Thursday, July 3, 2008

Voting Genetically

Over at Twice Infinity, Matt Shafer writes about new research suggesting that whether or not you vote is connected to your genetics:

The hypothetical dystopias resulting from this are fascinating (and frightening) to ponder. .... As prenatal genetic testing becomes more common, it is easy to conceive of a political system based on biology: the government could simply calculate the genetic data and determine who will win. Voting? Bah! Waste of time!
Read more here. 

Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Thoreau: Routine War Degenerates the Army

But when war too, like commerce and husbandry, gets to be a routine, and men go about it as indented apprentices, the hero degenerates into a marine, and the standing army into a standing jest.


--Thoreau, People, Principles, And Politics, Journal Entry, December 1839


Thoreau then goes on to state in Civil Disobedience:

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?--in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. A common and natural result of an undue respect for the law is, that you may see a file of soldiers, colonel, captain, corporal, privates, powder-monkeys, and all, marching in admirable order over hill and dale to the wars, against their wills, ay, against their common sense and consciences, which makes it very steep marching indeed, and produces a palpitation of the heart. They have no doubt that it is a damnable business in which they are concerned; they are all peaceably inclined. Now, what are they? Men at all? or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power? Visit the Navy Yard, and behold a marine, such a man as an American government can make, or such as it can make a man with its black arts--a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity, a man laid out alive and standing, and already, as one may say, buried under arms with funeral accompaniment, though it may be,

               "Not a drum was heard, not a funeral note,

As his corse to the rampart we hurried;
Not a soldier discharged his farewell shot
O'er the grave where our hero was buried."

The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others--as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders--serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few--as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men--serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away," but leave that office to his dust at least:

               "I am too high born to be propertied,

To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world."

Friday, June 27, 2008

Victims Ignored and Justice Denied, Because of Supreme Court’s ‘Evolving Standards’

By Landon Webber,

Baton Rouge, Louisiana


Convicted child rapist Patrick Kennedy has now successfully avoided his death sentence approved by the jury in his trial in 2003 because the Supreme Court has again found that yet another class of convicted criminals- this time, child rapists- are not eligible for the death penalty. In a controversial 5-4 decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded with the majority that state laws allowing for the death penalty in extreme rape cases, including those involving child rape, simply don’t cut it when it comes to constitutional standards. Louisiana, where Kennedy committed and was convicted of raping an eight year old, and five other states have the death penalty option for criminals convicted of rape. The case comes as one in a long line of Supreme Court opinions on the Eighth Amendment that have substantially limited death penalty options in criminal cases. “We conclude,” Kennedy wrote, “that, in determining whether the death penalty is excessive, there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and nonhomicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other.” There is indeed a distinction between a homicide and child rape, and yet one that the Court utterly failed to recognize.


Kate Bartholomew, an assistant district attorney in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, who deals with cases much like the one before the Supreme Court, discussed Louisiana’s reasons for having the option available in cases of child rape. “A lot of people think there should not be a death penalty because the child survives…In my opinion, the rape of a child is more heinous and more hideous than a homicide.” In cases of child rape, the assault, “takes away their innocence. It takes away their childhood. It mutilates their spirit. It kills their soul.” While the Court seems preoccupied in digging up reasons why states can’t simply give juries the option of using the death penalty, it has ignored the helpless victims, like the one in this case, who suffer for years as a result of an irreprehensible crime against their person.


Justice Kennedy was forced to concede that child rape causes “more prolonged physical and mental suffering” than most homicides, but yet overruled the jury’s decision to sentence Kennedy to death for his extremely violent crime, because, “we conclude there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape.” The Court seems deeply intent on protecting the ever-growing rights of the violator, while denying the determined justice to the violated. As Justice Alito, disagreeing with the majority, wrote, the majority of the court has made a blanket judgment against capital punishment, “no matter how young the child,…no matter how much physical and psychological trauma is inflicted and no matter how heinous the perpetrator’s criminal record may be.”


