you had bought this newspaper for a friend. Imagine you asked them to tell you what’s in the TV listings – and they demanded cash before they would tell you. Outrageous? Certainly. Yet that is what a number of government agencies are doing with the data that we, as taxpayers, pay to have collected on our behalf. You have to pay to get a useful version of that data. Think of Ordnance Survey’s (OS) mapping data: useful to any business that wanted to provide a service in the UK, yet out of reach of startup companies without deep pockets.

It’s an interesting argument. The key problem though, of course, is that if organisations like OS don’t recoup any of their costs by selling the data, then they’ll need increased government revenue. Which means higher taxes for you and me.

So, the question then becomes – will the giving away public data for free provide enough extra tax revenue to (more than) cover the lost income?

Yes, says the Guardian. Just look at the example of the United States:

Pira pointed out that the US’s approach brings enormous economic benefits. The US and EU are comparable in size and population; but while the EU spent €9.5bn (£6.51bn) on gathering public sector data, and collected €68bn selling and licensing it, the US spent €19bn – twice as much – and realised €750bn – over 10 times more. Weiss pointed out: “Governments realise two kinds of financial gain when they drop charges: higher indirect tax revenue from higher sales of the products that incorporate the … information; and higher income tax revenue and lower social welfare payments from net gains in employment.”

The only way we’re going to get an answer is if we take a punt, and try releasing data for free for a few years.

I’d wager that, as the data becomes more and more important to our information technologies, such a gamble will pay off.  But we have to take the leap now.  If we don’t, the EU’s direct revenue from public data will become so great that it will be too hard for Europe’s governments to relinquish that direct income stream in favour of a nebulous future tax income.  And by then, it will be too late.

Culture / US politics — Comments Off
6
Mar 06

Gay penguins banned from library

Having a bit of a gay-themed day here at Taking Aim. Parents in Missouri are up in arms about male penguins that might be gay because they looked after an egg together. The horror!

A book about two male penguins that raised a baby penguin has been moved from the children’s section to the non-fiction section of two public library branches after parents complained about homosexual undertones.

The illustrated children’s book, “And Tango Makes Three,” is based on a true story of two male penguins in New York City’s Central Park Zoo.

The penguins, named Roy and Silo, adopted an abandoned egg in the late 1990s.

Presumably, the ‘non-fiction section’ the article refers to is in the adult section of the library. Which begs the question – what kind of library doesn’t have a children’s non-fiction section?

Blogging / UK / US politics — Comments Off
5
Mar 06

If you can't debate, don't blog

Congressional press secretaries in Washington recently attended a conference on the impact of blogs on politics.

The questions asked by the press secretaries were the most enlightening part of the conversation. My favorite was this: Is there an expectation of engaging in debate if lawmakers start blogging?

The question is telling both because it shows how disinterested that too many people within Congress, the heart of American democracy, are in the very idea of debate and because it shows how clueless they are about the blogosphere years into its development. The answer is “yes,” folks, and shame on you for not realizing that your bosses should always have an expectation of engaging in debate, whether in the blogosphere, at town halls or within the halls of Congress.

Which is kind of scary in a way, but not too surprising.  It’s a problem which I predict will affect the blogging of British politicians too, particulary government minister David Miliband’s forthcoming blog.
The problem is that the second biggest fear of lawmakers and politicians everywhere is entering into discussion over policy.  Because, to actually enter into an honest debate means to risk losing that debate, which of course risks leading to the politicians number one fear – public defeat.

In an ideal world, politicians would far rather others engage in the often vicous cut and thrust of real debate, leaving them the opportunity to sneak in at the finishing post and champion the winning policy position.

But the world of the blogs is one that holds debate at it’s very core (some honest, some not), and there is no way that politicians can ever really enter fully into the blogosphere unless they are prepared to actually take other bloggers on over political issues, express their opinion, listen to counter-arguments and risk ‘losing’ to the better argument.
Which is why so few politicians have blogs worthy of the name.

Global politics / US politics — Comments Off
27
Feb 06

Always look on the bright side of life

Eric Idle would be so proud:

fox - upside to civil war.jpgfox - upside to civil war 2.jpg

Global politics / US politics — Comments Off
20
Feb 06

Clinton says "convict" publishers of cartoons

Gateway Pundit has an interesting story about Bill Clinton allegedly telling a news conference in Pakistan that pubishers who printed the Danish cartoons should be “convicted”.

Jim Hoft contacted the Pakistan Daily News, who broke the story, and was told the following:

  • There have been no complaints received from the Clinton Foundation over the article
  • The Daily Times will not comment further on the article at this time.
  • The Daily Times is not retracting nor making changes to their report at this time
  • Part of the Daily Times report was taken from comments after the official news conference

Which raises some interesting questions in my mind.

  • Please can we see a transcript of the press conference? We currently only have the word of the journalist who wrote the article. He wasn’t the only journalist at the press conference, so I’m unsure as to why none of the other journalists – professionals with an eye for a story, I’m sure – thought the comment newsworthy. Even the other story Jim quotes, from The Nation, doesn’t repeat the “convict” comment.
  • Has the story actually been brought to the attention of the Clinton Foundation yet? They may well not yet be aware of the story – although I guess it’s well and truly ‘broken’ now.
  • Does the Clinton Foundation have a policy about not complaining about press reports? Lots of organisations don’t complain on purely practical grounds – it can be far more hassle than it’s worth, and can drag kicking and screaming back into the spotlight a story that would otherwise die a quiet death in a lonely corner.
  • Why would Bill Clinton – a reasonably clever man with a law degree – call for a conviction, rather than a prosecution? I mean, if ever there was a man who knew the power of words in a court of law, Bill Clinton is that man – as he proved during the Monica Lewinsky scandal where he was very very careful with his definitions.

Still, despite my scepticism, this is a story to watch. I’ll be interested to see how it develops.

Update:  Looking into this story slightly more, I see that, in an earlier post, Gateway Pundit links to Mark in Mexico, who also has worries about the authenticity of this report, and seems to have hit upon why the reporter mentioned above thought that Clinton had called for a conviction:

I think I see what has happened here. The ex-president is quoted in several of the news sources as saying that

“religious convictions of the people should be respected at all costs and no media should be allowed to play with the religious sentiments of people of any faith.”

The Pakistan Daily Times needs an English translator.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →