An Ohio First Amendment case that deserves attention

The Wall Street Journal recently posted, on its Website, a column by Bradley A. Smith of Columbus, Ohio, entitled “The Supreme Court and Ed Corsi's Life of Political Crime — How one Ohio man's blog on politics got him in trouble with campaign-finance law.” This is probably the next big First Amendment issue that will be decided by the Supreme Court, so we need to follow it. Here is the article:

In the winter of 2008, Ed Corsi decided that he was tired of stewing about the politics in his home of Geauga County, Ohio, and the country at large. He started a website, put Thomas Jefferson's quote, “The price of freedom… constant vigilance” at the top, dubbed the site “Geauga Constitutional Council,” and set about blogging his thoughts on local and national politics. So began his life of political crime.

Over the next two years, Mr. Corsi and a few friends would sometimes gather to talk politics. He occasionally sponsored meetings featuring speakers (not political candidates) on public policy issues (not elections), and charged a nominal fee for seating to offset his costs. He and two friends passed out political pamphlets they made at the Geauga County Fair.

Mr. Corsi spent $40 a month to maintain his website, and perhaps a couple [of] hundred dollars a year in other expenses. According to the state of Ohio, however, these activities are illegal under campaign-finance laws[,] because Mr. Corsi did not first register with the state, report to the state on his activities, and subject himself to the regulations governing the operation of a state political action committee.

When he was summoned to a hearing before the Ohio Elections Commission in April 2011, Mr. Corsi asked, “Do I have to hire a lawyer to [do] these things?” Commission Chairman Bryan Felmet replied, “Yeah, I guess so. I think that it's very complicated without going to those lengths.” The commission ordered Mr. Corsi to register and report his activities to the state.

When the Supreme Court reconvenes in October, the big campaign-finance case will be McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which nervous censors have dubbed “the next Citizens United.” McCutcheon deals with the ability of affluent Americans to contribute to political parties and candidates. Never mind that the candidates and causes these people support represent the views of millions of citizens. “Reformers” argue, and many Americans seem to agree, that “big money” in politics must be regulated.

It is inconceivable, however, that America's founders thought the First Amendment would allow the government to routinely require citizens to report their political activity, and be subjected to such complex regulations. They wanted to prevent government from doing precisely this sort of thing. Yet Mr. Corsi lost in state court. Now he waits to see if the Supreme Court will agree to hear his case.

The “big money” in politics can afford the accountants, consultants and lawyers needed to cope with campaign- finance law. The burdens frequently fall more heavily on grass-roots politics—the very thing we ought to be encouraging. There also is abundant anecdotal evidence that the main result, if not the purpose, of campaign-finance laws is to allow political insiders and government officials to harass grass-roots activists. The IRS targeting scandals are merely the most prominent example of the way these laws are used by those in power to harass their opposition.

On his blog, Mr. Corsi was critical of Ed Ryder, the chairman of the Geauga County Republican Party and a member of the county Board of Elections, and of various officials and candidates supported by Mr. Ryder. The initial complaint against Mr. Corsi was filed by Mr. Ryder, who admitted spending two months to find out who constituted the “Geauga Constitutional Council,” so he could file a complaint against Mr. Corsi.

In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and again in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986), the Supreme Court held that the regulatory requirements of operating a political action committee could not be imposed on groups that lacked the primary purpose of supporting or defeating political candidates in elections. But across the country, states are flouting that command, imposing rigid requirements on ordinary citizens who are trying to express their political opinions.

In Colorado, for example, a group of friends calling themselves the Coalition for Secular Government operate a website on which they posted a long policy paper on abortion and church-state relations. The paper concluded by urging Coloradans to vote “no” on a ballot measure. For that, the state says they must register as a political committee and report their activities, income and expenses.

Most state statutes now simply ignore the Supreme Court and require that two or more citizens who spend even nominal amounts on politics to register and report to the government. Even printing yard signs or running an email list can trigger these requirements. In Ohio, a single dollar in expenditures will do, so be careful if you talk politics over a cup of coffee.

As a former commissioner at the Federal Election Commission, I have seen the effects these laws have on citizen participation and civic-mindedness. I have read the plaintive letters from citizens who could not afford a lawyer, and could not believe their government was fining them for political activity.

In the past, both liberals and conservatives on the Supreme Court were sensitive to this problem. Liberal Justice William Brennan wrote the majority opinion in the Massachusetts Citizens for Life case. But that sensitivity appears to be vanishing.

Forty-seven years ago, in Mills v. Alabama, the court struck down a lawprohibiting election-day newspaper editorials, noting, “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs."

Is that still true? Will the court leave millions of Americans who want to engage in politics at risk of prosecution? Will it leave Mr. Corsi hanging?

Like the author of that column, I would like to see how the Supreme Court answers these questions.

Good news in Australia

In Australia, an election has just taken place. And Tony Abbott is now their Prime Minister. Abbott is the leader of a right-of-center coalition of two parties: the so-called Liberal Party (which is anything but what we would call “liberal” in the United States) and the National Party, which used to be called the Country Party. Australia's Liberal Party was founded by Robert Menzies in the period around World War II, and has always been the friend of the United States and the opponent of the socialistic tendencies of the third important party in Australia, the Labor Party. (Note that, while most Australians write “labour” like the Brits, the Australian Labor Party spells their name the way we in the USA would, without the “u.”)

Let me not imply that friendship with the USA was the most important issue in this election. it was certainly based primarily on Australian local issues. The Labor Party has been in a lot of disarray lately. In the previous election, their then-leader, Julia Gillard, became Prime Minister, but the election was so close that she had no majority in Parliament and was able only to form a minority government. She turned out to be so unpopular within her own party that they called back their previous leader, Kevin Rudd, before that Parliament's term was over. And Rudd was no more able to hold the public's support than Gillard. He has now indicated that he is resigning as Labor leader.

But Abbott's victory was not just because Labor was falling apart. He has proposed repealing a carbon tax — and in a Parliamentary system like Australia's, the Prime Minister can usually get his way very easily — showing that Australia's public is no more in favor of such monkeying with the economy for dubious environmental reasons than the USA's public is. nd in general, Abbott's agenda is a center-right agenda, much like the moderates in the Republican Party. I cannot help saying that we can only be happy that the Australian public has chosen Tony Abbott.

The State of West Maryland?

This morning I just happened to notice a local newspaper, with a front-page headline telling me that five counties in Western Maryland would secede and form a new state under a proposal that has been made by a resident of that western area. The five counties — Garrett, Allegany, Washington, Frederick, and Carroll — according to the census statistics I have spotted on the Web, have a total population of 653,133, which is a rather small population for a State; Maryland is not considered a very large State, population-wise, and its total population is 5.8 million.

The person spearheading the secession movement says that Maryland is dominated by three jurisdictions — Prince George's and Montgomery Counties and the city of Baltimore; yet this seems natural, as these three jurisdictions have so many more people. Montgomery County (the county in which I live) alone has a population of 971,777, about 1½ times as many as that of the five counties combined that would form the proposed state. So if Western Maryland secedes from the state, how would the people of Garrett County feel? Their 30,097 people would be a negligible part of the whole West Maryland population; would they feel a need to secede to make themselves heard?

The last time a few counties seceded from a State was during the Civil War, and those counties seceded from Virginia to stay in the USA, so it was a special case. It hardly seems likely that West Maryland would be able to persuade Congress to accept them as the 51^st State.

It is true, however, that they have been treated shabbily, in some cases, by the State. Governor Martin O'Malley pushed a Congressional redistricting recently that divided up Western Maryland into two districts, both with enough Democrats in them to force out long-time Representative Roscoe Bartlett in last November's election. I can sympathize, to some extent, though their secession would leave me in an even bluer State than I'm in now. But I doubt that they have a chance.

Obama (surprise!) follows the Constitutional rules

I was surprised to see that, after having his spokesmen proclaim he had no need to, President Barack Obama has changed his mind and indicated that he will in fact go to Congress for authorization to take military action against Syria.

