The health care question and an interesting book (which, however, I think is flawed)

Recently, I have been reading the book, "The Healing of America: a Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care," by T. R. Reid. The book makes interesting reading, but there are several points where I do not agree with him, and this prompted me to make this post.

The book compares our health care financing system with those in a number of other countries, such as France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Canada. And the conclusion is that we should borrow features from some of these, as they provide more universal health care for less money than our U. S. system (really a multiplicity of systems, as Reid points out that for seniors, our system is much like Canada's, while for some other groups of people it resembles other countries' systems).

One of the things he points to and views with favor, however, is something I have argued against for this country: all of the countries that provide universal health care have in common an "individual mandate." And he defends the individual mandate with points like the fact that we actually do already have many things the government requires you to buy. For example, we cannot go naked in the street, which he construes as a mandate to buy clothes. But it is emphatically not that. If we want to make our own clothes, the government does not prevent us. And there is where he goes astray.

But perhaps the question is this: Is it really necessary to provide universal health care, in the sense that everyone has it whether they want to or not? I think perhaps the answer is no. Perhaps a better goal is to provide a universal opportunity to have health insurance, making it possible for everyone who wants it to have affordable coverage. This would be a better goal.

Some people argue that people who are young and healthy will opt out if they can, and then, if there is no ability for insurance companies to deny coverage for preexisting conditions, sign up when they get older and more likely to need medical care. Well, I think there are better ways than an individual mandate to prevent this. First of all, rates can be made good enough that the young and healthy can see it as valuable, like the system for life insurance. We do not have an individual mandate for life insurance, and yet, people do not generally wait until they are about to die to buy it. Somehow, the life insurance companies manage to sell policies, even to relatively young people. Secondly, we can use a rule similar to that we now use for the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) plans. You are supposed to sign up when you become eligible. If you do not, but wait till later to sign up, you will have to pay a higher premium than if you had signed up at first eligibility, and this extra premium is charged for the rest if your life. With rules like that, you might be able to encourage the young people you want to lower the actuarial cost, without compelling it.

There are some useful ideas in Reid's book, though. For example, the German insurance plans are privately run, but nonprofit, and similar things can be said of several other countries in Europe, as well as Japan. Perhaps this might be an important change. There are, as I said, some good ideas, but I think the whole issue needs to be studied with an eye on preserving freedom as well as "better, cheaper, and fairer health care." Reid only looks at part of the picture, because he doesn't recognize the intrusiveness of the individual mandate.

Libya and Iraq

President Obama is getting a lot of criticism, from both the Left and the Right, for his actions in Iraq. I'm going to be different: I think he's basically doing the right thing, but I'm going to criticize him for being inconsistent. Barack Obama was elected to the Presidency, in part, because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. And yet I see little difference between Iraq and Libya:

1. Both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi posed little direct threat to the United States,
2. Both, however, were vicious dictators who killed large numbers of their own people, and
3. Both were significant threats to their neighbors and to the stability of the Middle East.

The only differences I can see are that

1. French Presidant Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be firmly supporting action against Libya, but France was not willing to act against Iraq, and
2. Obama was the beneficiary of money from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He has no connection to Qaddafi. That seems, to me, to be the main difference.

Whether Obama is simply refusing to accept that the US should act in its own interests and we must only do what the French will accept, or it's Saddam Hussein's money, in either case, it does not put Barack Obama in a good light.

The (partial) reversal of the parties

When I was a child, the South was the most solidly Democratic part of the country. In fact, one State, Georgia, had never voted Republican in a Presidential election, and most of the Southern States were solidly in the Democratic column at least since the end of Reconstruction. The most solidly Republican part of the country was New England, and in fact Vermont had been solidly Republican as long as Georgia had been Democratic. Vermont was also one of the only two States that had voted Republican in the 1936 Roosevelt landslide (the other, Maine, was also in New England).

How different the electoral map looks today. New England is heavily Democratic, perhaps the most solidly Democratic part of the country, though it elects some Republicans (like Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins to the Senate, and a string of Republicans to the Massachusetts Governorship — though Massachusetts currently has a Democratic Governor, Deval Patrick.) And the South is the most reliably Republican part of the nation, except possibly for the Mountain West.

It would seem that the end of segregation is partly responsible for the South's transformation — without the racism that characterized Southern Democratic politics, the South, more conservative than the rest of the country, found its proper home in the GOP. And Barry Goldwater, though his vote against civil rights legislation was due to libertarian principles rather than racism, attracted some of the Southern racists — it is clear from the fact that, except for his home State of Arizona, Goldwater's only State victories in 1964 were in the South.

It is harder to see why New England has moved the other way. But in the mid-20^th century, New England Republicans were more libertarian than conservative, and the influx of Southerners into the Republican party, and the persistence of Westerners there (both being very conservative socially), has made the Republican party less attractive to New Englanders whose Republicanism meant something less conservative. (I would say that the Democratic Party was not really a great fit for them, but in an electoral system in which only two parties can compete, perhaps that did it.)

A great example of what has happened is in the State of Virginia. In the mid-1960s, I was in that State for educational reasons, and I saw a Governorship election in which the two candidates were Democrat Mills Godwin and Republican A. Linwood Holton. Godwin won, but four years later Holton became the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction. A number of years later, Godwin had become a Republican, and won the Governorship again for that party. (He is the only person in U. S. history to win Governorships under both the Democratic and Republican label!) In another election, I was working for the election of Richard Nixon against Hubert Humphrey, and calling people for the Republican Party; most of the people who answered were happy to support Nixon but we could not get them to abandon the local Democratic Congressman, John O. Marsh. Like Godwin, Marsh also became a Republican, serving in a sub-cabinet position in the Noxon administration.

I do not know of many New England Republicans who have become Democrats in the same way — they have generally become Independents supporting Democratic candidates instead (examples are James Jeffords, Lowell Weicker, and Lincoln Chafee).

But the parties have not totally reversed. Organized labor is still heavily Democratic, and (despite such Democratic supporters as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates) businessmen are mostly Republican. That is part of what keeps me in the GOP — I am still repelled by the influence of organized labor in the Democratic Party, as I stated in an earlier post. But I have to admit, I'm not very happy with what the GOP is now; I felt a lot more comfortable in the party of Dwight Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller then I do now in the party of Mike Huckabbee and Rick Santorum.

Who should be allowed to vote?

Shortly after I posted my piece on Fred Karger, I looked him up on Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, the biggest piece on his opinions given in the article referred to his positions on gay rights, but there were two other things given: his stance on Israel, which seems not too far from my own, and his advocacy of an amendment to grant the vote to sixteen-year-olds, the most radical of his positions I've seen so far. My own position on that point is ambivalent. When I grew up, you had to be twenty-one to vote, and I was a big advocate of lowering it to eighteen. By the time that it happened, I was too old to benefit; I was already older than 21. But is 16 too young? I'm not sure. I am aware that I had mostly formed my political opinions by the age of fourteen, so I could have voted intelligently at 16. But I'm not typical. I really don't know. The few places that I've seen that give the vote to under-18s are not very likely to inspire confidence. Two if them are Iran (with a fifteen-year-old voting age) and the former Italian neo-Fascist party which allowed twelve-year-olds to vote in party questions! (On the other hand, the only other party I know of to have such a rule was the Canadian Liberals, certainly a democratic enough organization. I don't know if this is still the rule, but at one time their rules allowed fourteen-year-olds to vote. At least some of their local organizations still do.) For me, the jury is still out.

It is interesting that States are no longer permitted to require literacy tests; when I was growing up, my then-home-state of New York did, but because some Southern states used literacy tests unfairly administered to disenfranchise nonwhites, the Voting Rights Act prevented all states from using literacy tests. I cannot see a justification for allowing illiterates to vote. If they cannot read the campaign materials, and they cannot read the ballots, they have no right to be allowed to vote, in my opinion. But because some Southern states used the tests in a way that deprived college professors of their votes, the Feds made it impossible to use literacy tests. That, I think, is a shame.

