Michigan Proposal 10-2: More Information

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

This blog has been getting a lot of visits from people looking for information about the ballot proposals in Michigan this year, and I don't think my analysis of proposal 10-2 is quite up to par. So, here's an update.

As a reminder, proposal 10-2 would bar people within a broad class of felons from holding public office, whether elected or appointed, where they have authority over public money. This proposal is a bad idea and should be defeated on Tuesday, for the following reasons:

• First, as it applies to elected officials, the proposal would take away voters' discretion to elect people who they think are up to the job. If there is a person who has violated the public's trust, people won't re-elect them, unless there's some other reason for the voters to trust the person. Voters in a particular election will be better at weighing the various factors than voters in this election can be at weighing the hypothetical. For this reason alone, the broad language of the proposal should be voted down.
• When it comes to high-level appointed officials, the proposal would take away the discretion of the elected officials who make those appointments. Like voters who pick elected officials, the officials who make the appointments will be better able to weigh the various factors on a case-by-case basis.
• The proposal takes away judicial discretion. It might be appropriate to make a prohibition on future office-holding a possible punishment for certain crimes, because in that circumstance judges could weigh the factors. But for that to work, they would need discretion.
• This proposal would create an unconstitutional ex post facto punishment when applied to people who have already committed the crimes referenced in the proposal. If they've already been sentenced, we shouldn't restrict their liberty more after the fact.

I encourage everyone to vote NO on Proposal 10-2.

2010 Elections: Michigan's 18th State Senate District

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

There are two candidates running for the state Senate seat in Michigan's 18th district, a map of which is provided on the right. Incumbent Liz Brater is term limited this year.

John Hochstetler (Republican)

Hochstetler (campaign site) seems to be running on the typical opposition-to-incumbents platform. He is quoted at the bottom of the site as saying:

If you are happy with what legislators have done in the past...re-elect them. But if you aren't happy, it is time for a change.

Hochstetler is farm-raised and from Manchester, Michigan. Education information is not available, but his campaign site does say, "John is not a lawyer or a politician. He is a hard working American citizen that cares about the community he lives in." I actually take some offense to the implication that lawyers and politicians neither work hard nor care about their communities.

On the issues, Hochstetler wants to work with officials to determine which government programs are working and which aren't (a decision that I suspect is harder than he thinks, and which people have probably tried to make before), cut business regulation, and support local agriculture.

Overall, his campaign seems unimpressive.

Rebekah Warren (Democrat)

Warren (website) is running a campaign that emphasizes most of the right issues: equality for people regardless of sexual orientation, more educational opportunities, starting before primary education and continuing into college, affordable health care (including mental health care), etc.

There's not really much more I can say about Warren, because there's not much to criticize. The only thing I have to say is that her feminism is a bit overblown, but that's a minor flaw.

Warren is the clear choice in this race.

2010 Elections: Leyton for Attorney General

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

The last time I wrote about the Attorney General's race, I wasn't sure who I was supporting. I've still been unable to learn anything about Gerald T. Van Sickle, so as far as I'm concerned he's out of the race.

After an email conversation with Daniel Grow, I'm even more convinced than before that he would be a poor choice for Attorney General. He doesn't think that the government should ever interfere in economic matters, but keeping businesses in line is one important job of the Attorney General. He also has a very extreme version of property rights that he says would guide his actions as Attorney General:

Rule One: Every person is the proper owner of his own physical body; Otherwise, would it not constitute a case of slavery, and is slavery not unjust as well as uneconomical? Rule Two: Every person is the proper owner of all nature-given goods that he has perceived as scarce and put to use by means of his body, before any other person; if not the first user, than second or third, or everyone? Rule Three: Every person who, with the help of his body and his originally appropriated goods, produces new products thereby becomes the proper owner of these products, provided only that in the process of production he does not physically damage the goods owned by another person. And last, Rule Four: Once a good has been first appropriated or produced, ownership in it can be acquired only by means of a voluntary, contractual transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

There are many dangerous implications of this philosophy, which I'm willing to go into more depth on if anyone wants me to, but that I think are relatively obvious.

And, from a law enforcement perspective, Daniel Grow advocates possibly one of the worst ideas possible in the modern state: privatization of the police force. Finally, Daniel Grow would continue the wasteful and basically meritless lawsuit against the federal government's health care bill if elected.

For these reasons, I encourage everyone to vote against Daniel Grow on Tuesday.

So, the choice is now down to Bill Schuette and David Leyton. Both are too prosecutorial, and neither recognizes that the true aim of the Attorney General should be justice, not convictions. But what's going to sway my vote on this one is the fact that Bill Schuette has pledged to continue the, as I said above, "wasteful and basically meritless lawsuit against the federal government's health care bill."

For that reason, I recommend that anyone in Michigan who thinks that health care is a basic necessity and who doesn't want the state's money wasted on a political lawsuit should vote for David Leyton for Attorney General.

Why Research Is Important (Greg Merle, 2010 Elections)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

An exchange I recently had with Greg Merle, the Libertarian candidate for Congress in Michigan's 7th District, illustrates why it's extremely important to do research before you make broad claims. Failing to do so leads to the embarrassing position of being unable to back your positions up.

Here's a summary of what happened. One issue page on Merle's website had the following to say:

When the Left lost their beloved Soviet Union, elitists and progressives had to find another supposedly credible venue to defeat Capitalism. The environmental movement is a seemingly harmless way to hide their real intentions. This is not conspiracy theory stuff, they will admit it. Simply look at who runs these green organizations. Most of them are admitted anti-American Progressives, Socialists and Bolshevics and they aren’t afraid to say it. There is a reason that Earth day is on the birthday of Vladimir Lenin.

This seemed like a rather ambitious claim to me. Of course, there are people who are both socialist and environmentalist, but there is also a large part of the environmental movement that can't really be classified as either socialists or Soviets (although Merle seems to forget that there's a rather important distinction between those two also).

So, in my post criticizing Merle, I pointed out that he was using the "Hey, look, Communists!" tactic, one so old that Senator McCarthy has been dead for 53 years. Then, in the comments, Merle made an even more extravagant claim:

PS Green is indeed a euphemism for Red. Don't take my word for it, Simply check out their websites and you will find their socialist affiliates.

So, now it's apparently not only true that the socialists are controlling the environmental movement for their own purposes. Apparently, environmentalism and socialism are the exact same thing. Assuming that Merle was correct and had done his research, I decided to check out the first environmental group that came to mind (Earth Day Network) and see if I could find their "socialist affiliates". So, I asked Merle for some help finding those affiliates, while at the same time repeating the obvious truth: there are some people who are both socialist and environmentalist, but that doesn't make the two movements identical or even related.

Merle's only response was that the "socialist affiliates" must have been "scrubbed" from the Earth Day page, because the American patriot Glenn Beck has been doing such a good job. So I asked him when the affiliates where there, so we could find them using an internet time machine. I pointed out that since he claimed you could find them on the website, he must obviously have seen them at some point.

That, apparently, is when Merle felt cornered and resorted to sarcasm and strawmen. He said:

OK, I concede that there are no Socialists or Communists affiliated with the Green movement whatsoever. I also concede that the Green Jobs Czar Van Jones was not a self avowed and admitted Communist.