Of course, after he saw the developments in Britain, perhaps he realized he had better. Unlike a President of the United States and Congress, a British Prime Minister usually can get his way with Parliament. He is elected by a majority of the House of Commons (though in this case, David Cameron needed to cobble together a two-party coalition to gain the office) and members of Parliament almost never vote against the wishes of their party leader. (Imagine how much happier John Boehner would be if we had that tradition!) But this week, the House of Commons voted Cameron down when he asked for authorization to join us in military action against Syria. And Cameron had to admit that “the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.” He added, “I get that and the government will act accordingly.” Obviously, President Obama took a lesson from what happened to David Cameron. He is bound by a Constitution in a way that Cameron is not. The British Constitution is not a written document, but an accumulation of traditional ways of doing things, and can be changed quite easily. Ours cannot. Finally, President Obama seems to have learned that he cannot flout it, at least in this instance.

Another victory for gay marriage

The Treasury Department yesterday ruled that same-sex couples who were married in a state or country where it was legal and subsequently moved to a state that does not recognize that marriage will be considered married for income-tax purposes. They can file as single people until Sept. 12 of this year if they choose to, but afterward will have to file either as married filing separately or as married filing jointly.

It's probably a good thing, but will lead to some interesting complications. Before the Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional, same-sex couples had to be treated as single individuals under Federal law, so they'd have to file Federal returns as single even if their state permitted them to file jointly. Now, the reverse is true: same-sex couples whose state does not permit them to file jointly can do so on their Federal returns.

Of course, if couples like John Arthur and Jim Obergefell, whose Maryland marriage had not been recognized in Ohio, succeed in their suits (Arthur and Obergefell did get a judge to rule in their favor, though Ohio may appeal), based on Article IV of the Constitution, this anomalous situation where couples can file Federal returns as a married couple, but not state returns, will eventually fall. That is, obviously, the best solution: in states like Virginia they may yet be unable to get married, but by crossing over to another state, they will marry, and their states will have to recognize it. Eventually a Loving v. Virginia sort of ruling will come, even though in 2013 it's too early for that.

Apparently, presidential power (vs. Congress) depends on who exercises it

Back in 2007, a Presidential candidate named Barack Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire for the Boston Globe and, as reported by John Fund in a column in the National Review Online entitled “Obama Embraces the Imperial Presidency,” he wrote:

The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

He added that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.” Also in 2007, Senator (now Vice-President) Joseph Biden was quoted as saying:

The president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked.

Fast forward to 2013. Vice-President Biden is calling for an immediate strike against Syria. President Obama, it would seem, feels no need to defer to Congress' warmaking powers; he is able, in his estimation, to order us into war, in the words of his spokesman Mary Ann Marsh, acting unilaterally:

The president of the United States cannot be handcuffed by the same Republicans that are holding the rest of the country hostage on every other issue. That is wrong.

Apprently, the Constitution confers powers upon a president named Barack Obama which it does not on a president named George W. Bush. Or so believe Obama and Biden.

I don't think so.

Where are the moderates … in either party?

In the Providence Journal, there was a column, dated today, by Froma Harrop, which she entitled “We All Need Moderate Republicans,” but which was indexed by Real Clear Politics as “Where Are the Moderate Republicans?” But it's not just in the Republican Party that moderates seem to have vanished. I can't name a moderate in the Democratic Party in the Senate, with the exception of Joe Manchin. So the better question is “Where are the moderates in either party?”

Perhaps I have the answer. There is no more segregation in the South. With the end of Jim Crow, Southern Democrats, who formed a party of their own within the Democratic Party, mostly became Republicans. Their conservatism moderated the Democratic Party when they called themselves Democrats, but it has pulled the Republican Party rightward. And the northeastern Republicans, no longer able to play off northern and southern Democrats against each other in Congress, lost power.

Partially, too, it represents the decline of the rural areas (whilch were largely Republican) in the North. In a state like New York, the Republicans could win statewide office because New York City, which was 60-70% Democratic, had about 50% of the vote, while the rest of the state was 60-70% Republican, and also had about 50% of the vote. The suburbs used to be part of that 60-70% Republican “rest of the state,” but it seems that when a lot of urbanites moved out to the suburbs, many retained their Democratic allegiance. New York State is now reliably “blue.” I can't speak for other Northeastern states, but I suspect something similar happened, with cities like Boston and Philadelphia sending Democratic voters to formerly reliable Republican suburban and even rural areas.

So that's the probable answer. The end of segregation in the South, and the combination of rural areas turning into suburbs with “white flight” into those suburbs by urban Democrats who continued to vote Democratic, killed moderation in both parties. How do we revive it? Beats me!

On Martin Luther King Jr.

A lot of news sources are spending a lot of time on commemorating the March on Washington of 50 years (less two days) ago, at which Martin Luther King Jr. made his "I Have a Dream" speech. Martin Luther King is someone I have great conflicts about. In the beginning, he was an important civil rights leader, and certainly deserves praise. But the freedom he sought for his fellow African Americans was something he wanted to deny to the Vietnamese, and he was one of those whe worked to derail our fight for that freedom. That he could not see the Vietnam War as just as much a fight for freedom as his own fight for civil rights detracts from my view of King, and is why I cannot get as excited about him as many others do. Martin Luther King may be a civil rights hero, but in the case of the Vietnam War, he was close to a traitor. So over all, he does not compare in my mind to, say, Thurgood Marshall — just as much a civil rights hero, but one who did not turn on his own country in time of war.

Bradley Manning wants to be called "Chelsea"

A post entitled “He Is Not Bradley Manning. She Is Chelsea Manning. Deal With It,” by Ryan Kearney on The New Republic's site says that Bradley Manning, the WikiLeaks leaker, wants now to be called “Chelsea.” Kearney, of course, has the right to call him anything he wants to. But he will always be Bradley Manning on this site.

I have no problem with people being gay, lesbian, or bisexual. We don't know how much is heredity, how much is environment, or even if there is some third cause, but whatever it is, people feel attractions to different people, and regardless of the Religious Right's railing about “unnatural” sexualities, it is truly natural for them. I'm willing to accept even stranger sexualities, though I can't fully understand them; I won't go into all the details. But the one group I can never understand or make sense of is that of the transgendered: men who think of themselves as women or vice versa.

A man who falls in love with another man just has his sense of what he finds attractive different from the majority. We are all programmed to eat, but many people eat, every morning, foods that it disgusts me just to contemplate. Sex is like food — the species could not survive without each of them, but how desires manifest themselves in different people varies. (Yes, gay sex does not procreate; but people have been known to eat non-nutritive foods as well!) And now, as gay people are getting more and more accepted (a lesbian has a good chance at being the next Mayor of New York!), there is less and less reason to consider a same-sex attraction as “unusual.” People can simply love whomever they want to love.

But transsexualism is another story. Bradley Manning will never be able to have a cell in his body (other than the sperm cells in his testicles) that has anything other than an XY chromosome type. Even if they cut off those testicles and his other male organs, and give him all the estrogens he asks for, he will still be genetically male, and he will never be able to function sexually as a female. He will simply be a castrated male, dressed in woman's clothes. No act on earth is possible that will make him anything other than that. So what does he get by adopting a female identity? I suppose, the right to go around in a dress. It's not the right to marry a man — twelve states already give him that, and more will follow, while the others probably would not even if he undergoes the sex-change operation.

Kearney's policy is “call someone what they want to be called.” Mine is “call them what they really are, if I know it.” And what they really are is in their genes.

Obamacare and the First Amendment

The Obamacare assault on our Constitutional rights has not been settled by last year's Supreme Court decision that the penalties under the individual mandate were constitutional because of Congress's taxing authority. The next front is posited on the First Amendment — can someone be forced to provide coverage that runs counter to their religious beliefs? And a post dated August 22, 2013 by Sam Baker on the site of “The Hill,” entitled “ObamaCare birth control mandate on fast track to Supreme Court,” shows what is coming up:

ObamaCare's birth control mandate is putting the president's signature legislative issue on a fast track back to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers on both sides of the issue say the high court will almost certainly have to rule on the controversial policy, possibly as early as its next term.

Two federal appeals courts have come down with opposite rulings on an important question related to the policy: whether for-profit businesses and their owners have the right to challenge in court the requirement that businesses provide contraception as part of their insurance coverage.

