Torture Update

I do not understand why there is not more of an outcry from the American citizens when our government is authorizing torture. I don't get it. I realize that the headlines indicated that the new order ended the torture regime. But doesn't anyone bother to read more about it? Have the historical activities not taught us that our current regime seems to be heavily in favor of torture? We have abandoned the moral high ground to search for legal loopholes and gray areas. As a whole, we do not seem to care as much as we should.

See here for an article that looks into the new order in more detail and, unsurprisingly, finds that it does not, in fact, ban torture.

I just wish there were some way to talk sense into them!

A little more insight in the AG situation

Read this article to get a better understanding of the Alberto Gonzales scandal: Why This Scandal Matters - New York Times

Alberto Gonzales, Zen master.

I am at a loss when I try to understand what the heck is going on in the executive branch of our government. But, it is fun to read about the antics and wonder from a distance.Alberto Gonzales, Zen master. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

It is better to laugh at it because otherwise it would just be sad.

Time for the backlash

In the wake of the Virginia Tech tragedy, educators across America and the world and considering what to do with students who submit violent imagery or act as "loners". The natural reactions in these situations may be overreaction as it seems in this story: Student arrested for essay's imaginary violence - CNN.com. Now, I do not know the student's state of mind, but it seems that there is no indication of a propensity for violence other than one creative writing assignment so jail time seems a little harsh. The backlash was absolutely not unexpected...we can anticipate the repercussions to continue for years as they did after Columbine. The question is whether the general attitude that it is better to overreact and punish many people who would never commit a violent act than let one more slip through the cracks. The problem is that in a free society someone will always slip through the cracks and we risk alienating people who could otherwise be helped and limiting creativity and independence. I do not know where the balance is, but as a society we need to put some thought into it rather than just trying to create a false sense of security by handing down heavy handed punishments.

Not the worst idea I have heard...

Impeach Cheney First? - CommonDreams.org

Law & Order in the White House?

Slate has made Fred Thompson's first campaign add. I read an article recently in which Fred laid out his major policy positions. I think I disagreed with all of them. Oh, well. It won't keep me from watching L&O.

Texas law

Here is a story from Arlington: Husband kills wife's lover; wife charged - CNN.com I have to say that I agree that the wife is responsible for her lover's death. But, there are a few things that jump out at me in the story:

1. No one seems to question that it was alright to shoot a supposed rapist in the head when he was trying to get away. They are not suggesting that he was protecting his wife, just that he is justified in shooting a rapist in these circumstances.
2. He did not evidently question why his wife was in the driveway in a robe.
3. He happened to be carrying a gun. This point particularly stuck out - this tragedy would not have happened if people could not just walk around with a gun. He is not a police office or a security with a reason to be carrying a gun - he is an employee of a real estate firm coming home from a card game.

Gonzales Update

I have been enjoying Slate's tracking of the Gonzales scandal. I think it is obvious to pretty much everyone that the firings of the attorneys were politically motivated and the Gonzales knew about it. It is just a matter of watching how is all unfolds. Is Bush backing away from Gonzales? - By Emily Bazelon, John Dickerson, and Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Criticism from the inner circle

All of the opinions that I have formed about the President are based on publicly available information. Clearly I have no special inside track. This article addresses comments from someone who did have an inside track: Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President - New York Times. It is interesting to read how Mr. Dowd has gone from true believer to critic. It does make me wonder, though, if Bush is even aware of the criticism. Maybe he knows that Mr. Dowd is a turncoat, but I am not sure he has been given the specifics. I get the impression from various things that I read of the President as a slightly dim figure surrounded by yes-men who do not want to tell him something that might upset him. It is not a flattering impression and I am hopeful that it is wrong (though I haven't read much that contradicts it). As it is, I feel that there is nothing we can do at this point, short of impeachment, but just wait it out and hope he doesn't make any more colossal blunders. Clearly, having public opinion and Congress firmly in opposition has not weakened his resolve to do whatever he feels like doing.

Who's on first...

I must admit that I am a bit fascinated by the issues in the White House regarding the fired US Attorneys and all the cover up. But, it is a lot to keep up with. Here is a good summary: Where the fingers are pointing in the Bush administration meltdown. - By Paul Gottschling and Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

Although I do not understand all of the legal intricacies of the situation, it is just another example of the failures in the Bush White House and the dishonesty that is rampant. It is a shame that we all have to see these things play out. It would be better if it never happened. It would be better if we did not have to see Harriet Miers and Karl Rove saying they will speak to Congress, but not on the record and not under oath. It just makes it look like they have something to hide. The whole lot of them are acting like spoiled children who have gotten caught and are trying to cover it up.