The Court used a series of legal tests and mechanisms to figure out if the Louisiana law violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits all “cruel and unusual punishment.” In Justice Kennedy’s decision, he repeatedly used the language from the 1958 case, Trop v. Dulles, which prohibited the removal of citizenship for deserters during wartime, which stated that the ‘cruel and unusual’ clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Ambiguous language such as this places the Court in a perfect position to narrow or widen the scope of this part of the Constitution to basically any degree. According to past interpretations of this legal jargon, the Court discovers what the nation’s ‘evolving standards’ with regards to the death penalty are, by looking through their crystal ball of what they term ‘objective indicia’ of the ‘national consensus’ with regards to the death penalty. Indeed the Court’s journey through the history of the Eighth Amendment is riddled with past cases which continuously echoed, but variously applied the ‘evolving standards of decency.’ Most recently, using the infamous language from Trop, the Court decided the landmark case Roper v. Simmons which prohibited the death penalty for juvenile offenders. In this case, however, the Court drew national attention when they decided what this case’s ‘evolving standards of decency’ were based on international standards from countries randomly selected by then-Justice O’Connor, who wrote the majority opinion. In Wednesday’s decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana, Justice Kennedy at least decided to stick with determining national consensus based on the laws of U.S. states, however, the attorneys representing the State of Louisiana pointed out just how flawed this standard was with their arguments.


In oral arguments, Louisiana contended that even though a majority of states across the nation leave out the death penalty except in cases where the victim is murdered, more and more states are considering expanding where the death penalty applies- including, applying it in cases of child rape. The Court rejected basing their judgment of national consensus on proposed state legislation, as well they should have. But the argument goes to show just how unstable and flimsy the standard is. Using the ‘evolving standards’ test means that now, any time a capital punishment case comes before federal judges, the courts must again measure the ever-changing thermometer of national opinion about the death penalty. If in ten years, 25 states have added child rape as a capital crime, what should the courts do then? Well, judging by how Eighth Amendment law has been conveniently shifty, they will probably invent a new standard. The problem with a standard that makes a test out of whether or not something conforms to ‘evolving standards’ means that that part of the law is, well, evolving, ever-changing and never consistent. The Court’s decision hammers yet another nail in the coffin from ever having a clear interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. It is opinions that conform to subjective standards like these that mock the very nature of the Constitution and the grave and serious suffering that young victims like the one Patrick Kennedy raped in 2003 undergo each and every day.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Vice-Presidential Brackett


It is your last chance to play CQ Politics' VP Madness! Voters earlier chose fmr. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee as McCain's VP, and now are deciding between Sen. Joe Biden and Gen. Wesley Clark for Obama's. Currently, Biden leads by just 1%. Tomorrow is the last day for voting, so head over there soon!

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

County Commisioner Andy Duyck to Run in HD 30

Rep. David Edwards may be in trouble State House district 30.

House district 30 is formed mostly by Hillsboro, and also some rural areas. It is a moderate district in terms of voter registration, but Edwards won his first term in the Democrat year of 2006.

According to sources, Edwards' current opponent will withdraw, leaving GOP Precinct Committee Persons to select a challenger. Commissioner Duyck has decided to step in, and according to sources, will be the nominee against Edwards.

Duyck will be a formidable opponent for Edwards. He has high name recognition as a County Commsioner and deep roots in the county. Republicans have tried to recruit him in the past. Duyck felt he couldn't because of his responsibilities with his shop, Duyck Machine. He now feels that he has enough good people there to take care of it.

Andy Duyck currently represents Commsion district 4, including Banks, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Gaston, Hillsboro, and North Plains. He also serves on the board of clean water services. His cousin, Jeff Duyck, is already running a strong campaign in neighboring HD 29.

Current opponent Andy Meyer was not expected to be a strong challenger to Edwards. Duyck's entry will give the House Republicans more hope in their uphill climb to win the majority back. Edwards will have a head start on Duyck, as he has already been running for months. Republicans will make the official pick on June 30th.

Duyck will not have to give up his seat on the Commission until he wins. If so, a new Commissioner will be elected next year.