“I think it’s likely the Supreme Court is going to end up deciding this thing, and the question is when,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has organized many of the 60-plus lawsuits challenging the contraception mandate.

The different rulings by the two federal appeals courts significantly increase the likelihood the mandate will end up with the Supreme Court, possibly with a ruling just two years after the justices ruled ObamaCare’s insurance mandate was constitutional.

Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports the contraception mandate, said it’s “likely” the Supreme Court could hear oral arguments in its next term, depending on the timing of appeals.

“I would anticipate, when there’s this much activity … that the court will hear one of these,” Melling said.

Last month, a panel of judges on the 3^rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the owners of a for-profit corporation who sued to block the mandate.

Members of the Hahn family, which owns a cabinet-making firm called Conestoga, said complying with the contraception requirement would violate their Mennonite faith.

But the 3^rd Circuit said the family could not sue over a policy that applies to its company.

“Since Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything,” the court said. “All responsibility for complying with the Mandate falls on Conestoga.”

The owners’ religious beliefs do not “pass through” to the corporation they own, the court said in its ruling.

“The Hahn family chose to incorporate and conduct business through Conestoga, thereby obtaining both the advantages and disadvantages of the corporate form. We simply cannot ignore the distinction between Conestoga and the Hahns,” the court said.

The ACLU’s Melling said the 3^rd Circuit got it right. The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to individuals, she said, not businesses.

“Corporations don’t pray and have values,” Melling said.

Alliance Defending Freedom, the group representing Conestoga and the Hahns, has vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Matt Bowman, the alliance’s legal director, said the group will file its appeal as soon as possible.

“We are hopeful that the court will take this because whether families can exercise religion in their daily lives is an extremely important issue, and it can’t be an issue that has a different answer based on what part of the country you live in,” Bowman said in an interview.

ObamaCare’s birth control mandate requires most employers to include contraception in their employees’ healthcare plans without charging a co-pay or deductible.

Churches and houses of worship are completely exempt. Religious-affiliated employers, like Catholic schools and hospitals, don’t have to offer or pay for the coverage themselves, but their insurance companies still have to make it available without cost-sharing.

Most lawsuits against the mandate have been filed by religious-affiliated institutions, but some for-profit corporations without a religious mission have also sued, citing the religious beliefs of their owners.

Critics of the mandate won an important victory in June, when the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June that the owners of Hobby Lobby, a chain of arts-and-crafts stores, could sue to block the mandate from applying to their company.

“Would an incorporated kosher butcher really have no claim to challenge a regulation mandating non-kosher butchering practices?” the 10^th Circuit asked. “The kosher butcher, of course, might directly serve a religious community … But we see no reason why one must orient one’s business toward a religious community to preserve Free Exercise protections.”

It’s possible the court could simply agree to hear the Conestoga case, but legal experts said they’re primarily keeping an eye on the Hobby Lobby suit.

How quickly the mandate makes it to the Supreme Court will likely depend on whether and when the Justice Department files an appeal in the Hobby Lobby case, they said.

“I assume they are eager to get this thing resolved,” the Becket Fund’s Rienzi said. His organization represents Hobby Lobby.

Justice could forego a quick appeal and let the issue continue to play out in lower courts. Neither the 3^rd Circuit nor the 10^th Circuit actually ruled on the merits of whether the contraception policy is constitutional, and similar lawsuits are still pending in two more circuits.

For either case to make it onto the docket in the court’s next term, Justice would need to file its appeal by about Sept. 25, legal observers said.

If the court agrees to hear the case, oral arguments would likely take place early next year and a decision would come by next summer — about two years after the court’s landmark ruling upholding the law’s central provisions.

“I’m just assuming that the court is going to hear one of these cases,” the ACLU’s Melling said.

Obamacare is so complex and involves so many convoluted relationships that it may end up with enough pieces ruled unconstitutional that enforcing it will be impossible. And that may be the path to repealing it.

The irony of it all!

I received an e-mail message today. It purported to come from our execrable Governor, Martin O'Malley, though I imagine it was actually written and sent by some staff person. The burden of the message was that Chris Christie is a terrible person, and an appeal for funds to support his Democratic opponent, Barbara Buono.

I don't know how I managed to get on that particular mailing list — I presume because I signed a pro-marriage-equality petition — but the irony of this is amazing. First of all, Martin O'Malley's support for any candidate is hardly a positive, in my opinion. Governor O'Malley has done only two things I liked in the term and a half of his administration: supported the so-called “Purple Line” (a mass transit proposal that's been in the works for 25 years) and pushed for marriage equality. I've been against just about everything he's put through, except for those two. Almost the first thing he did on taking office was to raise the sales tax by 20%. He's also pressed to have illegal aliens given resident status in paying tuition at state institutions, and to end the death penalty. So an endorsement by O'Malley is reason for me to go the opposite way anyway. But Christie is a favorite of mine. I want to see him win big this year, so he will be in a good position to win the nomination for the Presidency in 2016. I don't have the money to give to campaigns, but if I did, and if I gave to anyone in the New Jersey election, it would be to Christie, not to his opponent!

That e-mail went, of course, into the trash folder. But I wish I could send something back to whoever put me on that mailing list, laughing in his face. (Hitting "unsubscribe" got me a screen that says “Forbidden.” Could this be a violation of the law?)

Wishful thinking

A post on the USA Today website quotes Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius as saying that “[t]he fight over the future of the 2010 health care law has moved from repeal… to how to make it work in time for the opening of health care exchanges Oct. 1.” Secretary Sebelius is engaging in wishful thinking. There will continue to be pressure to repeal the bill. And since President Obama will veto any repeal legislation (assuming a newly constituted Senate, after next year's elections, goes along with the House and passes it), the fight to repeal will continue until a new President is elected in 2016 (hopefully, Chris Christie).

There is no way the bill will work as promised to the American people… by Oct. 1 of this year, or ever. And Secretary Sebelius will eventually have to admit this.

Cory Booker

The results of yesterday's New Jersey primary show that Newark Mayor Cory Booker is the Democratic nominee, and given that he is running in an exceedingly blue state, almost certain to be the next junior Senator from New Jersey. Mayor Booker will sit in the Senate, in the city of his birth, shortly after the October special election. And already he is being described as destined for bigger things. (Hopefully, however, they do not choose to nominate him for the Presidency after less than one term in the Senate, as they did another African-American senator by the name of Barack Obama!)

I see no likelihood of my actually voting for him for the Presidency — he is still a liberal Democrat. But should he run, he is already, at this time, a better choice than our current incumbent. He has been a competent mayor of one of the more difficult cities to govern. Newark before Booker was much like Detroit. Under his mayorship it has greatly improved. And he has shown a willingness to give credit to people that liberal Democrats usually do not — to Republicans like Governor Chris Christie, and to Wall Street financial types, as during the last presidential campaign — far more than our current incumbent.

If I were a New Jerseyite, I would vote for Booker's opponent, Steve Lonergan, in October. But I'd be far less agitated when Booker won than I am by the two Senators I actually have, Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin.

Now he admits it

It seems that Harry Reid has let the cat out of the bag. When the bill that became Obamacare was being written, people like Sen. Joe Lieberman were opposed to a “public option,” which was obviously a foot in the door for Canada-style “single payer“ health insurance. So Obamacare was deliberately intended as a temporary stop-gap, and such people as Harry Reid intended all along that a “single payer” plan is the ultimate goal for them. He's now admitted as much.

More reason we need to fight tooth and nail to turn bach this move. Canada's single-payer plan is not what we want. It causes long delays for people wanting medical treatments. It leads to hospitals having insufficient facilities. (For example, Canada has only ¼ as many MRI scanning machines per capita as the USA.)

Do we want Canadian-style single-payer health care here? I'm sure most of us do not. And with Harry Reid's remarks showing what the Democrats really have in mind, we need to block Obamacare as firmly as possible.

Filling in the details

Yesterday I said that the amount of money Jeff Bezos paid for The Washington Post was unknown. It has now been disclosed: $250 million.

Two major newspapers get new owners

Yesterday I read that The Boston Globe, which had been owned by The New York Times since 1993, had been sold to John Henry, who currently owns the Boston Red Sox and a soccer team. And today I read that Jeff Bezos (the founder of Amazon.com), has bought The Washington Post. These are major players in the United States' newspaper business; what do these sales mean?

