Monday, October 03, 2016

Gary Johnson On What It Means To Be A Libertarian In 2016


This past August, Gary Johnson made an appearance on Tom Ashbrook's program On Point. If you're curious about Johnson's policy positions, it's definitely worth a listen. It doesn't look like you can skip around if you stream it from the website, but you can download an MP3 of the interview if you click the small icon under the play button.


Timestamps

07:07 - An overview of Johnson's positions

10:06 - What was your role at Cannabis Sativa Inc,, how do you see that in the context of American commerce, law, and culture?

12:27 - Gary Johnson's critique of Clinton's interventionist foreign policy

14:29 - Are you a fringe candidate?

15:26 - What would you do with the U.S. military?

17:08 - What would you do with the overall military budget?

18:51 - Isn't a consumption tax highly regressive?

19:49 - Why do you support free-trade?

21:33 - Do you want to get rid of social security?

22:53 - What want to cut spending by 20%. What are you going to cut?

24:54 - Can you expand on your environmental policy?

26:26 - How aggressive do you want the Federal Government to be to address Global Warming?

27:15 - What's your position on gun control?

30:58 - What's the core of your critique against Clinton?

32:35 - How would you downsize the Federal Bureaucracy?

34:55 - We see capitalism failing in front of our eyes. Why do you support it?

40:00 - Will you be on the ballot in all 50 states?

40:56 - What's the ultimate impact of your candidacy on this race?

41:42 - If it became clear you can't win, would you endorse Clinton?

CNN Libertarian Town Hall with Gary Johnson Bill Weld 3/8/2016



Timestamps

2:28 What do you think you need to gain momentum [in the polls]

7:27 How do you see where America's at?

9:15 Gov Johnson, you described Clinton as beholden. Who is she beholden to?

11:20 Gov Weld, do you still think Trump is a "huckster"?

13:20 What is your view on the threat of Islamic terrorism, and how do you keep our citizens safe while downsizing our military force numbers?

18:37 Do you think civilians in the US should be allowed to purchase and own semi-automatic weapons?

19:46 What is your response to the idea that a third party vote is a "wasted vote"?

21:04 Who has been the biggest inspiration for your views, and how has this person influenced you?

22:50 Could you elaborate on the type of judicial philosophy you'd want in a future Supreme Court Justice?

24:30 What do you both believe is the role of government is in regulating both religious freedom and civil liberties?

29:46 What steps will you take our nations youth will be educated on the risk of high potency pot, and if you'll support potency limits on all forms of marijuana

34:04 You intend to eliminate the Common Core standards as well as the Department of Education. What plan does your administration have to insure children in all states have access to high quality education

36:46: Cooper asks them to weigh in on the knife attack in London

38:40 How are you similar to Bernie Sanders, and what would you say to win Sanders fans' votes.

40:29 How do you compete against the much higher fund raising numbers of Trump and Clinton?

42:26 I'm a Republican Muslim American Veteran. I'm not voting for Trump or Clinton. Why are you a better choice for someone like me?

45:12 As a white man in America, how do you feel about the Black Lives Matters movement?

47:10 Do you think Clinton should have been prosecuted for mishandling State Dept emails?

49:25 What do you think about hardline libertarian policies like decriminalizing prostitution?

51:18 Do you believe the government has a responsibility to fight the obesity epidemic?

Thursday, February 07, 2013

Rachel Maddow Links Bush's Torture Program With Obama's Assassination Program


This is normally something I'd share directly on Facebook/Google+, but there's no option to clip the segment without embedding it into a website. Posting it here to share elsewhere.

Here's Rachel Maddow's coverage of NBC news scoop: they've uncovered a white paper detailing what the Obama administration believes is the legal case for assassinating any American, any where, without so much as charging them with a crime. (Sorry for the commercial at the start of the video, I can't cut that out :-/ )


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

For more information, see the original article exposing the white paper:

EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

and my own overview of Obama's drone program:

A quick overview of Obama's Drone War

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

What do I have against President Obama?


I don't usually like making posts that are almost exclusively links to outside content, but I'm repeatedly seeing Obama supporters ask this question, so I think it'll be useful to link to this post rather than repeatedly copy/pasting the same response, over and over. This post won't be static. I'll likely be updating sources and whatnot as time passes.

 ************************ 

What do I have against President Obama? I have a problem with a guy:

 Who has been terrorizing and slaughtering citizens in Yemen and Pakistan, and has declared the right to assassinate Americans without so much as charging them with crimes
A quick overview of Obama's Drone War

Who killed the public option, and gave us a healthcare bill written by insurance industry lobbyists
Should progressives really be celebrating the survival of the Affordable Care Act?

Who's refused to prosecute Wall St executives for crimes they committed...
Heist of the century: Wall Street's role in the financial crisis

 ...yet intentionally deceived the public into thinking they didn't really break the law
  "Zero Accountability": Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s Refusal to Prosecute Wall Street Crimes (skip ahead to 43:19)

Who vetoed a deal proposed by the Bush Administration to allow citizens to write down mortgage debt as part of the bailout package
Barney Frank: Obama Rejected Bush Administration Concession to Write Down Mortgages

Who refused to prosecute George W. Bush for felony wiretapping, but ruthlessly continued the prosecution of the whistle-blower that exposed the crime
Is Thomas Drake an enemy of the state?

Who has prosecuted more whistle-blowers than every other President combined
Obama’s unprecedented war on whistleblowers

 Who is attempting to win the right to arrest and detain American citizens without giving them access to courts to defend themselves
Federal court enjoins NDAA

Who is willing to cut entitlements...
Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP

 ...without bothering to cut any grossly wasteful intelligence spending
Washington Post Special Project: Top Secret America


It boggles the mind that his supporters can ignore all of this, because of tepid support for gay rights, some funding for radio and TV stations, and funding for planned parenthood, which I guess the Democrats wouldn't have fought for if they didn't win the White House?

Friday, November 09, 2012

Dumped


The G.O.P. sat there, wondering if it should have just done this over e-mail. No, it's better than that. This was a long relationship; it had to be done in person.

"It's not you, it's us. We're in a different place now, We've grown as a people, we have needs that this relationship isn't fulfilling. We have goals that, frankly, this relationship is holding us back from..."

The xenophobe sat there, eyes red and soaked, torn between rage and heartbreak, scarcely believing what it was hearing.

The G.O.P. continued, "hey, at least they're Christians, right? Maybe, after some time passes, we can all get together. I actually think you all would get along pretty..."

Fueled by jealousy, rage won out. "GET ALONG WITH SOME GOD #&*%&# ILLEGALS??", the xenophobe shrieked.

The G.O.P. stood up, feigning disgust. "See, this is exactly what we were talking about. It's 'undocumented', not 'illegal'. You need to grow up, get with the times... Goodbye, Xenophobe".

Hannity: I've 'evolved' on immigration and support a 'pathway to citizenship'

Thursday, November 08, 2012

Could Romney have single-handedly destroyed the left with Supreme Court picks?