Merle's problem should be obvious. He didn't claim that there were some socialists affiliated with the environmental movement, nor did he claim anything about Van Jones. Nor, for that matter, did I. What he said was that all environmentalists are socialists, and I asked him to support that. Which, clearly, he was completely unable to do. (Needless to say, Merle has, to this point, not retracted anything he has claimed up until this point. If he had a strong enough character to admit his mistakes, I might even consider him a decent candidate. Not one who shares my views, obviously, but one who shares the views of a certain American minority. But with this petulant posturing and wild, baseless conspiracy theories, Merle comes off as a scary joke rather than a serious candidate.)

So, I'll add one more thing to my list of reasons people might want to vote for Greg Merle: he would be an excellent choice if you like Congressmen who make assertions and decisions without being able to back any of their claims up.

And that's why you should always be able to back up your claims.

Remember, you can find links to all of my election coverage at the Election Center.

2010 Elections: Michigan Supreme Court

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

The non-partisan section of this year's ballot has two seats for the Michigan Supreme Court. The candidates run in a pool rather than vying for individual seats, and you can vote for either one or two of them. Here's a short primer on the court and then the candidates.

Michigan's Supreme Court has seven justices who are each elected to serve eight year terms. The governor makes appointments to fill vacancies until the next election. Much like the United States Supreme Court, this court's primary duty is to hear appeals from lower Michigan courts and to serve as the highest court for purposes of state law. The court also hears some cases of attorney and judicial misconduct.

Candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court are nominated by political parties but elected on a nonpartisan ballot: because of that, I won't mention party affiliations in this post.

One of the challengers (non-incumbents) is Mary Beth Kelly, who has served as a trial court judge for eleven years, but has no experience on the appellate bench. She's a graduate of the University of Michigan (BA) and Notre Dame (JD).

With only trial court experience, it's hard to get a grip on who Judge Kelly is, but this article criticizing the way she ran the Detroit courts is an interesting read, at the very least, and raises some questions about her suitability for higher office. And these videos supporting her and Justice Young call them "tough on violent crime," which usually refers to judges who are weak on civil liberties. For these reasons, I do not endorse Judge Kelly for the court.

Another judicial challenger is Judge Denise Langford Morris, currently a trial court judge in Oakland County. She's a graduate of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law, and has been a litigator, assistant county prosecutor, and AUSA. Her website touts her experience presiding over many criminal cases, as well as quite a few complex civil disputes. She also, apparently, has an informal clerkship program for 6th to 12th graders, which would be an outstanding program to bring to the Supreme Court.

She's also spent time working for the state department of Social Services as an investigator on behalf of the disadvantaged.

It's this quote from her website that sold me on Morris: "She is the candidate whose entire career has been on the front lines balancing Michigan justice as a judge, an attorney, an investigator. Always face to face up close and personal." She's eschewing the stereotypical "pursuing justice" in favor of the more accurate and desirable "balancing justice." Because justice is always a balance, and to pretend otherwise leads to bad results. (Of course, I would have preferred that the second part of that be a complete sentence, but how much can I ask for?)

For apparent fairness and even-handedness, I endorse Judge Morris for the Supreme Court.

The final challenger is Bob Roddis, an Ann Arbor attorney who practices business litigation. He has extensive and detailed answers to an interview on the Detroit Free Press's page, and so that's where I'll be drawing most of my commentary from.

The first thing that lets me know that Roddis would bring some dangerous attitudes to the Michigan Supreme Court is his talk about the "constitutional principles" of private property and liberty of contract. Those are buzz words used by conservative judicial activists, and there's no convincing argument to find them in the constitution. If you doubt that he's revolutionary, try this quote: "Thus, my overall number one campaign issue is to emphasize to the public that the constitutional interpretation of Thomas Jefferson is the correct one and that the constitutional interpretation of the last 75 years which allows for economic interventionism is based upon a phony historical narrative, economic illiteracy among the judiciary and intellectual intimidation. Further, this fraudulent anti-Jeffersonian constitutional interpretation is the cause of our current economic calamity."

He then makes a very interestingly bad economic/legal argument: "1) The Federal government is the sole cause of inflation (and the boom/bust cycle); and 2) Inflation is unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and is made possible because of judicial failure to enforce the Constitution." The economic argument that follows is poor, but the baseless legal argument is what's really troubling.

Possibly my favorite quote is this one: "Recently a book was published suggesting that each of us probably commits three felonies per day due to the explosion of laws and regulations. The only thing standing between your freedom and a likely conviction is the whim of a prosecutor." A book said something about the law, so Roddis believed it.

I could go on, but I don't really see the need at this point. If you want to see more, go to the Free Press. But it should be clear by now that Roddis is perhaps the worst choice for the Michigan Supreme Court.

The first seat is currently held by Robert P. Young, Jr., who was initially appointed to the court in 1999, elected in 2000 to the remaining 2 years of a term, and then elected again in 2002 for a full eight year term that is expiring this year.

Justice Young is a Detroit native and graduate of Harvard (B.A. with honors, J.D.). His legal career began at Dickinson Wright and continued as general counsel of AAA Michigan. He was then appointed to the Michigan Court of Appeals before the Supreme Court.

Justice Young has been on the court for eleven years, so plenty of his work is available to review. To develop a short list of cases to look at, I went to Justice Young's reelection campaign page, as well as to a page critical of his work.

In MCWC v. Nestle, 479 Mich. 280, 737 N.W.2d 447 (2007) Justice Young espoused strong support for strict standing requirements as a limit on judicial power. Specifically, he ruled that for people to sue over damage to the environment, that damage must affect them in some specific way.

In People v. Kazmierczak, 605 N.W.2d 667, 461 Mich. 411 (2000) Justice Young joined an opinion applying the motor vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment (which says, basically, that cars may be searched if there is probable cause without the need to obtain a warrant) to cases where police officers smell the odor of marijuana. The opinion said that the odor, detected by a qualified person, was sufficient to establish probable cause. (Odor searches provide an incredible amount of power to police officers, because how can you really contradict their testimony that they smelled marijuana?)

One disturbing aspect of Justice Young's reelection campaign is the pride he apparently takes in being anti-defendant in criminal cases. On a page titled "Opinions of Interest to Law Enforcement" it says:

After Justice Young joined the Michigan Supreme Court in 1999, it became nationally recognized as “an unusually thoughtful, sophisticated and articulate” court. The Wall Street Journal noted that “probably no court in the country has been less inclined to respond favorably to innovative theories allowing criminals to escape responsibility for their actions. . . [T]he current majority views a criminal trial as neither a legal game nor a further opportunity to tie the hands of law enforcement.” Although the Court’s majority shifted in 2008 with the defeat of Chief Justice Cliff Taylor, Justice Young is running for re-election in 2010 and wants to restore the Court to its former prominence, as these cases exemplify.

Among the opinions advertised on that page is People v. Anstey, 719 N.W.2d 579, 476 Mich. 436 (2006) (Justice Young joining the majority opinion). That opinion dealt with the implied consent rule, whereby drivers who are arrested for driving under the influence are implied to have consented to chemical blood, breath, and urine tests by driving. The implied consent rule provides various protections for defendants, including the right to have the sample tested by their own expert.