For one thing, it has been noted that when the Times bought the Globe, they paid over a billion dollars, while John Henry paid only $70 million to purchase it. This is a sign that the Globe, at least, has lost over 90% of its value; many people point to this and say that the newspaper business is in general a dying one. But I can't imagine that John Henry would pay $70 million just to fold the Globe; he must expect that he can do something with it. And Jeff Bezos certainly must feel that The Washington Post is viable; he is not accustomed to throwing money down the drain, but he is known for nurturing an unprofitable company for years in the hope that he can make it profitable.

The amount that Bezos will pay to buy the Post has not been divulged, and since it was last sold in the 1930s, there is no easy comparison, as there was for the Globe, of past and present values. But in both cases, it is clear that the new owners have gambled that newspapers can still function. It will be interesting to follow both papers' fortunes.

Redefining marriage?

I have held that opening up marriage to same-sex couples hardly qualifies as “redefining” it. But an interesting post, essentially, takes the bull by the horns: suppose it is true that we are “redefining” marriage? The author of the post, a rabbi named Joseph Meszler, responds with a thoughtful post on the Daily Beast site entitled “Redefine Marriage? Absolutely”:

About 2,000 years ago, a group of radicals called rabbis sought to redefine marriage. "Traditional marriage" at the time looked something like this:

Two families of similar socio-economic status sought to preserve their wealth by arranging a marriage between their children. They negotiated a deal with conditions that included a dowry as well as obligations on the woman to provide for her husband's home. In fact, in much of the literature of the time, she was simply referred to as his bayit — his house — the absolute homemaker.

Sometime after the betrothal, she was marched under a wedding canopy from her father's house safely into her new husband's home (or more likely to her father-in-law's house as the husband was probably only an adolescent and not yet independent).

If she failed to please him, the husband could hand his wife a bill of divorce. (She could not do so if the reverse was true.) This could potentially leave the girl — and she was most likely still a girl — impoverished.

Because of the risk of women being left destitute, the rabbis intervened and created a document called a ketubah. This document became mandatory for all weddings. It was basically a prenuptial agreement that a wedding was not a casual affair but was rooted in a time and place with witnesses. The groom had an obligation to his wife, and she had rights as well. And if he wanted to divorce her, he was required to pay her a certain sum of money in order to protect her from poverty. A court could enforce the payment of her ketubah.

The ketubah back then still defined women according to their status (with less of a payment if the woman was a divorcee or widow) that today we would find offensive. But make no mistake: by creating the first prenuptial agreement and advocating for women's rights, the ketubah redefined marriage.

A different revolutionary move happened later in the Middle Ages. Church law and Jewish law began to forbid men from having more than one wife. In the history of Judaism, this prohibition happened definitively in the 10^th century by Rabbi Gershon. This, too, eventually became the norm.

An equally important effort is being made today to allow same-sex marriage. As I argue in my book, “A Man's Responsibility: A Jewish Guide to Being a Son, A Partner in Marriage, a Father, and a Community Leader” (Jewish Lights Publishing, 2008), while some say same-sex marriage flies in the face of tradition (and it absolutely contradicts certain passages of Scripture and a long legal legacy), we should ask ourselves what tradition looks like. How selective do we want to be when we refer to “traditional” marriage? Do we include arranged marriages for children? Polygamy? Doesn't tradition also include the revolutions that took place as we grew in knowledge and wisdom?

Scripture rejects the act of sex between those of the same gender. But we have learned a great deal since then and must always learn anew from our Scripture and the world around us with the minds God has given us. Just as our rituals are hallowed by time, we must be careful because prejudice and violence are also very old as well. And shouldn't we keep in mind Scripture also says we are all made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27)?

We need to redefine marriage to include gay and lesbian couples with the same vigor that the rabbis introduced the ketubah and legislators banned polygamy. We should see same-sex marriage as the latest revolution in the creation of unions sanctified by God. It is a repudiation of prejudice and oppression and an affirmation of human rights. It brings the support of community into the private lives of two people who love each other. It also affirms that we reinvent traditional practices as human beings struggle to morally progress and evolve.

If only we were as brave as the rabbis were back then.

Now, since the author of this post is a rabbi, it is clear that at least some of the clergy in my own, Jewish, religion are comfortable with same-sex marriage. And certainly some Christian clergy are as well. So the argument that it goes against God's law holds no water: no single religious belief is supposed to take precedence over any other, according to the First Amendment. I must say to those who argue against it on the “God's law” ground: “Even if you believe it is contrary to God's law, other people believe otherwise, and their opinion needs to be taken into account as well, per the First Amendment!” Same-sex marriage, despite what some people have posted, infringes nobody's religious freedom, but banning it actually does infringe.

The marriage front advances

Now that the Supreme Court has repealed DOMA, so that the Federal Government recognizes same-sex marriages where the people live in a state that does, obviously the next step is to have more states recognize them. As I said in a post at the end of last month, I thought the best way to proceed was to use an Article IV argument, and at least in some states (Pennsylvania and Ohio) this is how they are going. The Ohio case is of some interest because a couple came here, to Maryland, to marry. (This was a case of the sort that I thought was less likely to succeed; they were really Ohioans, but just went to a state where they could marry specifically for that purpose. So this will be a real test of how well the Art. IV argument works.) So far, a Federal District Court judge has bought the Art. IV argument. Will this case go higher? To the Supreme Court? Only the state of Ohio can decide — as they might appeal this courageous decision.

And yet, there are people who want to stand in the way. A post by Shane Vander Hart, entitled “Federal Judge Ignores Ohio’s Marriage Amendment,” seems to think Art. IV does not apply, because marriage between a man and a woman is something special:

This is a sad circumstance, no doubt, but yes Ohio can. They have a Constitutional Amendment that forbids marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples and for their marriages to be recognized in the state of Ohio. The Supreme Court, when it struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage, act did state that the definition of marriage has traditionally been up to states. Ohio doesn’t have to recognize marriages between cousins and involving minors if they chose not to, but the difference with those is that they are involving – one man and one woman. Judge Black is comparing apples to oranges.

This is exactly why the Federal Defense of Marriage act was passed so other states would not be forced to adopt another state’s redefinition of marriage. This is an example of why it would have been helpful for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on California’s Proposition 8. Can Federal judges ignore or overturn state constitutional amendments? I’d say in most circumstances no they shouldn’t unless there is a compelling Constitutional argument that a person’s enumerated rights spelled out in the Constitution are violated. There is no right to redefine marriage or, frankly, even a right to a marriage license. I know some would argue the government shouldn’t even issue marriage licenses – I can sympathize with that viewpoint, but the horse is already out-of-the-barn on that. It’s instances like fuel that help make the case for a Federal marriage amendment if Federal courts continue to insert themselves.

States have always been able to determine their own marriage laws and issuing marriages licenses to one man and one woman is demonstrating equal protection under the law. Every man and every woman in states like Ohio have the ability to marry one (willing) spouse of the opposite sex – provided it’s not an incestuous relationship and they are not minors.

But in fact, the judge's decision rests, among other things, on the fact that Ohio has honored marriages performed in other states between first cousins (considered incestuous under Ohio law) and people who were considered minors under Ohio law! Mr. Vander Hart even quotes ABC News, although the actual source is the Associated Press:

In his ruling, Black said that historically, Ohio law has recognized out-of-state marriages as valid as long as they were legal where they took place, pointing to marriages between cousins and involving minors.

So Mr. Vander Hart is undermining his own argument by the last sentence of the quoted portion (which I emphasized in blue) of his post.

And, I note, Mr. Vander Hart uses the phrase “another state’s redefinition of marriage.” I don't understand how anybody is “redefining marriage,” when all they have done is open it up to a larger class of people. As I said on July 11,

[Michael] Geer (the president of Pennsylvania Family Institute) is, as conservatives try to do, defining this as a “redefinition of marriage”: but it is hardly a real redefinition; it is simply redefining who is eligible. When the vote was extended to 18 year olds, it did not “redefine” an election; it simply made more people eligible. This is no different.