The biggest variation in the voting rules of different States is how criminal backgrounds are handled. In the State where I now live, Maryland, because two different laws which were passed at different times are involved, criminals with only one serious conviction can vote as soon as they are released from any parole/probation obligations, but criminals with more than one serious conviction can only vote after a three-year waiting period. This is a middle-of-the-road rule; on the one hand, in Maine, criminals can still vote while serving time; on the other hand, in Virginia and Florida, one conviction on a felony charge means no vote ever, unless you get the governor to restore your rights. Both of these seem pretty extreme, though I'm not sure whether Maryland's is the best compromise.

There are even some places (the city of Takoma Park, not far from where I live in Maryland, for example) that don't even require you to be a citizen to vote in local elections. Now that is going too far, though.

Fred Who???

On another blog, "Race 4 2012," I see that yet another person has introduced himself into the 2012 race: Fred Karger.

You will undoubtedly ask: "Fred Who????" I certainly never heard of him. But the post says:

Openly gay, Republican Presidential candidate Fred Karger to formally file the documentation necessary to be a Presidential candidate. Here’s an excerpt from his press release:

Today is a very significant day for my community and me. I have just submitted my papers to the Federal Election Commission, making me the first candidate to file for the 2012 Republican nomination for President.

I am also the first openly gay person, in a major political party, to ever run for President of the United States...

Well, you've got to give him credit for courage. I would be surprised for an openly gay candidate to have much of a chance in the Democratic Party for the Presidency. In the Republican Party, the religious Right has so much influence that it's unbelievable that anyone would try.

But the big question is: who is he, other than being gay? What does he stand for? What are his qualifications? Until I hear more about him, I will not say that I can support him, or that I can't. I would not let sexual orientation dictate my position on a candidate; all I can say is, it's an interesting development.

Open primaries, "top two" primaries, and other ballot reforms

Last month I made a post in which I indicated my objections to "top two" primaries, as well as to the more traditional type of "open" primary used in states like Virginia. In this, I differ from Solomon Kleinsmith, who likes open primaries, though agreeing with me about "top two" primaries. Now again I see a posting — by Dale Sheldon-Hess — which points out the problems with "top two" primaries, a point with which I concur, but makes other suggestions I cannot endorse.

Dale Sheldon-Hess makes one point of terminology that needs making: open primaries are not necessarily top two, though some people seem to conflate them. And one of his suggested reforms in his post is one I like as well: score voting. But in the same sentence in which he proposes score voting as a way to improve our voting methods, he groups with it approval voting — a system that can be viewed as a simplified version of score voting, but without its good points and with some serious bad points. (I'll get on to my objections to approval voting in another post.)

A response to a comment

Normally, when a comment is made to a post of mine, I reply to the comment directly. But this comment, posted by Solomon Kleinsmith to my post on centrism and term limits deserves more attention than just a comment-on-a-comment:

Term Limits don't have anything to do with ideology. There is no conservative, liberal or centrist position on term limits...

And there is a actually quite a bit of cohesion on the issues among centrists. The defining characteristics of centrists is NOT that they take from both sides, its that they stand between the two sides. People can be liberal on some issues, and conservative on others... that doesn't make them a centrist. For example libertarians are more conservative than most conservatives on government spending, and are more liberal than most liberals on keeping government out of our personal lives... and they are in no way shape or form at all centrist.

First, on the first paragraph, while I agree that "[t]here is no conservative, liberal or centrist position on term limits," there does seem to be more support for term limits among "Tea Party" type conservatives than anyone else. That being said, of course Kleinsmith himself is one big exception.

Now to the second. Certainly, I do not maintain that everyone who takes ideas from both the left and right is a centrist — the implication of Kleinsmith's example of the libertarians. But he is refuting the converse of my claim. Not everyone who takes ideas from both the left and right is a centrist, but everyone who is a centrist, of necessity, takes ideas from both the left and right. That is not the same thing. And my point in my original post is that there are people who call themselves "centrists" who still differ greatly on which ideas of the left and which ideas of the right they favor. I do not think that Kleinsmith can make a good case that I'm wrong.

There is no single "centrism."

Sometimes I see the argument that the Left is united and the Right is also, and centrists are weak because they do not support each other. But "centrism" cannot be a united movement. The only thing that unites centrists is that they are willing to take ideas from both left and right. But you can have two people who both call themselves centrists, and wherever one has a "right" position, the other could have a "left" position, and vice versa. They would both be "centrists," but scarcely allies.

Of course, the differences do not need to be as complete and total as that. There is a blog I have sometimes followed called "CenterMovement.org" which is now called Americans United to Rebuild Democracy. One of the first things they have done now is to come out in favor of Congressional term limits. Well, as I have stated, I think term limits — Congressional or otherwise — are a terrible idea. So while I generally like a lot of the "centrist" ideas of that blog, here is one I feel is really bad. I think that as a step to "rebuild democracy," it is totally backwards, and in fact it is desctructive of democracy. So here is an example of two "centrists" with diametrically opposed opinions on an important issue.

And that's an example of why there can not be a single "centrism."

Don't kill the elephant!

A Rasmussen poll shows that Scott Brown is hugely popular in Massachusetts. But Olympia Snowe might lose a Republican primary, although she would win as an Independent next year in Maine. Of course, Lisa Murkowski had that very scenario in Alaska last year. The nomination of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware and Sharron Angle in Nevada last year gave those two Senate seats to the Democrats; polls showed that in both cases, a moderate Republican could have won. It would seem that conservative ideological purists are willing to sacrifice the Republican Party rather than defeat Democrats. Somehow this needs to be stopped.

It is eminently obvious that the way for the Republicans to win elections is to run moderate candidates, not ideological purist extremists. So don't let them kill the elephant!

A tale of two lands in the Eastern Mediterranean

This posting refers to two areas which, at the start of the 20^th century, were both parts of the Ottoman Empire. They were both taken from the Ottoman Turks at the end of World War I by the British, but their subsequent history is rather different.

The first is the island of Cyprus. Because it is an island, there is no question as to what its boundaries are, so there will be no question as to what area I am talking about. It is populated with a mixed population: one group, the majority, speaks Greek and belongs to the Greek Orthodox Christian religion; the other group is Turkish-speaking and Moslem by religion. After World War II, both groups agitated to get the British colonizers out, but with very different goals: the Greek speakers wanted the island to be transferred to Greece: their cry was "Enosis (union [with Greece])!" The Turkish speakers wanted a partition ("taksim") into Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking areas, though I'm not certain whether they contemplated union of each part with Greece and Turkey respectively, or separate independence of two states. Neither got their way, but an independent Cyprus, whole (except for a few military areas that Britain retained) and unattached to Greece or Turkey, was created. The Greek-speaking majority showed their power: the first president chosen for Cyprus was not just a Greek-speaker, which might be expected, but an archbishop of the Orthodox Christian church, Makarios. The Turkish speakers were, not surprisingly, not too happy with the situation where they would be outvoted on every important issue; they had a revolt and established an area in the northeast part of the island that they call the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus. They now govern themselves peacefully, but pressure by Greece has led to a situation where no country in the world, except only Turkey, recognizes TRNC as an independent state.

The second area I am about to describe is harder to name. It was once called Judea, but after the Romans conquered the area, they named it Palæstina, which we Anglicize to Palestine. It eventually, like Cyprus, came under the control of the Ottoman Turks, who never considered it one single unit, so they did not give it a specific name, but divided it into a number of administrative districts, and, after World War I, the British and French divided up the territory in that part of the Middle East and Britain took it over, restoring the Roman name of Palestine. The League of Nations gave Britain a mandate to govern it, with the ultimate goal of giving it to the Jewish people as a homeland, but about 60% of the territory was given to an Arab king in the 1920s and established as the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1948, the United Nations approved a plan whereby the Jewish people would have one state, and the Arabs another, in the 40% that was left, though both proposed states were a patchwork of disconnected lands; the Jews accepted this but the Arabs did not, and a war began. In 1949, when fighting temporarily ceased, an armistice line was created, similar to that now existing in Cyprus, though, unlike the one in Cyprus, the world generally decided to recognize this one as an international boundary. No Arab state was ever created in the remainder of the former Palestine Mandate; Jordan took the eastern part (sometimes called the "West Bank," though Israelis tend to call it by the historical name of "Judæa and Samaria"), and Egypt the much smaller part around the city of Gaza (the "Gaza strip"). Subsequent fighting in 1967 and 1982, however, gave the Israelis control of the entire area and even a bit more. (A large area to the southwest, the Sinai Peninsula, was also taken from Egypt in the wars, but as part of a treaty agreement with Egypt, they returned it. Egypt did not, however, include the Gaza strip in the area they took back.)