In Anstey, the defense was denied the opportunity for independent testing, and the Supreme Court was deciding the proper remedy. The opinion Justice Young joined said that suppressing the blood test evidence would not be proper, and that the jury should just be informed that the state violated the defendant's rights. This result is illogical: the fact that the defendant was denied the opportunity to pursue independent testing has little-to-no impact on the reliability of the state's expert witness and thus should have little impact on the jury's evaluation of the evidence: at best, revealing the violation to the jury would inform them why the defense didn't put on an expert witness to contest the results. This case provided ample discretion to the Supreme Court, and Judge Young chose to provide minimal incentive to the state to follow its own laws. Other cases listed on that same page also show that Young seems to have it as a goal to narrow the exclusionary rule as much as possible.

All in all, Young seems weak on upholding constitutional and legal protections for the underprivileged. He seems like the kind of judge who sees vital constitutional protections as technicalities that shouldn't be a reason alleged criminals aren't sent to prison. Add that to his limiting the standing for lawsuits to product the environment, and I cannot endorse Justice Young for reelection.

The second seat is currently held by Justice Alton Thomas Davis, a graduate of Michigan State University (JD '74) who has been a trial court judge in Michigan for 21 years, on the Court of Appeals for 5 years, and was appointed to the Supreme Court this August to fill a newly vacant seat.

Davis supports judicial appointments rather than elections (a very good position). While he has extensive judicial experience (the most of any of the candidates, I believe), his short time on the Supreme Court means that there's not an easily accessible profile of his judicial philosophy. However, from what I have been able to find, Justice Davis seems like an extremely well-qualified, non-partisan, conscientious candidate, and I am proud to endorse him for the court.

In summary, Justice Davis and Judge Morris are the best choices for the Michigan Supreme Court.

2010 Elections: University of Michigan Board of Regents

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Two seats, both currently held by Republicans, on the University of Michigan Board of Regents are up for election this November. The candidates run in a pool, and you can vote for one or two. Here's a brief run-down on the candidates. (For those who don't read all the way through, I end up endorsing Paul Brown (a Democrat) and Leslie Lazzerin (a Libertarian) for the Board.)

Andrea Fischer Newman (Incumbent, Republican)

Newman has already served two eight year terms on the Board of Regents (1995-2003, 2003-2011) and is running for a third. She's a graduate of the University of Michigan (BA with honors, 1979) and George Washington University (JD, 1983) and is currently, in addition to her seat on the Board of Regents, the Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs at Delta Airlines.

The focus of Newman's campaign website is on continuing the current state of success. She wants to push for "conservative reforms" at the University of Michigan, which are (her list):

• Reducing the University’s health care and insurance costs,

In response to an email I sent her, Regent Newman identified four ways of cutting health costs: audits to ensure that ineligible people aren't getting benefits, "rightsizing" (i.e. downsizing) some benefits, better negotiating with providers, and adding providers to coverage at the hospital.

• Being more deliberate in using and allocating space across the campus,

This goal seems to be an example of micromanagement by top administrators. At an institution the size of the University, space management is more properly the role of individual schools and departments. The Board may have some influence over it, but my suspicion is that that influence is minimal.

In an email, Regent Newman cited the purchase of the North Campus Research Complex as a success in this field.

• Promoting energy efficiency,

This is a goal that I of course have no objection to, but also one I suspect is shared, at least to some extent, by all the candidates.

• Seeking more disciplined budgeting from the University’s schools, colleges, and other business units;
• Selling non-productive assets;

In an email conversation, Regent Newman seemed to imply that this was mostly related to selling property that was not well-suited to current University needs.

AnnArbor.com quotes Newman as saying that she's focusing on fiscal responsibility, minimizing tuition costs, and continuing support for research. She values fund-raising and integrity among the administration.

In an email conversation, Newman made it clear that she will oppose tuition increases in almost all circumstances. On her website, she calls tuition increases a last resort. The problem with this is that an increase in tuition on those who can afford it (and there are many who can: Michigan's tuition is incredibly low as compared to rival institutions) can produce more funding for financial aid grants to lower income students. Tuition increases, then, can make the University more affordable.

One of the main controversies surrounding Newman is a letter that three members of the Board (Regents Newman, Richner, and Deitch) signed in November 2007. The minutes of the relevant board meeting are here, and the letter begins on page 19. It reads, in part:

We believe that the Press ought to exit all of its distribution arrangements with unaffiliated publishers because of the Press’ complete lack of authority over the content of distributed books while the University retains complete responsibility for negative public reaction to such books...

We note that many members of the University community are deeply offended by the recently published book “Overcoming Zionism: Creating a Single Democratic State in Israel/Palestine” by Joel Kovel which has been perceived as anti-Semitic and poorly researched. Indeed, Mr. Pochoda himself has stated that the book raised issues of hate speech, calling it a reckless, vicious, and unmodulated attack on Zionism and all Zionists.” We acknowledge that some may have found the book thought provoking and/or agreed with its thesis. To us, the merits of the book are irrelevant to our central concern.

We simply assert that the money which the Press receives from distributing Pluto Press books is outweighed by the reputational damage to the University from publishing books over which University faculty or staff has no editorial control. In our judgment, that is what has happened here and we believe this result must be avoided in the future...

We simply do not believe that this small amount of revenue warrants the potential for profound reputational damage and concomitant disaffection and lack of support for the University among people who find books like Mr. Kovel’s to be poorly reasoned, biased and deeply offensive...

Further, we wish to make it clear that, in our considered judgment, this is not a freedom of speech or academic freedom issue. We affirm our commitment to those principles. We are not suggesting Kovel’s book be “banned.” We believe that our faculty, students and staff should feel free to express whatever views they have without fear of censorship. However, we do not believe freedom of speech principles should be used as a guise to require the University to use its resources to sell and distribute commercially every book deal that comes its way. In a news release, the Press, with your approval, stated that the Board “would not have recommended publication” of Kovel’s manuscript had it “gone through the standard review process used by the University of Michigan Press.” Sound judgment should lead thoughtful people to conclude that the Press should not disseminate books unworthy of its own imprint. To do otherwise, only debases the Press’ franchise and leaves the Press and the University open to damage. This is a commercial and policy issue, not a free speech issue. We firmly believe that the University of Michigan should not make money from books that do not meet our own scholarship standards.

This letter does exemplify one legitimate concern: that the University Press should not put out books that are below the level of scholarship expected of its publications. To put out sub-standard books would indeed harm the Press.

However, the letter raises academic freedom and free speech issues, no matter how much it tries to disclaim those concerns, because of its focus on the "offensiveness" of the book in question. The letter even seems to suggest that such an "offensive" book would not (or should not) have been published by the University Press itself simply by merit of that "offensiveness." Even though the letter tries to claim that the regents' concern is merely commercial, this is a huge threat to academic freedom. A university's publishing resources should not be used only for publishing material that no one has a problem with. The standard for publication should be one that looks at quality of writing and scholarship, not at how offensive the book may be to some people.

This letter raises serious concerns for me about Ms. Newman's (and Mr. Richner's) fitness to have a seat on the Board which runs a very important research institution.

Andrew C. Richner (Incumbent, Republican)

Richner has served one term on the Board of Regents (2003-2011) and is running for his second. He is a graduate of the University of Michigan (BBA with high distinction '82, JD '86) who has made a long career in Republican politics, including serving in Reagan's White House Counsel's Office, on the Grosse Pointe Park City Council, on the Wayne County Board of Commissioners, and in the Michigan House of Representatives. In addition to sitting on the Board of Regents he is currently a partner in Clark Hill PLC.