Why do conservatives like Mr. Vander Hart think it is so important that same-sex couples not be afforded equal marriage rights? Well, it is telling that the blog on which he made the post has the subtitle “Stimulating Christian conservative news and commentary.” He is not just “conservative,” but his commentary is from a “Christian” angle. And there's the rub. No matter what Christians like to say, this is not “a Christian nation.” It is a pluralistic nation, with a First Amendment that recognizes all religions as equal — even atheism! Mr. Vander Hart wants to impose “Christian values” — and not just any sort of “Christian values,” but the values of his particular version of Christianity (since some Christian churches are willing to accept same-sex marriage!) — on all of us, regardless of our own religious values.

The one thing that no “Christian conservative” has been able to demonstrate to me is how allowing same-sex couples to marry affects, in any way, the rights of opposite-sex married couples. And that would be the only justification for restricting them.

What a crock!

Norman Ornstein wrote an article, dated July 24, on the National Journal site entitled “The Unprecedented — and Contemptible — Attempts to Sabotage Obamacare” The main burden of the article is in the following excerpt:

When a law is enacted, representatives who opposed it have some choices (which are not mutually exclusive). They can try to repeal it, which is perfectly acceptable—unless it becomes an effort at grandstanding so overdone that it detracts from other basic responsibilities of governing. They can try to amend it to make it work better—not just perfectly acceptable but desirable, if the goal is to improve a cumbersome law to work better for the betterment of the society and its people. They can strive to make sure that the law does the most for Americans it is intended to serve, including their own constituents, while doing the least damage to the society and the economy. Or they can step aside and leave the burden of implementation to those who supported the law and got it enacted in the first place.

But to do everything possible to undercut and destroy its implementation—which in this case means finding ways to deny coverage to many who lack any health insurance; to keep millions who might be able to get better and cheaper coverage in the dark about their new options; to create disruption for the health providers who are trying to implement the law, including insurers, hospitals, and physicians; to threaten the even greater disruption via a government shutdown or breach of the debt limit in order to blackmail the president into abandoning the law; and to hope to benefit politically from all the resulting turmoil—is simply unacceptable, even contemptible. One might expect this kind of behavior from a few grenade-throwing firebrands. That the effort is spearheaded by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate—even if Speaker John Boehner is motivated by fear of his caucus, and McConnell and Cornyn by fear of Kentucky and Texas Republican activists—takes one's breath away.

What he seems to ignore is the fact that this law — enacted after the people of such a blue state as Massachusetts chose Scott Brown to the Senate primarily to prevent Obamacare from becoming law, by using a parliamentary maneuver to bypass the Senate's rules — is, in the mind of the Republicans who are trying to derail it, a terrible law that will ruin the economy (and, in fact, has already hurt it seriously). Why should anyone do otherwise than to sabotage it, given a President and Senate which will resist repeal? Suppose the shoe were on the other foot, Dr. Ornstein: there were a law on the books that you felt was seriously going to hurt the economy, and there was no way to patch it to eliminate its flaws. Would you simply acquiesce? These Republicans were elected for a reason, and that reason was that the voters trusted them to do right by the country. And, in their opinion — and that of the majority of the country, according to polls — the bill hurts the country, and it should be repealed, not strengthened.

If President Obama, or the Democrats in the Senate, had been willing to allow the repeal of Obamacare, and the construction of a new act, the Republicans would be remiss if they did not go along. But this is not the case, and sabotaging this act is the only course possible.

The moderates awake in the GOP? I hope so.

A post by Sahil Kapur titled “Senate Republicans Splinter As Moderates Rise Up,” on the “Talking Points Memo” site, dated July 19, 2013, recently came to my attention. I would like to quote it here:

Whether it’s immigration reform, the budget, or President Obama’s nominees, a faction of more moderate Republican senators are increasingly splitting from both their leadership and the tea party and partnering with Democrats on key issues.

The growing signs of division are remarkable after years of exceptional Senate GOP unity under the reign of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), during which minority use of the filibuster to thwart governance has soared to unprecedented heights.

This week, large numbers of Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), broke with McConnell and voted with Democrats to secure the confirmation of controversial Obama nominees to the Labor Department, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In all eight cloture and confirmation votes, McConnell voted “no.”

The most controversial nominee so far, Tom Perez for labor secretary, overcame a GOP filibuster by the thinnest of margins, 60-40. The six Republicans who joined Democrats in his favor, whom Democrats will look to for cooperation on other matters, were Sens. McCain, Bob Corker (TN), Lamar Alexander (TN), Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL)[,] and Lisa Murkowski (AK).

In a clear sign of boiling rank-and-file frustration, Corker reportedly cried “bullshit” loudly while McConnell was discussing the issue of nominations and Democrats’ nuclear option threat during a closed-door GOP meeting on Wednesday. He later declined to apologize for it and said he’s “glad that that occurred.”

On immigration, 14 Republicans joined every Democrat in voting to comprehensively overhaul the system and offer unauthorized immigrants a path to citizenship.

On the budget, numerous Republican senators are urging conservative colleagues to stop blocking conference negotiations with the House, and are pushing for a long-term budget agreement with Democrats that includes new revenues — anathema to the tea party.

McCain has led the dissent in each of these cases, earning effusive praise from leading Democratic senators and prompting jokes this week by Democratic aides that he is the new minority leader.

John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, pointed to three apparent factors in the divisions: “[S]incere preferences about policy,” the outcome of the 2012 election, and the fact that some senators “value the institutions of the Senate.”

“They want to Senate to work better than it has been, and believe that confirming presidential nominees is part of that,” he said. “And they also value the filibuster, too. They want to preserve that feature of the Senate, and so a compromise on nominees was better than Reid’s using the nuclear option.”

Complicating matters for leadership is that McConnell and his No. 2, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), are both unpopular at home and face reelection next year. As a result, they’re working to ward off primary challengers by voting against Democratic initiatives as much as possible and avoiding the appearance of working with President Obama. That makes it harder for them to balance the concerns of rank and file members, who watched their party get crushed in a second consecutive presidential election and aren’t eager to spend another four years obstructing.

But it remains to be seen whether the divisions will usher in a new era of Senate cooperation, as McCain strikes a conciliatory posture with his 2008 rival on upcoming battles involving the debt ceiling and nominees to the influential D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On nominations, McConnell had sought to so vastly redefine the parameters of a Senate minority’s obstructionist muscle that the beating he took this week ultimately amounts to a battle lost in a war he’s still comfortably winning. On immigration, senior Republicans tacitly gave reform their blessing, seemingly for the sake of the party, even as they voted against the legislation. On the budget, the larger GOP divisions are between the Senate (where members are less enthusiastic about massive spending cuts) and the House.

For me, this is a mixture of good news and bad news. A GOP contingent that fragments is less likely to prevent the Democrats from getting their way. But this group of moderates is a group whose positions I generally like, and I'd like to see them have more influence in the GOP. Sen. McCain, of course, was my choice for President in 2008, and I still believe he'd have made a better choice as President than the man in the office now. Sen. Alexander is another one I've liked a long time: he was my second choice for the nomination after Bob Dole in 1996. Sen. Collins has been, for a while, my favorite Senator, since Sen. Arlen Specter left the GOP and became a Senate Democrat. And Sens. Kirk and Murkowski have had the courage to buck the social conservatives and endorse marriage equality. Additionally, Sen. Murkowski ran a successful write-in campaign when a far-right candidate took the GOP nomination away from her — an amazing feat of political courage. So it is clear that I'm rooting for this moderate group.

The effect of partisanship

There are organizations that give liberal/conservative ratings to politicians. And in terms of how they vote, they are probably accurate. But the effect of partisan affiliation has to be taken into account, and usually is not.

Case in point: The National Journal's rankings are given for Senators, based on their votes. If one leaves out Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is no longer serving, the most liberal Republican is Susan Collins of Maine, with a 45% liberal, 55% conservative score. The most conservative Democrat is Joe Manchin of West Virginia, with a 47.7% liberal, 52.3% conservative score. (It appears that the National Journal uses the same votes to determine the two scores, as they always add to 100%.) Doesn't look like there's a lot of difference, right? And once the Senate is organized, probably true.