In this past election, I had been pushing people to vote for third-party candidates that actually supported their ideals, rather than Romney and Obama, as their legislative records contradicted the messaging they were campaigning on. I had especially been focusing on Obama, since my own politics skew to the left, and a majority of my friends lean left. I had been pointing out how, on just about every major issue they care about, Obama has either betrayed his base, or pretty meekly supported it. I've discussed two examples in this blog here and here.

A pretty common response I've gotten to this is in regards to Supreme Court picks. I was told that, despite all of Obama's betrayals, it was still imperative to vote for him, because allowing Romney to have those picks would have been devastating for progressive politics. Here's a good example:


Conservative Scholars Bullish That A Romney Supreme Court Could Reverse Longstanding Liberal Jurisprudence


A potential Mitt Romney presidency carries huge implications for the Supreme Court that have conservatives excited and progressives fearful about the future. Liberal-leaning Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 79, and Steven Breyer, 74, are likely candidates for retirement during a Romney administration. The GOP nominee has vowed to appoint staunch conservatives, and the influential conservative legal community will make sure he follows through. Replacing even one of the liberal justices with a conservative, legal scholars and advocates across the ideological spectrum agree, would position conservatives to scale back the social safety net and abortion rights in the near term.

 Over time, if a robust five-vote conservative bloc prevails on the court for years, the right would have the potential opportunity to reverse nearly a century of progressive jurisprudence. For all those reasons, conservative legal activists anticipate that a Romney win would be the culmination of their decades-long project to remake the country’s legal architecture.(...) a Romney presidency — even a one-term presidency — would pose a slow-release threat to key progressive accomplishments, and why small-government conservatives view his candidacy as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Why it is essential that Barack Obama be reelected


[That clip] explains the situation perfectly....The idea of wiping out all the progress made in over a lifetime of legislation and rulings... a veritable coup d'etat by the most reactionary elements in America, is truly too horrible to contemplate
.

Like most arguments designed to scare people into voting for the lesser-evil, this one overlooks some pretty important facts about our political process and history. Here are five reasons why I wasn't terrified by the idea of Romney nominating Supreme Court judges:


1) From "The progressive case against Obama"


In terms of the Supreme Court itself, Obama’s track record is not actually that good. As a senator, Obama publicly chided liberals for demanding that Sen. Patrick Leahy block Sam Alito from the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor has in her career already ruled to limit access to abortion, and Elena Kagan’s stance is not yet clear. Arguing that Romney justices would overturn Roe v. Wade is a concession that Senate Democrats, as they did with Alito and Roberts, would allow an anti-choice justice through the Senate.


Further, given Obama's absolutely horrendous record on civil liberties, the rule of law, and executive power, I wasn't exactly comfortable with the prospect of him nominating judges either; the assumption that his nominations are guaranteed to be strong progressive choices is tenuous. Just as in other areas, Romney's likely worse, but not so much worse that we should have been obligated to vote against him for Obama.


2) Obama's healthcare bill survived its Supreme Court challenge because Bush nominated, conservative, Chief Justice John Roberts made a last minute switch in positions to allow the law to survive. He did because he does care about the integrity of the Supreme Court, and does not want it to be perceived as yet another political entity. This should give us some confidence in the court, regardless of who's doing future nominations.


3) The President doesn't appoint judges, the President nominates judges. Congress still has to approve these judges, and if we can't trust the Democrats to properly vet and block judges, our system's broken.


4) The Supreme Court only hears a limited number of cases every year. Compared to the vast amount of legislation that gets passed every year, and how instantly and immensely impacted we are by Federal legislation, we should be much, much more concerned about the conduct of Democrats in Congress than we are about the conduct of the Supreme Court. Voting for Obama, in spite of his betrayals, only encourages bad conduct.


5) This talk, given by former executive director of the ACLU, Ira Glasser, at the 2011 Drug Policy Alliance conference.



It discusses the "long arc of social justice", how reform happens gradually, but inevitably, and in spite of terrible setbacks. In the talk he mentions some absolutely atrocious Supreme Court decisions that affirmed slavery, that kept women out of the workplace, etc etc. It's easy to think of Supreme Court decisions as insurmountable, but that isn't the case; reform movements have overcome bad decisions in the past, and will do so in the future.

Thursday, November 01, 2012

A quick overview of Obama's Drone War


Updated Below

With the election one week away, the bases of both major parties are fired up, lambasting the "other team's" candidate while ignoring the gross flaws in their own preferred candidate. In this environment, mentioning civilian deaths from Obama's drone wars to an enthusiastic Democratic voter is often met with shrug, "war is ugly".

These voters don't quite understand just how horrendous Obama's drone strike policy is. If people imagined the government bombing U.S. malls at random, killing LOTS of innocents, because they *think* a criminal might be in the mall, they'd have a better appreciation of what's happening.

Not only is the U.S. not verifying their intelligence before they target an area for a drone strike, often they simply attack "patterns of movement"; movement by individuals that they think might be terrorist related, without knowing who they're actually bombing. The Obama administration has also adopted the terrorist technique dubbed "double tap" bombings, where they target rescue workers that show up to a scene of a bombing. This has forced humanitarian organizations, like the Red Cross, to prohibit their staff from attending to the victims of a bombing until several hours have passed. They have also targeted the funerals of victims of these bombings, killing even more civilians in the process. These strikes are resulting in massive amounts of civilian casualties, all  for the sake of trying to get "mid-level" terrorists. The United Nations is currently investigating these strikes, and have suggested they might amount to war-crimes. Official U.S. accounts of civilian casualties have grossly under-counted civilian deaths, because of the Administration's shocking definition of "militant": any male adult. The dead most be proven to have been civilians after their deaths. Stephen Colbert has highlighted this on his show:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Two Birds With One Drone
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical Humor & Satire BlogVideo Archive


The civilian population in Pakistan and Yemen, that hear these drones constantly overhead, are absolutely terrified, and it's crippled their ability to live their day to day lives. Between the fear, and the constant news of family and neighbors being killed in these strikes, anti-American sentiment has spiked in these regions, and terrorist recruitment is way up. Obama is likely creating more terrorists than he's killing with this policy.

More about civilian terror over the drones can be found in this Democracy Now segment:
Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and "Terrorize" Civilians

and also this New York Times editorial from a Yemeni activist:
How Drones Help Al Qaeda

In Yemen, President Obama is responsible for a bombing that killed 26 innocent women and children in a single strike, and convinced the Yemeni government to take the blame for it. This was exposed by a Yemeni reporter, Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who was subsequently imprisoned for his reporting. When public pressure forced the Yemeni  Government to set him free,  President Obama personally intervened and demanded to that reporter remain behind bars for exposing the U.S's role in those killings. Details about this can be found in this Democracy Now segment: Why is President Obama Keeping Yemeni Journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in Prison?

