The Demeanor of the Candidate

 

On Thursday, much of the nation watched a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding Brett Kavanaugh, the current nominee of President Donald Trump for a seat on the Supreme Court, and allegations of sexual misconduct in his youth.  My impression is that people saw the proceedings colored by some combination of political views and personal experience. 

Democratic supporters see the need to investigate the allegations.  Republican supporters see it as a political show where suddenly these allegations surface just before the Senate needs to vote on the nominee.  

Women who’ve been raped or sexually abused (and those who know these women) may be suffering again through the horror of that experience.  Men may be worried that some forgotten event in their teens or twenties might be dredged up and now it’s a he-said-she-said situation.

While I could comment on all the above, I’m wondering if the trump card isn’t Kavanaugh’s demeanor both in his statement (a diatribe against the Democrats) and his emotion and anger.  If I were his lawyer, I wouldn’t want him on the stand.  If I were on the jury, I’d suspect he’s hiding guilt behind this offence of blame, accusations and anger.  As a juror, I’d probably vote “guilty as charged!”

I don’t think anything will stop the majority Republicans in the Senate from seating him on the high court.  I also suspect that the party in part sees him as red meat for the base:  he may be finally the vote that overturns Roe.  Think of that for the Republicans in the mid-terms and 2020:  the short shelf life for Roe added to the tax cut, beating up on trade partners, defense of the National Anthem, severe reduction in immigration, etc.  So much red meat for the base.

Kavanaugh is the poster child for the party of the angry white man!

Government Not Working? Refund Out Taxes!

With the Federal government shut down, can we get a discount on our Federal taxes? 

I'd propose we get a refund 1/365 of our annual taxes for each day the government isn't working.  If the government isn't working, then refund our taxes!

Health Insurance and Working Americans

Breaking news:  the latest Republican health care bill in the US Senate is now 2 votes short of passing.

And so goes on the health care political football.  When the Democrats controlled the Congress and White House, they forced through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Flawed in places and perhaps not stable over time, it let the health care genie out of the bottle.  

For the first time, many working Americans could afford the benefits of health insurance.  The could afford the medicine they need to treat their chronic conditions.  They could feel assured that they were not one bad diagnosis from loosing their home and the job and falling into poverty.  

Cancer, heart attacks, diabetes, stroke:  who knows when they may befall someone.  And without health insurance, any of these could take a productive, working American from a role of being a self-supporting, productive, tax-paying citizen of this land and make them a ward of the state, and burden to taxpayers.

But now the Republicans in Congress and President Trump want to repeal the ACA and replace it with some variation of the various plans that have seen the light of day, each of which would result in so many Americans loosing health insurance.  It seems their idea of freedom is the choice of not getting insurance and either (if you're healthy) spinning the wheel of chance that you stay healthy, or if not so lucky, perhaps unable to afford care, medicine or necessary procedures.

In this case, I don't know why they don't understand that a healthy working American is a productive and tax-paying member of society, something they value.  And for those in America who have to work for a living - which is the vast majority of those who voted for President Trump and those who voted for Hilary Clinton - affordable health insurance helps keep them productive and tax-paying.   Isn't that what Republicans value?

All I can figure is that got themselves twisted like a pretzel:  they couldn't participate in creating the ACA, so they must kill it!  They are convinced that's why they were elected:  to repeal the ACA!

But that's no longer in touch with their constituents.  Affordable health care ensures working Americans can remain productive, self-supporting and tax-paying even if bad health should befall them.

The people want affordable health care!  So, reform the ACA, make it better and sustainable, but don't deprive working Americans of the opportunity to afford health insurance.

Trump, Torture, Terrorism and Other Talk

Donald Trump, now the official candidate of the Republican Party, presents a great number of concerns when it comes to sustaining liberty and freedom for all. After such a long primary process, the two major political parties have nominated the two most candidates with the most negatives.   However, where the concerns about Hillary Clinton are more with judgement and some poor decisions made, the concerns with Trump are in the areas of Constitutional rights and even the Geneva Conventions.  

Libertarians cannot support someone who is opposed to the freedoms given to US citizens under our Constitution.  Libertarians cannot support Trump.

Here are some examples that Trump is anti-liberty.

