Gettin' Shit Done

Haven't written for a while, had a couple thoughts I wanted to get out there...

More news of the relative triumphs of the 111th Congress, in the words of Andrew Sullivan: gettin' shit done. The House passed a bill today- crafted by Bill Delahunt (D- MA) and Jim Webb (D-VA) and garnering bipartisan sponsorship- calling for the establishment of a National Criminal Justice Commission. If approved by the Senate, this commission would perform a complete review of our nation's prison and criminal justice system, reacting to concerns on many levels about the efficiency and morality of this system. Although violent crimes have been on a decline in recent decades, the U.S. prison population continues to balloon, largely due to non-violent drug crimes. Our incarceration rate is the highest in the entire world, costing taxpayers massive sums of money and creating an adversarial relationship between large portions of the population (40.1% of Americans over the age of 12 have smoked pot) and the police. Within this system, the existence of racial and economic discrimination is absolutely real: African-Americans and whites smoke marijuana at comparable rates, yet the arrest rate for black residents Los Angeles county is 4 times higher than it is for white residents. Although this bill will hopefully do something to ameliorate the condition of non-criminal marijuana users nationwide, it is also a bill that makes fiscal sense and is intellectually satisfying to me. Self-reviews can sometimes be utterly useless, but I think the current state of he economy means that this Commission has real incentives to fairly assess our nation's prison system and hopefully make recommendations that streamline and re-prioritize our definitions of criminal behavior and how to best deal with it.

Wild West

Had a great time down at the Northwest String Summit... Yonder Mountain String Band threw down approximately nine hours of mind-blowing music over the weekend, extending the genre boundaries of bluegrass every time they get on the stage. The festival had a generally friendly and relaxed atmosphere, I'll have a full review in a few days after I've had time to process the music (read: listen to the shows again).

I was on Google Maps today -as I am sometimes wont to do- looking up directions for upcoming travels, and I zoomed out to the large view of North America. From this angle I noticed that there was a much larger percentage of government-owned land, signified by the color green, in the Western U.S. than in any other part of the country. The non-coastal Western states are generally given a reputation for being much more libertarian than the rest of the country, so it surprised me to see this much governmental involvement. When I found some data on the matter it confirmed my observations: three of the top four most libertarian states have extremely high percentages of federal land ownership, excluding state or locally owned land. Several of these states such as Colorado, Alaska, Utah, and Idaho are counted among the most libertarian, and the real estate in each one of them is at least 35% owned by the federal government. Of course, I understand that there are natural and historical reasons why so much land in the Rockies is federally owned, but it also strikes me that New Hampshire, the top-ranked libertarian state, has about double the federal land that any other Northeastern state (13.4%). It might be a little theatrical to simply yell "hypocrisy," but I think it is an interesting correlation that someone with actual experience in political science and statistics should look into...

Cognitive Deficit

Another great example of the mainstream media helping propagate a piece if conventional wisdom based an absolute fabrication: everyone "knows" that a huge part of the reason Democrats will fare poorly in the midterms is the public's disapproval of our federal budget deficit. First of all, the U.S. government has much more pressing economic issues than the budget deficit, such as a staggering unemployment rate, etc. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason to think that the current deficit is the mostly a product of Democratic visions of enormous government. Recently, GOP minority whip Jon Kyl said that as a matter of principle, "you should never have to offset costs of a deliberate decision to reduce taxes on Americans." While I suppose that this is acceptable tenet to hold, it absolutely does not square with deficit reduction or fiscal responsibility. In case Senate Republican leadership forgot, the federal government started the Bush years with a budget surplus. While plenty of factors beyond their control lead to the diminishing of that surplus, they had at least three major unfunded moves that annihilated the surplus: the Iraq/Afghanistan war, the tax cuts, and Medicare Part D. The biggest Democratic legislative initiative in this millennium was the Affordable Care Act, which the CBO estimates will actually reduce the deficit over the long term.

Jonathan Bernstein has a great post about this subject, and takes a look at the policies of Mark Kirk, a relatively mainstream Republican candidate for Senate. He touts his opposition to any new taxes, his original support for the Bush tax cuts, and his desire to make those permanent. In addition to this, he claims he voted against last year's appropriations bill because of earmarks, yet then says he strongly supports the expansion of infrastructure to bring his state "into the 21st century." Of course, this is obviously not the first time a politician has been hypocritical about earmarks, and thats not really my point. Running a budget deficit is a viable policy, especially in a time of economic recession, and has been embraced by ours and other governments throughout the 20th century. However, being labeled as fiscally responsible when supporting a state of permanent war, tax cuts, and no real plan to actually cut any spending is a farce. And that the media gives Republicans a pass by not calling them out on these contradictions and allowing them to benefit from them come election time is journalistically irresponsible.

