Fighting Extradition

Several famous members of the film industry, such as Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese, have joined a petition calling for the immediate release of Roman Polanski. Polanski was detained on a United States warrant as he was traveling to the Zurich Film Festival, which was to bestow on him the Lifetime Achievement Award this year. The warrant stems from a 1977 child sex case, in which Polanski pleaded guilty but fled to his native France before sentencing.

Many individuals -- including the victim -- have expressed displeasure both with how the case was handled in 1977 and with how authorities are currently proceeding. A particular point of contention seems to be the conduct of the judge who presided at the original trial, and allegations abound that he was biased and unreasonable when it came to sentencing. The victim, who was 13 years old at the time, long ago received an unspecified settlement against Polanski and has expressed that, "Every time this case is brought to the attention of the court, great focus is made of me, my family, my mother and others. That attention is not pleasant to experience and is not worth maintaining over some irrelevant legal nicety, the continuation of the case."

Several officials in both France and Poland -- countries in which Polanski has citizenship -- have strenuously called for him to be released on bail. French Minister of Culture and Communications Frédéric Mitterrand, especially, has advocated for Polanski's release. In a recent TIME article Mitterrand is quoted as saying, "To see [Polanski] thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history — and as he was traveling to an event honoring him — is absolutely horrifying." Taking aim at the U.S. authorities seeking his arrest, Mitterrand added, "There's an America we love and an America that scares us, and it's that latter America that has just shown us its face."

Prosecutors, on the other hand, have consistently maintained that it would be a gross miscarriage of justice to allow a man who "drugged and raped" a young girl to go free. Also salient is the fact is that Polanski was not tried before a questionable judge or even a jury of his peers -- he pled guilty. In fact, in all the furor over this issue there has been very little focus on the actual crime itself. Few, if any, deny that Polanski did indeed force himself sexually on a 13-year-old girl. Unless the media have omitted new revelations that cast significant doubt on Polanski's original guilt, it is hard to see any justification for his continued freedom.

This case presents many sensitive issues that must be carefully weighed if one is truly to pursue justice. Delicate questions of judicial impartiality, legal ethics, prosecutorial discretion, and victims' rights are certainly evident in the debate surrounding Polanski's arrest. It is also quite clear, however, that Polanski's international stature or widely acclaimed artistic gifts have absolutely no bearing on the issue. For that matter, the long passage of time since the offense is also of little importance. While this factor could appropriately influence a future sentencing decision, the lack of a statute of limitation on offenses of this type indicates that the passage of time is of no consequence in the eyes of the law. Moreover, statutes of limitations are an expression of the belief that culpability for serious offenses does not diminish as the years pass. Guilt may be disproved or atoned for, but it may not be simultaneously admitted and avoided.

The world is becoming increasingly globalized and there are numerous treaties between nations that define legal prerogatives and provide for extradition and the serving of international arrest warrants. In executing the warrant for Polanski, it does not appear as though Switzerland trampled on the sovereignty of any other nation or broke any international laws. The only reason the warrant had not been executed sooner was because Polanski had fled to France, hiding behind its refusal to extradite French citizens.

Roman Polanski voluntarily admitted in a court of law to having had sex with an underage girl and he fled the jurisdiction to avoid sentencing. He has not retracted his guilty plea and no new evidence has been offered to prove his innocence. Polanski is not absolved of guilt because of his artistic prowess, nor is he immune from punishment by virtue of his celebrity. It is extremely difficult to see why he should not pay for his crime.

Concerning Campaign Cash

A recent decision by the D.C. Circuit could preview the outcome of a similar case in the Supreme Court concerning campaign finance laws. In short, the federal court determined that some provisions of the McCain-Feingold Act that limited the amounts that non-profit groups could spend on election-related activities also impeded citizens' rights to free expression. The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on a similar challenge concerning corporations.