Opposition to Freedom of the Press

When the press has said anything unfavorable to Trump, he has many times said the press is lying or corrupt.  He has called for an end to Freedom of the Press by allowing for libel suits against reporters and news organizations.  This not allowed under the First Amendment.

Trump does not want to play by the rules.  All elected and appointed officials realize that the First Amendment allows the press to say unfavorable things about any public figure.  

Opposition to Freedom of Speech

In many of his rallies, Trump points out someone with a sign opposing him, and he has the person removed, often rallying the crowd to chant something against that person.  According to CNN, Trump has also said, "There used to be consequences to protesting. There are none anymore. These people are so bad for our country, you have no idea, folks."(1)   This attitude goes against the First Amendment.

Again, Trump does not want to play by the rules.  All elected and appointed officials realize that the First Amendment allows the public to say what is on their minds, including saying things unfavorable things about any public figure, and including public protests against officials.

Opposition to Freedom of Religion

Trump at one point has called for both the closing of mosques and registering of all Muslims in the US.  The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion.  US citizens who are Muslims have their free exercise of religion.  Closing of places of worship or registering the religion of US citizens is against the constitution!

Trump's War on the Constitution

Trump's oppositions to the First Amendment are just one example of his war on the Constitution.  He proposes many controversial ideas including the wall along the Mexican border and the round-up and deportation of millions of the undocumented, likely without due process of law.  While Trump says he loves the Constitution, that love goes only so far as it doesn't stop him from doing whatever he wants to do.

Recently, Khizr Khan at the Democratic Convention asked Trump if he ever read the Constitution.  I doubt he has.

Trump on Torture and Terrorism

Trump's words on terrorism are most disturbing.  He would bring back waterboarding and worse. (2)  While all of his strongly oppose the barbarian cruelty and deliberate murder by terrorists, Torture is never acceptable.  Period!

Trump also wants to murder the families of terrorists. (3)   This is not only illegal, but also immoral!  When told that General Michael Hayden would refuse to follow illegal orders, Trump came back indicating that they will obey him.  Here, again, Trump is proposing to ignore the Constitution and the law.  

Other Trump Talk

Trump, at a number of times, has said things like "I'd like to punch him." and he'd like to punch a number of speakers at the Democratic Convention.  What kind of candidate advocates violence against individuals who speak critical of him?  Certainly no one who should serve in public life.

Mr. Trump:  You don't understand how we do things in this country!  This is America and we are a free people and we are free to speak, even if you don't like it.  The press have the freedom to print the news as they see it, even if you don't like it.  And American citizens have the freedom to express their religions beliefs, even if they are Muslims.  And we live by the rule of law.

If you don't want to live by our Constitution and the laws of the land, I say, Mr. Trump, get with the constitution or get out of the country!  You are not an American!!

References:

(1) http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/opinions/defend-trump-free-speech-opinion-randazza/

(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/17/donald-trump-on-waterboarding-torture-works/

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-reiterates-desire-to-murder-terrorists-families-a6912496.html

Another Big Tuesday

Another Tuesday and five more big states to divide among the final 6 candidates for President.

Word is that at least Marco Rubio, who is unlikely to win his home state of Florida, will likely drop out.  So would John Kasich, if he looses his home state, Ohio, except that he is likely to get the all his winner-takes-all state delegates.

On the Democrat side, Sanders needs to win a few states to his victor doesn't become mathematically impossible.  While Clinton has seemed to be winning more states, the delegate count is still a race:

• Clinton 1,223
• Sanders 574
• Needed for nomination:  2,383

On the Republican side, the delegate race is still very close, with Cruz not so far behind Trump:

• Trump     458
• Cruz       359
• Rubio     151
• Kasich     54
• Needed for nomination:  1,237 

Cruz needs to win a state or two to combine with Kasich winning Ohio to keep Trump short of "inevitable."

The Ides of March will tell where the race is headed.

You Reap What You Sow

Yesterday, a rally for Presidential candidate Donald Trump was cancelled for safety concerns after waves of demonstrators descended upon the venue.  Demonstrators were protesting various statements Trump had made regarding Mexicans, Muslims, and Black Lives Matters supporters.

Trump has been blaming the demonstrators for inciting emotions and denying him of his 1st Amendment right to speak.