Who doesn't know torture is just wrong? (Part II)

This time, the answer is the Southern Baptist leadership. "Surely not!" you may be thinking to yourself. Surely leadership of a Christian organization realizes that Christ taught us to do unto others and love our enemies. Alas, your thinking would be wrong (if this is what you were thinking). Your thinking would be right if you thought there was a chance that the Southern Baptist leadership has completely gone off the deep end and lost all traces of a connection with the actually teachings of Christ (for real this time).

Let's start with the basics: earlier this week, the NAE condemned the torture of suspected terrorists. To quote the Ethics Daily article:

The National Association of Evangelicals has endorsed an anti-torture statement denouncing "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" to those detained in the U.S.-led "war on terror."

"When torture is employed by a state, that act communicates to the world and to one's own people that human lives are not sacred, that they are not reflections of the Creator, that they are expendable, exploitable, and disposable, and that their intrinsic value can be overridden by utilitarian arguments that trump that value," said an 18-page declaration produced by Evangelicals for Human Rights. "These are claims that no one who confesses Christ as Lord can accept."

Of course, this announcement falls into the "about darn time" category. I would have expected that any sane human being, Christian or not, would read that announcement and not think twice about it. It should not even be a question as to whether Christians are for or against torture.

But, the Southern Baptists could not let it go by. Instead, Daniel Heimbach, professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, last week in Baptist Press termed an NAE-endorsed anti-torture statement "a moral travesty managing not only to confuse but to harm genuine evangelical witness in the culture." (see article here). What?!? A moral travesty to denounce torture? That can't be right. Maybe he was misquoted. Nope - follow the link and you can read the article straight from the horse's as...mouth. And so, the insanity is out in public for all to see. Way to proclaim the love of Christ.

I cannot say much more about this. I am speechless at the thought that this could actually be the Southern Baptist position - protorture. The follow up article on Ethics Daily sums it up better than I could. Everyone should read it. And pray for the Southern Baptists.

More Limits on Healthcare for the Poor

There are a lot of people in the world that I would like to shake until they stop being stupid. Some would require more shaking than others. One such person is Representative Nathan Deal (R - GA) - quoted in a NYT article today. Mr. Deal was one of the writers of legislation that required proof of citizenship for people to receive Medicaid treatment, resulting in thousands of people, mostly children, unable to receive benefits because they do not have an original passport or birth certificate. When questioned, Mr. Deal is quoted as saying that the requirement “has saved taxpayers money.” Well, no duh. Even less taxpayers money would be spent if we just cut off those freeloading children altogether. [The article indicates that he would recommend expanding the requirement to the Children's Health Insurance Program.] But, ultimately that is not really the point of the program. The point is to efficiently get care to those who need it.

It seems to me that this misguided new rule, supposedly intended to keep illegal immigrants from stealing our medical care, is just another way to cut back services to the poor without openly stating the intention. There were already rules in place that precluded illegal immigrants from getting Medicaid - it was left to the states to decide how and when to enforce and ask for proof. The new policy does not take into account that most poor people aren't heading to Europe for their vacations and thus do not have their passport handy at all times. Nor do they generally have the $10 to $30 laying around to get a new copy of a birth certificate. Instead, they will skip care because they do not have the necessary documents or the means to obtain them.

I encourage you to read the whole article to see the statistics from several states of the impact of this rule. It is appalling.

Why Working Women Are Stuck in the 1950s

This is an interesting article that addresses the struggles that women still face in American society. We have the right to vote and have been accepted in the workplace, but all things are not yet equal. I do not agree with the all of the author's suggested solutions, but it is a good topic to think about.

Who doesn't know that torture is just wrong?

Apparently, the US government. But, we all know that by now. There is no shortage of stories about the wide variety of steps the Bush administration takes to justify its clearly flawed policy. I read an article on Slate, "Abuseless", today that reminded me of the blatant hypocrisy of the administration as well as the terrible effects of torture.

In short, the current phase of the Jose Padilla case is determining whether Padilla is competent to stand trial. The defense position is that the torture he endured has broken him to such an extent that he cannot assist in his own defense. The government's position is that the torture (which they do not deny) had no impact on his mental state. To quote from one of the psychological evaluations: "He does believe that he is being persecuted by the government, and he does demonstrate some paranoia about the government, but this does not appear to be delusional."