After many years, many of the Arabs in the area decided they did want an Arab state in the area, though to this day there are others who insist that the whole area, including all of Israel, must be an Arab state. The rest of the world, which was so indifferent to the cause of the Turkish Cypriots, is clamoring to have the 1949 armistice line declared the boundary between Israel and an Arab state of "Palestine," though such a state has no historical basis. There never has been one, the Arabs rejected the idea in 1948, and the Israeli army took the territory only after the Arabs attacked Israel in 1967 and 1982.

I don't know. It seems to me the Turkish Cypriots have more of a claim to a state than the Arab "Palestinians." Yet the world denies them recognition as a state, and pushes for an Arab "Palestine." Can anyone explain this to me?

Organized labor - part of why I'm a Republican!

There is a union — the Bakery and Confectionery Workers' union — which has a large headquarters building in Kensington, Maryland. Back in 2000, I remember passing that building, on the bus, almost every day; on Election Day, I actually had to walk by that building en route to my polling place. And there was, on the side of the building, a gigantic Gore sign. I used to say that that sign was an almost-daily reminder of why I had to support Bush. This year, the shennanigans of the Wisconsin Democrats in their State Senate, similarly, remind me of why my loyalty has to be to the Republican Party.

I don't mean to say that organized labor cannot be right about anything. And I don't mean to say that they are worse than, say, Muammar Qaddafi or his ilk. But I think that a large amount of the damage that has been done, over the past few decades, to the United States has been due to organized labor. And the Democrats' fealty to organized labor makes them my political enemies.

I remember when New York City had eight newspapers. When one of them folded, there were seven remaining, but three of those seven, because of economic hardship, wanted to merge. The unions opposed this merger because some jobs would be lost, and went on strike for a whole year; in the end, the merged company published for a few months after the strike ended, but went under quickly, and more jobs were lost as a result than would have been if the original merger plans had been allowed. And we have seen recently how both Chrysler and the once-mighty General Motors had to go through a bankruptcy; obviously, they could not compete with foreign companies. Some people have pointed to foreign automakers' use of labor at wages no American could live on, but it is funny: Toyota makes cars in the USA with American workers, but makes a profit while the workers receive wages they seem to be able to live on.

Unions like to prevent workers from being judged on the quality of their work: workers' pay is to be based on seniority, not merit, which means there is incentive for workers not to do their best. They also require firing to be on a seniority basis, so when a company has to downsize, it can't keep the best workers, but must keep the longest-serving. In general, unions treat the workers they represent as interchangeable parts, and this makes it impossible for a company to try to use them where they can best fit in.

People say that the Republicans are in just as much fealty to "big business" as the Democrats are to organized labor. Funny: both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are Democrats. It seems that both parties have policies that attract some "big business" types. But big labor is solidly behind the Democrats. They know who will do their bidding. And that's a big part of the reason I'm a Republican.

Zoning and people

Tuesday I went to a meeting of a group which was addressed by the head of the local planning board, which is in the process of rewriting the County's zoning regulations. One thing that struck me was that he mentioned that 44% of the County's land is zoned for single-family homes (and 33% is reserved for agricultural purposes!) And he remarked that this figure is unlikely ever to be decreased, because of protests that would ensue. It really seems that the County is listening only to land owners and not to the people in general. I suppose that one could argue that these are the people who are paying the property taxes that support the County. But I think that in a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" those of us who merely rent our habitations should count as well. And those people who work in the County but cannot affort do live there ought to be considered, although, of course, they are not County voters.

Why is it that only the land-owning public is listened to? The "taxpayer" issue is part of it, of course. But it also seems to be that they are the vocal ones. There is a man named Robin Ficker, who continually runs for whatever office is being contested on a "property tax relief" platform. But there seems to be no comparable advocate for the little people who rent, and will never own real estate.

Wisconsin's impasse

Apparently, I didn't realize that the Democrats in Wisconsin were able to prevent a vote on the union-weakening bill only because it was in the budget. It seems that Gov. Walker was able to get his bill by simply moving the anti-union provisions into a normal bill, which has different quorum requirements. And Democrats are really fuming. But I think it is about time that someone stuck it to the unions. Wisconsin's impasse is over. And the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. If they'd pursued more reasonable policies, thet would not have become so outnumbered in the Wisconsin Senate that they needed to paralyze the Government to prevent the bill.

The psychological effect of inflation

Those of us who are older than your average Internet surfer made our associations of "what a dollar is worth" under different conditions than those occurring today. I've learned to divide everything I see by 10 to assess whether something is expensive or cheap, and that seems to be a slight overcorrection (the BLS inflation calculator says that $1 in 1951 money is equal to $8.47 in 2011, a 3.6% per year increase, compounded annually). So when I look aghast at movie admission prices of $10, I'm right. Those $10 tickets are $1.18 even deflated back to 1951, and that's a lot of money! (I remember that movie tickets were 40¢ for adults and 25¢ for kids back then.) So that's a good reason I haven't seen a movie in almost a decade. Stamps are another major increase — the 3¢ stamp of 1951 is now 44¢, which is more than 5¢ in 1951 money (almost double!) or putting it the other way, that 3¢ stamp should have only gone to a bit over 25¢ in 2011.

Still, making those conversions is hard on the mind, and I don't always remember to do it. I don't own a car, but $4 a gallon gasoline looks like a lot to me. I used to pass a gas station every day when I walked to school in 1951, and the price for gas was 27.9¢ for regular and 29.9¢ for hi-test. (There were only two grades of gas at most stations then, not 3!) Nowadays, that would be $2.36 and $2.53. Yes, $4 is expensive!

But I wish a dollar would stay constant. I guess that's the appeal the gold standard has for so many people. Prices stayed a lot more stable. A hundred dollars in 1913 (the earliest date the BLS calculator provides) equaled $131.31 in 1933 (the year we went off the gold standard), only a 1.4% annual increase (compounded). People in those days had no need to keep adjusting their psychology.

When I was a kid, my goal was to earn $100 a week. That was what a "good salary" meant. Now, I'm collecting Social Security, not working at all, and getting more than three times that. But I don't feel rich! I'm getting a lot more than the average Social Security payment, because I was, for a few years, doing really well, and that's factored into the payment. But let's be real! The $55,000 (roughly) I was making in 1994 was really $9,650 (again, rounded off) in 1951 dollars — yes, a pretty good salary, almost $186 a week where I thought $100 was a goal. But it was hardly the princely sum it might have appeared to me if I'd been told in 1951 that that would be my peak income! And the $1400 a month (again, rounded) that I'm getting in Social Security benefits would be about $165 in 1951 dollars — that's per month, not per week, so I'm subsisting on a pretty skimpy amount! But I am getting by; there are a lot of people getting much less than I am. So I can't really complain. I don't have to work any more, and yet I'm not starving. Still, it's hard to look at a price and understand whether it is high or low.

Déjà vu on Rudy Giuliani

Recently I saw a blog with a surprising poll result. Though the poll was taken in Israel, not here, so perhaps it is not worth considering (for Israelis, of course, do not vote in United States elections), it still struck me as peculiar that among the candidates for 2012 considered in the poll was Rudy Giuliani.

Now don't get me wrong. In my belief, Giuliani would make an excellent President. All the factors that influenced my decision to endorse him in the previous election cycle still operate in his favor. But it has become obvious that the Republican Party would never nominate him. (And he's not going to run as anything but a Republican.) I don't want to see Giulani become the 21^st-century Harold Stassen, running every 4 years but becoming increasingly ridiculous in everyone's eyes. And it is a distraction from other, more electable candidates, to have Giuliani's name included in such polls. It's a shame that it's come to this; if there were any reasonable chance of Rudy Giuliani's becoming the President in next year's election, I'd happily endorse him again. But let's not chase rainbows.