However, from a Libertarian standpoint, Trump is wrong on both counts.  

On the 2nd point, everyone has a 1st Amendment right to speak.  Trump does.  The protesters do.  

Trump also has to get used to the fact that as a public figure, he will get protesters and a press that doesn't always swoon at every word that comes out of his mouth.

On the 1st point, it is Trump who has incited emotions:

• "The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” (interview on Fox News’ “Media Buzz,” July 5, 2015, quoted in the Washington Post, July 8, 2015)
• "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."  (Trump campaign press release, quoted by CNN, December 8, 2015)
• "'I'd like to punch him in the face,' Trump said, remarking that a man disrupting his rally was escorted out with a smile on his face."  (reported by CNN February 23, 2016)
• "Knock the crap out of him, would you?" (Trump at a rally, reported by US News & World Report, March 11, 2016)

In recent rallies, a photographer was pushed to the ground when walking from the press area, various protesters were pushed and roughed up by security while being taunted while being removed from the venue, and "a reporter for the conservative website Breitbart, was grabbed by the arm and almost forced to the ground, apparently in an effort to prevent her from asking a question of the candidate." (quoted from a report by US News & World Report, March 11, 2016).

Clearly, these statements and actions foster suspicion and even hatred of protesters, as well as those groups he spoke against (Mexicans, Muslims, blacks).  And Trump cannot claim it's the protesters' fault when it is Trump who has said "I'd like to punch him in the face," and "Knock the crap out of him, would you?"

You reap what you sow!

On the Eve of Super Tuesday

On the night before the first deluge of votes and delegates, the race is pointing to Clinton and Trump to continue their leads.

On the Republican side, Trump leads significantly in delegates:

• Trump 82  6.6%
• Cruz 17    1.4%
• Rubio 16   1.3%
• Kasich 6   less than 1%
• Carson 4  less than 1%

On the Democratic side, it's a virtual landslide:

• Clinton   544 22.9%
• Sanders    85  3.7%

There are no indicators out there in the polls that this pattern won't continue.  You don't need to be a pollster or statistician to predict Wednesday's headlines!

Syria: Crises of Complex Proportions

Syria is a crises that tears at our hearts when we hear of innocent civilians massacred, most recently gassed to death.  Over 100,000 have died, a number equivalent to the population of my home town of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

As Americans, we always ask "What should we do?"  We are a people that like to take action.  I think we feel better about ourselves when we take definitive action.  We like our action movies when the hero takes immediate action and gets back at the enemy.

We are more divided when it comes to nations that are neither our close friends or our enemies.  It took a lot of demonizing of Iraq before the Bush administration pushed for the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.   We were divided about taking action in Kosovo, when we intervened for humanitarian reasons to stop the "ethnic cleansing." 

In the first case, the left generally opposed intervention while in the second, the right was generally non-interventionist.  While there are some who are non-interventionists in all situations, the 2 major political parties seem to see-saw back and forth on the question of when to intervene.

With this landscape, we come to September 2013 and the question of Syria.  President Obama looked like he'd announce a plan of definitive action, likely a missile strike against some Syrian military facility in retribution for stepping over the line with the use of deadly gas.  But, then he pulled back and tossed the hot potato to Congress.  Was this an act of an indecisive leader or a shrewd politician who knew he'd get a 80% negative rating on any decision he could make?  Was he wise to seek political consensus?

Immediately, we saw that Congress is all over the map on what to do in Syria.  Sen. McCain criticized the President for backing down from action, saying it would embolden our enemies.  But other Republicans opposed action, while some were for it depending on certain conditions.  Democrats were also all over the map, from supporting action to saying no military action should be taken under any conditions.  Weariness of the decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also feed into the political debate.  Also, many have a "we won't get fooled again" perspective, recalling how many were duped about Iraq's weapon arsenal in order to justify that war.

What to do?

Any action should be informed by a good understanding of the nation, its issues and its peoples.  This link is one a number of Syria 101 articles that are worth a read.  The article has many links to other articles and videos.

Does it help?

I found that about 50% through it I came to understand why in the US you'll hear about a dozen different perspectives from politicians.  Each tidbit of information on its own might lead to concluding on one approach for intervention or non-intervention.