Richner and Newman have very similar proposals and views on their websites (which used to be more similar), and so far I've been unable to really distinguish between them. Richner did also sign the letter that raises so many concerns for me about Regent Newman.

I did fail to properly follow up with Regent Richner, so the lack of distinguishing information is partially my own fault. However, at this point it seems reasonable to consider Richner and Newman a unit and vote either for both or neither of them.

Paul Brown (Democrat)

I emailed Mr. Brown a while back, before he had a campaign website, and never got a response. However, he now has a website, so I can at least comment on his candidacy based on the information provided there.

Paul Brown is a University of Michigan alum and lawyer who used to work for a law firm in New York. He's admitted to the bars in New York and Michigan, as well as the Supreme Court Bar.

Recently, he's been a member of the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC).

Brown is running on two issues, both fiscal: commercializing research at the University to help the state and lowering tuition.

As I discussed above, with the Republican candidates, the University should be looking to raise tuition to support lower-income students, not lowering tuition past its already low point. And while commercialization has its place, too much emphasis on it will put the academic nature of the University at risk.

Mr. Brown does not have a record of threatening academic freedom, so he seems preferable to the Republican candidates, but he is certainly not an optimal candidate.

Greg Stephens (Democrat)

Stephens' campaign website has the following biographical information: he's a graduate of Chelsea High School, Washtenaw Community College, and an apprenticeship with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. He's also a former member of the US Army Reserves. Stephens has been the business manager for the local IBEW chapter for sixteen years.

Stephens' campaign seems focused on two main themes: supporting the University's current policy of seeking a diverse campus to provide the best educational environment, and keeping education affordable for the middle class. As there is so little information about his views available on his website, I emailed Stephens in September to inquire further about his views on important University issues, but never received a response.

Because there is so little information about Stephens and his qualifications for office, I would not feel comfortable voting for him for regent.

Diana Demers (Green Party, Socialist Party)

Diana Demers (website) is a graduate of Eastern Michigan University ('07) and is currently working as a substitute teacher. She was nominated separately by the Green Party and Socialist Party (I believe she will appear on the ballot as a representative of the Green Party).

Demers is running on a platform opposed to the "corporatizing" of education. Her main issues are as follows:

• Support for the collective bargaining rights of various UM groups.
• Reducing tuition dramatically, with the end goal of no tuition.

While this is an admirable goal (in this day and age, a college education should be guaranteed, just like primary and secondary education), attempting to get there by just cutting tuition at the U of M is a doomed strategy. Publicly funded college education will take governmental, not college, action. In the meantime, tuition should be raised to support financial aid for those who cannot afford tuition.

• Automatic tenure-track positions for lecturers and adjuncts.

There are different positions at the University that fulfill different needs. Trying to cram them all into one category is a mistake.

• End ROTC and related activities on campus.

This is a poor decision. ROTC makes college affordable for many students, and getting rid of ROTC at the University of Michigan would not significantly affect the US military. (Nor is trying to limit the number of people who volunteer for the military good policy.)

• Getting rid of corporate money at the University.

Corporate money provides money for important research and supports students.

• Student representatives to the Board of Regents.
• Make University police in Ann Arbor issue marijuana citations under city law rather than state law.

In all, Demers proposals are too radical and not well thought out enough to efficiently manage the University fo Michigan. I do not endorse her for office.

Libby Hunter (Green Party)

Hunter seems not to have a campaign website. I sent her an email back in September with some questions, but never heard back.

I was able to find this brief questionnaire posted on AnnArbor.com, which at least gives a brief glimpse into her positions. First, biographical: she's a "musician" and "activist" who graduated from the University of Michigan (Bachelor's in music, '72) and Cambridge College (Master's in education, '90).

Hunter's campaign seems based mostly on affordability. She wants to cut tuition to improve affordability (I won't repeat again why that's a bad plan, see above) and look at various retention policies. One of her ideas was "discounts" for students who complete their degrees early. I'm not quite sure what she means by this: University tuition is on a semester-by-semester basis, so students who finish their degrees early pay less anyways.

With such little information and few qualifications, it seems, I suggest that no one should be comfortable voting for Ms. Hunter (unless they have information that I don't--if you do, let me know!)

Joe Sanger (US Taxpayers Party)

By looking at Mr. Sanger's filing form as provided by the Secretary of State, I was able to locate his campaign website.

Mr. Sanger has a five-step program for the University of Michigan. The steps are:

• Ban abortion on all University of Michigan property, including the University of Michigan Hospital.

Mr. Sanger claims that "the first responsibility" of government is to protect life. He gets around the fact that an abortion ban by the University of Michigan would probably run afoul of Roe v. Wade by citing "Article V of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution" (I believe he is referring to the Fifth Amendment; also take a look at his lamenting the fact that UM graduates have never read the Constitution) to the effect that the government cannot deprive people of their life without due process. He also claims that "The written Constitution of the United States grants no authority to the Supreme Court to amend or override the US Constitution," perhaps with the implication that Roe was the Supreme Court "amending or overriding the US Constitution" (which it was not).

• End ideological advocacy

Mr. Sanger thinks that it is "illegal" to teach the "dangerous lie" that "there is no right and wrong," and that it is also "illegal" for UM professors "to teach the dogmas of faith of the state sponsored false pagan religion of 'political correctness.'"

• End affirmative action
• End teaching of illegal and unhealthy behaviors

Mr. Sanger wants to remove "How to be Gay" from the U of M curriculum, apparently because he views homosexuality as either an "illegal" or "unhealthy" lifestyle.

The fifth section is a long list of "administrative reforms". I'll excerpt and briefly comment on the more interesting items: you can read the full list on your own.

• "The hiring and promotion of all instructors must be based solely upon their ability to teach their assigned courses." (It's unclear whether Sanger is referring to professors, lecturers, or both. As applied to professors, this requirement is ridiculous: research is an extremely important part of being a professor.)
• "Revamp the doctoral program as follows:" (There's absolutely no reason to implement this proposal. Students who want to perform mainly additional coursework should look into additional Masters degrees. This proposal would make Michigan a laughing stock among respected academic institutions, making the school little more than a diploma mill.)
• "Eliminate tenure." (This is actually a somewhat interesting proposal that has garnered legitimate support. I'll comment on it at some point in the future.)
• "Eliminate teaching by graduate students (including PHD candidates)." (This would take away a very important aspect of graduate education, as well as depriving undergraduates of some very capable instructors.
• "Eliminate all ideological litmus tests in hiring." (Are there any, or is Sanger just paranoid?)
• "Eliminate multiculturism." (To what is Sanger referring here? Valuing many cultural perspectives?)
• "Ban student participation in research activities (other than for a student's own dissertation or assigned for a student's own learning benefit as part of a classroom assignment not connected in any way with any instructor's research projects)." (Student participation in real research is an extremely valuable educational tool, and one thing that makes the University of Michigan such a good school.)

In addition to this five-step program, Sanger has a few other problems with the University of Michigan as it currently exists. High tuition is one of them, as Sanger claims that tuition has gone up at 8.1 times the rate of inflation in the past 55 years (of course, the nature of the University has changed immensely in the past 55 years as well). AnnArbor.com also carries this complaint by Sanger: there he calls the tuition increase "unconscionable." On his website, he also says:

At the same time that tuition costs have been increased at such an astounding rate, the quality of the education has declined. Many graduates today have never read either the Declaration of Independence or The Constitution of the United States, and are economic illiterates, but they have been heavily indoctrinated in the collectivist ideology and the alley cat morals of the state sponsored false pagan religion of “political correctness”. Shakespeare and Plato are giving way to “How to be Gay”...