A most unusual turn in the health care law's progress

It isn't often that a judge issues a stay on his own ruling. But Roger Vinson, who ruled the health care law unconstitutional back on Jan. 31, has just done so. It seems that the normal procedure would be that the Federal Government would request a stay, but instead the Obama Administration dithered about for 2½ weeks and finally issued only a "motion to clarify." Judge Vinson treated it as a request for a stay, granted the stay, but gave the administration only one week to file its appeal. While, on its face, the stay is a (temporary) victory for the Administration, in fact most people see this as another nail in the coffin of the so-called "Affordable Care Act." (For example, see this post.)

More on the Snyder v. Phelps case

About five months ago I posted a discussion about the case entitled Snyder v. Phelps. The case has finally been decided. And I said in that post, "No matter how the Supreme Court rules, there will be people who will bitterly protest the decision. And no matter which way the decision is, these protestors will have a valid point." I'm sure that this is going to be the case, now that Phelps won the case.

It's a very hard decision to evaluate. The church that Phelps heads is causing a lot of grief to people who are already grieving over the loss of their loved ones, and doing so by spreading nasty, homophobic remarks. One could easily wish they could be silenced. But there is also an important First Amendment issue, and eight of the nine Supreme Court Justices have decided that the First Amendment trumps Snyder's grief. I find it hard to take sides in this case, as I already said last October. And yet, the 8-1 margin seems to imply that the Court found it a relatively easy decision. Or did they? This is probably one of a very few cases which find Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito on opposite sides. Alito had been called "Scalito" by some who thought him to be a clone of Justice Antonin Scalia, but this case divided Alito from Scalia, as well.

As one who considers the First Amendment the most precious part of our whole Constitution, part of me cheers this decision. But another part of me is sympathetic with Justice Alito's dissent.

Cal Thomas, President Obama, and DOMA

Yesterday, in the Washington Examiner, I saw a column by Cal Thomas entitled "Obama's duty is to enforce the law." (This column appears to have been syndicated to a lot of other publications; a Google search found multiple copies online.) Anyway, Thomas' position is that President Obama has no right to decide which laws he will enforce. And I suppose (although he does not mention it) Thomas' position is rooted in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution: "he [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," which would in fact be a valid argument, except for one thing.

The President has taken an oath of office, which binds him to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. The Constitution is superior to all ordinary laws (see Article VI), and if DOMA is unconstitutional, the President has no obligation to defend it. And this is the point at issue.

Until the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of DOMA, Pres. Obama is bound by his oath of office to consider its constitutionality as open to determination. And if he truly believes the act to be unconstitutional, he is under no obligation to defend it. I'm sorry, Mr. Thomas, but here you are wrong, and the President is acting constututionally correctly.

An asymmetric alliance

There are two groups that are more solidly behind Pres. Obama's liberal agenda than most: African-Americans and gay people. But the relationship between them seems to me to be quite asymmetric.

One can understand the reasons for both. To African-Americans, Obama is "one of us," and this was so strong that even a man like Gen. Colin Powell felt a need to endorse Obama when he was a candidate for the Presidency, despite Gen. Powell's political beliefs, which are normally far to Obama's right. (And as a result, my respect for Gen. Powell has declined considerably.) The case for support by gays is less obvious, but the fact that "social conservatives" have taken over a lot of the power within the Republican Party has had its effect. (And this is one of a number of reasons I feel that something must be done to weaken the power of these "social conservatives": their bigotry drives all sorts of people to the Democrats.)

But the alliance between these is asymmetric. Gay people in their liberalism tend to support the things that aid the struggle by African-Americans to improve their lot, but this assistance is not reciprocated. This can be seen on a State level here in Maryland. The State Senate recently passed a same-sex marriage law. It is interesting to see how the Senators from the two counties bordering the District of Columbia voted. In my county, Montgomery, there has always been strong support for liberal ideas, both gay rights and African-American rights. (My own State Senator, Richard Madaleno, is openly gay; at least one member of the lower house, Heather Mizeur, is a Lesbian. The County Executive, Isiah Leggett, is African-American, and was elected easily in a majority-white county.) So, not surprisingly, there was overwhelming support in the State Senate for the bill. Next door, though, is majority-black Prince George's County. On most issues, politicians from the two counties are indistinguishable in their legislative positions. But here it was different. One Montgomery Senator even remarked that there are Prince Georges Senators with whom he agrees 99% of the time, but on this he has to differ. And many Prince George's Senators voted "no." It seems that many African-Americans in Prince George's County are religiously conservative, and their religious convictions drive them into anti-gay positions.

Why can't gay activists see that the African-American social conservatives in the Democratic Party are just as anti-gay as the white social conservatives in the Republican Party? Perhaps they might become less bound to a Democratic Party that doesn't have their best interests at heart either.

More and more, Mitch Daniels impresses me

A while ago, Mitch Daniels made a remark that impressed me. Though he is "socially conservative," which is normally a negative to me, he made a statement advocating a "truce on social issues" last year. In other words, he wants to work with those of us who will agree with him on fixing economic problems, even if we disagree with his social conservatism. A big plus for Daniels.

Now, another Daniels statement, this time on an issue on which he and I agree. He wants to put aside the proposed Indiana right-to-work law, because there are more pressing issues. I think he's right.

Contrast this with President Obama, who seems to want to push all the issues at once: economic stimulus, health care, environmental, etc. This simply is trying to do too much at one time.

I think this is a sign that Daniels is a good choice for President in 2012. Perhaps even better than Mitt Romney, whom I've rated #1 in a recent posting. He certainly is looking better and better to me.

Open primaries? No thanks! (But there is a good alternative!)

Solomon Kleinsmith is the owner of a centrist blog: this means, of course, a little bit to the left of my politics, but not so far that I don't agree with a lot of his positions. But one thing he favors that I cannot is open primaries.

You might think that allowing Democrats and Republicans to vote in each other's primaries might moderate their choices, but look what this could cause: Consider next year, when Barack Obama is certain to be the Democrats' nominee. Since a Democrat has no likelihood of affecting the primary process in his own party, he might decide to cross over and vote in the Republican primary, and vote for the Republican that Obama has the best chance to defeat. As a result, the Republicans would have someone like a Sarah Palin nominated, just to make it easier for Obama. (Think of Christine O'Donnell in Delaware last year. She wasn't nominated in an open primary, but open primaries might cause a lot more of this type of nomination.)

Of course, one might argue that this sort of thing hasn't much happened in those States that do have open primaries. Well, let's see what has happened in those States. Virginia is an open-primary state; it has to be, because Virginia law does not allow voters to register in a paty, the way Maryland and New York (to mention the two States where I've been registered to vote in my lifetime) do. Wisconsin is very similar to Virginia in this respect. Now can anyone argue that Virginia candidates have been more moderate, more centrist than, say Maryland candidates? I don't think they have been. And certainly the recent impasse in Wisconsin has shown that in that State, exteremism has not been driven out of local politics.

Now Kleinsmith does agree with me on another proposed election rule change: he strongly opposes "top two primaries." These were adopted statewide in Louisiana and subsequently in a couple of other states; the same system is used in my county for the nonpartisan Board of Education elections. In a "top two primary," all candidates (in a partisan election, all the candidates of all parties) run against each other, and two (who might be both from the same party!) are chosen to run in the final election. In Louisiana, this has led to the bizarre "lizard/wizard" election of 1991. It is clear that it causes all sorts of problems, and a whole chapter was written in William Poundstone's book, "Gaming the Vote" about the 1991 Louisiana Gubernatorial election. Suffice it to say that that's not the answer either.

Is there a solution that will help moderate candidates get elected? Possibly. Poundstone's book suggests that another system would be better: score voting, also known as range voting. In this system, the voter rates all the candidates instead of picking just one. And a moderate candidate might, by getting high, but not maximal, ratings from both left-of-center and right-of-center voters, actually win in a score voting election. Check out the Center for Range Voting site, or Poundstone's book. You might be impressed.