Even worse, from a domestic rule of law standpoint, President Obama has declared the ability to assassinate American citizens without so much as a trial, (never mind a conviction and sentencing).  His drone strikes have also killed a 16 year old American teen whom no one suggests was ever involved in terrorism, and the administration refuses to answer for the killing. See this Young Turks segment on the killing:



See how President Obama's campaign adviser has justified this teen's death:

Obama Adviser Robert Gibbs Blames Denver Teen’s ‘Terrorist’ Father for His Drone Death

The secret "kill list", which determines the targets of these strikes, has been made a permanent feature of the Presidency by Obama. Who ever wins the White House will inherit the kill list and the infrastructure around it. President Obama has given future Republican Presidents both the infrastructure and the legal and political precedent to continue the slaughter.

In short, President Obama has been terrorizing and slaughtering civilians in Yemen and Pakistan, increasing anti-American sentiment and terrorist recruitment, while also claiming the power to play "judge, jury, and executioner" by ordering American citizens to be assassinated without bothering to so much as name the crimes they've committed, let alone prove their guilt to the courts. This isn't an issue that should be shrugged off. Obama voters need to be aware of what, exactly, they're supporting when they vote for him next week.

Update 02/07/2013

This week NBC news uncovered a White House legal document that details, what it believes to be, it's "legal" justification for assassinating American citizens, anywhere, without so much as charging them with a crime. Today, President Obama is attempting to have one of the main architects of this program, John Brennan, confirmed as the new head of the C.I.A. I've posted an excellent segment by Rachel Maddow that details Brennan's role in President Bush's illegal torture program, and how he has since been braced by President Obama to lead his assassination program.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Friday, September 07, 2012

Seeking Truth From Power


A gay veteran and a local news reporter confront Romney and Obama (in separate events) about things they'd rather not talk about. Both Romney and Obama blow the questions off, and both implicate themselves in their steadfast refusal to discuss the issues.


Gay veteran talks to Mitt Romney over whether he supports the repeal of the New Hampshire same-sex marriage law




A local TV reporter in Cincinnati, Ben Swann challenges Obama on how it is that he believes he has the right to order even American citizens assassinated without due process
(This video's app is poorly designed. The play button on the center of the screen doesn't work, you have to hit the one next to the progress bar, on the bottom of the vid. It appears when you mouse-over)

Friday, June 29, 2012

Should progressives really be celebrating the survival of the Affordable Care Act?


Updated Below

Seeing the survival the healthcare bill hailed as a progressive victory is interesting. Progressives are celebrating the fact that we're now forced to be the customers of these "evil and greedy" insurance companies. During the Clinton administration, when he was pushing for a true public option, the conservative alternative was essentially President Obama's plan: a national health insurance mandate. This is yet another example how successful the G.O.P. has been at shifting American politics, as a whole, to the right. This is entirely due to the fact that liberal/progressive voters will vote for Democrats no matter how bad they betray their base. In the legislative battle over this law, not only did President Obama lie to the public about fighting for the public option, Congressional Democrats decided not to attempt to get it, when it was within reach. The Democrats killed the public option.
Rachel Maddow covered this in depth right before the bill was passed. See this segment:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Also check out Glenn Greenwald's post about how President Obama secretly negotiated away the public option before lying to the public about trying to keep it in the bill:
the White House had negotiated away the public option very early in the process (July, 2009), even though Obama and the administration spent months after that assuring their supporters that they were doing everything they could do have a public option in the bill
Read the rest here: Truth about the public option momentarily emerges, quickly scampers back into hiding

Update 7/7/2012:
This should have been included in the original post. President Obama hired a healthcare industry lobbyist, Liz Fowler, to help draft and later implement his healthcare reform bill:

[Implementation] of the massive healthcare bill just enacted by the Congress will be overseen by a former high-level executive of the nation’s largest private health insurer.

As Marcy Wheeler writes: ”It’s a nice trick: send your VP to write a law mandating that the middle class buy shitty products like yours, then watch that VP move into the executive branch to ‘oversee’ the implementation of the law.” Indeed, Fowler played a crucial role in shaping the healthcare bill to ensure there was no public option and to compel every single American to purchase the products of the private healthcare industry (including those of her former employer).

As Politico put it last year: ”If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate healthcare negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer.” It was Fowler who was literally writing the healthcare bills for Baucus which, at least at the time, progressives found so objectionable.

Fowler is the very embodiment of the sleazy Revolving Door and lobbyist-dominated politics which candidate Barack Obama endlessly vowed to subvert
Check out the rest of the post here: The revolving door spins faster on healthcare reform


Thursday, June 21, 2012

Why does Talk Left take Zimmerman at his word?




**Update 6/25/2013**
I just realized I linked to the wrong Talk Left Post. I accidentally linked to Zimmerman: The Discovery and the Witnesses, when I had meant to link to George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario. This is corrected in the post below.
*****

A few weeks ago, defense attorney Jeralyn Merritt of the liberal legal blog, TalkLeft, presented what she thought was "the most likely scenario" in the Trayvon Martin killing:

George Zimmerman: The Most Likely Scenario

For the most part, it's a great, informative post. But in the midsts of her analysis, she makes a few assumptions about the case that aren't supported by the evidence, and appear pretty biased against Trayvon Martin. Merritt:


GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn't follow him after that. He didn't know where Trayvon was. He continued walking towards the front of the Retreat View Circle, where the first house is 2861, home to W-13 and W-12. He then turned around to walk back to his car. He just passed the T and the pet waste can when Travyon came up on his left. After a few brief vocal exchanges, which even according to Dee Dee were initiated by Trayvon, GZ got punched and fell down. This may have been at the T or in the grass right off the T, in the backyard of W-11 and W-20. After getting his nose broken is most likely when the sounds turned into cries and wails for help -- by George Zimmerman.


Merritt's assuming Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman at point T on the map. Why? No witnesses saw this, and it seems to contradict Martin’s girlfriend’s testimony. She was on the phone with Martin immediately before the fight, was told by Martin that Zimmerman had spotted him, and that he was going to "walk fast", rather than run away.

It also contradicts the dynamics of the situation as we understand it, from the 911 calls. Zimmerman was following Martin in his truck as Martin was walking down the street. Martin ran away from Zimmerman, who got out of his car and ran after Martin. While he's running after Martin, he mutters, “these punks always get away”. (This statement, by the way, is going to be used by the prosecution to demonstrate a depraved state of mind, which is necessary for the murder charge). Why is Merritt so quick to believe Martin, who was running away from Zimmerman, decided to double back and jump Zimmerman?

Merritt believes the fight started at point T on the map, and ended up at point X (see the map at the top of this post). That’s about what, 40 feet? How, exactly, did that distance get covered? Here's Zimmerman's account of the situation:

Zimmerman told police that the struggle began when Martin "jumped out from the bushes" and punched him in the face, knocking him down.

"I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe," he said.

"He grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk," he said. "When he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try to get out from under him. ... I'm still yelling for help."

Martin, he said, put his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and nose and told him, "You're going to die tonight."

"When I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up. ... I felt his hand go down my side, and I thought he was going for my firearm, so I grabbed it immediately, and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him."