There are several ways of reading this decision depending on one's own political and ideological inclinations. Supporters of campaign finance reform contend that relaxing the restrictions on these groups will encourage corruption in the political process. Supporters of the decision no doubt welcome the larger role non-profit groups are now likely to play in future elections. The decision by the D.C. Circuit does not come close to silencing the quarrel between these two camps -- especially since it can still be appealed to the Supreme Court and is thus far from being recognized as settled law. On the contrary, the decision to allow non-profit groups wider latitude in election spending only draws more attention to the debate over how much of a role such organizations ought to play in the political process.

The pending case in the Supreme Court is similar, but it focuses on the political activities and contributions of corporations rather than non-profits. While it is clear that parallels to the instant case exist, there is also an argument to be made that the flexibility granted to non-profits and corporations should not be equal. Non-profit organizations (e,g. EMILY's List, the group that brought the challenge in the above case) rely on a particular constituency composed of individuals with like-minded views. It is easier to trace the path of their contributions to individual citizens and to impute the purpose of political expression to these donors. Moreover, in a world where large scale, effective communication campaigns have become extremely technical and increasingly expensive, it is not difficult to see how aggregating resources and channeling a political message through a single entity significantly furthers the purpose of expressing a particular view.

It is arguably more difficult to discern this important connection when it comes to corporations, which derive their spending power from profits and effective business models rather than direct contributions from individuals who share similar views. Though common beliefs and values may indeed be prevalent in a corporate environment and contribute to the cultivation of a particular ideological climate, the spending power of a private business is not directly tied to the popularity of beliefs in the same way as a non-profit organization. For example, dissention by mid-level workers from a popular conception propogated by corporate executives is unlikely to affect those political causes and campaigns to which the corporation actually contributes. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules as many commentators have predicted, restrictions on spending by these corporations will soon be greatly relaxed as well.

While the Court has ruled in the past that corporations are (for all intents and purposes) to be endowed with many of the rights and privileges of actual citizens, it seems problematic to offer them more flexibility in the area of politics. One could argue, for instance, that the executives, stock holders, employees, etc. who make up the corporation can simply exercise their rights to free speech individually or through non-profit organizations with which they agree. The fact that the vast resources of corporations are not subject to the same popular influence that affects non-profit organizations is also troubling because it seems to shift the balance of power in political discussion. Insulated from public opinion by practice and profit, those at the helms of large corporations would likely acquire greater influence in the political process -- a notion that is hard to reconcile with the idea of democratic self-governance by the people.

No one doubts that the upcoming decision will dramatically affect the landscape of electoral politics -- regardless of the outcome. Most scholars and interested observers, however, have predicted that the Supreme Court will probably issue a ruling in favor of corporate freedom. Hopefully such a decision would not come at the expense of the People.

Newest Justice Steps Out

Washington, D.C. welcomes its newest big name in style. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is known to be tough on the bench, but this video shows that she's pretty smooth on the dance floor!

Photo Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

Respectful Populism

A large march organized by various conservative groups such as FreedomWorks was held in Washington, D.C. yesterday. Various estimates place the number of attendance somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 activists -- most of whom were previously affiliated with the TEA Party protests earlier this summer. While one may not agree with the politics and conclusions advanced by these groups, all must certainly recognize their right to exercise their freedom of speech in a legal manner. While it may sometimes be considered inflammatory (even offensive), the free expression of ideas and beliefs -- especially political dissent -- has always occupied an important place in American society. Though some of the images and slogans used by these protesters were probably in bad taste, the march itself was organized and had obtained the proper permits. It should therefore be welcomed as a sign of the healthy operation of our political system, and a welcome change from the ridiculous behavior seen in town halls across the country. By exercising our rights in responsible yet compelling ways, we work together as a society to keep the country vibrant and strong.

That said, the message communicated by these groups deserves some analysis. Many news sources (and some protest organizers themselves) have compared the protest to the grassroots populism and netroots activism that swept the Obama campaign to victory in the last presidential election. There are a few very important differences between these two campaigns.

