Politics

"It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. "

— Niccolò Machiavelli

Here are two simple ideas for improving our democracy that are so obviously good that we should immediately start petitioning for their implementation.

1) Legislative Version Control
When we write software, complex or simple, we track the changes to the code line-by-line over time. When members of my development team commit a change to our codebase, I know exactly what the change is, who made it, when they made it and exactly which issue/bug/feature the change was made to address. The exact same technologies could and should be used to track the introduction, modification and amendment of legislative bills. Moreover, this information should be made publicly available. If transparency and accountability are principles that genuinely mean anything to us as a democracy, we should welcome the introduction of this technology to our legislative process.

2) Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)
I, for one, am tired of the false choices I am forced to make by our antiquated system of voting. I don't want to be forced to make a calculated choice between candidates neither of whom represent my interests or positions. IRV is simple to understand and enables voters to vote for the candidates they genuinely want to vote for. The British House of Lords uses it, the Irish elect their President with it, the Australians elect their Representatives with it and municipalities like Minneapolis and San Francisco use it in their elections. It's a tried and tested voting method and it's long past time we started working for its implementation in State and Federal elections.

I'd suggest Condorcet voting - specifically, Schulze method (good enough for Gentoo, Debian and the Wikimedia foundation . . . good enough for me) - but I think it would be harder to convince an electorate to go with it.

So the DC Federal Circuit Court decided the FCC couldn't extend it's regulatory authority to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) through its Title I "ancillary authority". Huh.

In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise . . .".

In actual fact, the decision shouldn't come as a surprise at all to anyone who has been following the development of Internet regulatory policy leading up to and following the passage of the Supreme Court's Brand-X decision. The Brand-X decision (allowing the Bush-era Martin Commission to reclassify cable provisioned internet access as an "information service" - and therefore beyond the reach of the FCC's Title II telecoms regulatory authority) was the pivotal moment in which the FCC threw away its authority to regulate ISPs; a truly spectacular moment of de-regulatory hubris.

Glenn Greenwald posted the most concise and apt synopsis of what's wrong with the Obama administration (see Update II) on his blog the other day. It's well worth repeating.

In accepting Chris Dodd's endorsement in February 2008, Obama said the following (with comment by Glenn Greenwald):

We know it’s time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.

The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry [GG: This was just four months before Obama would vote for a bill granting immunity to the telecoms]. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability [GG: This was roughly 11 months before the Obama DOJ began embracing the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" privilege to shield lawless programs from judicial review]. We must show our citizens -- and set an example to the world -- that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America -- no one is above the law [GG: This was about a year before he announced that no Bush officials should be prosecuted for crimes because we must Look Forward].

It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus [GG: This was about a year before his administration began insisting that people we abduct and ship to Bagram have no right to habeas review]. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom [GG: This was just four months before Obama would vote for a bill massively expanding warrantless eavesdropping]. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.

Perhaps our President should go back and review some of those lecture notes from the courses he taught. A refresher course in the espoused principles on which he rode into office might be just the thing now.

In 1960s South Africa, the apartheid regime resorted to 90 and 180 day detention schemes under which people were detained without charge. Any person could, at any time, be arrested and held in a prison cell without question. The regime wielded this power with impunity and used it to detain large numbers of people . . . including my uncle, Barry.

Not long ago, well, actually quite awhile ago, I blogged about the perverse incentives the privatization of incarceration creates. This week's news that Judges in Pennsylvania were involved in abusive sentencing for kick-backs from a private juvenile detention center (and here - nytimes) provides the latest and clearest case of such abuse.

I'm often frustrated by Lessig's tech policy, though (overall) he's only ever moved issues in the right direction.

When it comes to the presidential election however, he's given the most articulate argument for why I am supporting Barack Obama this election year. If you're undecided or even if you're convinced Clinton is the candidate to support, I implore you to listen to the arguments put forward in Lessig's video . . . I couldn't put it more plainly myself.

Lessig on Obama/Clinton (large MOV).