Zimmerman says that he was sucker punched and knocked down at point T, was completely unable to get out from under Martin, and ended up shooting Martin shortly thereafter. If we believe Zimmerman's testimony, Martin's body should have been discovered at point T, not 40 feet away at point X. The evidence simply doesn't match his story. It's worth noting that one of the homicide investigators, that questioned Zimmerman, informed him that he had received an anonymous phone call, "from somebody who gave a different version of events ... more along the lines that you tried to detain him," and recounted an argument prior to the shooting.


The alternative situation, as described by Martin’s girlfriend, better fits the facts. Trayvon was hiding out, and then was spotted by Zimmerman on his way back to his truck. Martin’s girlfriend begs him to run, but he says he’s just going to “walk fast” (which only makes sense if he’s walking fast away from Zimmerman). Zimmerman runs after Martin and confronts him at X, where the shooting occurs.

In this situation:

- The original dynamics stay the same. Zimmerman is pursuing Martin through out.


- We don’t have to account for how the shooting took place some 40 feet away from where Merritt assumes the altercation started.


- There’s no contradiction here between Martin’s girlfriend’s testimony and anything reported by the witnesses Merritt considers "useful".



Later in the her post, Merritt makes a pretty astounding statement:

The state is unlikely to prevail in arguing Zimmerman was the aggressor because to be the aggressor, Zimmerman had to contemporaneously provoke the force Martin used against him.Zimmerman's profiling of Martin and call to the non-emergency number were not contemporaneous with Martin's attack. Even if the state could convince a judge or jury that Zimmerman was following Martin, rather than walking back to his car, rendering his pursuit a contemporaneous act, it is not an act that provokes Martin's use of force against him. Demanding someone account for their presence does not provoke the use of force.

Merritt would have us believe that, at worst, Zimmerman merely followed Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood. Is that really all Zimmerman did?

According to the 911 tapes, Zimmerman was slowly following Martin in his vehicle, at night, and neglected to identify himself when Martin approached to check him out. When Martin runs away, Zimmerman runs after him through the dark neighborhood. Given the facts I discussed above, it also appears Zimmerman approached Martin when he spotted him again, after Martin had been hiding from him.


If I believed I was being stalked by a stranger, ran away, and saw my assumed stalker chase me through a dark neighborhood, it would be completely reasonable for me to assume my pursuer intends to harm me. Zimmerman's actions were clearly aggressive, and Trayvon Martin had every reason to believe he was in imminent danger of bodily harm, especially if he spotted Zimmerman's gun.


***


I have no idea why Merritt made the assumptions she did. My best guess is, because of her background as a defense attorney, she’s looking at the case as if she were the one representing Zimmerman, and that’s what’s coloring her analysis. Perhaps she wrote up something that she would have presented to the court in Zimmerman's defense, rather than an objective analysis of the facts.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Why is Nader blamed for Bush's presidency?


Another Presidential election is headed our way, and anyone advocating for people to vote third-party over Obama is likely to hear something like the following:

What did voting for Nader in 2000 gain our nation? We got eight years of one of the worst presidents in history and rather than basking in the glow of progress and abundance our leaders are still occupying themselves with cleaning up the mess.


People have awfully selective memories. After all, it was the Democrats that

- overwhelmingly voted for the Iraq war

- overwhelmingly voted for the Patriot Act

- refused to rebuke the President for deceiving the public into supporting the war

- refused to so much as censure the President for blatantly breaking the law (illegally wiretapping)


During Bush's second term in office, the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. One would assume that would have halted Bush's abuses, yet it was the Democratically controlled congress that:

- continued to fund the war through an abused process stuffed with pork-spending

- condemned (censured) MoveOn.org for criticizing deceptive comments issued by General Petraeus

- refused to hold the President accountable for intentionally deceiving the public into supporting its war initiatives

- gave the Executive Branch de-facto authority to spy on any American citizen it wishes to spy on

If we're going to blame anyone other the Bush administration for the worst of his abuses, we should be blaming the Democrats. Why the Democrats voted the way they did is an interesting discussion in and of itself, and has much to do with why I'm so adament that people refrain from voting for Obama in the upcoming election. More on that to come.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

I don't understand the birth control mandate


A recent CBS/New York Times poll reports that 66% of their respondents support "a recent federal requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female patients?" Why?

I assume they'd argue that there are considerable public health and/or societal benefits to providing free access to birth control. I agree. But is this mandate really providing free access?

After all, this mandate is forcing for profit insurance companies to cover the full cost of birth control for their customers. Does anyone seriously believe that these companies are going to eat the costs of these contraceptives for the sake of the public? Remember, these are the guys that dropped & denied people with pre-existing conditions from their plans, to maintain their profit margins. Do we suddenly think they're going to want to subsidize birth control for their customers? More likely, they're just going to raise their premiums to make up for this new cost. If you pay for your insurance all on your own, your rates are going up, and you're still paying for your contraceptives.

What if your health insurance is subsidized by your employer? Do you get a break then? Well, once the insurance company raises its rates, your employer has to deal with the costs. Does anyone seriously believe employers are going to eat the costs? I'm guessing their going to find a way to pass the costs on to us, either by raising our required contributions to our healthcare plans, or by managing the compensation they give to their employees (i.e. hire less people, hire people at a lower rate/salary, reduce the amount of money they set aside for the following year's raises, etc.).

At the end of the day, the money's still coming out of our pockets. But that certainly won't stop politicians from taking credit for legislating "free birth-control" into existence, and duping a large portion of their electorate to praise them for it.

Monday, January 02, 2012

PolitiFact rules ACLU claims: Mostly False?


Last month, Glenn Greenwald wrote a post criticizing W. Gardner Selby's Politifact analysis of one of Ron Paul's recent statements:

PolitiFact and the scam of neutral expertise

Greenwald pointed to Selby's work as, yet another, example of politically biased sources being cited as "neutral experts". From the blog post:

But the real import of PolitiFact‘s analysis is that it relies entirely on two supposedly neutral legal “experts”: The Brooking Institution’s Benjamin Wittes and University of Texas Law School’s Robert Chesney, both of whom co-founded and write together on the “Lawfare” blog (along with former Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith). That duo mocks as “nonsense” and “preposterous” Paul’s view that these new AUMF standards vest the President with dangerous levels of discretion. They ridicule Paul’s concerns even as Chesney admits that “Paul fairly points out the lack of a definition of associated forces.” PolitiFact then blindly relies upon what these two experts told them to declare Paul’s concerns to be “largely false.”

Just on the level of credentials, in what sense is Wittes — who, just by the way, is not a lawyer and never studied law — more of an expert on these matters than, say, Ron Paul or Kevin Drum? And why are the pronouncements of Robert Chesney that this AUMF language is not dangerously permissive more authoritative than the views on the same topic of ACLU lawyers or Professor Hafetz, who say exactly the opposite? Both Wittes and Chesney are perfectly well-versed in these issues, but so are countless others who have expressed Paul’s exact views. Why is the Wittes/Chesney opinion that these AUFM standards are perfectly narrow and trustworthy — and that’s all it is: an opinion — treated by PolitiFact as factually dispositive, while the views of Paul and those who agree with him are treated as false? That is preposterous nonsense.

