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.