Google "network neutrality" and either of the major Democratic front-runners for Norm Coleman's Paul Wellstone's Senate seat (I mean Mike Ciresi and Al Franken) and see what you get . . . NADA. Zip. A big fat "0". Try "telecommunications" . . . similar result.

How are these candidates supposed to garner my support if they're unwilling to address national tech policy!? I honestly find it shocking. Just look at their respective lists of "issues":

Ciresi's list

1. Higher Education
2. Iraq
3. Healthcare
4. Renewable energy and rural development (gee, I wonder what he thinks about Ethanol or here or here)
5. Veterans
6. Immigration
7. Terrorism

Franken's list

1. Iraq
2. Healthcare
3. Education
4. Renewable energy (at least he doesn't lump this in with "rural development")
5. Immigration
6. Workers
7. Veterans
8. Accountability

Interesting lists. If you unbundle the rural dev and energy in Ciresi's list, that's 8 apiece. But what's most interesting is not what's IN their lists, but what's left OUT. Check out Obama's list:

Obama's list

1. Civil Rights
2. Disabilities
3. Economy
4. Education
5. Energy and Environment (that makes a LOT more sense to me than Ciresi's combo)
6. Ethics
7. Faith
8. Family
9. Fiscal
10. Foreign Policy
11. Healthcare
12. Homeland Security
13. Immigration
14. Iraq
15. Poverty
16. Rural (Hey MN contenders . . . look, Rural gets its own billing - WOW!)
17. Service
18. Seniors and Social Security
19. Technology
20. Veterans

Now . . . THAT'S A LIST!

Do the MN Democratic contenders think Minnesotans don't care about Poverty? about Foreign Policy? about TECHNOLOGY!?! What about Climate Change? Anyone? Anyone? . . . Buhler?

I understand that President and Senator are different offices, but the policy issues are essentially the same. C'mon guys, it doesn't cost any more to add some substantial policy positions on your friggin' websites. Pretend for just a second that people in Minnesota want to vote based on what policies you'll be supporting when and if you actually get to DC. Or - one has to ask - have you thought about these areas AT ALL? Do you even have policy positions? and if so, why aren't they available to your potential constituents on your websites?

Unbelievable.

If you want to catch a glimpse of what's wrong with telecommunications in this country, read the latest Wired magazine article, 10 Reasons To Hate Cellphone Carriers. The article makes a few nods to Senator Klobuchar's recent cell phone "empowerment" act (and the act does appear to address some bad telco practices). But take a moment to look at the gravity of the listed reasons and then compare Wired's list to what Klobuchar's act addresses . . . see a disparity?? I do.

Senator Klobuchar apparently thinks her bill is merely "some narrowly tailored rules that would even the playing field for consumers." (!?!) Yet, anyone who's paid even the slightest attention to the telco industry in the past . . . oh . . . century, can tell you that if she thinks her bill will "even the playing field," there's a bridge in Brooklyn she may be interested in buying.

Consider the second to last of Wired's reasons to hate cellphone carriers, "They Own Politicians." It does make one pause for a moment to reflect that Klobuchar's bill is co-sponsored by Senator Rockefeller (D-WV); the very same representative responsible for introducing the current Senate FISA bill granting these companies retroactive immunity for KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW.

Hmmmmmmmmm . . .

Which leads to the inevitable question, "Is it possible these Senators (Rockefeller and Klobuchar) are actually pandering to the telcos and merely presenting the appearance of public scrutiny and oversight?" YOU THINK??!! It's either that or sheer naivety.

Put in terms ex-Hennepin County Attorney Klobuchar might understand:

If a mugger j-walks from the scene, you don't chase them on the j-walk charge and ignore the mugging.

The "Consumer Cell-Phone Empowerment Act" is a j-walking charge . . . when will Klobuchar start doing her job and prosecute the mugging?.

While I'm at it . . . what the hell happened to journalism in Minnesota? Can the STRIB only do idiotic puff pieces like this!? We're in a bad way folks.

We the Congress of the United States, in Order to form a less perfect Union, discredit Justice, insure domestic Disparity, provide for the telcos' defence, promote the corporate Welfare, and censure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do disdain and impoverish this Constitution for the United States of America.