It is time to terminate the illegal use of tax dollars and public facilities for ideological indoctrination and to restore the University to its original role as an educational institution.

Beyond the absurd claim that teaching values is illegal, Sanger provides no evidence for his assertions of graduates' incompetence. All in all, Sanger is a completely unimpressive candidate for the Board of Regents who favors a variety of either illegal or ill-reasoned proposals for the University. I cannot see a valid reason for anyone to cast a vote for Joe Sanger for the Board of Regents.

Linda Schrock Taylor (US Taxpayers Party)

First, the obligatory link to her website and biographical information: graduate of the University of Northern Colorado (BA '72) and Central Michigan University (MA '95). Her career has been mainly in education.

My initial investigations of Taylor were...interesting. AnnArbor.com says that Taylor is a retired teacher and business owner who was motivated to run when she received a "poorly written letter" from a UM-educated doctor. As regent, she wants to improve literacy.

If this is truly Taylor's only goal in office, it's an absurdly narrow goal for a regent. While there's no doubt that almost everyone in the world could do with improving their writing skills (and I make no exception for myself, of course), I doubt that Michigan is graduating exceptionally bad writers. And too much focus on writing and reading can eclipse other important things (like a doctor knowing the parts of the body.)

I exchanged some emails with Ms. Taylor, and they haven't made me any more confident in her as a prospective regent. She responded to honest questions about her views and positions by saying:

I think you just want to fight. It will be easier for both of us if you do not even consider voting for me. I will understand.

I, at least, want public officials who are willing to debate issues rather than just say "we disagree, that's too bad." I don't want it to be "easier," I want there to be public debate about tough issues. That, apparently, is not Taylor's view.

Linda Taylor's campaign is too narrow, focused on a ridiculous issue, and non-responsive to outside questions or challenges. For this reason, it is my opinion that Ms. Taylor is supremely unqualified to be a regent for a major public University.

James Lewis Hudler (Libertarian)

Mr. Hudler's campaign website can be found here; the two Libertarians running for the board share almost identical website: the positions and views are exactly the same, only the names are different.

Hudler's campaign is focused on three key issues: cutting spending, eliminating ideological advocacy, and privatization.

On spending, he wants to cut programs that are not living up to their goals. However, he does not give any examples of programs at the University of Michigan that he would cut, or any other specifics that would be useful in evaluating him as a candidate.

With regard to the supposed ideological bent of the university, Hudler claims that the Board has in the past spent too much time micromanaging things to ensure political correctness and not let teaching go on unhindered.

Hudler wants to privatize many services currently provided by university staff. While privatization is a proposal that should be taken seriously, the economic gains need to be weighed against the substantive risk that outsourcing will result in lower quality work performed by people with inferior job security, salary, and benefits.

Overall, Hudler's policies and philosophy seem to demonstrate an unclear vision of his plans on the Board, should he be elected, and are better suited to a run for the state legislature. I emailed Mr. Hudler for mor information back in September, but he never responded.

Leslie Lazzerin (Libertarian)

I have been unable to find any biographical information about Ms. Lazzerin, other than the fact that she is from Bloomfield and that she has worked in the public sector for 26 years and volunteered at the University of Michigan for 36 years.

As I mentioned in my previous post, Lazzerin's website differs only in name from Mr. Hudler's (the other Libertarian running for the Board) and so I'll direct you above for my general thoughts on the Libertarian platform for the University. I also contacted Lazzerin to learn more about her personal views and what she plans to do if she wins a seat on the Board of Regents.

In her response, Lazzerin opposed raising tuition at the University of Michigan (a poor policy, as I've argued above). Other than that, though, her ideas seem solid. She supports academic freedom for students, reduction of fixed costs, working with businesses to expand internship opportunities for students (which is very important), working with public schools to improve secondary education in Michigan, and building an alumni network to help students find employment.

It seems to me, especially in comparison to the other candidates, that Ms. Lazzerin will do a good job on the Board.

So, I endorse Leslie Lazzerin (Libertarian) and Paul Brown (Democrat) for the University of Michigan Board of Regents.

Remember, you can find the collected links to all of my election coverage at the Election Center.

"Latinos 4 Reform" to Latinos: Don't Vote This Year

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

A group calling themselves "Latinos for Reform" or "Latinos 4 Reform" created some television reforms calling on Latino Americans not to vote this November, to punish the Democrats for "betraying" them.

The end of the video provides a link to their website (with the disclosure information). Going to the website makes things start to look a little bit suspicious, though. It has nothing on it beyond the ads.

If you look into "Latinos for Reform," you quickly start to see a lot of references to them as a right-wing front group, with conservative leadership. In other words, the group almost certainly doesn't support any of the positions that they blame the Democrats for dropping.

This ad is an example of despicable voter deception and why disclosure rules don't accomplish very much. The name "Latinos for Reform" (which is all viewers see associated with the ad) conjures an image of progressive ideals and proposals. It's saying "we are you, we know you, you should listen to us." And when they complain about things like "no immigration reform," they fail to mention that they were probably responsible for opposing such reform.

Of course, the entire premise of the advertisement is ridiculous. The idea that it would somehow empower a community for them to not go to the polls is ridiculous. Why would a pro-Latino group tell Latinos to effectively disenfranchise themselves? But the GOP knows that with their nativist immigration policies they'll never win the Latino vote, so the best they can hope for is a no-show.

It's a tactic. A rather transparent one. But there's at least a chance that this lie will trick some voters, and that makes it despicable.

Tea Party Assault Follow-Up: SEIU Attack?

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Greg Merle, the Libertarian candidate for Congress in Michigan's 7th District, commented on my post about two Tea Partiers tackling a progressive woman to the ground (once she was on the ground and not moving, one of the men stomped on her). Merle said:

Be sure to post the video of the three white SEIU members beating up a Black Tea Party supporter while at the same time calling him "nigger".

I'm glad that Merle brought up this incident (which I've never mentioned because it occurred back in August of 2009, before this blog existed) because it gives us an opportunity for some comparisons. To be clear, I'm not saying that either of these incidents represent mainstream elements of either group, nor am I saying that whichever one comes out looking better is proof that that group is better. But since this SEIU incident is probably what conservatives will start hitting back with soon, it's an interesting comparison to make.

First, as best as I can tell from Merle's limited description of the event he's referring to, here's the video.

The footage starts mid-incident (just like the footage of the incident from Monday), and it's shot from a decent distance away, so I recommend watching the first thirty second or so of this video multiple times. It took me a bit to figure out what's going on, but here's my best guess (and if you think I'm watching it wrong, let me know in the comments).

The video starts with one black man on the ground (who, if you follow him through the video, you can later see is wearing an SEIU shirt). As it zooms in, you can see a white man in an SEIU shirt standing over the fallen SEIU person, pushing someone over. That person turns out to be a black man wearing a tan polo. (I can't hear the word "nigger" anywhere in the video, but it's a long video with a lot of competing voices. If anyone can hear it, leave a comment with the point in the video where it happens.)