As Greenwald points out, the ACLU, an organization that employs the top constitutional law experts in the country, had echoed Paul's concerns about the bill, but were not cited in this article. Was this an oversight?

I e-mailed Politifact, to see if they had a response to Greenwald's piece, and was contacted by Mr. Selby himself. The only problem with the article, he insisted, was that he had incorrectly referred to Benjamin Wittes as a lawyer. He acknowledged that there were many groups, including the ACLU,  that were discussing this issue, and claimed he contacted the ACLU to request a "sideline expert" for his article.  I responded with the following:

If you were aware that there were many groups making the same point as Ron Paul, then why is there no mention of them in the article? How do you purport to provide a factual analysis of his statement without citing all available facts?

Did you choose not to cite the opinions of the ACLU or any of these other groups because none of them responded to you in time? 

In response, he stated there were "no advocacy groups" mentioned in the article. It appears he didn't believe it was necessary to cite those experts, because he cited and quoted Paul's spring update, which explained his view on the issue.

I took that to mean he felt it would be redundant to cite both Paul's spring update and the ACLU's arguments on the issue. If that's the case, since he has judged Paul's position here as "mostly false", he is also judging the ACLU's claims here as "mostly false".

When I asked if this was really the case, he stopped responding to me (and, consequently, never gave me permission to publish our e-mail exchange in full).

***

Since Politifact published that piece, numerous experts have weighed in on Paul's side of the debate.

Tom Malinowski, Washington Director for Human Rights Watch and former special assistant to President Bill Clinton, wrote the following for Foreign Policy:

What Libyan Rebels Could Teach Obama About the Rule of Law

President Barack Obama had threatened to veto the legislation, but now says he will sign it. There are "waivers" in the bill that will allow him -- and future presidents, should they agree with him -- to evade its strictures. But the Congress has nonetheless made the militarization of law enforcement against terrorism the rule in America going forward. Civilian justice is to be the exception -- employed only on those occasions when the president of the United States personally waives the rule.

A couple weeks after critiquing Politifact's piece, Glenn Greenwald, himself a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator, weighed in on the ramifications of the bill:

Three myths about the detention bill 


Myth #3: U.S. citizens are exempted from this new bill

This is simply false, at least when expressed so definitively and without caveats. The bill is purposely muddled on this issue which is what is enabling the falsehood

...The only provision from which U.S. citizens are exempted here is the “requirement” of military detention. For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional. This section does not exempt U.S citizens from the presidential power of military detention: only from the requirement of military detention.

This past week, the ACLU reiterated it's stance on the bill as President Obama signed it into law:

President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law

President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield.  The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.

In rating Paul's position here as "mostly false", Mr. Gardner has caused Politifact to take a political stand in an ongoing legal debate, which goes far beyond their mission of simply "fact-checking" political statements.

Has Mr. Gardner allowed his personal political biases to compromise his journalistic integrity? Perhaps his article was just poorly researched, and he is too proud to issue a retraction. Whichever the case, it's grossly unprofessional, and so long as it stands uncorrected/unretracted, it should be a source of embarrassment to an organization that believes:

we are true believers in journalism as an instrument of democracy. Even as we seek to reach customers in new ways, we see our primary obligation as helping citizens participate fully in the democratic process. 

Passing off politically biased material as "neutral" neither helps the democratic process, nor is it an example of good journalism.



Sunday, November 13, 2011

Treating "Suicide Headaches"

I spent an amazing three days at the Drug Policy Alliance conference in Los Angeles this month, absorbing a wealth of information about the damage our draconian "War on Drugs" is causing society. The video below was aired during one of the panel discussions, and I thought it was especially effective at personalizing the social costs of these misguided policies.

It's a video of someone experiencing a cluster headache attack, also known as a "suicide headaches". It's a sharp, penetrating, unilateral pain that starts behind the eye and can radiate to the temple, jaw, neck, and shoulders. Attacks can happen more than 10 times a day, and can last anywhere from 15 minutes to 3 hours at a time.

Imagine watching a loved one suffer through this. Imagine having to care for them, regularly, as they suffer through this:



The suicide rate amongst people afflicted with this condition is 200% higher than normal. The cause of this condition is unknown, and the medicines & treatments that are normally prescribed to treat the disorder tend to only reduce the length of the attacks. A lifetime of use of these medicines come with debilitating side-effects.

There are, however, substances that have been found to greatly reduce the frequency of these attacks: LSD and Psilocybin

Despite this, and mounting evidence that they're also effective in treating of PTSD and other psychological disorders, (see this article to learn about ongoing research at Harvard and elsewhere), they're both listed as Schedule I in the United States. That means they're illegal to manufacture, buy, possess, process, or distribute without a DEA license. Because of this classification, funding for medical research about these drugs has been stifled, and there's now a misguided and distorted view of psychedelics among the medical community and the general public.

Why? Because people have chosen to use the drug recreationally, (people like the late Steve Jobs) the government has decided we need to be "protected" from these substances. Our government has decided we can't be trusted to make informed, personal decisions about these substances, and need to be threatened with imprisonment and severe social consequences for deciding to try these substances. Under this policy of drug-prohibition, cluster-headache suffers, contemplating suicide, are considered criminals for trying a substance that may very well save their lives.

Does this sound like a reasonable way to deal with drug use?

(More information about the use of psychedelics to treat cluster headaches can be found here: Clusterbusters.)

Thursday, April 07, 2011

Why can't Dr. Laura say the "n-word"?

Last August, Dr. Laura Schlessinger, responding to a black caller whose white husband's friends were passive-aggressively mocking her race, said the word "nigger" 11 times. Here's the full audio:





Unsurprisingly, it caused an uproar, prompting her to apologize before announcing the end of her decades-running radio program. She insists that she was only trying to make a "philosophical point" about black people's use of the word "nigger". When the caller asked if it's OK to say that word, Schlessinger responded:

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger... I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing.

After the commercial break, the conversation continued:

CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?... It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
CALLER: But you're not black. They're not black. My husband is white.
SCHLESSINGER: Oh, I see. So, a word is restricted to race. Got it.

She seems to be arguing that it's hypocritical of society to criticize white people for saying it, while allowing black people to say it. Is that the case? Is there really no difference between a black person saying it, vs a white person?

There's a pretty insightful interview with 50 cent, on the Howard Stern show, that addresses the issue. A caller asks, "is it alright for white people to use nigga?"





Caller: Is it alright for white people to use nigga?

50 cent: It depends who they with or what's going on.... Put it like this, Eminem has never used the word nigger or nigga around me. He's conscious of it. But you gotta think, he's hip hop all day listening to references where we say this so much, that if he said it, it would roll off like he didn't say [anything offensive]...

Stern: Should Eminem be allowed to use the word 'nigga' in his music?