For instance, as noted by one GOP strategist the current conservative movement is fragmented, ranging from measured concerns such as deficit spending to outlandish claims that President Barack Obama was not born in America. Conversely, the Obama movement was well organized and had a singular focus. This solidarity could fairly be attributed in large part to the much bemoaned Republican mishandling of governmental affairs in the years preceding the election, and the Obama campaign did a remarkable job of distilling and capturing these concerns. The conservative movement, however, has resulted in a more eclectic response that is difficult to encapsulate.

One could read this response as more of an emotional reaction to social change than real concern for the practical results of policies. The support for this conclusion comes from the spectrum of complaints that have have been leveled at the Democratically-led government. Accusations of imaginary birth certificate cover-ups and allegations of plans to "kill off granny" demonstrate either a distinct lack of the ability to evaluate proffered policies or a strong disinterest in truly investigating them. Both of these approaches imply a desire to avoid engaging on a policy level -- an odd strategy when protesters argue that these policies are the source of their frustration.

On the other hand, if the conservative countercurrents are more of a visceral reaction to changes in the status quo, this response makes more sense. Unbridled anger which fails to focus on a particular aspect of governance or failure by a party in favor of broad, vague arguments about ideology perfectly fits this pattern. Such an emotional response (combined, of course, with some purely politically motivated encouragement by Republicans) was clearly seen in the town hall debacles this summer. Of course, a visceral reaction to change is understandable -- even normal. But a country cannot be governed only in response to irrational and emotional urges.

Finally, this post would be remiss without some mention of the antics of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC). His actions are emblematic of the severe disrespect inherent in the conservative furor -- disrespect that would, of course, be hotly criticized by Republicans were they bearing the brunt of it. Wilson's exclamation was foolish (lacking any true value to add to the debate), frustrating (common sense and decency clearly show that it was not his turn to speak), pointless (he is perfectly capable of speaking on the floor of the House at almost any point), and selfish (he desperately needed the focus to be on him). This type of behavior seriously hampers the efforts of the government to meet the needs of its citizens. Perhaps he has something to learn from the more respectful protesters of yesterday.

Palin Panegyric

Sarah Palin decided to weigh in again on the healthcare debate Wednesday, penning an editorial for the Wall Street Journal that is almost certainly an early step in her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The short column is notably more civil than her fiery and woefully inaccurate Facebook postings and seeks to cast Palin as a thoughtul and compassionate polemic responding to President Obama's previous op-ed in the New York Times. This tactic is to be applauded and it would be a welcome (and productive) change if more politicians and interested members of the public would express themselves in this way. Beyond appreciation for the chosen method of conveying ideas, however, it is hard to take Palin's editorial seriously as it still suffers from an overreliance on personal ideology and a lack of astute argument.

The obvious appeals to the conservative base (by way of tributes to Ronald Reagan and the Cato Institute) aside, Palin's piece actually does a good job of organizing and presenting her arguments against the current proposals to reform healthcare. The editorial also raises a very valid point, namely that the Democratic proposals in Congress have been unable to overcome large price tags and dismal forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Unfortunately, this singular criticism is the full extent of the possible contribution of the column; the remaining portion displays a lack of specificity, practicality, and veracity.

For instance, Palin begins her argument in earnest with the following:

"Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals 'will provide more stability and security to every American.'"

There are two clear fallacies in this excerpt that prevent it from having much informative value to a concerned reader. First, the repeated reference to "common sense" -- while charming and colloquial -- is erroneous and misleading. It would be more appropriate to substitute "conservative principles" since these statements express ideas that Republicans hold to be true (and perhaps even self-evident) rather than truths that are almost universally recognized -- that which would normally be termed common sense. Labeling the above assertions in this way is as ingenuous as it would be for a liberal author to write, "Common sense tells us that closer regulation of the market is vital to our economy." Many reasonable individuals could and have reached different conclusions from the ones Palin offers, and her stab at cloaking them in the guise of common sense is a regrettable attempt to make it appear as though her ideas have near universal support.