And while the scene is much more confused than the video from Monday night, it appears as though once the conservative (the one wearing tan) is pushed down, he's not attacked any more. I certainly don't see him being stepped on. Though it's of course impossible to say definitively from this video, it seems likely that the man in the tan shirt pushed the black SEIU member down, and then the other SEIU members pushed the man in the tan shirt down, either to get him off of their friend or in retaliation. It's impossible to go further back in the fight, of course, to say who actually threw the first punch.

So, first, to deal with the mischaracterizations in Merle's comment: it's deceptive to label this fight as one between three white SEIU men and a black Tea Partier. While it may technically be true that the black SEIU member didn't attack the Tea Partier (because, you know, he was on the ground), he was obviously involved. Further, I only see two SEIU people in the video who are involved in pushing the Tea Partier to the ground. As far as I can tell, the only way you can get to three is by counting the guy who's already on the ground.

And, as I said before, I don't hear the word "nigger" anywhere in the video. It's possible that Merle got his "N-words" confused, because there is this video of the black man who got pushed to the ground after the incident:

According to that video, McCowan (the black SEIU member) referred to Gladney (the black Tea Partier) as a "negro" (not a "nigger") prior to the incident. Like it or not, use of the word "negro" by a black man has a much different connotation than when it comes from a white man. Anyways, there's a large difference between "three white SEIU members beating up a Black Tea Party supporter while at the same time calling him "nigger"" and a black SEIU member calling a black Tea Partier a "negro" before the altercation began. Of course, if there's other video footage that I haven't seen I'd welcome a reference from Mr. Merle (or anyone else, for that matter.)

(Also, for interest, although I don't necessarily endorse everything in this article, see a piece about discrepancies in the apparent level of injury to Gladney.)

Also, you might want to check out this interesting treatment of the incident by Glenn Beck (about 5:20 in the video). He refers to the use of the "n-word" against an African American (although he doesn't mention that an African American said it) and doesn't make clear that one of the men on the ground at the end of the incident was a black member of the SEIU. Instead, he characterizes the incident as a "beat down."

(I'm probably going to deal with some of the other ridiculous things Glenn Beck does in this video in a separate post.)

So, there we go. Like I said, this is my first time dealing with this event in detail, so if there's information I've missed please let me know about it. But, unlike what occurred on Monday, the video footage doesn't seem to demonstrate a simple, vicious assault; instead, it seems to show a fight between two sides, with no indication of how it began.

2010 Congressional Election (MI-15): Palin Endorses Rob Steele

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

There are two general philosophies when it comes to endorsements. One is that they shouldn't matter at all, and you should do your own research. The other is that endorsements provide one tool of learning about someone's values, by seeing who supports them.

I tend to fall into the first group, though I recognize that at times endorsements can tell you valuable information. But if you fall into the second group, here's a reason to vote for John Dingell for Congress in Michigan's 15th District: Sarah Palin has endorsed Republican challenger Rob Steele.

As always, you can find the collected links to all of my election coverage at the Election Center.

Two Rand Paul Supporters Implicated in Political Assault

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

As Rand Paul arrived at an event yesterday, two of his supporters knocked a woman to the ground (she was there with MoveOn.org). Before they did so, she allegedly heard them say that they were there to do crowd control, so they might need to "take someone out."

After she was on the ground, cowering, one of the men (Tim Proffitt, a local Tea Party leader and prominent Rand Paul supporter) placed his foot on her shoulder and stomped down. You can hear a cracking noise even over the crowd. Here's the video:

Apparently, Rand Paul initially called it a crowd control problem, but after it was discovered that Tim Proffitt was a notable supporter of Paul (in fact, he was a campaign coordinator), he issued a statement, of which I've found a partial(?) segment here:

The Paul for Senate campaign is extremely disappointed in and condemns the actions of a supporter last night outside the KET debate. Whatever the perceived provocation, any level of aggression or violence is deplorable and will not be tolerated by our campaign. The Paul campaign has disassociated itself from the volunteer who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists — on both sides — to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations of any kind.

You'll notice that Rand Paul takes the opportunity to condemn violence on both sides. Compare that to another recent statement by his campaign, condemning a "vicious" political attack by his opponent. In that statement, Rand Paul doesn't both to remind us that political attacks come from both sides. It almost seems like the Paul campaign has tougher words for the Conway add than for the Proffitt stomping.

What really bothers me, though, after watching the video, is that almost no one intervenes. It's clear that there are a bunch of people watching, including the person holding the camera but no one steps in until one woman pushes one of the abusive men off of the victim. The actual stomping elicits a "no, no, no, no, no" from one man, but he doesn't actually bother to get involved.

Let's just say that that wasn't a very polite Tea Party going on there.

By the way, Valle suffered a concussion and a sprained arm. But that's ok, because Proffitt apologized. Well, not really. The pictures, he claims, exaggerated the severity of it. Really? Because what it looks like is that you stomped on a defenseless person for the crime of disagreeing with you. Is that an exaggeration?

The perpetrator also blamed police and said they should have stopped Valle from doing what she was doing, which was...protesting? Engaging in non-violent speech, which caused this thug to give her a concussion?

Proffitt is being charged. The other man is not yet, although he could be. If this is the face of the Tea Party, then I'm ashamed. And I'm ashamed that a man who could end up in the United States Senate would be less outraged by a vicious attack than by a normal political advertisement.

Welcome to America.

The Problem With School Vouchers (Part 1)

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

The argument for school vouchers has seen some prominence in recent years, coming from (as far as I can tell) two main groups: fiscal conservatives or religious totalitarians. Of course, there are other groups and nuanced combinations of these positions, but for now I'll respond to these two prime positions.

First, let me explain the more controversial of those terms. I call those who argue for school vouchers on religious grounds "religious totalitarians" because they are supporting the total authority of the parent and the religion to dictate a child's education. They argue that there is some inherent religious right of parents to send their children to schools that teach their values, and thus tax money that parents pay to support public schools should be able to be transferred (via vouchers) to religious schools.

The main problem with this argument is that it argues for a "right" that has no place in liberal society: the supposed "right" of parents to completely control their children. That's not to say that parents should have no role, of course: they play a very important role, in that families are generally one of the better ways to rear children. And of course parents have discretion in their children's education: all the time that their child isn't in school, the parents can teach them whatever they want. But there's no rational reason why the parent's right to free exercise of their religion should include the authority to brainwash their children and prevent them from getting a real education.

(There are a set of people who favor vouchers because they honestly believe that religious schools provide an objectively better (and perhaps safer) education to students than public schools do. I consider these people to be closer to the fiscal conservatives I discuss below than the religious fundamentalists, because their argument is based on the value of private schools rather than some imagined right of parents to brainwash their children.)

The second group of people, fiscal conservatives, present a more interesting argument in favor of vouchers. They argue that private schools are more efficient or cheaper than public schools, and thus the government should use vouchers instead of public schools to ensure that everyone gets a quality education efficiently. There are several issues with this argument, and I'll attempt to go through them in an orderly fashion.

First, though, let me state my assumptions: if we were to switch to vouchers, we would need to provide them for all students, and at a sufficient value to fully pay for an education. Otherwise, children born to poor families will be stuck in public schools that struggle even more than some public schools do now, and even fewer people will care about fixing them. And a switch to vouchers would need to be relatively quick, or else some students (most probably poor students) will be stuck in public schools longer as more money is taken out of the public school system, and in all probability we will never actually get to the point where vouchers are provided for everyone.

