Ethics: Apparently, They're Totally Overrated

     Last week, the House ethics committee decided that Representative Charles Rangel (D- NY) was guilty of 11 of the 13 ethics violations charges against him. The committee almost unanimously recommended censure, which is just one step, punishment-wise, shy of actual expulsion. The House will then vote on censure, and if that's passed, then the speaker (either Pelosi or Boehner, depending on when this will occur) will publicly rebuke Congressman Rangel. His accusations included accepting gifts over fifty dollars from a Manhattan developer, using his office to raise charity money from people with business motives, and a failure to report about half a million dollars worth of assets. He's also accepted trips to the Caribbean, and he's been unwilling to admit to his misdeeds.
   Obviously, Rangel has been unethical, and a mere reprimand probably wouldn't be a just punishment, and his actions have to accounted for so as to, I don't know, preserve some scraps of congressional integrity. But Rangel is a twenty-term congressman, one of the strongest political voices to come from Harlem, a strong liberal and a good compromiser, and a co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus. He's not unproductive, and has actually proved to be a vital part of the House for decades, and, although I don't want to rationalize, it's not like the rest of Congress is completely pure in ethics, either. I don't feel that Rangel being punished is a race issue; ignoring blatant ethics violations so as not to seem racist is, in its way, racist, since doing so fails to look at actions objectively. It's just that Rangel is not a bad person, and he's a good congressman, too, so this situation is just very hard to watch. If he had just been ethical, things would be fine. There'd be no hearings about censure and whatnot, no reports of unreported money, etc.
   But it's really, really difficult to be ethical, and popular, and successful. Although unrelated to the Rangel issue, there is also a clear lack of ethics in Sarah Palin's TLC special series...and in her job on FOXNews, and with her daughter being on Dancing with the Stars despite her lack of talent or celebrity status, and with Palin's constant blurring of the line between "political figure" and "spotlight-seeking nutcase." Her constant media presence is, I've decided, hilarious, given her constant sneering at the "lamestream media" (ooh, good job Sarah. Way to make up even more words which signify your adorably limited vocabulary. Refudiate that). I don't think it's ethical at all to have a TV series which is, ostensibly, a six-part endorsement that she doesn't even have to pay for. Mark Burnett, the reality show guru who produced the series, pays her six figures. I was reading an op-ed piece in the NYT about Palin, and apparently her new book is set to rocket up the bestseller list, her TV show is a red-state hit, her daughter can't get voted off that dancing show (I saw Bristol on that once--she said that she's an "activist" for, I don't know, safe sex for teens. I think the terms she was looking for would be closer to "cautionary tale" or "case-in-point"), populist-ish folk adore her (like, 80% approval-among-conservatives adore), EVEN THOUGH all the candidates she endorsed in mid-terms lost (because they were insane) and the not-extremist Republicans can not stand her. Rupert Murdoch touts her as his prized pet, vouching for her obviously ghost-written policy op-eds. The point I got from the NYT column is that Palin and her fans don't hate liberals, or the rich, or the media -- they hate education, they rally against it, they despise it, view it as some elitist trick their opponents use against them. "Anti-elitist" currently means "pro-mediocrity," and, while that's a charming idea for a basic cable reality show, that's no way for a politician to behave. And for a politician to be actively supporting that -- now, that's a lack of ethics.
   Oh well. If Palin does run in 2012, and the Mayan calendar doesn't run out and we don't all die, at least Tina Fey will be employed.

Safety Scissors Cut the National Deficit?

       A bipartisan deficit commission recently proposed a plan to cut four trillion dollars in federal spending. It’s a ten-year plan and pleases no one: liberals of furious, conservatives are trying to pretend it didn’t happen (one of those, “oh, well we’re sort of in power now, I guess we have to govern, but let’s just ignore it when we do” kinds of things), and Obama isn’t saying much about the proposal, probably for fear of alienating either side, which is inevitable with this sort of plan.

            The Defense Department refused to cut its funding, so instead earmarks are supposed to end, which only saves half the cost of Secretary Robert Gates’ plan for the Department (San Francisco Chronicle). The retirement age is set to go up to 67 and, ultimately, 69 by 2075. Also, retirees would be given the option to collect half of benefits before retiring, and the Social Security threshold will raise. There are some proposed domestic spending changes, too, such as a freeze on Defense salaries and a cut of two-thirds of overseas bases, a 15% decrease in White House budgets, no more grants to large airports (who also have to fund security themselves), and less funding for public broadcasting. Taxes, too, are affected. The word “overhaul” is used a lot, particularly to describe the change in tax deductions, income tax rates for corporations, and an increase in the gasoline tax. Healthcare is deeply affected, with a limitation set for the tax-free status of employer-to-employee health care, and Medicare should have limits on annual cost increases.

            This plan seems to affect a lot, and I doubt it will really all be implemented, since it seems to please very few, besides the people who wrote it. At least it’s bipartisan, I suppose. 