Border Crossings

This past weekend I had the pleasure of traveling northwards across the Canadian border and stayed in Vancouver, BC. Having never been to the city before (but being a frequent visitor to other parts of Canada), I was extremely excited to see what this city had to offer. As it turns out, I was not disappointed and can safely say that it was one of the most exciting and beautiful cities I have yet visited. My travel companion and I stayed at a hostel in the city's Gastown district, a close walking distance to a huge number of pubs, shops, and other hotels/hostels. The first thing that struck me (besides experiencing a culture that is extremely nonchalant about smoking pot in public) was the young and international flavor that was to be found just about everywhere in the city. I heard Chinese, Korean, French, Spanish, German, and a huge amount of UK and Australian accents just about everywhere. Any given pub on the side of town that we stayed in was filled with mostly non-American or Canadian 18-28 year olds, some seeking their fortune in the great white North, some spending huge amounts of their parents' money on mostly overpriced but good beer, and all enjoying the vibrant atmosphere of a young and active city. One piece of critique about the city, however: the homeless population is very large comprises a central feature of certain parts of East Hastings Street. Vancouver is one of the most expensive North American cities to live in, and this high cost of food and housing unquestionably adds to this phenomenon.

By day, the streets were filled with people walking, biking, and running, and making great use of the city's outstanding parks. We visited the most famous of these, Stanley Park, and were blown away. It is larger than Central Park and occupies a peninsula at the northern extremity of the city which includes several large beaches, hiking and biking trails, etc. To see this sort of relatively unspoiled natural environment so close to the heart of the city was impressive, and the beaches were teeming but not overcrowded on the sunny, 80-degree day when we visited. All in all, I recommend a visit to this beautiful and exciting city and wished I could have stayed for more than a weekend.

Israel Right or Righter?

In the past few months, especially in the wake of the Mavi Marmara attack, the American public (especially Jews and others interested in Middle East policy) has been engaging in a debate over the relationship between America and Israel. In the Jewish community, which I grew up as an active member of, there are countless institutional outlets that are solely or partially dedicated to continuing strong American support for Israel (both by the government and diaspora-dwellers). Some leading organizations, such as AIPAC, have developed an "Israel right-or-wrong" attitude towards the discussion of policy. During a youth group event I attended in high school, we listened to a speaker who talked about Israel and the media. I specifically remember a section on how to "frame your arguments" and override opposing points using misleading rhetoric when debating with anyone taking an anti-Israel stand. I felt pretty uncomfortable, and I along with a few of my other friends left the speech, which was kinda boring anyways. Jews consistently top the list of most liberal or Democrat-leaning social/ethnic groups (approximately 78% voted for Obama), and yet seem to reflexively support Israel is moments of decidedly illiberal behavior such as the Mavi Marmara, the Gaza war and blockade, and the program of settlements in the West Bank.

The historical trauma of the Holocaust is extremely potent in the communal consciousness of international Judaism, and to some extent I can understand how this affects understanding of politics. Anti-Semitism is strong in parts of Europe and certainly there are governments in the Middle East whose express desire is to wipe Israel off the map. I don't deny the need for a safe homeland for Jews (although perhaps it shouldn't be where it is), but Israelis and Jews around the world shouldn't be overly surprised at the reception they've been given by their neighbors. As Andrew Sullivan puts it:

"When the lives and homes of hundreds of thousands are permanently and suddenly altered without their permission and against their religious beliefs, they will react. When families are still turfed out of their homes to make way for strangers of a different religious background, rage is a perfectly defensible, and rational, response"

Tribalist, "us against the world" mentalities might feel good in the short term, but in essence they create a culture of hate that will replicate on both sides. The tactic of the Gaza blockade may slightly decrease the importation of explosive materials, but denying Gazans the access to a huge number of non-threatening items such as children's toys is a transparent attempt to decrease the quality of life for Palestinians and cause dissent against Hamas. This is a serious ethical issue that the biggest supporters of Israel (Americans and Jews) need to consider.