50 cent: Around me, he can say whatever he wants. But I'm just saying to you he doesn't do it, he's conscious of it, he doesn't say it.

Stern: I don't think it comes off well when a white guy goes up to a black guy, even in the best of terms, and goes "hey my nigga"

50 cent: Listen... there's white guys that were born in my neighborhood. And they say "what's up nigga? Whatchya doin?"

Stern: They do? Do you shoot 'em?...

50 cent: No.. Because he's from the same space... you grew up with him.... When they from it, they [aren't subjected] to the same thing because they're actually from the same [environment].

...

Robin: There's context, is what he's saying. If you are a part of a group, then you might be able to use it.

50 cent: They gonna know if you're using it in a derogatory sense.

That's the crux of the issue: knowing whether or not the term is being used in a derogatory sense. When a black person says "nigga", it's probably safe to assume there's no bigotry behind its use, because he probably isn't bigoted against his own race. You can't make that same assumption about a random white person using the term. While Eminem can call 50 cent "nigga" without causing offense, he still avoids the word in his music. Even with his immersion in the world of hip-hop, the general public doesn't know him personally, so they can't assume he doesn't harbor any racism.

(Case in point: In the song "Nigga", featuring Eminem, 50 cent, and Notorious B.I.G, the word "nigga" is used over 20 times. The lyrics can be found here: Nigga lyrics. Count how many times Eminem says it.)



There's another, related, double standard here. If you dig through the comment section of that Howard Stern YouTube clip, above, you'll find this interesting point:

a white person call a black person nigger is racist but if a black person call a white person cracker that isnt racist what the fuck is that?

It's not the case that referring to a white person as "cracker" isn't racist. It's just society doesn't consider that word to be anywhere near as inflammatory as "nigger". Why not? Slavery, segregation, disfranchisement... black people, as a group, have been persecuted for the entire history of this country. And while the most obvious forms of institutionalized racism have been eliminated, it's still the case that large groups of black people, even with Ivy League educations, can be suspected of being "gangbangers" for no reason other than the color of their skin. (It happened just last year: What Do You Call a Black Man With a J.D.?)

The fact that black people are more often the targets of racism is the reason you see a double standard here. As a society, we want to avoid doing anything that might exacerbate what is already a significant problem. In general, societal taboos should being weighted in favor of victimized classes of people. That doesn't make it OK to call anyone a "cracker", and it doesn't mean people shouldn't be offended by that term. But if you're wondering why most people don't take as much offense, this is why.

So why can't Dr. Laura use the word "nigger"? Maybe it's because she accused her caller of being "hyper-sensitive" for being hurt by some, pretty obvious, passive-aggressive racial mockery. Maybe it's because she then went on a, completely off-topic, rant about how black people voted for Obama just because he was black, how his election meant white people should no longer be "demonized" for hating black people, and how it's "hilarious" that people are still "complaining about racism" (as if having a black President proves racism is no longer a problem).

Somehow, I don't think it's quite safe to assume that she doesn't harbor any bigotry against black people.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

How LEAP got me out of jury duty.

.
Today was the first time I've been screened as a juror. There was only one case being tried at this court today; someone facing several drug related charges. I was the very first juror to be screened, and the prosecutor began the screening. He asked asked me several questions to determine whether or not I'd be able to judge the case, impartially, and eventually asked me if I knew any police officers.

I told him that I did know a few retired officers. I proceeded to tell him that I volunteer for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, an organization of former police officers, prosecutors, prison wardens, judges, and others in the criminal justice community who have spent their careers waging the war on drugs, and now believe it's a public policy disaster. I told him they advocate legalizing all drugs, and believe they should be regulated in a manner similar to how dangerous pharmaceuticals are currently regulated. (I book speaking engagements for one of their speakers).

He paused. He said I probably know the state's drug laws better than most, and asked if I understood that possession of marijuana is currently illegal. (He emphasized "currently"). I said "yes". He asked me if I thought I could judge the case impartially. I said "yes". He looked a bit frustrated, his face turned a bit red, and he allowed the defense attorney his turn. The defense attorney asked me a few hypotheticals to see if I understood what circumstantial evidence was, and other questions along those lines. After he was through, I was asked to leave the room while they deliberated.

Less than 30 seconds later, I was called back in; I was excused. So ended my day at court :)


A few thoughts on the experience:

- I learned today that, in CT, employers are only obligated to pay for the first 5 days of jury duty. After that, the judicial branch pays jurors $50 a day, max. Assuming an 8 hour day, that's less than CT's current minimum wage. That doesn't seem right.

- I was being honest when I told the prosecutor that I could judge the case impartially, and really didn't want to be on the jury because of that. I don't know any details about the charges, but if the defendent was a non-violent offender, I would have felt horrible sending him to an environment where he could be brutalized, raped, and left with few career options after serving time.

- I'm guessing the prosecutor was frustrated because he probably had to use one of his few "premptory challenges" to dismiss me without giving a reason. Since I was the very first juror to be screened, using one on me left him at a disadvantage, as he had to be a lot more careful about how to use remaining challenge(s). It occured to me that, as public opinion turns increasingly against the war on drugs, it's going to be harder for prosecutors to find jurors that are sympathetic to their case. That's a nice little bonus we can appreciate as we slowly move towards legalization.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

MoveOn vs the Progressives?

I just received this e-mail from MoveOn:

I wonder if they are going to target Dennis Kucinich...


Dear MoveOn member,
We won a big victory on health care on Saturday when the House of Representatives passed a bill that includes a public health insurance option.

But dozens of conservative Democrats sided with Big Insurance to vote against it.

We've got to show that voters will make them pay a political price for standing in the way of health care reform—and send a message to any Democrats in the Senate who are considering doing the same.

So we're rushing to launch a major new TV ad campaign in the home districts of the Democrats who voted against the bill—spending more than ever before on ads to hold Democrats accountable.

We've got to start airing these ads before the Senate takes up health care, and that means we need [donations] today. Can you chip in $200?

This is a defining moment for the Obama era, because fence-sitting Democrats in Congress are watching carefully to see what happens to those who oppose real change.
If they see that there are no negative consequences for those who voted "no" in the House, it'll become much harder to win a final victory on health care—or on any of the other issues we care so much about.

So we've got to act quickly and forcefully to demonstrate that any politician who sides with corporate special interests will suffer for it back home.

And the best way to do that is to go up on the air immediately with this new ad campaign targeting House Democrats who voted against the health care bill. Can you chip in $200?

The bill that passed in the House was far from perfect, and we'll keep fighting together to fix it.

But after fighting for decades, we're finally on the path to winning meaningful health care reform. And those in Washington who are standing with Big Insurance to oppose it have to be held accountable.

Thanks for all you do.

–Nita, Kat, Ilyse, Peter, and the rest of the team

I wonder, 'cause Kucinich voted no:

Why I Voted NO
by Dennis Kucinich

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Facebook, Google, and the Police State

When it was introduced, Facebook's newsfeed caused an uproar over privacy concerns. Users were initially unable to control what appeared on the newsfeed, and cried foul. A few, though, defended Facebook, claiming the anger overblown because there was no change in information privacy, just a change in information publicity.