But that “once the Senate is organized” caveat is important. For Sen. Collins will reliably vote for Mitch McConnell's team to organize the Senate. And Sen. Manchin will just as reliably vote for Harry Reid's team. And who wins will have a major impact on what the Senate will do. So there's a lot more than 2.7 percentage points' difference in their effect on the Senate.

Chick-fil-A and contraception

The heading to my blog includes the words:

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Although nobody has called me on it, a few moments before posting this note I was standing in a shower and it occurred to me that I've taken two positions that some might assail as inconsistent:

1. On the one hand, I've been boycotting Chick-fil-A for years: not because of their stance on gay marriage, but because they enforce the Christian Sabbath on all franchisees, of any religion, but
2. On the other hand, I've defended Catholic institutions which refuse to provide contraception in their insurance plans, and thus incur fines under “Obamacare”

But this is not as inconsistent as many people might believe. The difference between Chick-fil-A and the Catholic institutions, both of which want to impose their religious beliefs on others, is a major one: the role of Government.

Chick-fil-A has every right to do what it is doing as an expression of the Cathy family's First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. And I have the right, under that same First Amendment, to boycott them on religious grounds. I do not have the power to make Chick-fil-A pay millions of dollars in fines as a consequence of their behavior. All I can do is withhold my dollars, and the dollars of anyone else who reads my position and decides to take the same step that I have, from Chick-fil-A. If the Cathy family chooses to continue, they still can, without my patronage.

The Catholic institutions are in a different position. It isn't just a boycott by pro-women's-rights groups that they are facing; it is a fine, imposed by the Government of the United States of America. I don't defend their position; I certainly would not consider contraception immoral, though I've never used it in the past (because, when I was engaging in marital relations with my wife, I wanted children, though they never happened.)

Both Chick-fil-A and the Catholic institutions have every right to let the principles of their religion guide the way they run their businesses. But individuals like myself have a right to boycott businesses who do that in a way we dislike. And Government has no business interfering with either of those rights.

Heather Mizeur

Delegate Heather Mizeur just announced her candidacy for the Governorship of Maryland. She was one of the three Delegates from a legislative district where I used to live. And she addressed a group (an advocacy group for better public transit) to which I belong earlier this year, so I've actually gotten to meet her and speak with her. (At the meeting, she was introduced as a likely candidate for Governor next year, so her announcement was no surprise.) The one thing that I wonder is, is Maryland ready to elect a lesbian to the Governorship? For Mizeur's being one is no secret; she's been out a long time.

Maryland tends to be liberal on LGBT issues. It passed a same-sex marriage law, and when this law was challenged by right-wing opponents, became one of two first states (Maine and Maryland voted the same day, so neither has an exclusive claim to be first) where same-sex marriage was instituted by popular vote. Besides Mizeur, there are seven other openly gay state legislators in Annapolis (one of whom is my own State Senator, Richard Madaleno).

Readers of this blog know I supported the ballot question on gay marriage, so I'm not saying that Mizeur's lesbianism is a reason to oppose her. I merely question whether she can get sufficient support to be elected. In fact, if she gets nominated, I obviously will not support her, not because she's a lesbian, but because she is strongly pro-organized labor and very liberal on other issues that put us on opposite sides. But at this time, she has a steep climb. Her opposition in the Democratic primary will include two people who both hold higher offices (and thus may claim they're more qualified): Maryland's Attorney General, Doug Gansler, and Lieutenant-Governor, Anthony Brown. Brown, also, is trying to become Maryland's first African-American Governor, so he may well gain votes from that community, just as did President Obama, out of racial solidarity. (Actually, he's like Obama, the child of a mixed-race marriage, and unlike the President, doesn't even look very African — but he certainly identifies as a member of that group.) I don't get to vote in a Democratic primary, so I can only observe the Mizeur/Gansler/Brown conflict, but it's clear she is hardly going to have an easy task. But it will be interesting to watch.

Racism?

People are saying — at least African-American people are saying — that George Zimmerman got off because he was white (actually, of course, he was Hispanic, at least on his mother's side) and Trayvon Martin was black. I've seen it written that if the races were reversed, there would have been a guilty verdict. I'm not so sure.

I remember, a few years ago, another trial. An African-American defendant killed two white people, one being his wife. And a court acquitted him. Remember O. J. Simpson? When the verdict came out in that trial, it was white people who were complaining about a miscarriage of justice, and African-Americans saying justice was done.

What we are seeing is not a racist America. (It certainly is a racially divided America, when a strong majority of white people voted for Mitt Romney last year, but the African American community was nearly unanimous behind Barack Obama for the second successive Presidential election.) The trial, and the O. J. Simpson trial, point out the way our criminal justice system works. The burden of proof is on the prosecution; the presumption of innocence favors the defense. Even if there is a lot of evidence showing that a murder occurred, if there is a “reasonable doubt,” the jury is supposed to acquit. And in both trials, the prosecution failed to make its case properly.

Perhaps this prosecutor was incompetent. At least one column I saw on the net says she was worthy of disbarment. This may be so, but it's too late to fix that. We have rules about “double jeopardy.” Like O. J. Simpson, George Zimmerman may face a civil suit, which may go the other way because the standards for evidence are weaker. But he cannot be tried for murder again.

One of the few sensible comments on the Zimmerman trial

Although Derek Hunter's column at Townhall.com is dated July 14, 2013, it was apparently written before the verdict came out on George Zimmerman. But it still strikes me as the most sensible comment I've read on the whole series of events:

Can I just say something controversial that must be said? I don’t care about the George Zimmerman trial. I don’t, not even a little. That’s not to say I don’t feel sorry for those involved who’ve lost a loved one, I do. One family lost a child to a gun, the other lost a child to a mob. One is in eternal rest far too soon, the other will never know rest in all his remaining days. But that doesn’t mean I should care about it, nor should you.

Sympathize away, but being invested emotionally while not being a friend or family member of anyone involved is irrational and dangerous.

But an emotional investment is exactly what every news outlet in the country wants you to have. There’s money in it and it fits their progressive agenda.

From the first moment the MSNBC prime-time clown car metaphorically emptied into Sanford, Florida, an agenda was set in motion to manipulate as many people as possible into believing things that were not true. But they weren’t alone.

While progressives tried to paint a picture of racism to fit their needed narrative of an America where the Klan roam the streets and hold public office (as Democrats, a part of their past they always conveniently omit), many conservatives attempted to prove that there is no circumstance under which George Zimmerman shares at least a slice of the blame pie.

The progressive case goes something like this: Trayvon Martin, a black 17 year old, went to the store to buy candy and a drink. On his way home, this black teenager, was racially profiled by a “white” Hispanic guy, who followed him with the intention of killing him for being black. He provoked Trayvon into punching him in the nose and banging his head on the sidewalk so he could shoot him. Diabolical. Oh, and did I mention Trayvon Martin is black?

The conservatives who care present a case probably closer to the truth, but no less speculative. A generally good guy was looking out for his neighborhood and saw someone he didn’t recognize walking in an odd place. With the neighborhood having suffered its fair share of crime, he called the police and, trying to be extra helpful, set out on foot to follow a guy walking home. Trayvon decided to confront the “creepy-ass cracker” stalking him by jumping out of the bushes and punching him in the face. Zimmerman, completely overpowered and fearing for his life, shot Martin in self-defense.

Actually, the meat of the column is the next short paragraph:

The truth is somewhere in the middle and nowhere as clear-cut. There were dozens of opportunities for this not to happen, Zimmerman could’ve not gotten out of his car, Martin could have not decked him, etc. But they did. Someone’s dislike of these facts doesn’t make them any less so.

As I read somewhere else on the Net, there were two idiots acting idiotically. Either one could have ended the confrontation, and Trayvon Martin would be alive today, and George Zimmerman would have gone back to his ordinary life. But, continuing with the column:

So we’re left with a dead kid and a man on trial. This happens all the time in the world, but it doesn’t get this much attention.

Over the 4^th of July weekend, the city of Chicago had 74 people shot, 12 died. One of the shooting victims was a 5-year-old boy. There’s no ambiguity about that. What was that child’s name? What are any of their names? You don’t know because not only were the suspected shooters black, so were the victims. In the progressive media equation of what constitutes news, black on black crime – a tragic epidemic by any normal unit of measure – doesn’t rate.