The second fallacy is the infamous "straw man" argument. Since it is quite straightforward, there is no need to spend much time dissecting it. Suffice it to say that it is an unfair characterization to say that Democrats are advocating for "a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan." Though one may disagree with the current proposals in Congress, this is an oversimplication and belittles the genuine efforts that have been put forth by both parties.

Palin also uses sweeping language that is reminiscent of her campaign slogans:

"With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington [referring to the promise to 'provide more stability and security to every American']. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep."

Statements like this are curious. It is perfectly appropriate to criticize elected officials and the legislature for what one sees as failed or forgotten promises, but off-the-cuff remarks like these go further and seem to express disbelief that a government can ever live up to the promises it makes or have a significant and positive impact on its citizens. It is surprising that such a cynical and pessimistic view would be held by someone who -- interestingly enough -- wishes to lead that same government.

Next, there is the renewal of one of Palin's more unfortunate and ridiculous claims:

"Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. [...] But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration."

To avoid wasting time (again) on this buffoonery, the reader is referred to FactCheck.org for a treatment of this subject. Here it is only important to note that Palin (who started the furor by introducing and popularizing the myth of "death panels") attempts to attribute the controversy to the concern of the American people. The remark about "unelected bureaucrats" making "life-or-death" decisions could perhaps have a ring of truth, as inefficiency and mishandling of important matters can be a very real obstacle to overcome. Yet there is no proof offered to suggest that the current system -- in which unelected businessmen charged with making profits and minimizing losses make these same decisions -- is any more palatable.

Palin also says:

" [...] President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals [...] "

"With all due respect," it seems nothing short of hypocrisy to make such an accusation when this passage deflects in precisely the same manner. Indeed, the topical shift is so pronounced that it is difficult to see what other purpose this paragraph could serve.

Finally, Palin sums up her argument by saying:

"Instead of poll-driven 'solutions,' let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven."

It is far from unreasonable to argue that healthcare reform should not be purely driven by "polls;" many of the the issues involved are extraordinarily complex and require significant administrative and medical expertise to approach correctly. To deny all influence of polls or elections, however, would be to completely elimuinate any form of popular input. While public opinion should be tempered by expert knowledge, it certainly should not be ignored.

It is also incredibly difficult to see how one might reconcile the ideas that Palin puts forth. Labels such as "patient-centered" and "result-driven" obviously sound appealing, but in practice they are often in conflict with "market-oriented" strategies. This is, possibly, one of the most important issues in the healthcare debate -- it is also completely glossed over by Palin's op-ed. If a healthcare provider is to be operated like a business, its goals tend to favor the continued existence and profitability of the provider. If a healthcare provider is "patient-centered" and "result-driven," then the goals of that provider are likely to focus less on economic concerns and more on the needs of the sick individual. Almost all politicians would agree that the second options sounds better. The complication is that cost and risk are likely to serve to very different functions in the schema of these two companies, and it is very difficult to see how a provider could have both the patient's concerns and its own profitability as a primary goal. Palin's column fails to offer any guidance -- it simply says that healthcare should somehow accomplish both.

The end of the editorial simply lists ideas that have come from other conservative sources without explaining how they are helpful or why they are preferable to the current proposals. It may be that they are, in fact, more likely to achieve beneficial reform, but the reader cannot accept their superiority without some legitimate proof. In sum, while it is encouraging to see the beginning of a public (and civil) exchange of words and ideas, Palin's contribution seems to be more an homage to the conservative platform -- and the start of a campaign -- than a true launching pad for successful reform. It could, however, provoke successful and measured debate.

Photo source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/pains-makeup-stylist-fetches-highest-salary-in-2-week-period/

Despicable Conduct

The out of control shouting matches, mud-slinging, and misinformation campaigns have reached their predictable climax. Liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, voter or activist, no individual has the right to violate another person in this way. Resorting to violence in lieu of thoughtful arguments is not proper, respectful, or democratic. It is a disgrace.