The Democrats and organized labor

The Democrats have once more shown that they refuse to do anything that doesn't conform to the demands of organized labor. Apparently, even the threat that a bill might come up in the Indiana legislature — note that it hasn't been put on the agenda yet! — reducing the unions' power (i. e., a right-to-work law) has led to Indiana Democratic legislators' emulating Wisconsin's, and fleeing the State.

Frankly, this is one of the reasons I became a Republican even before I was old enough to vote. I'm absolutely disgusted at the power some unions have amassed to control their industries, and as long as the Democratic Party is a puppet of organized labor, I will have to stay in the GOP.

Obama and the DOMA

Supposedly, Pres. Obama is for gay rights. But he has been very slow to take any actions that would prove it. But news has come out today of a change for the better. A New York Times report entitled "U.S., in Shift, Sees Marriage Act as Violation of Gay Rights" announced that "President Obama, in a major legal policy shift, has directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act — the 1996 law that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages — against lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional."

I have said before that when Pres. Obama does something right, I will give him the credit it is due. And this is clearly in this category. But my only question is, "What took you so long?" After all, Obama has been President for over two years. If he agreed that DOMA was unconstitutional, shouldn't this have been his position from the start?

Minority rights

For a short while, between the Minnesota court decision that allowed Al Franken to take his seat in the Senate and the Massachusetts election that gave Ted Kennedy's old seat to Scott Brown, the Senate had a ³/₅ majority of Democrats. And this allowed them to pass whatever they wanted if they could get unanimity among the Democrats, with the Republicans unable to carry out a filibuster. This stopped as soon as Sen. Brown was elected, and since this was just before the Obama health care bill was passed (opposition to which was, of course, the main reason Sen. Brown was elected), the House had to adopt the Senate's bill because any change would make it go back to the (now, suddenly, subject to filibuster) Senate, and then use a parliamentary trick to make some changes it wanted. And since then, the Democrats have been wailing that the minority has too much power in the Senate under its rules. They almost tried, last month when the Senate reconvened, to use another parliamentary trick to get a rules change that would make filibustering impossible. But look what happens when the Democrats are in the minority!

A few years ago, back in 2003, a few Texas State legislators left the state to make it impossible to muster a quorum, so that a redistricting bill that the Democrats opposed could not be passed. More recently, we see a situation where the Wisconsin State Senate is having a very similar fleeing of the State by Democrats; because that State's Constitution requires both major parties to have at least one member present for the Senate to do business, and the Democratic Party is in such thrall to organized labor that not a single State Senate Democrat can abide a reduction of the public employees' power of unionization. This is a lot worse than simply a filibuster. Because the Democrats, in Texas in 2003 and in Wisconsin today, will not let one bill go through, they have to totally paralyze their State's legislative process. How's that for excessive minority power?

On political classification

I have, in the past, favorably commented on Dennis Sanders' excellent blog, "Big Tent Revue." His opinions are frequently close to mine, and even when they differ, they tend to be reasonable. But another thing I like about his blog is that, through it, I often find out about other bloggers with good ideas. One example is Sanders' post, "Wheel of Politics, Turn, Turn, Turn." This is primarily a pointer to another blogger's posting, "The wheel of politics," which is an interesting effort to take another stab at political classification. This blogger is unhappy with the diagram used on The Political Compass and similar sites, about which I have remarked before, and proposes his own system. Unfortunately, there are a couple of things I don't like about it.

For one thing, his terminology is awful. He uses the term "corrupt" in an idiosyncratic manner, which tends to charge with corruption all those people in both parties who are interested in finding common ground. Yet while the "progressives" and "conservatives" are divided into "idealistic" and "corrupt," a similar division of the "libertarians" uses the terms "dogmatic" and "pragmatic." To me, the "idealistic"/"corrupt" and "dogmatic"/"pragmatic" distinctions are about the same, except that you use a nice-sounding word for the first one in one case and for the second one in the other. A little bit of prejudice, perhaps?

Another problem is his choice of issues. He seems to think that legalizing mind-altering drugs is a major issue that should be, but hasn't been, taken up by our politicians. I wouldn't agree. And anyway, he doesn't really give a good set of criteria to put us into his six categories. I'm not certain, for example, where I belong.

But it is nice to see another attempt at classification. I'd like to see more. (And if anyone knows of more sites with classifications like these, please let me know!)

The Medal of Freedom, given to George H. W. Bush

Apparently, it has been known since November that President Obama would award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to former President George H. W. Bush. But I must admit that I only found out about it when the actual award was made yesterday.

It's an interesting choice. President Obama has been doing everything in his power to prevent Republicans, in the Congress and elsewhere, from having any input into his programs, such as the health care "reform." Does he think that by giving this symbolic recognition to a Republican President (the father of his predecessor, the man he has been regularly denouncing over the recent years!) he will suddenly be seen as something other than the leftist he is?

It would be more useful if Pres. Obama would actually listen to Republicans, rather than giving them symbolic awards.

Conflicting goals

In the debate over health care reform, the big problem that I have noticed is that there is no agreement on what the goals of the reforms are. Some speak of reducing costs, others of expanding coverage, and other things have been brought in as well, such as making sure that people who are satisfied with their current coverage can maintain it (Pres. Obama claimed his plan would do this, but it quickly became clear that it will not if allowed to continue in the form in which it was enacted.) A goal that has never been explicitly stated is preserving the right to sue for malpractice, which is important to the trial lawyers who constitute a large portion of the Democratic Party's campaign funds, but is certainly responsible for the Democrats' opposition to Republican wishes to introduce tort reform. (In fact, except for labor unions, it would appear that the trial lawyers are the biggest source of funds for the Democrats.)

It would be easy, for example, to expand coverage to all Americans, by simply having the Government buy a health insurance policy for every person in the United States. But this would do nothing toward cost containment. And one could reduce costs by doing what the Cubans do: make all doctors employees of the Government, paid a salary that would be strictly controlled. (I read recently of a tourist in Havana who found that his taxi driver was a pediatrician who was making ends meet by driving a cab and giving guided tours! One could hardly imagine this in the USA, where a medical doctor — especially a specialist — is unlikely to need a second job!) But this solution, unless accompanied by some of the other Draconian aspects of a Communist dictatorship, would lead to a major exodus of people from the medical profession; hardly an acceptable outcome for anyone.

I think the problem is clearly that, in discussing health care reform, there are conflicting goals, and this is not being acknowledged by any of the actors in this debate: the Republicans or the Democrats; the trial lawyers, the insurance companies, or the medical doctors; the President or the various groups within the two Houses of Congress. And until these goals are prioritized, we will never be able to come up with a plan that will not prompt major screams of "foul!" from one or another side.

On proselytization

This past Tuesday, my wife and I were at a local Panera, where I had a pastry and some tea and she had whatever she wanted. Next to us was a table where a fairly young African-American man took a seat, and at one point, we were engaged in a conversation. When my wife asked if he was studying, and what subjects, he mentioned he had gotten a degree in rhetoric and was now studying theology, so I asked if he was planning to become a preacher, which seemed to be the only thing that those two might mean career-wise; he said he was already a preacher. And further along in the conversation, he gave us both cards from the church where he preaches, though he indicated it was mainly a young adult program, but we were invited. At a later point in the discussion, I told him he wasn't likely to see me (my wife was away at the moment), because I was Jewish. At this juncture, the conversation turned to my belief that he'll never convince me that I'm wrong, and I'm sure I could not convince him. He asked me why I was so sure, and I cited a Biblical passage (Isaiah, chapter 2), which to me proves that Jesus could not be the Messiah. (When the Messiah comes, according to Isaiah, there will be a period of total peace; this has not happened, and in fact more wars have been fought in Jesus' name than in just about anyone else's.) He suggested that perhaps the era of peace will be initiated on the second coming, and I remarked that nowhere in the Bible does it prophesy that the Messiah will come, go, and then come again. That seemed to stop him — the conversation turned to other directions.