What About Free Speech?

     So, the Judicial is quickly becoming my favorite branch of government. The Supreme Court is like this awesome TV show, but real, with a bunch of random people in robes sitting around talking and scaring lawyers. On November 2, the oral arguments for Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association commenced. Basically, California is invoking some of the results of Ginsberg V. New York, a 1968 case which ruled that erotic material which isn't obscene may be harmful to children, and thus can't be sold to minors (this involves, like, soft-core magazines.) So, California wants harsher regulations of violence in video games, "restricting minors' ability to purchase deviant, violent video games that the legislature has determined can be harmful to [their] development" (from the transcript).
     As soon as Morazzini, California's lawyer, made that statement, the Justices leapt-- what constitutes "deviant?" Are gory fairy tales deviant? What about movies? Scalia, Gingsburg, Sotomayor, Roberts, and Kagan all seemed to be on the same page near the beginning of the case in regards to how vague the lawyer's statement was. They seemed to decide that any time a new technology is developed, or a new form of entertainment, people try to restrict it more (i.e., the proposed restrictions wouldn't pertain to film, but to those new-fangled video games). The Justices were also unsatisfied with how loose the term "minor" is -- what is okay for a 17-year-old differs vastly from what is okay for a 9-year-old. Justice Breyer insinuated that, despite the age issue, these violent video games (which is a very vague construct, since Morazzini only mentioned one game, and refused to regard the previously instated video game ratings system as a clear-cut separation of nonviolent from violent) have no artistic, political, or scientific value; it's only entertainment.
   This is very much a free speech issue; Justice Scalia said that he is concerned with not only the vagueness, but with "the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence." What is obscene -- are movies with people drinking or smoking obscene if shown to children? The First Amendment doesn't make exceptions; free speech is protected, and was instituted with the sort of unspoken sentiment that the general public would be able to figure out was was reasonable and what wasn't. Obviously, that turned out to be asking way too much of the general public, but the amendment remains as it is. But there's nothing about violent materials in the Constitution; Justice Alito joked, "I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games." (Scalia didn't get it. If this was a television show, he'd be like Stanley on The Office, the cranky guy who everyone plays little tricks on just because he never notices).
   Later, as Smith -- the EMA's lawyer -- presented the counter-argument, Justice Breyer brought up the sex/violence issue. He said how inane it is that a thirteen-year-old can't buy, like, a photo of a naked woman, but can buy a game with the premise of exploding people's heads or something. Violence and sex are treated differently; either both are protected by First Amendment, or neither are.
  Anyways, this case is extremely interesting and I will probably return to it and Snyder v. Phelps as the cases progress.

Results?

   So, the results from the 2010 Midterms are in, and I'm excited since I voted for the first time on Tuesday, and therefore I feel a newfound connection to politics which is largely unwarranted and will likely wear off  in another seven years of so, as my liberal fervor subsides to a vaguely socialistic disillusionment. I digress. California proved to be an anomaly, remaining very, very blue. Whitman and Fiorina's excessive advertisements and extravagant campaigning ultimately did not seal a victory for either candidate. I never thought people could relate to someone who spent around $160 million on a campaign, no matter what script she read in her speeches. Apparently, I was right, and Jerry Brown is back. I don't really want to talk more about Californian politics, but basically Prop 19 was defeated, which is what I expected (it's a poor law) but not what I wanted (basically, I think that two of the most self-glorified groups are moralistic law-enforcers and stoners who grow their own weed, and I will vote for anything which someone pisses off both factions), and 23 was defeated, maintaing AB 32's environment laws. 20 passed and 27 didn't, which means there will now be a 14-person re-districting committee, which is just strange and I doubt will last long. 25 thankfully passed so now only a simple majority is needed to pass a budget, but 21 failed, which is sad because I think an $18 vehicle license surcharge is not too much to ask and would keep the endangered state parks open.
   Nationwide, voters proved that, no matter what the (fake)-party's rhetoric insists, the Tea Party is not a viable option. It's an extremist faction (eh, that might be too strong of language--they're just really annoyed neo-Cons who sometimes wear tri-pointed hats and aren't witches) without a clear agenda (New York Times discussed this today in an article by Kate Zernike). Ideology can only go so far, apparently: although Rand Paul won a Senate seat in Kentucky, and Marco Rubio won one in Florida, the other major Tea Party candidates (Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle, etc) all lost. O'Donnell lost to Chris Coons, who would have lost to a more moderate Republican. The Senate is still mostly Democrat, and Harry Reid still has his job, but the House majority has shifted, with John Boehner being the new majority leader and Pelosi now the minority leader. Tea Party activists are still insisting that in Washington D.C. their members will not be like other Republicans, but more like really stubborn libertarians. The chances of anything getting done at all with that kind of attitude is impossible; it also can't last. Health care reform won't be repealed, and neither will Medicare or other welfare systems. So, basically, the House is going to have a fun, fun new session.