Disengaging Citizens

I have long refused to embrace the liberal attempt to label the Republican Party as the "Party of 'No.'" It is true that the overall aim of a large number of recent conservative initiatives has been simply to stymie the efforts of the Democratic Party. It is certainly tempting -- and politically expedient -- to use this resistance as a marketing tool for the Democratic brand. This appears slightly unfair, however, when one considers the universe of possible options for legislators in the minority in response to bills that they oppose. At the most basic level, behind all of the political maneuvering, bargaining, and compromising, lawmakers are ultimately faced with two options -- "Yea" or "Nay." Thus, it may be unfair to criticize Republicans in Congress for voting against legislation that was crafted almost entirely by individuals with whom they staunchly disagree (this is ignoring, of course, the possibility of bipartisan initiatives that by definition require some measure of sacrifice from both parties -- concessions that Republicans have been remarkably averse to making and in that some respects may actually warrant the above label). Still, the conservative opposition to President Obama's planned speech to students goes a long way toward justifying this criticism.

It is completely understandable (even expected) that the political party in the minority will attempt to make a serious issue out of each and every available opportunity. Both Democrats and Republicans engage in this type of warfare constantly, and the less influential the party is the louder one can expect the myriad complaints to be. It is also understandable that one ideological camp will attempt to ensure the integrity of its own message while challenging that of a competing faction. This tension and interplay of ideas in our society is what spurs discussion and, more than anything else, serves to safeguard citizens' intellectual and expressive freedoms. The conservative opposition to the President's proposed address to students, however, goes too far and transcends the bounds of reason.

The vociferous response that this event has elicited is nothing short of startling. Such a proposition is certainly not without precedent; several previous presidents including Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush have addressed students with impunity. It is also difficult to see how "speak[ing] directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school" and "challeng[ing] students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning" will have a detrimental effect on the student population. In fact, one would assume that encouragement from the leader of our country would have uniquely positive effects.

Conservatives insist that this speech is reprehensible because its true aim is to "indoctrinate America's children to his socialist agenda." They decry what they term "the idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans" and claim it "is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power." If valid, this assertion would indeed be a serious concern, but granting credence to this suggestion is irrational and completely unwarranted.

First, to assume that a simple speech by President Obama would have the power to instantly "indoctrinate" America's youth is simply preposterous. This claim would have more credibility if the White House were suggesting, for example, a regular program of morning addresses that were required to be shown to students each day during the school year. A single, optional message wishing good luck and expressing encouragement to students simply does not have the ability to brainwash the whole of the student population.

Second, an attempt to manipulate students via a single televised address would be poorly conceived and ill-advised. Many children are likely too young to appreciate the significance of the moment, much less complicated justifications for policy positions (were any even intended to be offered). Students who are old enough to comprehend these arguments are probably also adept enough to seriously consider and reflect critically on what they mean. One would hope that they are also intelligent enough to think about the issues facing the nation and to based their conclusions on their own understanding, analyses, beliefs, and principles.

Finally, it is important to remember that the speech being offered is to be given by the elected leader of the most powerful country in the free world -- not some dangerous, unstable individual intent on harming the nation's children. It is a public message meant to encourage students, and which is able to be viewed by students, parents, teachers, seniors, and anyone else who wishes to tune in. Though teachers are encouraged to incorporate the moment into their lesson plans, it is by no means mandatory and the White House has no control over if or how teachers choose to discuss it. It would be beyond idiotic for any elected official to abuse such a public event by indulging in shameless personal promotion or campaigning, and there is no indication that this is the President's goal.

All available evidence tends to show that this address is intended to do what countless public servants have done before -- encourage America's youth, draw attention to the importance of education in our society, and provide an opportunity for civic engagement. Why say no?