How people could believe a thing could be made more public without being any less private was beyond me, but I didn't much care; the issue didn't seem all that important. But when a Wisconsin appeals court used the same argument to justify Government tracking of every citizen's vehicle, via GPS, without warrants, it no longer seemed so trivial.


The arguments defending the newsfeed went along these lines:

In Defense of Facebook Feeds - Jared W. Smith
It’s not an invasion of privacy if the information is already public knowledge to your networks. A privacy invasion would be Facebook broadcasting transactions that the privacy settings specifically mask, and that’s not happening.

In defense of Facebook's facelift - Eric Hansen
The good news is that this does nothing to actually reduce the privacy of your Facebook information, only the publicity.

These arguments assume that if someone can potentially obtain a piece of information then, for all intents and purposes, they already have it. But that's not the case. It's the effort needed to acquire information that largely determines how private it is. The harder it is to get at a piece of information, the fewer there will be that actually end up with it. By reducing the effort required to access information (i.e. making it more accessible), you ensure that more interested parties will acquire it.


To clarify the point, let's examine some of the controversy surrounding Google Maps' "Street View" feature. Google Maps' Street View provides users a 360 degree street-level view of any location that one of Google's camera vans have driven through. Since Google's vans are only supposed to traverse (and photograph) public roads, all images available on Street view are images that anyone could have, potentially, captured. Nevertheless, like Facebook's newsfeed, Google Maps' Street View has been accused of privacy infringement.

For example, last year, one of Google's camera vans obtained permission to drive through and photograph the Ft. Sam Houston Army base in San Antonio, Tex. When the Pentagon got wind of this, they issued a directive banning Google teams from documenting street-level views of U.S. Military Bases.

Michael Kucharek, spokesman for U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the decision was made after crews were allowed access to at least one base. He said military officials were concerned that allowing the 360-degree, street-level video could provide sensitive information to potential adversaries and endanger base personnel.

The street view images of the base were promptly removed. But what was the big deal? Patrick Lyons on the New York Times blog points out,

Not that very much about the lay of the land at Ft. Sam Houston is secret; the base is cheek by jowl with a large city, it gets many civilian visitors, its web site includes a map as detailed as your average college-campus plan, and the Pentagon doesn’t mind that the whole place is clearly shown in the satellite photos that are a few clicks away on Google Maps and elsewhere.

but concludes,

Still, you can learn a lot about a building from panoramic street-level images that just doesn’t show in satellite photos, so it’s not too hard to understand the sensitivity in the Pentagon.

This notion that "street-level views" can constitute a security threat is the same reason why Google has voluntarily removed photos of women's shelters from street view.

Google removed photos of women's shelters before launching the feature, said Cindy Southworth, director of technology at the Washington, D.C.-based National Network to End Domestic Violence, which is the umbrella group for state shelters.

"We don't want to call attention to the shelters," Southworth said. "We would rather it look like a choppy horizon line as you pan by. Our hope is that other companies will do a similar thing and reach out to us in advance."

Removing the shelters from the map greatly diminishes the privacy threat to battered women, said Ashley Tan, volunteer coordinator at Woman Inc., a San Francisco-based 24-hour domestic violence crisis line.

Anyone can look up and photograph locations of women's shelters. And it wouldn't be all that more difficult to photograph locations within Ft. Sam Houston, given all the civilian traffic that passes through. But the effort required to fully document these locations is significantly higher if they are not already documented in a publicly accessible database like Google Maps. Tools like Google Maps make this information much more accessible (i.e. more public). By definition, if a piece of information is made "more public", it must also then be "less private".


As I wrote above, all this seemed of little consequence, as Google and Facebook have both added features to help maintain some of the privacy that their tools encroach upon. But then I read this:

Wisconsin police can attach GPS to cars to secretly track anybody’s movements without obtaining search warrants, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

...

As the law currently stands, the court said police can mount GPS on cars to track people without violating their constitutional rights – even if the drivers aren’t suspects.

Officers do not need to get warrants beforehand because GPS tracking does not involve a search or a seizure, Judge Paul Lundsten wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel based in Madison.

That means “police are seemingly free to secretly track anyone’s public movements with a GPS device,” he wrote.

Creepy. This was the result of a 2003 case involving Michael Sveum, who was under investigation for stalking. Police obtained a warrant to secretly attach a GPS device onto his car so as to track his whereabouts. The information from the device led to his arrest and conviction. Sveum challenged the conviction, arguing the tracking violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure because the device followed him into areas out of public view, such as his garage.

The court disagreed,

The tracking did not violate constitutional protections because the device only gave police information that could have been obtained through visual surveillance, Lundsten wrote.

...

“We discern no privacy interest protected by the Fourth Amendment that is invaded when police attach a device to the outside of a vehicle, as long as the information obtained is the same as could be gained by the use of other techniques that do not require a warrant,” he wrote.

Although police obtained a warrant in this case, it wasn’t needed, he added.

That last line is a jaw dropper. It would have been perfectly reasonable for the appeals court to uphold the warrant obtained to track Sveum, based on the case's merits. But to further conclude that a warrant wasn't needed because there was no breech in privacy is outrageous. As reported, this implies the Government can legally attach GPS devices to the vehicles of every citizen without a warrant.

Their reasoning is no less flawed than Smith's and Hansen's. There may be no change in who could potentially access user information on Facebook, street level photographs around the country, or the public whereabouts of Wisconsin citizens, but by expanding the accessibility of this information, they are making it more public and less private..


All this, just to conclude that "warrantless surveillance of citizens" infringes on their privacy. I used to believe that was common sense...

Sunday, January 25, 2009

A primer on the Federal Reserve

As much as Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have been mentioned in the news as of late, most people still don't have the slightest idea of how the Fed conducts it's monetary policy. I figured it'd be useful to write up a primer on the topic, so here it is.

Nearly all of this information in the rest of this post comes straight from the Federal Reserve's educational website:

Fed101

There are some interactive tutorials there worth checking out.

-----------------------


The Federal Reserve is wholly responsible for controlling the nation's money supply, and manipulates it in an attempt to achieve whatever economic goals they have are currently pursuing. According to them:

The goals of monetary policy include the promotion of sustainable economic growth, full employment, and stable prices. Through monetary policy, the Fed is most able to maintain stable prices, thereby promoting economic growth and maximum employment.


A simplified explanation of the dollar expansion/contraction process:

The Fed manages the banking system and controls the expansion and contraction of the money supply through the banking system.

When dollars are added to the money supply, they are deposited at member banks. When dollars removed from the money supply, they are removed from member banks.

These dollars, added and removed, count toward the member banks' reserves. Reserves are primarily made up of demand deposits (checking accounts that citizens and businesses hold at banks). These reserves are the money that a bank uses to make loans.