To the progressive media, who set the narrative tone, a busty blonde being involved in a crime, either as victim or perp, trumps everything else. After that, it’s black victim with a white perpetrator. The list beyond that fades into insignificance until you reach “I don’t know what you’re talking about” level. Under that, tied with “putting your fingers in your ears and shouting ‘lalalala, I’m not listening’ is black on black crime.

You’d think a “civil rights leader” like MSNBC’s Al Sharpton would care since it’s what he claims to care about, but you’d be wrong. There’s not nearly as much camera time and money in scores of bleeding bodies on Chicago’s south side as there is when the perpetrator is white.

Aside from the rank hypocrisy of silence on an ongoing issue of life and death, the Zimmerman trial offered another opportunity for progressives to express distracting outrage to avoid an important issue.

Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, Rachel Jeantel, a 19-year-old high school senior, testified in the case and was mocked for not being able to read cursive handwriting. Progressives were outraged anyone would mock this woman who has obviously gone through Hell. But imagine the good that could come out of her testimony had the progressive media been half as angry at a union dominated public education system that churns out 19-year-olds who can’t read cursive as they were at people who found it odd. Opportunity lost because it didn’t fit the narrative.

The George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case is a tragedy, but it’s not unique or special, it’s simply one that can be exploited. Progressives need people to believe America is a horribly and hopelessly racist nation to justify bigger government and more thought crimes.

If Zimmerman walks or is found guilty, life will continue. That you know about this case in the first place is a testament to just how powerfully manipulative the progressive media is. That you can’t name one person shot in Chicago over a 3-day weekend from a list of 74, or that people aren’t protesting outside of Rachel Jeantel’s school chanting “malpractice,” shows just how effective the corrupt progressive media is.

There are lessons to be learned from everything in life, that’s especially true in the Zimmerman trial. Unfortunately, the progressive media will learn only how to manipulate even better the next time because actually talking about and solving problems for which they’ve appointed themselves champions would put them out of business.

There are so many sensible observations in this column, I just had to quote it here.

The Zimmerman verdict

I haven't been closely following the Zimmerman trial. But it's clear that there were a lot of loose ends. On the one hand, we have the spectacle of an unarmed teenager shot to death while carrying an iced tea and some candy, hardly a lethal weapon. But on the other hand, it seems that there was a good chance he was beating up on Zimmerman. Yet back on the first hand, what might Zimmerman have said or done to provoke Trayvon Martin's attacking him?

We know that Trayvon Martin was a trouble-maker in school, and a drug user. But we also know that George Zimmerman was a hair-trigger type who habitually called 911 for things like a garage door being open. This kind of person should never have been allowed to carry a gun. But Florida is one of those states that takes the Second Amendment — the absolute worst piece of our Constitution — seriously. Florida's “Stand your ground” law will lead to a lot more Trayvon Martins in the future.

Zimmerman was found not guilty. And probably the jury had their “reasonable doubts,” and on that ground the verdict was justified under our judicial system. But the really guilty party is the State of Florida. (Of course, I've said this before, more than a year ago.)

Why "conservative" and "liberal" ideas both seem inconsistent

Most people who consider themselves “conservatives” do not want Government to interfere with their rights to carry guns, but they seem happily unconcerned with Government telling other people who they can marry — certainly they cannot marry another person of the same sex, “conservatives” want to insist. In other words, they want the freedom to do what they want to do, but they get apoplexy when others want the freedom to do different things.

But it isn't just “conservatives” who entertain inconsistent ideas. “Liberals” think it's a great idea to force Catholic institutions to pay for their employees' contraception contrary to Catholic doctrine — in other words, to subsidize what those institutions consider immoral — but they oppose making taxpayers help support private religious schools. So here, making people pay to subsidize something they oppose is “bad.”

It's reasons like this that make me reluctant to go with either the “liberals” or the “conservatives.” And it's why this blog does not consistently echo a “conservative” line, but tries to select the best “conservative” ideas and the best “liberal” ideas and merge them.

A response to a commenter on the blog

One reader commented on my April 10, 2012 post by saying:

2 of your 3 stated principles are in error. The government has one function only: to provide the people with an environment that is free from force, so that they can live freely… it is not a govt function to provide goods that the people can't or won't provide themselves… the gov't has no place in industry… [L]incoln was totally wrong in his statement that gov't may provide goods if it can do so at a cheaper price… that would place the gov't in direct and unfair competition with private industry.

This comment really does not refer to my post, but, as his reference to Lincoln shows, to my statement of principles at the top of the blog. The commenter is certainly entitled to his opinion, and this is an example of an extreme libertarianism that, at first glance, looks good. It would be nice if the Government could confine itself to “provid[ing] the people with an environment that is free from force, so that they can live freely.” But there are simply too many inequalities of position to make that possible. When the railroad companies, in the 1960's and even earlier, decided that they could not make a profit by running passenger trains, the Government needed to step in and create Amtrak. There was no way that a single passenger could build a new passenger rail line, buy the trains, hire the crews, and provide himself with a train ride from one city to another. When an individual (or an individual company) has such a control of resources that, on its own, it can either refuse to provide a product or service or simply price it at a prohibitive rate, and the consumers of that product have no alternative than to go without it, it makes sense for Government to step in. I do not want Government to compete with private industry “unfairly.” But it is not really unfair if the private company refuses to provide a product, although it is able to do so. (And if it cannot make a profit providing that product at a reasonable price, it should welcome Government's stepping in!)

The poster of that comment differs from me. That much is clear. But one freedom we still have is to express our opinions on our respective blog pages. I hope he will accept that I have as much of a right to express my opinions as he does; and after all, he has two separate blogs of his own. We disagree, but let us be civil about it. Statements like “2 of your 3 stated principles are in error” and “[L]incoln was totally wrong” go overboard; all he has a case for saying is that in his opinion, that is so. And I disagree.

Pennsylvania's marriage equality case

An article by Cheryl Wetzstein, entitled “Pennsylvania AG refuses to defend state marriage law,” appeared in the Washington Times. It deserves comment. It begins:

A lawsuit filed this week by gay couples against Pennsylvania’s marriage law got a major boost Thursday when the state’s top law officer said she would not defend the law.

“I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s version of DOMA where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane said at a press conference.

She noted that she could authorize another state official to defend the state in litigation.

Pennsylvania General Counsel James D. Schultz said that his office “was surprised” that Ms. Kane, “contrary to her constitutional duty,” would decide not to defend a lawfully enacted law “merely because of her personal beliefs.”

Interesting. I would assume that “her constitutional duty” would include not defending a law, no matter how “lawfully enacted” it might appear to be, if, in her belief it was contrary to the Constitution of the United States. In fact, she has the duty to ignore any laws that contravene the Constitution.

Mr. Schultz said his office had not received formal notification of her decision yet, but would be reviewing the matter.

Ms. Kane’s announcement mirrors that of U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who, in concert with President Obama, refused to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for the purposes of federal law as only the union of one man and one woman.

And Mr. Holder was justified as well, as the Supreme Court has ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional, as the next few paragraphs of the Times' article helpfully explains:

A lesbian widow sued to overturn that provision of DOMA, and in June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down, saying that refusal to recognize gay couples legally married under state law was unconstitutional.

Now, of course, this is a different issue, involving state laws, and it needs to be resolved separately. But it is still a case of an official being charged with the duty not to violate the Constitution, and until the Supreme Court rules, her opinion on what the Constitution requires must guide her. This is the case in question:

On Monday, 10 same-sex couples and a lesbian widow filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania Gov. Thomas W. Corbett and other state officials, including Ms. Kane, for enforcing Pennsylvania’s marriage DOMA.

Exclusion from marriage “undermines the plaintiff couples’ ability to achieve their life goals and dreams, threatens their mutual economic stability, and denies them a ‘dignity and status of immense import,’” said the American Civil Liberties Union complaint, citing language from its recently won U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor.

The Pennsylvania case, Whitewood v. Corbett, filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, asks that Pennsylvania’s DOMA law also be overturned under the 14^th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.