I think that anybody needs to believe what seems right to him. If you read the 95^th Psalm, it clearly says that God tries to talk to us, and we should listen to him. I believe we perceive God's speaking to us as an internal voice, and we must listen to what He tells us — but, of course, we cannot really tell for certain what is God's message to us and what we are just thinking on our own. So nobocy can convince me, and I don't try to convince anyone else, to change religion. I'll tell someone what I believe, if asked. but that is as far as I will go.

This preacher was not really hostile in his attitude; the conversation was cordial. But it really does not seem right for anyone to proselytize, for the reasons I've given.

A very nice post that I wish to point out

I have often railed at "social conservatives" whose ideas do not really go along with the "freedom" agenda that is usually associated with conservatism in this country. And today I saw a nice posting on a blog called "Right Wing Nut House." The post is called "CPAC Boycott by Social Cons Reveals the Right’s ‘Gay Problem.’" Please read it. I couldn't say it better myself.

Jon Huntsman?

On Dennis Sanders' Big Tent Revue I've seen a couple of posts praising Jon Huntsman as a possible 2012 GOP candidate. Frankly, I know little about him, but if Sanders likes him, that's a point in his favor. A recent post there linked to another blog post, by Solomon Kleinsmith, who also hosts a centrist blog. When center-right and centrist bloggers start pushing a candidate, I need to learn more about him, as my own preference is for the center-right.

Huntsman is a Mormon — so what? So is Mitt Romney, who seems to be the best of the prospects. And long ago I posted that we do not want to impose a religious test on the Presidency, contrary to our Constitution, so this should not be a factor. He's been a Governor, which is a good thing, and he's also been Obama's ambassador to China (and speaks Mandarin fluently!), about which I'm ambivalent — being willing to serve the Obama administration is not so good, but I can't really hold that against him, because he may have only considered it an opportunity to serve his country.

Apparently, according to Wikipedia, he has positions agreeing with mine on taxes and gay rights, and opposed to mine on abortion and gun control. This makes him someone probably as close to my direction as I'll find in the GOP, but I really need to learn more about him. Tune in for more on this potential candidate in the future!

Chick-Fil-A, the New York Times, and Michelle Malkin

Chick-Fil-A is a fast-food chain that has some policies that are rather untypical. The company requires its franchisees to close their locations every Sunday; the president is such a fanatical theocrat that he imposes his Christian Sabbatarianism on everyone who has a connection with his company. And for that reason, I have never bought so much as one bag of French fries from a Chick-Fil-A. The company, as a private company, has the First Amendment right to "free exercise [of religion]." And I have my right to boycott them. My boycott is personal; I have not organized others or put up picket signs; but I certainly would have the right to do this if I chose to, and one would think that anyone would accept this as my right.

And if I were a newspaper, like the New York Times, I would certainly have the right, enshrined in that same First Amendment that gives Chick-Fil-A the right to freely exercise the religious beliefs of its owner, to print criticisms of Chick-Fil-A's bigotry. It seems that, to quote a column by Michelle Malkin, "One of its independent outlets in Pennsylvania donated some sandwiches and brownies to a marriage seminar run by the Pennsylvania Family Institute, which happens to oppose same-sex marriage." In other words, they contributed some support, presumably with the agreement of headquarters (although I do not know this), to a bigoted, homophobic group. Although I was unaware of this until I read about it in a column that I saw in today's Washington Examiner by Malkin that is identical to her blog post, somehow this does not surprise me in the least, that an outlet of a religiously right-wing organization like Chick-Fil-A would take action to support bigoted, homophobic organizations like that. Now, a paper like the Times, as I said, has as much right to publish a denunciation of Chick-Fil-A for such bigoted actions as Malkin does to publish her column. I would agree with the Times and disagree with her, though on other issues where Malkin differs from the Times I suspect I'd be closer to her point of view. But Malkin has no reason to condemn the Times for pointing out that Chick-Fil-A is a bigoted, theocratic organization which seeks to impose its own religious views on others. I'm afraid that Malkin seems to think that opposing opinions to hers should not be expressed. And this is a free country, where Chick-Fil-A has freedom of religion under the First Amendment, but both the Times and she have freedom of the press under that same amendment. She may disagree with the Times, but she ought not to deny their rights to express an opinion.

Judge Vinson's excellent decision

Now there are two decisions by Federal judges that the 2010 health care law is unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. Judge C. Roger Vinson, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, handed down a decision Monday. And ths one, like Judge Henry Hudson's back in December, ruled it unconstitutional. But Judge Vinson's decision went even further than Judge Hudson's. Because there was no "severability clause," Judge Vinson's decision said the whole law has to be thrown out. (Judge Hudson had left room for other parts of the act to stand.)

Two other judges have ruled the other way. So it will take a Supreme Court decision to make the final call. But with two such decisions, there is a much stronger chance that the Supreme Court will agree to kill the individual mandate (and thus, probably, the whole plan). Good work, Judge Vinson. And on to the Supreme Court! It is clear that this, rather than theatrics in the House of Representatives, is the way to go. The House cannot repeal the bill by itself, not as long as the Democrats continue to control the Senate and Pres. Obama has a veto power. So it has to be the judicial branch that we look to in order to kill this unreasonable law.

The Middle East - What is our interest?

It would seem that the US has a conflicting set of interests in the Middle East. First, ours is a government which wants to spread its philosophy (expressed by our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln) of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But we have economic interests (we want oil from that area) and political interests (pro-American foreign policies, and toning down hostilities with Israel). These don't always go together. When Iran was ruled by the Shah, it was friendly to us and to Israel. But it was certainly not ruled by its people. And the current popular unrest in Egypt can lead to President Mubarak's being replaced by an Islamist government, which would be much less likely to promote a peaceful border with Israel. (Note this poll, which I saw referenced in today's Washington Examiner, which shows an Islamist attitude. On the other hand, the poll also shows a support for democracy, which looks better.)

So where does our interest lie in the Middle East? I'm not really sure.

Odd eligibility rules

One thing that puzzled me last year was Brendon Madigan's candidacy for the Comptrollership of Maryland. One would think he would start lower down the chain, say as a Delegate in the State legislature, before tackling a Statewide office. It turns out that the Comptrollership is just about the only office that the 18-year-old Madigan was eligible for! Both houses of the State legislature (called the General Assembly in Maryland) have minimum ages which are much higher (I just read where there is a Constitutional amendment being proposed that would lower those ages for both chambers to 21, which would still exclude someone Madigan's age), and all the other statewide offices have qualifications Madigan would not have met — age or otherwise. So it's strange. Madigan ran for the Comptrollership, it seems, because this was the only office in the whole State he qualified for!

Rahm Emanuel's candidacy - on again, off again, ...

It seems that Rahm Emanuel is back on the ballot for Mayor of Chicago — one court allowed it, another said no, the final court said yes. The board of elections, which had begun to print ballots without his name, then had to print new ones with his name on. It all seems to depend on whether owning a home in Chicago but being more of the time in the capital area is being "resident in Chicago." And let's face it, Emanuel's ties to Chicago are pretty deep. Lots of political types do the same kind of thing. John Kennedy, for example, while in the White House, had a Boston address he used as his voting address. He may never have set foot there for long stretches of time, but nobody challenged hes right to vote in Boston.

But Chicago is like New York City, where I grew up. It is a common thing to challenge someone's eligibility to throw them off the ballot, justly or unjustly. (Remember how President Obama got into the Illinois State Senate?) So it was not that big a surprise. But I think the people of Chicago are the ones who should be allowed to decide on Emanuel's suitability for the Mayor's office. So — without passing any judgment on Rahm Emanuel — I think it is a good thing that the final decision was to have him on the ballot. I'm not saying I'd vote for him if I lived in Chicago — nor am I saying I would not vote for him if I lived in Chicago — but only that I think that Emanuel, a candidate more truly tied to Chicago than were Robert F. Kennedy or Hillary Clinton to New York State, deserves to have the citizens of Chicago express their decision on whether he should be Mayor.

A stupid decision

The German Medical Association and several pharmaceutical companies have called for a boycott of the United States as an outlet for the drug sodium thiopental. They apparently feel that their ethics cannot allow them to send the drug because of its use in administering the death penalty in the U. S. Obviously, this is within their rights. But it is one of the stupidest decisions I've ever seen a professional association make.

