Category Archives: politics

Modern Politics: Democracy’s S&M game of sequester and Scalia’s vision of voting as racial entitlement

It’s hard to like either Congress or the Obama Administration for this sequestration nonsense. The manufactured budget cuts were intended to be so onerous, both sides would be forced to come to their senses and “do the right” thing.

Instead, the small government advocates in Congress love the the poltiical version of “50 shades…” It’s both sadistic and masochistic to do nothing, though more sadistic because the poor are getting hurt more than the wealthy. The only action Congress’ can muster is to finger-point at President Obama.

Meanwhile, the blame game also seems to suit the president just fine for now, though he should be pointing out that there’s a better way toward an improved economy than the forced austerity of sequester (look how that worked in Europe).  Obama should be making the case that more government spending actually propels the middle class and the country toward prosperity. And that government as an employer can be more effective than the private sector in getting us back on track.

But that’s way too logical for the GOP, which holds on to discredited trickle down ideas that justify tax breaks for the rich while making all the rest of us pay.

So far, I don’t’ sense much indignation anywhere. More of a resignation that this is how it works.

That’s too bad. Because that is bad government. Government that is worth hating. But it’s a slow burn. The pain is coming over time as the federal money flow stops. Will we appreciate so-called “big government” then? Or will the “small government” folks win out and force all of us to accept a diminished democracy?

VOTING RIGHTS A “RACIAL ENTITLEMENT?”

So now that we’re so disgusted with Congress, should we trust it to preserve our basic right in America—the right to vote?

Some members of the Supreme Court apparently don’t think so, and based on the SCOTUS hearing last week in Shelby vs. Holder, it looks like the court may strike down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.

Justice Antonin Scalia made the case that Congress, which has upheld the Voting Rights Act since 1965, has only done so because politicians are too afraid to vote against it. Afraid to be racist?  Not Scalia, who referred to the Voting Rights Act as a “racial entitlement.”

Entitlement? Since when does voting become like Medicaid and Social Security?

See my piece at www.aaldef.org/blog

 

No SCOTUS Affirmative Action decision today after all: Maybe this week?

Scuttlebut had it (you know ole Scutty, don’t you), that the Supreme Court’s decision on that affirmative action case heard last October would be made public as the Court opened up for business this week.

That was the word from the Supreme Court blog over the weekend.

Of course, no one knows for sure. The SCOTUS blog is no oracle.

As of 10 a.m, EST, the Fisher case did not come up. But more opinions are expected on Wednesday.

So for those going to the AALDEF dinner tonight, you have at least one more night for speculative conversation.

But if an opinion appears this week, I’m sticking to my guns.

I wrote about the Fisher case on the AALDEF blog back in October, and based on that hearing, I think the UT affirmative action program will survive.

Read what I had to say here:

http://aaldef.org/blog/is-fisher-really-the-case-to-end-affirmative-action.html

Or at least, I hope UT’s plan will survive.

Without it, Fisher gets her revenge, but society loses a valuable tool to foster equal opportunity.

 

 

 

State of the Union? Dorner manhunt trumps wonky speech all the time

Some commentators today were so enthralled by last night’s Dorner news, they compared the manhunt to a Denzel Washington movie.

Too bad for the president. He gave a pretty good speech without having to sneak in a sip of water.

See my Asian American take on the State of the Union Address here.

It’s my post on the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund blog.

Pope Benedict gives up his job for Lent–what’s next?

As a die-hard practicing American Filipino Catholic (practice makes perfect, you know), I admit to being startled by the news.

And to think, I was just getting used to Benedict, every bit of his sixteenthness. And now he’s giving up his job for Lent? His job span was but a sixteenth note compared to others’ operatic tenures. What gives?

Was Il Papa really an ill papa?

It’s said he had what I call a real Filipino heart—a pacemaker. But was it really Benedict’s frail health and instability that brought on his departure? (You mean they couldn’t just make a walker version of the Pope-mobile?)

I don’t know what really happened to force his stepping down, or if one could even characterize his leave-taking as an “ouster.” He apparently ousted himself. Still, Benedict has not exactly been an unstoried pope in terms of real headline news.

And I mean headlines far beyond the church bulletin.

In Benedict’s time, $2 billion in settlements were paid out due to priestly sex scandals around the world. Last year, another big scandal involving the pope’s butler revealed inside dirt on Vatican nepotism and corruption.

No one can ever accuse Benedict of being the “good news” pope.

And yet, when the news was released at the start of the week, almost immediately the Vatican spin was apparent. Abdication? No, the pope’s stepping down was an “act of humility.”

Of course it was. And he really does care about the church. So much that he’d rather do his penance as an ex-Pope?

Taking things at face value is an act of faith, which we Catholics are very good at. I don’t question the pope’s motives, really. If he wants to leave, that’s his right.

But the record is pretty daunting. No one EVER abdicates as a pope. It’s just not done. Not in more than 700 years. When the last time something happened was 700 years ago, you better have a pretty good reason for letting it happen now, beyond simply not feeling up to it anymore.

Being pope is a job that comes with ultimate job security. That’s the reason most popes die with their pope hats on.

It’s too good a gig to lose. In fact, you can’t really lose it.

You’re the pope for goodness sakes! The president has a hotline to the Kremlin? The pope has a hotline to God.

Maybe the hotline told him something about how he’s left the church?

That would make the lesson of Benedict’s leaving a reminder that the pope, whomever he is, is really just an ordinary man placed in extraordinary circumstances.

He may be God’s main messenger on earth. But he is just a man. And with that comes all the venal stuff that man can do.

Oh, and isn’t that one of the problems of the church, that it’s all men with a very limited role for women?

Speaking of which, I’d rephrase the idea going around that the pope wants to “make room for a younger man.”

I mean isn’t that what usually why Catholic priests end up leaving?

Maybe the new pope can get to the bottom of that.

Don’t count on it. The cardinals were handpicked by the pope for their deferential nature. Maybe there will be an awakening as the jockeying now begins prior to the vote in the Sistine Chapel.

As an American Filipino, it makes me yearn for the late Cardinal Sin. Having a Pope Sin would have been too cool.

Alas, the new Phiippine Cardinal, Luis Antonio Tagle, in his 50s is perhaps a bit too young to be elevated yet again, having just been been appointed among a group of cardinals from the Third World last October. So a Filipino pope is unlikely.

The name that comes up is Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana.

Given all the issues in the church including a a declining flock, gay marriage, women’s role in the church, predator priests, first/third world differences, conservative/liberal divides, contraception, to name just a few items, the church is mired in negativity.

To announce the first black pope? It could be a way to heap history on this historic abdication. And maybe the way to get the church spinning in a more positive and modern direction.