In order to prevent this post from becoming incredibly long, I will deal only with the assumption that private schools will retain their current cost if we were to switch to vouchers (and really, only one reason why that isn't true.) Subsequent posts will deal with other problems of a voucher system from a fiscally conservative point of view.

Unfixed Cost

The fiscal conservative argument in favor of school vouchers depends on the myth that the costs of private school education would remain constant if all students went to private school. However, private schools are a part of an education market. They have two classes of competitors: public schools, which provide an (often) substandard product at no marginal cost to customers, and other private schools, which provide an (often) better product, but with a marginal cost.

The first conclusion that it's easy to draw from this is that the existence of public schools plays a large part in holding down the cost of private school. Instead of being able to charge for the full value of an education, private schools can only charge customers for the marginal increase in value between a private school and a public school.

The other obvious conclusion is that the more students are enrolled in private schools, the higher the demand and thus the higher the price. Consider the supply and demand curves at right. (The graphs assume that public schools currently educate 90% of students, as stated in this book.)

If the labels are too small to read, the x-axis represents the percentage of students enrolled in private school (the demand) ranging from 0-10, representing 0-100% enrollment. The y-axis is the cost of tuition at private school (with no specific scale).

The blue curve represents the supply curve: that is, the relation between the cost of private school tuition and the number of private school spots available. The red curve on the left represents the current demand curve (the relationship between the cost of private school tuition and the percentage of students who are enrolled in private school by their parents) and the red curve on the right represents the demand curve if we went to a system entirely run by vouchers.

These curves are just estimations (as all supply and demand curves must be) but they serve to illustrate a point. The supply curve is increasing, because the more customers are paying in tuition, the more schools will be willing to expand their total number of students, and the more schools will open. It is also concave up, though, because as more schools open, the marginal cost of opening a new school will increase: the pool of teachers and administrators will be depleted, so it will cost more to secure quality employees, for just one example.

The first demand curve is steep at first because there will probably always be some parents willing to pay the costs of private school, even if public schools exist and private schools become very expensive. However it takes a significant decrease in cost before most people will consider private school. Once a certain threshold is met, though, people will be willing to pay the minimal tuition of private schools for the better product (hence the leveling out of the demand curve.)

The second demand curve represents demand in a system of only private schools (with the assumption that students still must be sent to school of some sort). The demand curve is not quite vertical because there are other options beside private schools, such as homeschooling. However, the demand curve is steep because homeschooling has its own significant costs, especially in a society that expects two working parents, and because the quality product from homeschooling is likely to be significantly worse than the product from a public school.

What this type of analysis shows is that the lost cost of private schools relative to public schools is not a given: it is dependent on a specific set of market pressures (such as the fact that public schools are publicly funded.) Without much more detailed analysis it's impossible to say exactly how high tuition would get if all students attended private schools on the government's dime, but it's clear that the costs of private school would go up significantly if 80% or 90%, rather than 10%, of the nation's children were enrolled in them.

Levinson, the Yankees, and Free Markets

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Sandy Levinson at Balkinization has a post titled "Why I Continue to Hate the New York Yankees (as should everyone else)". While I really don't care that much about the sports issued involved, there is one thing that struck me. Levinson mentions the reserve clauses that used to be a common item in sports contracts, saying: "not to mention oppression of their near-slave employees thanks to the "reserve clause" that allowed George Weiss, the tyrannical general manager, to pay Yankee stars a fraction of what they would have made in a free market." Levinson's bias seems to be coming out here, as well as a misunderstanding of what a free market is.

At least in the sense that "free market" is commonly understood, the existence of reserve clauses and the like are evidence that the market is completely free. In a free market, players and businesses have complete freedom of contract to sign whatever agreements they wish (and keep in mind that the players did sign these contracts).

Did the sports team exercise its monopoly unfairly? I doubt it, if Levinson's only blaming the Yankees: they weren't after all, the only baseball team out there. But even if they were, what Levison is bemoaning is the reality of capitalism: people sign contracts. Just because those contracts place limitations on bargaining doesn't mean they're making the market less free. The contracts were the product of a free market, and players made exactly what they would in a free market. They just didn't make as much as they would in a market protected by government-enforced labor laws.

On a side note, am I the only one who finds it funny that Levinson is describing professional sports stars as "near-slaves" ruled by a "tyrannical" manager? I mean, come on.

Glenn Beck is Dumbledore

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

Shout out to Noah C. for posting this link on Facebook.

In the "New York Daily News," S.E. Cupp wrote an article about how the left is being unjustifiably condescending to Glenn Beck and those who idolize him. There are two key phrases from the piece.

What the left doesn't get is that Beck (above) isn't the face of the Tea Party because he's playing on nativism, racism or any other scary "ism" that resides somewhere in the recesses of Nancy Pelosi's cranium. Quite the opposite. He's a hit because he plays on our insatiable desire to know stuff. Some call it "intellectual curiosity," but I don't want to scare you with big words.

The left focuses on the crying, the chalkboard, the conspiracy theories. Beck is routinely called an "anti-intellectual" in the left-leaning press. What such criticisms miss is that moment when Beck brings out a musty old book by an author you've never heard of - and says that it's so obscure he had to borrow it from a library in Kansas. Just then you feel as though you're getting some secret knowledge, as though you're learning something that maybe your neighbor, your husband, your boss and even your smart-ass kid doesn't know. You're Harry Potter at Hogwarts, and Dumbledore is teaching you magic.

I wonder what Cornell and NYU would think about the fact that one of their graduates thinks that picking a quote out of a "musty book" that no one's ever hard of "from a library in Kansas" is intellectual curiosity.

But, you know, you can't beat Dumbledore.

2010 Congressional Elections, Greg Merle: Libertarian Rhetorician

(By Andrew MacKie-Mason)

A while back, I wrote a post about the "third" party candidates in the race for the US Congress in Michigan's 7th District. One of those candidates was Greg Merle, who I also contacted by email on September 16th. On October 22nd, Merle commented on the original blog posts with some concerns.

Apparently, the website I had been referencing, which was listed as his official website by the Michigan Secretary of State and included a statement at the bottom that said "Site authorized by the candidate," was not his real site.

As usual, I'm always willing to give people I criticize a second chance, so here's my revised position on Greg Merle: he does a good job of selling the libertarian rhetoric that appeals to the Tea Party, but he would be a horrible choice to send to Congress. I'll go through various issues pages on his website, and let you decide for yourself whether you really think you want him representing the 7th district in Congress.

National Debt & Government Spending: Merle recommends "taking a look at every economic decision made by progressives and doing the exact opposite." He also says that all of the Federal Reserve's actions should be transparent, even though the power of the Fed to influence the economy and prevent recessions is based on the fact that businesses don't know its exact plans.

The "Fair Tax": The "Fair Tax" is a flat sales tax proposal that would abolish all federal taxes except a constant sales tax, and "prebate" a fixed amount that the government determines would be the taxes on basic living necessities. This isn't a horrible proposal, but it is a massive oversimplification, and if we go all the way by implementing the "fair tax" and eliminating all other federal taxes, there will be a lot of strain put on consumption, which is a particularly bad idea when we're trying to fight out way out of a recession.