Europe, in general, has been taken over by anti-death-penalty fanatics. This has been the case for many years. But there is really no sensible case against the death penalty, at least for murder. Refusing to execute murderers says one thing: You don't recognize the value of innocent human life. For you are saying that the victims' lives aren't worth the life of the murderer. Ironically, anti-death-penalty fanatics claim to value human life, but how they can claim this is impossible to fathom: to them, obviously, the victims' lives are worth little.

But what are the Germans accomplishing? They will not succeed in eliminating a single execution. All they can do is postpone the agony of the perpetrators. The executions will be carried out eventually, with supplies of the drug obtained from outside Germany.

I suppose that, if you are Christian, there is a justification for sparing murderers' lives in the "New Testament" doctrine of "turn the other cheek." This is, of course, not in my Bible, since I'm Jewish. My Bible says "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." And that is one probable reason I cannot be convinced by arguments that sometimes do convince others. But one of the strange things is that Europe is supposedly less overtly Christian, more secular than the United States. Yet here, the relationship between overt Christianity and secularism seems to be reversed. (An exception is the Catholic church, which has been outspokenly anti-death-penalty both in the U. S. and in Europe.)

As I said, the German boycott will not accomplish anything but a short term delay of some executions and prolongation of the agony of those on death rows in the U. S. A. If they had wanted to influence American politics against the death penalty, or spare some murderers' lives, they won't accomplish it. All they can do is generate more ill will from the Americans. Greater stupidity than this is a rare thing.

For a change, a "religion" post rather than a "politics" post

Many years ago my wife, who had just gone into the Army Reserve, was on a training mission in the South, and this other woman who saw her noticed her Bible. The other woman, unfamiliar with Judaism, asked whether that was a Jewish Bible, and when she was told yes, asked if she could look at it. After a while, she exclaimed, "Why, that's just the Old Testament!" She really didn't know! People's ignorance of Judaism amazes me. I recently had an experience that reminded me of this story.

Yesterday I made a trip to the Library of Congress to get information for a Website I manage. On my way back home, I was waiting for a bus together with a woman when one of those Mormon missionaries approached us. (For some reason, most of these Mormons have the title "Elder" on their badge, though an "elder" would seem to be something you'd become after attaining a significant age, and these people are rarely more than about 20!) At first, he was talking about mainly the weather, not religion at all, but then he asked us if we were Christians. The woman answered yes, but I said that I was Jewish, and that changed the flow of conversation from what, I'm sure, the Mormon missionary had been prepared for. He remarked that he was not very familiar with what Jews believed, so I went into some explanation, and it was really my direction for the rest of the conversation. Now when I talk to ignorant Christians and Mormons, I generally go to the negative differences because they are easier to explain: we don't accept the New Testament (and in this case I added "and certainly not the Book of Mormon," which elicited a surprised response, because the missionary probably expected that I'd never heard of the Book of Mormon; he asked me if I'd ever read it, and I told him, "some parts," which is true), and Jesus was to us just a man who started off as a Jew like us, who started a new religion that we don't accept (a lot like the mainstream Christians' attitude to Joseph Smith, though I did not bring that point up).

About that time, the bus arrived, and it seems the missionary was not getting on, but the woman and I did, and afterward she told me that she was not aware of what I'd said, that Jesus was a breakaway Jew! We talked for some more, and I told her that I don't believe in trying to convince others to chainge their religion; I think everyone else has to believe what they think is right. But I'm happy, when asked, to tell people what I believe, so I had no problems with this discussion. (Since neither the Mormon missionary nor the woman was particularly hostile, just ignorant, this was the case.)

I think that one foundation of my religious beliefs is a passage in the 95^th Psalm, which is part of the Jewish Sabbath Eve liturgy: Verse 7 says that when God speaks to us we should listen, and I think this means that God still does try to speak to us. And this is the foundation of my belief that "what seems right to you is what you should believe," because it is God speaking to you that tells you this.

But the main point of this story is that it's amazing that people in this country are so ignorant of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. That someone who considers herself a Christian can be so totally unaware of the fact that Christianity is, historically, a branch off the tree of Judaism simply amazes me.

I spoke too soon!

Earlier today, I made a post in which I said, "there has not been ... a flurry of headlines in the Latino press about a Hispanic intern helping to save Rep. Giffords' life." I guess I spoke too soon. I saw at least one of the Spanish-language local papers with a headline which said, in translation, "Hispanic is 'hero of Arizona.'"

Was this categorization necessary? Or even appropriate?

I live in the suburbs of Washington, D. C., so I see at least the headlines of many local Washington area newspapers, even when they are not papers I'm accustomed to reading. And a couple of days ago I saw the headline of the Washington Blade, a newspaper that caters to the gay and Lesbian community. The headline said: "Gay intern credited with saving Giffords." Now, I wonder what the sexual identity of the intern mattered here — though, of course, there is no reason that the Blade would even cover the story, except that Daniel Hernandez, the intern in question, is gay. (From his name, it's clear that he is Hispanic; there has not been, however, a flurry of headlines in the Latino press about a Hispanic intern helping to save Rep. Giffords' life.)

Sexual identity, like race, religion, ethnicity, and some other traits, is a way that people do get categorized in the United States these days. But really, if you look at the story (and I don't regularly read the Blade, but they have a Web site and I found it there) it is clear that Hernandez' interning for Rep. Giffords had little to do with "gay issues," that his being gay had no relevance to his saving her life, and that this whole thing seems just a way for the Blade to put a gay spin on the Arizona tragedy.

Theatrics?

Although it got postponed because of the shootings in Arizona, there was a plan to have the House of Representatives take up debate on, and pass, a bill repealing last year's health care bill. And eventually it looks as though this will happen after the mourning over the shootings subsides. Given that the Senate is controlled by the Democrats (and even if it had been Republican-controlled, the Dems would filibuster such a bill to death!) and, even more to the point, that Pres. Obama would be sure to veto such a bill, I wonder what the purpose of this would be. While I am very much in agreement with those who would like to repeal the bill, I can't see how a vote in the House of Representatives alone can accomplish anything. Or is John Boehner (or some other member of the House leadership) of the opinion that a theatrical display going to do some good somewhere? I'd like to see any justification for having a debate and House vote on this.

Hunting?

I must admit that I am extremely bad at placing myself in another's shoes. And this leads to a bit of a problem.

Two days ago I wrote a post about the shooting in Tucson, Arizona. It was read by Dennis Sanders, whose blog I often enjoy and who comes close to me in a lot of political beliefs. He responded on this blog and also put up a post on his own blog, referencing mine, which led to some interesting discussion.

One point that was raised was that there are people who hunt for pleasure, and adherence to my usual principles (though Dennis doesn't specifically make this point) should mean that, as long as they don't harm other people, they ought to have the rights to enjoy their pastime. (This, as a rationale for the Second Amendment, would seem unfaithful to its original intent, as other hobbies have no such protection. But it does seem faithful to the libertarian principles I generally espouse.)

This is a hard point to answer. I can't see what pleasure anyone can derive from lying in wait for an innocent animal, who never did you any harm, and shooting it dead when it comes into view. And so, I cannot see how to reconcile my desire to have a life unthreatened by gun violence (much more in the spirit of the "right to life" about which Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence than is the concern for unborn fetuses which those three words, "right to life," usually signify) with these hunters' right to the "pursuit of happiness." The main thing is, I cannot see what limitations on guns would be acceptable to a hunter, because I cannot see what really is the essence of the activity that gives them pleasure.

The saving grace is this: I know I will never see a total ban on privately-owned guns. The Supreme Court's decisions on Second Amendment issues make this clear. So wasting effort on reconciling these two is useless. What is necessary is reconciling the Supreme Court's position on the Second Amendment with the demands of a safe life. And that is a very different, and difficult, thing.

A recommended read: "The Futility of Distinguishing Between the Far-Left and Far-Right"

I just saw a very interesting post entitled "The Futility of Distinguishing Between the Far-Left and Far-Right." And when I read it, it was actually a pretty close approximation of many ideas I've entertained myself. I have never seen a great difference between "Fascists" and "Communists." They end up standing for many of the same things, even if they use different rhetoric.