Another fact that might shock the vast majority of Jews who voted for our first African-American president: 41% of Israeli Jews support the segregation of Jews and Arabs in public recreation areas, and that same study shows 68% would refuse to live in the same apartment buildings as an Arab. Yeah. We're talking about Arab Israeli citizens here, who can vote and be members of the Knesset. This statistic should be extremely disconcerting to liberal American Jews who assume Israel's moral high ground while simultaneously turning a (rightly) critical eye at the actions of our own government and people. The vision that many Baby Boomers have of a largely secular, kibbutznik culture is no longer the case. The ultra-Orthodox, due to many aspects of Israeli society as well as its parliamentary system, hold a disproportionate amount of power in determining the actions of the Israeli government. These theocrats have been a driving force, although by no means the only one, behind the encroachment of Israeli settlers into Palestinian East Jerusalem. This is a policy that has been widely criticized, even among a relatively pro-Israel American public. Besides being bad politics and being potentially harmful the security of Israel and her citizens, it is immoral and should be recognized as such, especially by those American Jews who have care about the country's future and value ethical government. Defending an administration who submits ethnically segregated populations to a collective punishment over the results of a democratic election does nothing but strengthen claims of Israel's illegitimacy across the already hostile international community. I hear many people claim that Israel is judged on a different moral playing field than other countries, and while this may be true in some cases it is important to remember that Israel was carved out of a piece of land surrounded by and on top of a religiously hostile majority. The field is different. And how about this for a present-day counterfactual: Say that Turkey, or Iraq, or a Balkan nation segregated a large portion of a religious or ethnic group, refused to acknowledge the result (however unpleasant) of a democratic election, and then waged economic warfare on that population. Being critical of societies and institutions are a means to try to improve them.

Music Reviews

I've got a few concerts and music festivals lined up for this summer, and I'll be reviewing most if not all of them on here. The list...

June 16-18: Northwest String Summit, North Plains, OR. Lineup includes Yonder Mountain String Band playing three sets, Rhythm Devils (playing with Keller Williams) and moe.

July 23-25: Capitol Hill Block Party, Seattle, WA. Lineup includes MGMT, Yeasayer, Blitzen Trapper, and Atmosphere.

August 7: Phish at the Greek Theater, Berkeley, CA

August 12-13: Phish at Deer Creek Amphitheater, Noblesville, IN

August 14-15 Phish at Alpine Valley Music Theater, East Troy, WI

Ningún Ser Humano Es Ilegal

Although nativism has long been part a prominent facet of a certain strain of American political character, it is essential for the public to consider the facts and history of immigration in order to fully understand the contours of the current debate. Arizona's law requiring police officers to ask for the immigration documents of any person they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is an immigrant has lately become the center of this sometimes-ugly debate. Besides the obvious potential and likelihood for enforcement based on racial profiling, it seems to me to be antithetical to the conservative ideal of freedom from the tyranny of government. Somehow, taxes constitute a terrible abridgment of essential American freedoms but the ability of a state-sanctioned official to demand proof of identification with no apparent sign of other criminal activity is a protection of those freedoms? Tea Party members should recall that their namesake protest in 1773 was not against higher taxes, but actually a protest against the fact that independent merchants in the colonies were losing access to trade with the East India Comapany. The EIC had made a deal with the British government in which the government allowed the Company to appoint their own consignees and bypass middlemen both in the colonies and in England. In fact, the price of tea was lowered by the Act that the Bostonians were resisting. Bit of a digression, but I think its worth noting.

In Congress, there is support on both sides of the aisle for toughening our enforcement against "illegal" immigrants and even lowering the number of legal immigrants that the U.S. lets in. The support for this often comes from the emotionally (and on a certain level, logically) appealing but factually untrue assertion that both legal and illegal immigration take jobs away from native-born Americans. FactCheck has a very useful summary of the consensus of economic studies. Essentially, they say while immigration might lower job opportunities for a certain type of worker in a localized area for a small amount of time, the overall impact of both documented and undocumented immigrants on the economy is positive. David Griswold, a member of the Cato Institute, writes:

"The addition of low-skilled immigrants expands the size of the overall economy, creating higher-wage openings for managers, craftsmen, accountants, and the like. The net result is a greater financial reward and relatively more opportunities for those Americans who finish high school. "

The Cato Institute is most certainly not a liberal think tank, and praises of the economic benefits of immigration have come from the mouths of other conservatives as well. In his 2005 economic report to Congress, President Bush declared that "the foreign-born are associated with much of the employment growth in recent years." The terms of the debate over immigration need to be shifted from finding the best or most "humane" way of stopping immigration to figuring out how to attract both high-skilled and low-skilled new workers into our economy. The amount of time and money wasted on patrolling for economic migrants is massive, and would be much better spent policing actual criminal activity along the border, which unquestionably exists. This is a nation of immigrants, and I hope that we continue to be.