Global Warming: Merle's entire stance on this is based on the accusation that theories of anthropomorphic global warming are only supported by "unverifiable junk science," combined with an odd conspiracy theory that the date for Earth Day was purposely selected to coincide with Lenin's birthday. He launches into some typical, vehement anti-Communist rhetoric, and basically accuses environmentalists of being pinkos.

Health Care: Greg Merle does not think that health care (i.e. not dying of illnesses just for lack of money) is a human right. He thinks that health care is a luxury service. He also does not think that the Constitution allows the government to provide health services to citizens. (This is an even crazier claim than the claim that the federal government didn't have the constitutional authority to pass the health care reform bill. Even if you think that the government might not be able to regulate the health insurance industry, it certainly has the ability to spend money on providing health care for the common welfare.)

"War" on "Terror": Greg Merle says: "Some people just need killin’. I would rather do it in a more cost effective way. A well positioned sniper could save us a lot of money." In other words, not only does he take death and the use of military force lightly, he also thinks that the US military leadership has been stupidly wasting money. Because, as we all know, we could have dealt with Afghanistan with just a few snipers.

He further says: "I feel we need to operate using golden rule tactics. When our enemy respects the Geneva Convention, then and only then, should we. Many of our uniformed men and women have died because we are forcing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs for the sake of political correctness. War is ugly folks and either we fight to win or we bring them home." I'm not sure what golden rule Greg Merle learned, but the way I learned it was "treat others how you wish to be treated," not "an eye for an eye." That's another part of the Bible.

Just so you know, these are some of the things that Greg Merle thinks are unfairly tying our soldiers hands, and thus things that we should ignore (note that these are drawn from Wikipedia, not directly from the Conventions, as a time saving device):

• No soldier that is out of combat due to illness or injury may be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation.
• Prisoners of war may not be subjected to mental or physical torture.
• Protected persons must be given due process of law before being executedor imprisoned.
• Soldiers may not pillage or take hostages in the course of a war.

There are many other provisions, of course, but this is the gist. Greg Merle would apparently like to live in a world defined by "he started it." For an idea of how that turns out, look at Israel and Palestine: whoever originally started causing problems, both sides have done enough bad things to justify, at least in the other side's opinion, reprisals. Reprisals, of course, just lead to escalation.

If we start to violate the Geneva Conventions (more than we already have, of course), then we just give other people reasons to torture our soldiers, or run planes into our buildings. If we violate the Conventions, even when we're provoked, we lose all our moral credibility and bargaining power.

Sometimes it sucks to be moral. But, in the long run, it's better to take the high road rather than get in the mud.

I wonder whether Merle would apply this same philosophy to domestic law enforcement. After all, police are disadvantaged in fighting crime when they can't torture suspects.

Abortion: Merle says: "Once again refer to the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. While being pro-choice on just about everything, the issue of life should not be one’s choice to make since it involves someone else paying for your decision." For someone who claims to be interested in the Constitution, Merle commits an obvious (but surprisingly common) fallacy by looking to the Declaration of Independence (written by one man and approved by a small group) as a binding legal document. And even looking at the Declaration, he picks out a single word (life) and ignores the next (liberty).

If Merle is actually interested in the Constitution, I would suggest that he take a look at the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Education: Merle asks "Did the founding fathers guarantee free education? I don’t think so." I think a more appropriate answer to that question is, "Who cares?" But, apparently, in Merle's world, a child only deserves an education if they happen to be born to a parent who has money.

"Homeland Security": Merle supports profiling based on race and name. In support of this position he claims that "the last 36 terrorists all roughly had the same physical characteristics, age, background etc. (many of them even had the same name “Mohammed”)" and as proof includes a pictures of the 19 9/11 terrorists. Besides the absurdity of using the group of people who were responsible for a single event as proof that all terrorists look the same, the claim just isn't true. As my own evidence, I offer my own pictures, originally included in the 100th post on this blog. Take a look at the "Christmas Day Bomber," the "Shoe Bomber," and an American recruiter for al-Qaeda. And, why don't we also talk about Timothy McVeigh (a young, white Army vet who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma), Terry Nichols (a forty year old white man at the time he conspired with McVeigh), Bruce Ivins (a fifty-five year old white man at the time he was suspected of planning the 2001 anthrax attacks), James W. Von Brunn (the 88 year old white supremacist who shot a guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC), and Andrew Joseph Stack III (the white man from Pennsylvania who flew his plane into the IRS building this year).

So, Mr. Merle: do you really think you can identify terrorists by sight? Please, tell me your criteria.

Beyond all of the civil liberties issues raised by racial profiling, it's just bad policy. It distracts resources from looking at the factors that really indicate threat, and dedicates them instead to factors that are easy to beat (by, say, recruiting a non-Arabic terrorist). Racial profiling is not a policy that should have any support in the US Congress.

Guns: Merle is not only in favor of our right to have guns, he is completely "pro gun".

Poverty: Merle thinks that the biggest problem facing the poor in America is obesity, and offers this picture of a generic poor person. Do I really need to explain why Merle is not qualified to be in Congress? He doesn't mention crime, starvation, drugs, bad neighborhoods, bad schools...the only problem with the poor, Greg Merle tells us, is that they're fat.

Mr. Merle has confirmed this view in an email discussion with me. He said:

I NEVER would want the government to provide for the basic needs of our citizens (save for handicappers) That would break the American entrepeneurial spirit. People need to experience the human experience. One should be allowed to fail, allowed to succeed and allowed to try. This is what makes life worth living.

Does he mean that life wouldn't be worth living if people weren't starving in the streets? If they aren't dying of illnesses which they can't afford to cure? I hope that's not what he believes, but that's what he said.

Experience: Finally, Greg Merle celebrates the fact that he has no experience (thankfully, that's a good thing. It means the voters have never bought this before.) He says:

How difficult is it to understand the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?

And:

All the experience I need was had in my 8th grade history class. Besides, it doesn’t seem too tough to vote “NO” on more spending, foolish government programs, subsidies, earmarks or taxpayer handouts to giant corporations whom have paid to play.

Do we really want to elect a Congressman who doesn't know anything about government past 8th grade history? Or who seems to think that the Declaration of Independence is legally binding? (Apparently, he doesn't even consider high school civics necessary to govern.) And, from the voters to you, Mr. Merle: it's not tough to say "no." But it is tough to actually govern.

So, vote for Greg Merle if you want someone who has no economic plan beyond "do the opposite of the progressives," (regress, then?), who supports an overly simplistic tax plan, who thinks that global warming and Earth Day are part of a big, Communist conspiracy, who thinks that the government should not help save sick people, who supports the torture and mistreatment of people we are fighting, who thinks that the government should force women to remain pregnant, who doesn't support publicly funded education, who thinks, against all evidence, that terrorists are always Arabic, who is "pro-gun", who thinks the poor just need to lose some weight, who thinks that the government should never provide for basic necessities, because starvation is one of the joys of life, and who celebrates his lack of experience.

Otherwise, please vote for someone else.

EDIT: I should mention that I feel justified in my somewhat harsh tone by the fact that Merle's website includes this very factual, very issue-based attack on other politicians. If Merle can deal it out, he can take it.

UPDATE 10/23/10, 12:11 am CDT: Merle also appears to be a birther. He posted this on his Facebook page in reference to a video alleging Obama is not legally the president: "If this is conspiracy theory stuff, why doesn't the President just shoot this stuff down? I especially like the part of negating everything that he has signed into law."

Remember, links to all my election coverage are collected here.