Evidently, the government feels that it is not only morally acceptable to torture human beings, but will go so far as to make the argument that it has no impact on their mental state. If that is the case, then why torture them in the first place? Disregarding all of the moral and legal objections to torture, if it does not break down the subject's mental state, isn't it just a waste of time and energy? It seems that the only possible argument for torture (that it gets results) is shot out of the water here (presuming it had any validity in the first place). How can the prosecutors stand in front of the court and make this argument? How can Bush lay claim to the name of Christianity when these acts are carried out in his name? It boggles the mind.

Has the President read the US Constitution?

I wondered today if the president of the United States has ever read (and understood even on a basic level) the Constitution he has sworn to protect and defend. I listened to the Justice Talking show on presidential signing statements. In short, it seems to me that the use of presidential signing statements by the current president is a blatant disregard for the concept of separation of powers and checks and balances. They have been used by this administration more times that all other administrations combined.

The show got me wondering about whether Dubya (a) is blatantly trying to skirt the separation of powers to give himself more powers or (b) is ignorant of the concept and so sees no need to limit his own power. Either way, I take no comfort in the capability or honesty of the man currently tasked with leadership of the country. This is just another issue to add to the long list of problems.

The Other Side of War

I am opposed to the war in Iraq. I have been opposed to the war ever since they started making the arguments about weapons of mass destruction. I would have been against the war even if they had located the mythical WMD. None of the arguments for invading Iraq even came close to meeting the requirements of just war. I think we were driven into this war by the manipulation of the current administration. I am outraged and upset at the lives of American soldiers that have been lost. I am sorely ashamed of the behavior of my country. But none of these things are the purpose of this post.

In this great mess, it is easy to lose sight of the real victims in this crisis - the Iraqi people. It is so easy to get caught up in pointing the finger, finding the many flaws in the politicians, and just keeping up with the body count that we do not think about the real impact on their daily lives. I do not doubt that life was not great under Saddam, but it certainly did not include the daily bombings and mass murders that are taking place today. In this war, as in every war, the victims are the innocent civilians whose lives are ripped apart.

Throughout our world, there are women and children suffering the effects of war. I know there are many organizations that are working to help them. One such organization that I was reading about today is Women for Women International. Women for Women won the 2006 Hilton Humanitarian Prize for being an organization that significantly alleviates human suffering. We should all support organizations like this that seek to reduce the suffering inflicted by wars. I hope that we will all seek to spread peace as much as we can.

Sojourners is hosting a Christian Peace Witness for Iraq on March 16, the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. This is a good time to come together to show support for peace and opposition to the current war and any future wars that may be brewing.

Taxes and Social Policy

Today, I found two interesting articles on AlterNet about what some consider a dreaded topic: Of course, I am not one who dreads taxes. They are where my bread is buttered, so to speak. I am fascinated with how taxes are used as a tool in social policy and development. I find it more interesting that I would care to share at parties (except perhaps parties with other CPAs). But really, it is an important topic. One aspect of politics that hits everyone right in the pocketbook.



The first article in question is "Why All Tax Credits Should Be Refundable". The basic premise is that because those who have less tend to pay little or no taxes, the wealthy disproportionately benefit from tax deductions or credits. Although the author's heart is in the right place, his theory is based on the idea that all tax incentives are designed to benefit the poor. While it is true that certain incentives, including the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, are geared specifically at the working poor, these credits are already refundable. Personally, I would advocate increasing the amount of the EITC but that is a separate discussion.



There are a vast array of other credits and deductions designed to encourage individuals and businesses to behave in ways that were considered positive for society when the particular law was passed. Some of them do provide disproportionate benefits for the wealthy, but the answer is not to make credits refundable but to do away with incentives that encourage activities that are generally out of reach for the poor or middle class (for example, reduced tax rates on dividend income that is not in a retirement or education savings account).



The author asserts that it would be better to give a 30% government matching contribution rather than reduce taxable income for contributions to a 401(k) or IRA. Although the article indicates that this has been proposed by Brookings and MIT, it does not address what the potential incentive would be or how this would benefit society. First of all, 401(k) are specifically designed to be a deferred compensation plan - that is, you are encouraged to forgo earnings now (and reap the benefit of reduced taxes) so that you can have this income available in the future. The incentive for employees to participate is the immediate benefit of reduced taxes, which results in the societal benefit of increased savings rates and a lower burden on government support in the future. Although a government matching contribution may increase the future benefits to individuals, it would provide no immediate benefit and thus reduce the incentive for participating in the plan, particularly for younger workers who view retirement as an extremely distant and hazy concept rather than an immediate reality. Secondly, changes to 401(k) or IRA plans will not and are not generally designed to benefit the working poor. The working poor are not generally in a position to put away 15% of their income or drop $4,000 a year into an IRA - they are working to pay for food, housing and medical care. They are simply not the target market for these tax breaks.



