I recently emailed both my senators:

Dear Senator (Moran) (Roberts):

I was bitterly disappointd to see that you voted in favor of H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010.

Supporting a bill that authorizes the indefinite detention of American citizens without charges or trial is unconscionable.

If the President vetoes this bill — as I hope he will — please do not vote to override the veto.

Sincerely,

I have received responses from both of them, which I include without comment.

Dear Ms. DuBois:  

Our government has a duty to secure our country from terrorism, but we should not sacrifice the constitutional rights and protections we enjoy as Americans. Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and its impact on civil liberties.  

The 2012 NDAA, S. 1867, further defines U.S. laws regarding the capturing and detaining of suspected terrorists.  I believe it is critical that our country’s detainee laws protect the rights of U.S. citizens.  For this reason, I supported an amendment by Senator Feinstein to the legislation that, though unsuccessful, would have prohibited the U.S. military from detaining a citizen of the United States without a trial. I also voted in favor of Senator Feinstein’s compromise language to maintain current laws relating to American citizens and legal resident aliens detained in the United States, which was adopted by the Senate in the final bill. 

On December 1, the Senate passed this legislation, 93-7, and it now goes to a conference committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill.  As Congress continues to consider these issues, I will remember your thoughts and work to balance Americans’ civil liberties with our national security needs. 

I am grateful for the opportunity Kansans have given me to serve them in the United States Senate.  If you are interested in learning more about my efforts on your behalf, I encourage you to visit moran.senate.gov.  Please let me know if I can be of service to you or your family in the future.

Dear Ms. Dubois:

Thank you for contacting me regarding defense policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

In December, the Senate passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012 (S.1867). This legislation authorizes funding levels and programs for the Department of Defense. Specifically, Sections 1031 to 1034 reauthorized detention, interrogation, and prosecution practices regarding enemy combatants. Individuals authorized for detainment under military custody are persons who have planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on 9/11, or supported al Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces in hostilities against the United States. This detention authority remains in accordance with the laws of war.

I appreciate your concern regarding these provisions. However, this legislation maintains the status quo on detainee policy as the Obama Administration has abided by since 2009. During consideration of the bill, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) introduced an amendment (SA 1456), which passed with my support by a vote of 99-1, confirming that nothing in the bill “shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” Additionally, the Executive Branch has been given the authority to issue a waiver for certain individuals and to establish the procedures for determining which individuals are subject to military custody or civilian custody.

In 2004, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that U.S. citizens found to be belligerent, enemy combatants against the United States could be subject to military commissions for prosecution. S.1867 continues to uphold the current policies and procedures established under the Military Commission Act of 2009 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hamdi. While the war on terrorism continues to threaten our nation, I will continue to support detainee policies focused on keeping our warfighters and citizens, both at home and abroad, safe.

Again thank you for taking the time to contact me. If you would like more information on issues before the Senate, please visit my website at http://roberts.senate.gov. You may also sign up on my home page for a monthly electronic newsletter that will provide additional updates on my work for Kansas.

With every best wish,

Sincerely, 

Pat Roberts

PR:to

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

Does it seem to you that the Wall Street protesters are different now than they were in the short few days since they started?

At first they said they were protesting corporate greed.  I know that sounds good, but I don’t know if they mean that businesses should not make a profit, or that personal greed is okay, or what.  They are also protesting social inequality, and I’m not sure if they are advocating redistribution of wealth or guaranteed equality of outcomes or what.

In any case, as their numbers have grown, they have been joined by union-backed organizations and such groups as the Strong Economy for All Coalition, the Working Families Party, and New York Communities for Change.  And some of the signs being carried are of an entirely different nature from the ones carried by the first small group.

I suspect this group has the same problem as the Tea Party.  Started by a small group of people, their purpose is so appealingly and vaguely stated that masses of frustrated people look at them and see what they want to see. They run to join them because they want so badly to believe that this new movement embodies their own favorite cause and has the cure for their feelings of impotence.

The result, of course, is that the movement quickly loses whatever focus it had, and is diluted to the point of being unrecognizable.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

I have come to the realization that I dislike politics.

That’s an astonishing epiphany for someone as actively involved in a political party as I am.  I think it came to me when it was suggested that I run for office, and I realized that there are few things that would make me less happy.