Taken together, you might come to the same conclusion as Pres. Obama:  let's throw this out there for a debate on the issue.

I keep teetering between non-intervention and the urge to take action against the state-sponsored atrocities from murder of civilians (including children) to the use of deadly gas on civilians.  These are humanitarian crimes that cry out to heaven.  If not us, who will act?

But, I know that while definitive action may feel good, any action, any support for any side may have unanticipated negative consequences.  And increasing the level of warfare may not lead to a workable solution.

My recommendation would be to gather a coalition of our allies, the UN, and the Arab League to negotiate a cease fire and peace talks.  We need to end the bloodshed that is devastating Syria.  But peace, not more warfare, is the way.

A Return to Sanity

In this strange political season, I’m a big supporter for a return to sanity. (And today, thousands are gathering in Washington, DC, for Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.)

This is perhaps best known as the season of the angry voter. The rise of the Tea Party movement is marked by many who are angry at the system, and often angry at both political parties. Some are angry about illegal immigration. Some are angry at the big bail-outs. Some are angry at the incredible amount spend on the stimulus. Some are angry about the new federal health care bill. Some are angry at Obama. Many would vote “all of the above.”

In 2008, the Democrats rose to power by sweeping the White House and majorities in the House and Senate. In large part, their victories can be linked to anger, too. Anger at the big spending of the Republican Bush administration in the middle added to traditional Democrat supporters who were angry at the war-waging policies of the Bush administration, loss of liberties and other conservative policies. In many instances, the Bush Administration wrapped its policies in the flag, so if one were a true patriot, one would not oppose their policies.

Well, in all of this, I fear this great democracy is losing its tradition of democracy. What happened to debating the issues of the day, without demonizing your opponent?

In the early days of the tea party, we heard about angry people coming to meetings with their representatives and shouting down others. Then there were the unrelentless rants of right-wing media mega-mouths, such as Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck. Later, Sarah Palin, a once-interesting and different politician now turned party-line mouthpiece and Fox News employee, was added to the chorus. The conservative media chorus takes its cues from the policies that have traction with the angry -- immigration, unemployment, high taxes, big spending, big government – and blend these with a not-so-subtle appeal to outright racism, namely, President Obama and the brown-skinned immigrants, to name a few.

Injected with typical conservative policy are misrepresentations, conspiracy theories, and outright lies:

• “Death panels” in the health reform bill
• Pres. Obama was not born in the US \
• Pres. Obama is a Muslim and not a Christian
• The democrats want to round up guns and gun owners
• Obama has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.” (Glen Beck on Fox News)
• The director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, "has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population." (again, Glen Beck)
• A claim by Glen Beck that he could not debunk theories that concentration camps are being built by the Obama White House as part of a conspiracy to establish totalitarian rule in America According to Beck, "If you have any fear that we might be heading toward a totalitarian state, look out. There is something happening in our country and it ain't good."
  

What this is resulting in is a number of candidates who are intolerant of compromise or negotiations with those with opposing ideas. There are now a series of litmus tests – including cutting taxes, strong measures against illegal immigrants, abortion, denying the occurrence of global warming – that candidates must pass. A Republican who might believe that some environmental-friendly policies may benefit businesses is labeled a RINO (Republican in name only).

This is very much like the ideological purity that occurs in fascism or a fundamentalist religious sect. Many of those shouting call Pres. Obama a fascist, but I find their methods to be more typical of fascist states where the people are fed an unending litany of intolerance, lies, and hate. All with no opportunity to think for oneself.

But despite my fatalistic assessment, I still have hope. I hope for a return to sanity!

Sarah Attends a Tea Party

Well, Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, current employee of Fox News, was the keynote speaker at the "Tea Party" Convention. For me, this is not surprising, as many attribute Fox with starting the "astroturf" tea party movement.

But there was Sarah working up the crowd, with her sweet nothings ("It's what makes America great" or "Don't you just love freedom!" Hey, Sarah, we all love freedom, but that doesn't mean we agree with you!) and throwing the kitchen sink of issues at Pres. Obama. All with typical great vagueness.