I do agree with the first paragraph of the article that argues that tax deductions are not the way to increase health insurance to the many uninsured American. When your target audience are one of the lowest income groups in society, it is important to acknowledge that they are not paying taxes and therefore do not in fact benefit from tax deductions. From their own statistics, it is clear that the White House is aware of this. So, in my somewhat cynical view it seems that this is a proposal to make it look like they are trying to expand the availability of health insurance without actually putting any money where their mouths are. So much more needs to be done to fix the debacle that is the American health care system.



The article does not address credits for businesses that benefit society as a whole. Certain incentives for businesses indirectly benefit low-income or minority groups by giving employers credits for hiring certain employees, such as the Indian employment credit or the welfare-to-work credit. There are also a wide variety of credits and deductions that seek to move capital to areas that would otherwise be considered inefficient, such as alternative fuels and orphan drugs (drugs for rare diseases and conditions). But I digress. My point is that our tax policy is designed to promote a wide variety of benefits to society as a whole and are not completely focused on the poor and low-income families. Although this article takes too narrow a view, it is an important reminder that tax policy cannot be made in a vacuum and that if issues are worth government assistance then we should reason through the most logical and best way to achieve the goal. There is never going to be one single answer.





The next article on taxes highlights the misalignment of priorities that is endemic in the Bush administration. [Note: some language in the article may be offensive.] I find it infuriating the the Bush tax cuts so disproportionately favor the wealthy. In the current budget proposal, the tax cuts for the wealthy are balanced with cuts to social service programs. Although the traditional Republican philosophy has been for a small federal government, they are dramatically increasing spending, primarily for defense. It is hypocrisy and I find it sickening. I could go on, but if you have stuck it through this long I guess it is only fair to let you off the hook now. I will save more of my ranting for another time.

The Hypocrisy of Shrub & Co

Imagine this...a certain country [Country A] holds weapons of mass destruction (the infamous WMD), its leaders are openly hostile to another country [Country B] and they (the leaders) have a history of violence. Though once an elected leader, the head of state in Country A ignores the will of a majority of the population and has left a large portion of the population in poverty to fuel his war machine.

In this situation, some would argue that Country B has every right to attack Country A in an effort to prevent an attack by Country A on Country B. Some would say that this act of aggression, though seemingly against all international laws of war, was justified. Country A has it coming. Country B may argue that the potential results of the use of a weapon of mass destruction are so grave that preemption is warranted. In fact, Country B may argue that "military preemption" is legitimate when the threat is "emerging" or "sufficient," "even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." After all, the posture and rhetoric of Country A make it clear that they have Country B in their sights. Why should Country B just wait around to be attacked?

At this point, you may think that I am talking about the US war with Iraq. After all, this clearly illustrates a situation in which the Bush Doctrine would be applicable. This was the argument our government made in convincing the country to go to war with Iraq. It also seems to be the argument that they are starting to build against Iran.

I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. But, that is beside the point. The example I gave above was not a theoretical justification for the US to attack Iraq or Iran or any other nation. Rather, it was an illustration of the flip side of the argument - in this case, the US is Country A and the threatened nation is Iran. Could they not use our own logic against us? Not likely. Clearly, there is no chance of the Iranian army invading the US to preempt a US attack on Iran. But, under the Bush Doctrine such an attack would theoretically be justified. That is the great flaw of the doctrine. However, there is another aspect of the Bush Doctrine that is more subtle, making it less applicable to other nations: that is, only the US has the right to preemptive attacks and preventive wars. We would not tolerate any other nation trying to use this justification to invade another sovereign nation. And yet, we find ourselves again in a situation where the government has started to put together a story about a country bringing harm to US soldiers in Iraq. The writing is on the wall - the next step will be showing Iran as an "emerging" threat. I expect talk of nuclear capabilities will soon enter the fray if it has not already. I only hope that Congress and the American people can be stronger this time. We went to war based on flawed logic and bad intelligence once, I hope it does not happen again.

As our great leader would say, "Fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."