(Aside: "Demand deposits" are deposits in which bank customers, at anytime, may choose to withdraw. Because banks use the dollars from these deposits to make loans, they never have, in reserve, all of the dollars that they have guaranteed their customers access to. They only hold a fraction of what they owe to their customers. This is why this system of banking is called "fractional-reserve banking". They can get away with this because, at any given moment, their customers will only withdraw a portion of what is supposed to be in the banks' reserves. If every customer at a given bank chose to withdraw their money at once, the bank would not be able to honor all of these requests, and would be bankrupt. This situation of everyone trying to withdraw at once is called a "bank run".)

The Fed involves banks in the dollar creation process as well. The Fed mandates a "reserve requirement" for banks, which is usually 10% of the dollar amount in loans issued by a given bank. So if a bank has loaned out $100,000, it must hold $10,000 in its reserves. If a bank drops below this reserve minimum, it's bankrupt.

(Aside: In practice, dollars are not the only thing banks can count towards their reserves. Certain assets/investments can count towards their reserve requirement. The rise and fall in value of these assets affect what the bank can say it has in reserve. The housing crisis turned into a banking crisis in large part because banks were counting mortgage-backed securities as part of their reserves. When they were suddenly forced to value these assets as worthless, all of a sudden they were at great risk of dropping under their reserve minimum and, consequently, going bankrupt)

So the dollar creation process as we now understand it is:

- The Fed decides to expand the money supply. It deposits $10,000 into a member bank's reserves. Having $10,000 extra in reserves, this bank is now allowed to loan an extra $100,000 to the public. Hence, $100,000 has just been created.

- The Fed decides to contract the money supply. It withdraws $10,000 from a member bank's reserves. Losing that $10,000, that bank must reduce the amount of money it has lent out by $100,000. Hence, $100,000 has been eliminated from the money supply.


The dollar expansion/contraction process in more detail:


Member banks all hold most of their reserves in accounts at the Federal Reserve. (They keep a portion of their reserves with them for day to day customer transactions such as: withdrawals from tellers, ATMs, etc.) When the Fed wants to expand or contract the money supply, it doesn't actually deposit or withdraw directly from the reserve accounts of member banks. Instead, it acts through financial institutions designated as primary dealers.

Say, as in the above example, the Fed wants to expand the money supply by $100,000. It informs all of its primary dealers that it wishes to purchase a financial instrument of some sort (usually securities issued by the U.S. Treasury, Federal agencies and government-sponsored ). After a bidding process, the Fed then purchases a security from a primary dealer, using a check for $10,000 redeemable only at the Fed. The primary dealer deposits this check at its bank, which in turn deposits this check into its reserve account at the Fed. The Fed takes this check and credits that bank's reserve account with $10,000. Assuming a reserve requirement of 10%, this bank can now lend out up to $100,000. The money supply has increased by $100,000.

If the Fed wishes to contract the money supply by $100,000, it alerts its primary dealers that it wishes to sell a financial instrument. After a bidding process, the Fed sells a security to a primary dealer for $10,000. The primary dealer withdraws $10,000 from its demand deposit at a given bank; this bank loses $10,000 from its reserves and must reduce the amount of money it has lent out by $100,000. The money supply has decreased by $100,000.

Transactions between the Federal Reserve and its primary dealers are called open market operations.

Here's the current list of Primary Dealers.


The effect of reserves on interest rates


Supplying a bank with more money in its reserves doesn't just increase the amount of money it can lend out, it also affects the interest rate it charges when it lends out money. Under normal circumstances, when banks have more money to lend, they will lower interest rates to attract more borrowers. When banks have less money to lend, they will raise interest rates to take advantage of the decrease in loan supply.

The Federal Reserve is acutely aware of this issue, as interest rates affect the amount of loans issued and the resulting level of economic activity. Low interest rates, they believe, result in more loans, more economic activity, and ultimately more growth.


Inter-bank loans, and the Federal Funds Rate

The money supply is not distributed amongst the banks equally. At any given moment, one bank may be low on reserves (which implies it is uncomfortably close to its reserve minimum ) while another may have an excess of reserves (it has more reserves than it requires for the loans it has issued). In these cases, banks may lend to each other using money from their reserve accounts.

This inter-bank interest rate is called the effective Federal Funds Rate. This is the interest rate that the Federal Reserve primarily concerns itself with and attempts to manipulate. It tries to control the economy through this interest rate. It does so by setting a nominal Federal Funds Rate, which is a target (usually a range) that the Fed wants the effective Federal Funds Rate to reach. When you hear on the news that the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates, they are referring to the nominal Federal Funds rate. It manipulates the rate through the process described above: buying or selling assets from primary dealers to affect the amount of dollars in bank reserves and, consequently, the interest rates that these banks charge each other for loans.

(Aside: Under normal circumstances, interest rates respond to changes in reserves as I described above. We are currently not in a situation that can be considered remotely normal. The Federal Reserve has pumped an unprecedented amount of money into bank reserves over the past year, but still can't get the banks to lend to each other at any rate, let alone the target rate. The banks are terrified at the prospect of loaning to a bank that will go bankrupt before the loan is paid off)


The discount window

This is the last of the Federal Reserves traditional tools to manipulate the money supply. Instead of borrowing from each other, banks have the option of borrowing money directly from the Federal Reserve. Since it is the entity actually issuing the loan, the Fed directly controls the interest rate charged for these loans. Setting a very low interest rate will encourage lending and expand the money supply, as banks will borrow from the Fed and loan the borrowed money to the public at a higher interest rate. (Note: the borrowed money goes straight to their reserve account, so they can loan out 10x more than they borrowed from the discount window, assuming a 10% reserve requirement.) Setting a very high interest rate positions the Fed as the lender of last resort, as banks will not resort borrowing at this rate unless they are desperate to replenish their reserves.

Which money is new money

Just to review:

- When the Fed buys an asset from a primary dealer, the dollars used in that purchase are newly created

- When the Fed sells an asset to a primary dealer, the dollars used in that sale cease to exist.

- When the Fed issues a loan through the Discount Window, the dollars loaned are newly created

- When a loan issued through the Discount Window is repaid, those dollars cease to exist. I believe the dollars paid in interest to the Fed also ceases to exist, but I'm not sure.

- When a bank lends dollars in excess of the reserves it holds, those dollars are newly created

- When a loan is repaid to a bank, those dollars cease to exist. The interest the bank received on the loan is deposited into its reserve account at the Fed.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Do you want to understand our current economic crisis?

This episode of "This American Life" is a co-production between Chicago Public Radio and NPR news; it goes over the details of just how the housing crisis came to pass in a very straightforward and accessible manner. This is tailor-made for those that have absolutely no background in finance or economics.

It's about an hour long, but it's absolutely worth your time. Download it to your iPod and listen to it during your commute:

355: The Giant Pool of Money


This episode proved to be so popular that they made a follow up episode that explains how the housing crisis spilled over into the rest of the economy to create the mess we're in today. Also well worth your time:

365: Another Frightening Show About the Economy


One critique: they don't discuss the root causes of this crisis...