A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

So, news of Rand Paul’s filibuster has been seeping into my consciousness. What I’ve heard is that he is conducting a real filibuster – all talk, all the time. Good on that. I’ve also heard that he’s protesting that the Obama administration is claiming the authority to kill citizens. OMFG! But, I actually clicked through to Holder’s letter to Paul which said:

On February 20, 2013, you wrote John Brennan requesting additional information concerning the administration’s view about whether the President has the power to authorize lethal force such as a drone strike against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil without trial.

As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter, moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no President will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

That’s the response that has him all worked up over an out of control government?

I’m all for Congress imposing more structural restraints on the war powers of the executive branch; for beefing up the due process rights of U.S. citizens; and improving the transparency of the federal government.  Close Guantanamo, get rid of the mass wiretapping by the NSA, repeal the USA PATRIOT act. Legislate against existing, real world abuses.

But I’m baffled by a mindset that sees that mild response to a hypothetical scenario as a sign of impending tyranny when other, more routine abuses, actually exist and could stand legislative attention.

There’s your problem right there. This helpful video gives graphic representations of what most people think the distribution of wealth ought to be, ideally, in the country; what most people think the distribution of wealth actually is; and the actual reality of our distribution of wealth:

Our economic machine is diverting a lot of resources to a subset of people who aren’t generating commensurate value from their work or ingenuity. This is happening because they are able to leverage their position in the economy to appropriate value being generated by others. That’s wasteful and inefficient.

This is not advocacy for just giving everybody the same amount of stuff. It doesn’t even have to be precise – if the wealthy get within shouting distance of taking in something close to the value they create, we’ll be good. But, it defies belief to think that the wealthiest 1% are generating 40% of the economic activity in this country.

On the drive into work, I had the misfortune of listening to Cokie Roberts getting a little excited about the pageantry of the Papal resignation. Now, she’s a special case when it comes to power worship, but I think the American fascination about the Pope is akin to our fascination with royalty.

I recall the weeping and rending of garments in the American public when Princess Diana died. I allowed as how her death was untimely and sad, but not uncommonly so and questioned what all the fuss was about. The couple of responses I got were along the lines of “she was such a great humanitarian and did a lot of good work.” Maybe so, but not so long after, Mother Teresa died without anything near the attention. So, clearly, the humanitarian undertakings had little to do with the Princess Diana worship. It was her status as royalty that prompted the attention.

I don’t know why Americans have that tendency — maybe because we have no formal royalty of our own. But, in any event, I think that’s what’s going on with Pope Benedict; at least in the U.S. I doubt any but a passing small percentage of the population could describe with any particularity what acts he’s taken that have had a positive influence on the world. He’s interesting because he’s royalty of sorts.

Sometimes industry standards will be incorporated into law by reference. This poses a big problem when the publisher of those standards asserts a copyright. A citizen shouldn’t have to pay to learn what the law is if the citizen is expected to comply with that law.

The Indiana Law Blog has been covering this issue for a long time. It has a new entry today entitled Sheet metal and AC contractors demand take down of federally mandated standards posted online.

There are code publishers, like West, who are able to charge for value added with analysis and organization. And, historically, costs associated with duplication and distribution often resulted in a charge. But with the Internet and digital technology, duplication and distribution are not significant barriers. Words describing the rules lawmakers have given the force of law should not be withheld from citizens on the basis of copyright.