Other people, of course, believe differently:

Michael Geer, president of Pennsylvania Family Institute, said he and his allies believe Mr. Corbett, who was elected governor in 2010 is on record as supporting Pennsylvania’s marriage law, “will vigorously defend state law” and uphold marriage as “the unique and vital institution that benefits society and children by bringing together moms and dads.”

And if Corbett really believes the law is constitutional, he has to defend the law. However, Geer is acting in a very stupid manner:

If the ACLU thinks public opinion is so strong for gay marriage in Pennsylvania, “why not go through the political process,” where most significant policy decisions are made, Mr. Geer said.

It isn't public opinion that the ACLU is appealing to, it is the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States. After all, there was, in the South, no public support for integration after the Brown v. Board of Education decision. It was simply an equal protection issue. And the ACLU is pursuing, as they have a right to do, this argument.

Instead, they are “short-circuiting the process and trying to get a federal judge to impose this redefinition [of marriage] on Pennsylvania, no matter what the people may think.”

Geer is, as conservatives try to do, defining this as a “redefinition of marriage”: but it is hardly a real redefinition; it is simply redefining who is eligible. When the vote was extended to 18 year olds, it did not “redefine” an election; it simply made more people eligible. This is no different.

Separately on Tuesday, longtime gay-marriage advocate Evan Wolfson said there is “irrefutable momentum” to bring gay marriage throughout America, but it will take a lot of public education and work in each state.

Gay-marriage advocacy groups will work “hand in glove” with litigation groups like the ACLU and Lambda Legal, Mr. Wolfson. But there is also a need for “education on the ground,” he said, noting that Freedom to Marry, the marriage-equality group he founded, is already investing $500,000 in state marriage campaigns.

The first states to be targeted for gay marriage are Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon and Hawaii. After that, gay-marriage campaigns are likely to be held in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, he said.

Pennsylvania’s DOMA, enacted in 1996, says marriage is a “civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife.” It does not permit recognition for marriages between persons of the same sex from other jurisdictions.

Ms. Kane, a Democrat, was elected in 2012 with wide support, partly because she promised to review how the attorney general’s office handled the Jerry Sandusky sex scandal.

It seems ridiculous to me that people spend so much time and trouble defending the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples. It hurts nobody to allow same-sex couples to marry; it'e really a question of “if you don't want to marry another man (or woman if you're a woman), don't marry one!” But there is absolutely no reason, other than hostility toward homosexuals, to oppose marriage equality. I cannot see any one.

How do you address him?

There's a Catholic priest who, at least in the past, has regularly read this blog, and is one of the few who has posted comments. I recently got a “tweet” which he broadcast, in which he mentioned visiting Washington, D. C. on the 4^th of July. I was thinking that it might have been nice to have met him in person and spoken to him. Too bad I didn't know he was in the area. But this made me think of a question, which applies to all Catholic priests I am, or will be, in touch with: How do you address him?

If I were ever to meet President Obama, of course, I would address him as “Mr. President.” There is no question that he is the President of the United States, even though I twice voted for his opponent. If I were to meet a Protestant minister with a Doctor's degree in Divinity, similarly, I would address him as “Dr. So-and-so,” acknowledging his degree, which is a valid doctorate. But the normal mode of address for a Catholic priest is “Father So-and-so,” and this has always been a problem to me, even fifty years ago, when I was in graduate school, and a fellow grad student, also a Catholic priest, became a friend. I had discussed this very question, saying that, since I'm not Catholic, I don't consider him my spiritual father and in no other way is he my father (or anyone else's, given the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood). This priest, fifty years ago, told me to call him “John,” which still was not quite satisfactory to me because it seemed disrespectful to the office. I mostly avoided using any name or title in addressing him.

The priest that I was talking about in the opening sentences of this post is in a slightly different situation. I've been in contact with him, by Internet chat or e-mail, since he was a 13- or 14-year-old boy. I've come to think of him as “Josh,” though he, unlike the other priest, has not suggested I call him that. If he were to say that I should call him by his first name (actually a nickname, since his first name is legally Joshua) I would not find it as difficult as calling the other Catholic priest I mentioned by his first name. But he has not suggested that, and it still seems that there is a dignity to his office that requires a more formal mode of address.

So this is a quandary. What does a non-Catholic call a Catholic priest, whom he does not consider his “father” in a spiritual or any other way, but whom he wants to address with respect?

Lessons from the Declaration of Independence

I used to like to read the Washington Examiner, a free paper which, however, provided all the features one might expect in a real newspaper, without the cost of the two main newspapers in this area. Unfortunately, they ceased publishing last month, which I bemoan. They do, however, still maintain a presence on the Web, and the July 3 virtual issue contained a column by Philip Klein, entitled “What the Declaration of Independence can teach Congress,” which I would like to quote:

As the nation's founding document, the Declaration of Independence produced a number of immortal phrases: “When in the course of human events;” “all men are created equal;” “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

But one phrase that tends to be overlooked in popular celebrations is the most important: “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”

Each year, July 4^th offers Americans an opportunity not only to celebrate but to reflect upon the nation's founding — particularly the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress.

What's amazing about primary author Thomas Jefferson's writing in the document is that it not only lists the grievances that colonists had with England, but it concisely defines the core purpose of government.

At a revolutionary time, with colonists rebelling against a distant tyranny that overtaxed them and meddled in their lives, it would have been quite understandable if they rejected the idea of government altogether.

But what Jefferson's words instruct us is that even at a time of revolution, the nation's Founders viewed some limited measure of government as not only tolerable, but necessary.

That is, in a state of anarchy, rights couldn't exist. There wouldn't be a military to protect individuals from foreign threats; there wouldn't be police forces to prevent people from harming one another; and there wouldn't be a court system to resolve disputes and exact justice on those who harm others.

Certain functions must be delegated to government because it simply isn't feasible for individuals to handle them by themselves. It doesn't make sense, for instance, that every individual would subscribe to his or her own private army or walk around with a personal bodyguard.

The Founders didn't see much of a role for the government beyond securing the most basic, unalienable rights.

In his First Inaugural Address, Jefferson called for “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.”

In the intervening centuries, Americans' concept of the purpose of government has grown dramatically, and the Founders themselves are a part of the reason.

Nothing in this nation's history was a more egregious affront to Jefferson's words than the brutal institution of slavery, in which which many of the Founders, including Jefferson, participated. Furthermore, some of the largest expansions of the federal government's role in American history stemmed from the need to end slavery and to deal with its stubborn legacy. In the process, valid arguments about state sovereignty became tainted by those who used them to justify preserving an inhumane practice and continued racial oppression.

Obviously, at this point, there would be no way for the U.S. government ever to return to the limited purpose articulated in the Declaration of Independence. It would require cutting the federal budget by 75 percent or more and scrapping popular programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

On July 4^th, however, Americans can still reflect on Jefferson's words and the vision for government that they conveyed, even if his own deeds — and those of his generation and succeeding generations — did not live up to them.

Members of Congress should take some time to reflect, as well. And before passing new laws to expand the size and scope of government, they would be wise to ask themselves, “Would this help secure the unalienable rights of American citizens?”

Noble words. But many of the “conservatives” who claim allegiance to Jefferson find it necessary to pass laws restricting abortion, which certainly do not protect anyone's rights (unless you believe an unborn fetus is a “person,” which they claim to do, though I've never seen a one of them hold a funeral for a miscarried fetus, for example!) but do infringe upon the rights of many people, or laws restricting marriage, which again do not protect anyone's rights but seriously restrict the rights of same-sex couples who want to marry. It isn't only Congress who needs to take these words to heart — it is the “conservative” part of the public.

The next development in Egypt

Deposed President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt is saying that it was a “military coup” that deposed him. Literally, it was, but it appears that the military was trying to insure democracy.

Gen. Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, who announced the deposing of Morsi, indicated that the head of Egypt's constitutional court would be the head of Egypt's new government. Al-Sisi has indicated that this would be an inclusive government, with “all factions” represented. To me, if Al-Sisi means what he says, this will not be a military dictatorship, but a democratic government with the military supporting it.

Of course, the proof of the pudding will be how Egypt's new government actually operates. I'm waiting to see.