Challenging Schumer and Gillibrand on SOPA

Largely missed among the online protests against SOPA and PIPA today - protests with whose goal I strongly agree, though I disagree with the tactics of shutting down online systems, as I indicated on Monday - were in-person demonstrations at the Manhattan offices of US Senators from New York Schumer and Gillibrand.

Unlike Wikipedia going dark, which inconvenienced millions of innocent people, the protests against Schumer and Gillibrand were lodged exactly such protests should be, in the faces of people who support SOPA and PIPA and apparently don't care about the damage such law if enacted would do to the Internet, and thereby our lives.  Not only support these bills, but in the case of Schumer and Gillibrand sponsored the Senate version of SOPA - that is,  PIPA.

I've lived in New York all my life, and yet I still find myself surprised when a New York elected official, let alone a Democrat, has such a benighted, retrograde position.  But Schumer has been a disrespecter of the First Amendment for a long time.  He loves the FCC and the fines it levies, and speaks glowingly of the Fairness Doctrine and hopes to see it reinstated.  He probably thinks all the First Amendment prohibits is the government's shutting down newspapers in the middle of the night, but I wouldn't put that past him, either, if the paper printed something he judged in bad taste.

I guess I expected more of Kristen Gillibrand.  Truthfully, I was disappointed when former Governor Paterson passed over Carolyn Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's replacement, and appointed the little-known Gillibrand.   She's done a pretty good job, until SOPA.  I tried to give her a chance.

But the Schumer-Gillibrand position on SOPA-PIPA is insulting to anyone with any intelligence.  Internet piracy is something we all want to stop.  Especially me, as an author.  But Schumer and Gillibrand think it's costing New Yorkers jobs.   Hardly - the movie and television industries are still situated in Hollywood, and the old music business, the RIAA-kind, isn't situated anywhere anymore.   What would cost jobs in New York are Internet companies going broke because of unconstitutional Federal fines and shutdowns in pursuit of pirates.

But speaking of jobs - I hope New Yorkers put someone up against Schumer next time a primary comes around, and as for Gillibrand - let's hope she comes to her senses and withdraws her support from SOPA and PIPA before she loses whatever support she still has from New Yorkers who want to build a better future.

Farewell Governor Paterson

I have mixed feelings about David Paterson's announcement today that he won't be seeking election to his own term as Governor of New York, having become governor when Eliot Spitzer resigned and Paterson as Lt. Governor assumed the office.

I still have not forgiven Paterson for not appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill Hillary Clinton's seat when she was appointed U.S. Secretary of State.  I've come to admire Kirsten Gillibrand's position on many issues - including support of the public health care option, by reconciliation - but I still think Caroline Kennedy in the Senate would have been a game-changing appointment that could have really helped our nation progress.    Paterson had the chance to appoint her, and he blew it.

On the other hand, his treatment by the mainstream media, in particular their running with the Internet rumors that he was going to resign because he himself had been caught in some sort of sexual scandal, and the NY Times was about to publish a story about it, was disgraceful.   As I told Chuck Scarborough in an interview on the NY Nightly News - see video below - the news media should be reporting stories, not potential reports of stories.

It turns out the New York Times story was not about Paterson, but his aide David Johnson, who's accused of domestic abuse.   And Paterson's decision not to run is due to his possible involvement in trying to get Johnson's alleged victim not to proceed with the charges.   Paterson has denied this, it's not by any means in the same league as being involved in some sort of sexual scandal himself, but apparently the focus he'll need in defending against those claims, and being Governor, leaves no room for his running for office.

It's a sad day for Paterson and a tough day for New York.  He's done some very good things as governor, such as signing into law a bill that extends health coverage to children under their parents' policies until the children are 29.

The one good thing that we can get out of Paterson's announcement not to run for election is that at least he's not in the U. S. Senate, where every vote counts more than ever in these volatile times.

The New New York Senator

I don't know, I have mixed feelings about just about everything regarding David Paterson's appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat in New York until the required election in 2010.

1. Regarding Caroline Kennedy: I'm disappointed that she will not be going to the Senate. As I've argued previously, her going to the Senate would have been an historically significant and satisfying act - her stepping up and taking the seat once held by her slain uncle, RFK, in a branch of government in which her slain father, JFK, served, before becoming President in 1960. Caroline heard the call to public service made by Obama throughout his campaign, and stepped up.

But why did she withdraw at the last minute? If for something like personal or family health reasons, then we can chalk this up to more bad luck for the Kennedy family and our nation. If she withdrew for personal, non-health reasons that she knew about before stepping forward, then that would count against her. If in fact she withdrew because she knew, as Gov. Paterson now says, that he was going to choose Representative Gillibrand, than I wish she had not done that - but the main villain in this piece would then be Paterson.

2. I don't like the way Paterson conducted himself in all of this in any case. He should have made a public decision much sooner. Now he says he knew on Inauguration Day that he was going to choose Gillibrand ... if true, for what reason? Why did her preferable to Caroline Kennedy - or, for that matter, Andrew Cuomo?

3. And as for Kirsten Gillibrand: she has a 100% approval rating by both the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association. And that says it all to me. Because, even though both ACLU and NRA share a powerful support of the Second Amendment, with which I do not disagree, the NRA goes much further. As did Gillibrand, in introducing a bill (which didn't pass) which would have made it more difficult for police to track firearms. On the other hand, Gillibrand supports a woman's right to decide when to become a mother, and she supports gay marriage, too.

So, all in all, though I'm not at all happy with the way this whole selection process was conducted, and the way it turned out, I'm willing to support Gillibrand for the present, and see how she performs in office.

=============

P.S.: One other, minor point: What was Al D'Amato, former Republican Senator from New York, doing at the Gillibrand (Democratic) appointment ceremony? Well, maybe I shouldn't ask - any time D'Amato appears anywhere, it does provide a little publicity for my Phil D'Amato character.

Righting the Cosmos: Why Caroline Kennedy Should Take Hillary's Seat in the Senate

MSNBC has been reporting all day, via Andrea Mitchell, that Caroline Kennedy would be interested in Hillary Clinton's US Senate seat. New York State Governor David Paterson would need to appoint her.

I have heard lots of commentary about this today, some to the effect that Caroline Kennedy does not have sufficient experience to be a US Senator.

I see things differently.

First, I think the Senate, of all positions in government, requires the least nuts-and-bolts political experience - indeed, maybe none. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was never elected to public office - he did serve as domestic policy adviser to Richard Nixon - and did a fine job as Senator from New York. More than experience, the Senate requires a reflective, philosophic mind, able to see the deeper, broader issues. Hillary Clinton has done a good job as Senator from New York as well, and she never held any prior elected or appointed public office.

Caroline Kennedy has shown that kind of perceptive, contemplative mind in her writing and editing. Her Profiles of Courage in Our Time, in which she assembled essays from 14 recipients of the Profiles in Courage award, ranging from Bob Woodward to John McCain, is a fitting successor to her father's Profiles in Courage.

And, yes, there's her name, and this relates to what I see as setting things right in the cosmos. There was something taken from us, ripped and drained from our country, when JFK and then RFK were killed. Something more than political, although that of course was part of what was lost. There is no way we can go back in time and change that. But Caroline Kennedy in the US Senate would be one way of correcting, restoring some of the balance that was lost.

I hope David Paterson appoints her.



See also: Are People Who Don't Want Caroline Kennedy in the Senate Tone Deaf to the Cosmos?