She jumped on the ever-popular Scott Brown band wagon (as reported by the Christian Science Monitor): “Scott Brown in many ways represents what this beautiful movement is all about,” Palin said. “It’s about a guy with a truck and a passion to serve our country, who looked around and saw that things weren’t quite right in Washington … and decided he was going to do his part to our government back on the side of the people.” Wow, that's all we want in the people we elected is some passion and a pickup truck! Yikes, there's a lot of passionate guys with pickup trucks that I wouldn't want writing the laws of the land!!

By the end of the speech, many started a chant: "Run, Sarah, run!" So my question is, will she resign from Fox before running, or will she run as an employee of Fox News?

Tea Party: What I Object To

There may be many issues and concerns of the so called "tea party movement" that may align with libertarian views, but there are two aspects of the movement that bother me.

Means vs. Message

This movement started out by disrupting "town hall" meetings being held by elected officials. While I fully support their right to speak their minds, I really object to this bullying tactic of not letting others be heard.

I don't want bullies and control freaks elected to office to shove their agenda down the throats of all, without any consideration for the rights and opinions of others. If the movement demonstrates that its leaders of tolerant of the free speech rights of all, then I may drop this objection.

Connection of Fox News

This movement is often labeled as "astroturf" and not "grass roots" due to the not-so-subtle connection between Fox News and the early "tea party" rallies. I fully support the freedom of the press, but that doesn't mean they can orchestrate events and try to dress them up as part of a spontaneous grass roots movement. The fact that Sarah Palin is an employee of Fox News or that Scott Brown's daughter Ayly was featured in season 5 of Fox's American Idol doesn't do anything to dispute those who would see a conspiracy here.

Saving Grace

Fortunately, not all "tea party" movement people agree with either the convention or having Sarah Palin speak, based on my scanning of the blogosphere. And some Republican Party officials are not warm to the idea of embracing these "tea party" people, and nor are the "tea party" people all warm about either party. So, maybe chaos will ensue for a bit.

The best result would be to add the views of the "tea party" folks to the national debate of the issues.

Mr. Brown, New Senator in Town

The political world woke from its post-holiday slumber to find an unexpected upset of monumental proportions. Just 6 months earlier, Ted Kennedy, the liberal lion of the senate, the last of the trio of Kennedy brothers, was put to his final rest. In the most liberal state, the only one not to vote for Nixon in 1972 ("don't blame me, I'm from Massachusetts" became a popular slogan), a liberal democrat looses to a little known Republican. How did that happen? The nation gasped!

If You Were From Massachusetts, It Wouldn't Be a Surprise!

Massachusetts may look like a liberal state from west of the Appalachians or south of DC, but like most "blue" states, the folks who live here span the political spectrum. And there is a good bit of New England libertarian spirit even in the most liberal. We see our selves as independents, first.

'

And, despite the view from those on the right who don't live here, we enjoy political balance. We frequently would often pull the lever for a Republican governor (we had 4 in a row before the current Gov. Patrick) while re-electing the "ultraliberal" Ted Kennedy.

Many vote for practical or pragmatic reasons. Ted was a big man in the Senate and could ensure the interests of our fair state were addressed. And, while Ted had seniority, any new senator from Massachusetts would be the most junior in entire senate with little power for years to come. But, have you noticed that our Scott Brown has become quite the "rock star" in Washington, DC. Looks like he'll have more influence and sway that a rank-and-file liberal like Martha Coakley would ever had.

Folks in Massachusetts also find that a Republican governor with a mostly Democratic legislature ensure that one party couldn't run free and either tax the people to death, or cut out every popular programs. Here is this, one of the original 13 colonies, is the quaint concept of using the two-party system to create balance in government. Hmmm, isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work: freedom of speech and consideration of a spectrum of perspectives? I get the feeling (especially from some conservatives) that many are in politics so they can impose their ideas and ways on everyone. But here in Massachusetts, we seem to like some balance.

All in all, electing a moderately conservative Republican to replace the liberal lion of the senate may be shocking to pundits who don't live here, but is not great surprise to me!

What Else Did He Bring?

Fundamentally, Scott Brown connected with people. His opponent, Martha Coakley, didn't. And Coakley and the Democrats assumed the election was over after the primary. Scott Brown ran as an "everyman" with a pickup truck. (What man can resist liking a manly and personable guy with a pickup?) Self-made businessman. Hard working. Everything the average middle class person can admire.