Understand, please, that I am passionate about civil rights.  There is little that is more important to me than personal freedom and the individual responsibility that comes along with it.  But those are concepts; it’s the implementation that’s a problem for me.

The animosity between competing factions scares me.  The machinations of plotting someone’s defeat make me feel slimy.  The requirement to paint the other party as incompetent or evil makes me sad.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

And so we in the northern hemisphere come to the shortest day, the longest night of the year.

However you celebrate the season of the winter solstice, I wish every one of you warmth, brightness, and joy.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

I’m feeling rather virtuous this evening.

A couple of weeks ago, there was an article in the paper about a local charitable organization starting a career clothing bank.  They are collecting good suits and dresses and dressy blouses for women who are going for job interviews or who have already been hired, and who have nothing suitable to wear.

This particular charitable organization not only provides clothing, but maintains a food pantry and a kitchen which serves meals to those who might otherwise go hungry.  It is strictly local and has a stellar reputation — their expenses are kept to a minimum, and almost everything they take in goes to those who truly need the help.  I always feel good about whatever I donate to them.

I also wax enthusiastic when I hear about people helping themselves by getting jobs.  That’s hard enough to do at any time; but when times are as hard as they are now, I have to honor anyone who is going for an interview or who has actually managed to find work.

And so it was that I spent some time this past weekend going through my closets.  I pulled out all those nice clothes that I was hoping to “get back into one of these days.”  I think I knew I was kidding myself about ever being able to wear a size 14 again, but knowing what I paid for some of them left me scrambling for an excuse — any excuse – not to give them to someone who might not fully appreciate them.  I have no problem donating jeans and other casual clothes and even outgrown coats to others, but my really good suits?  That fine wool blazer?  And so they hung in my closet for 3 or 4 or 5 or 10 years, while some single mother may have been passed over for a job because she didn’t look her best at a job interview.

This evening there’s a bit more room in my closets.  It feels pretty good.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

Just in case you’ve forgotten, modern English is a distributive language.  That means that it is the word order that determines the meaning of the sentence.  It matters:

Dog bites man.

Man bites dog.

 In Latin or any other inflected language, “man” and “dog” would have endings or other form changes that would tell you who was doing the biting and who was being bitten.  The order of the words would be much less important.

One word that gets misplaced often, especially in casual speech and writing, is “only.”  We say things like “I can only see my friends on Thursday,” when that’s not at all what we mean.

Consider:

I went to the store yesterday.

Only I went to the store yesterday.

I only went to the store yesterday.

I went only to the store yesterday.

I went to only the store yesterday.

I went to the only store yesterday.

I went to the store only yesterday.

I went to the store yesterday only.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

One of my many objections to the Internal Revenue Service, as I have written before, is its distance from its original function, which is to raise money for use by the government.

As a Libertarian, I find its basic function offensive enough; but the IRS has now strayed into the dodgy area of trying to manipulate behavior.  We give tax breaks to citizens for adopting children, investing in certain industries, giving money to charities, and buying medications, among others.

Mind you, I think that giving to charities and adopting children are noble behaviors.  I just object to my government mixing behavior modification with fund raising.  I object to my government indulging in behavior modification at all.

The current heated debate among our legislators about extending tax cuts seems to me to be the classic embodiment of this dichotomy.  Some of them want to keep the tax cuts for everyone.  Some of them want to keep the tax cuts for only the less wealthy.  Where to draw the line that determines who is more wealthy and who is less wealthy is the only item still on the agenda, and will almost certainly be the tool of compromise.

Wealthy people in our culture are, after all, always suspect.  They’re probably evil and exploitive, don’t adopt children or give to charities, and got their money by cheating more deserving folks.  And since we can’t find a way to legally modify their behavior, at the very least we can make them pay a larger part of the shared expenses.

Posted by Sharon under Libertarianism | No Comments »

One impractical solution to the airport security problem:

The airlines provide two planes for every flight.  One of them will carry all passengers whose persons have been scanned or patted down and whose luggage has been screened.  The other plane will carry all passengers who have chosen neither to be subjected to any security measures nor to have their luggage checked.

You choose which plane you want to fly on.

Posted by Sharon under Observations | No Comments »

I vote we change TSA to T&A.

Posted by Sharon under Laughter | No Comments »

Oh, yeah!

Posted by Sharon under Laughter | No Comments »