So, though the person who posted that item did so anonymously, I think that whoever it is is right on target. And it's a post I would heartily endorse.

On the shooting in Arizona

A Congresswoman has been shot and her life is in serious danger (and even if she survives, she will sustain severe brain injury). A judge is dead, as well as a number of innocent bystanders. And all because of a crazy man with a gun.

No, it's not the "Tea Party Culture" that deserves the blame, as some have said. But it's also not just because of one deranged man. If he hadn't been able to get a gun so easily, none of these deaths and injuries could have been inflicted.

What will it take to convince the Second Amendment fanatics that we need to make guns harder to obtain? Nobody outside the police and military has a legitimate need for a gun. But there seems no way to repeal the Second Amendment, so it's necessary to provide a reasonable interpretation of the amendment, that will protect the people from such shootings. And while I think the more conservative Supreme Court Justices appointed by Republican Presidents are, in general, good for our people's rights, in this area, they are wrong.

And for another good discussion of the issue, see this blog post.

Good riddance!

One of the things I have felt is hurting the cause of conservatism has been that a group of people styling themselves "social conservatives" have tried to use the conservative movement and the Republican Party to showcase their bigoted view of humanity. So it is good news to me to see that "social conservatives" are leaving the rest of the conservative movement — the Conservative Political Action Conference is holding a meeting in February and because a gay group was invited to attend, the "social conservatives" will not. I am certain that Barry Goldwater, who approved of gay rights, would be on the side of CPAC. Good riddance to the "social conservatives"!

I guess it took a judge!

It seems that Joe Miller would not withdraw his challenge to Lisa Murkowski's certification. So it finally came down to a Federal District Judge, Ralph Beistline, who ruled yesterday that Miller's challenge was to be rejected. Read about it here. This means that Alaska will be represented by its proper two Senators in the new Congress. And one hopes that Joe Miller will realize that Alaska's citizens gave their decision, and he lost.

Separation of church and state

I find it hard, this time of the year, to figure out what to respond to people who wish me "Merry Christmas." Since this isn't Nazi Germany, we Jews don't go around wearing badges that say "Jew," so many of them are simply innocently making an assumption that everyone they meet celebrates Christmas, and I don't really want to start an argument with such people, so I'm stumped for a reply. Sometimes I simply say "Happy New Year"; my wife says "Happy holiday"; but neither seems quite the right response. (Often I just nod to acknowledge it. But even that does not seem the right response.) And also there are people who do it quite deliberately: I saw a column recently by someone who said she always wishes people "Merry Christmas" and was happy to note that others wish her "Merry Christmas" in reply; she takes that as approval. People like that I would happily start an argument with, but I can't tell the two apart, so I'm stuck.

We find people arguing that "separation of church and state" is not proclaimed in our Constitution. Truly, those specific words do not appear. But neither do the words "air force." Yet nobody would say that the Constitution only provides for an army and navy, and the other branches of the Defense Department were unconstitutionally established. Not even Justice Antonin Scalia would hold to that literal an interpretation of the Constitution. So we really have to go to the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution. The Constitution itself says that "no religious test shall be required" for any office. And the First Amendment, which many of us (myself included) consider to be one of the most important parts of the Constitution, forbids an "establishment of religion." Now, many "religious conservatives" maintain that the First Amendment simply forbids raising one form of Christianity above another; I think that George Washington, who wrote the famous "to bigotry no sanction" letter, would put that idea to rest.

I think the biggest expert on the meaning of the Constitution in this regard has to be James Madison. He is widely believed to have written much of the Constitution itself; he certainly did write many of the papers called "The Federalist" which explained the Constitution to the people. And he was also the author of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, including that First Amendment which we are discussing here. And if you read my earlier post on reading fhe Constitution, you will see that Madison, at least, believed in a very strict separation of church and state. So I think we are on strong ground in defending that separation.

Joe Miller and Alaska's Senate seat

Joe Miller, for some reason, has tried to frustrate the wishes of Alasks's people, who re-elected Lisa Murkowski to the Senate. He certainly knows that he lost the election last month; he could only postpone the inevitable. But Alaska's Supreme Court has delivered a ringing opinion in favor of common sense. Miller can still appeal to Federal court, but that would be a really nasty and stupid thing to do. Why Miller fought this long I don't know, but I hope it's finally over.

Scott Brown and the Tea Party

I recently saw a posting on another blog (The FrumForum, a very nice blog which often has posts with which I agree) entitled: "Scott Brown Frustrates Tea Party." (This post apparenmtly comes from another source, "The Boston Globe" blog.) And it points out that Senator Brown, in his moderation, is frustrating Tea Party extremists, who may put up a primary opponent in two years when he has to run for a full six-year term. Apparently the Tea Partiers haven't learned their lesson. Harry Reid and Chris Coons are going to be sitting in the Senate at next month's swearing-in because Tea Partiers defeated Sue Lowden and Mike Castle with Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell in the primaries. If only they would understand that "Half a loaf is better than none."

Politics that works, and politics that doesn't

One of the blogs I like to read is Dennis Sanders' "Big Tent Revue." And recently I saw a post on there in which he directed readers to another interesting article, by Walter Russell Mead, who writes a blog called "The American Interest." I find this post very interesting, and would like to refer my own readers to this post, though it is not to my taste in the way that it treats both of the two major political forces today as species of liberalism.

But what I would like to ask Mead is: "OK, so you've identified a problem: two groups of political thinkers each of which, you feel, is grounded in the past, trying to apply outmoded solutions to 21^st century problems. Now what do you think is the proper 21^st century solution to those problems?"

"Anti-Christmas Scrooges miss the real reason for the season"? Really!

I had intended pretty much to ignore the impending Christmas holiday, treating it as a non-event on this blog. However, there's a column by Bill O'Reilly in the Examiner, which seems to have been quoted by a number of other sites, entitled "Anti-Christmas Scrooges miss the real reason for the season." To this, I feel a need to reply.

I think I understand "the real reason for the season" very well. It commemorates the birth, approximately two millennia ago, of a man in whose name more people have been killed than in the name of anyone else in world history. Whether it is Christians of one stripe fighting Christians of another stripe (various religious wars in Europe over the past two millennia) or Christians killing Jews and Muslims (the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition), the fact is that Christians' celebration of the birth of the founder of their religion is not a reason for anyone else to celebrate. I do not begrudge private celebration of Christmas in the homes and churches of my Christian neighbors. Just do it privately. I would not be happy with a celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday; why should I take part in a celebration of Jesus of Nazareth's? But Christian zealots do not understand that. O'Reilly asks, "Why would any rational person get testy about a federal holiday that brings joy to the majority of their countrymen and helps the economy, to boot?" My answer is, "Suppose we had a Federal holiday celebrating the birth of a man whose followers murdered your ancestors. How would you feel about that?"

Net neutrality

The Federal Communications Commission has just issued some regulations intended to further the cause of net neutrality, the idea that the people who control the flow of traffic on the Internet must do so in a nondiscriminatory manner. And they did so by a partisan vote: three Democrats favoring net neutrality, two Republicans opposing it. This is one case where I think the Democrats are in the right.

The problem is that there are two conflicting ideas here. The Republicans are upholding the idea that Government should keep its hands off the free market, a concept that I find generally agreeable. But in the absence of net neutrality regulations, we find ourselves in a situation analogous to what we would have if, say, Ford Motor Company owned the Interstate Highway system, and refused to allow General Motors cars on it (or allowed it, but only at a much higher toll rate than Ford owners paid). I don't think we would put up with that.

Unless we have some system to prevent vertical integration, so that providers of content and providers of the connections would be divorced from each other, net neutrality regulations are the only way to ensure fairness. And net neutrality is a less intrusive way to do it than forcing that prevention of vertical integration. So I favor it.

Some people say the FCC is trying to solve a problem that does not exist; this may be so, but it's a problem that could exist in the future; Internet carriers have threatened to do such things, and it is better to head this off at the pass, before it becomes a problem.