And he tapped into concerns over taxes and the huge federal deficit (after the wars and the stimulus). He also connected with many who have concerns over health care and whether reform (as in the current House and Senate bills) will help or harm them. Many, especially those like me with "pre-existing conditions," fear loosing our good employer-based health care due to reform. In these areas, he sounded good to the so-called "tea party" voters.

For American Idol fans, there was his daughter, Ayla, who made it into the top 16 in Season 5. Her voice was featured in robo-calls trying to get my son to vote for her dad. (That didn't work!)

And for the ladies, there were those photos in the "all-in-all" in Cosmo. Ooo la la!

So, here's a friendly, handsome, manly, personable guy with a pick-up truck, and American Idol contestant daughter, and speaking to what's on people's minds. I may not agree with all his positions, but I have to admit that's a winning combination!

And if health care reform and the whole Obama agenda fails in Congress, well, don't blame me, I may be from Massachusetts, but I didn't vote for Scott Brown!!

Health Care Reform: Debating the Public Option

After months of debate in the House and Senate over health reform, what is left to debate? The public options, of course.

The Public Option
The public option seems to be finally out of the bill. The House passed the Democrat-backed option. The Senate seems likely to drop it to get some bill to the floor for a vote.

I like the idea of a public option as competition between the private and public sectors. Many Republicans and some Democrats say it’s a bad idea. But what about the examples of the “public option” that are offered today:

• Medicare for elders
• Health care for members of the House and Senate
• Health care for our armed forces

The irony of the Opposition
How many Representatives and Senators who are firmly opposed to you and me having a public option would voluntarily opt out of their public option and buy private insurance on the open market? When they put their personal health care on the line, maybe I’ll listen to their whining and talking points about the evils of public health care.

If it’s good enough for our Troops, isn’t it good enough for you and me?
Our brave men and women fighting overseas and supporting the effort worldwide get their health care from this same federal government. They have federally operated hospitals with doctors and nurses on the federal payroll. So, if it’s good enough for our brave troops, why is it bad for us?

But what will the reality be like?
The only problems with any health care program, be it private or public, are the complexity, the confusion, the paperwork, and the bureaucracy. I have to deal with Medicare and Medicaid as my mother is in a nursing home. It’s baffling and there’s no one to lead you through the maze of bureaucracy. So, my only fear with a public option is the same level of complexity that will make even its most ardent supporters cry for something easier.

So, would a public option be what we need to counter the money-making insurance companies? Is it inherently flawed? Or, is a good idea in theory, but once it makes it through the House and Senate. would it be so complex and full of red tape as to be not worth it?

Health Care Reform?

Well, the House of Representatives has passed a health reform bill (HR 3962) by a slim vote of 220-215. At this point, I don't know whether it's real reform, or just the culmination of political grandstanding by both parties and President Obama.

The Vote

The Democrats voted 219-39 while the Republicans were 1-176, with Rep. Joe Cao of Louisiana casting the lone “yeah” vote. Not exactly a resounding vote. Nearly 1/5 of Democrats voted against the bill. And it seems a lot of the moderate "pro-life" Democrat votes were "bought" by allowing them to vote "yeah" on an amendment prohibiting paying for abortions in the public option or in the insurance exchange pools. In all, it seems to me that everyone was voting with one eye on the 2010 midterm elections.

The Democrats want to report they gave the people health care reform. The moderate to conservative Democrats get a favorable "pro-life" check mark on their scorecard so the remain elegible for the litmus-test voters.

And the Republicans can say they did all they can to oppose socialist healthcare.

What's Still Baffling about the Republican Position

I'm still baffled about Republican mantra that this is a "government take-over" of health care. There is a public option, but that remains an option.

Clearly, the words "government take-over" are fighting words for conservatives. Clearly, politicians favor slogans and getting the base energized by charged slogans over a fare discussion of the pros and cons.

Between this tactic and the screaming opponents at the town hall meetings, it seems to me the Republicans don't like the essence of democracy: a fair and open discussion of the issues!

We also need to call out the Republicans on this: if government-run healthcare is so bad, why do the Republican representatives and senators accept it?

I don't think any bill the Democrats have proposed has been anything near perfect. Still, I think we have to call out the Republicans as being obstructionists in the public debate.

Republican Proposals

The Republican proposals, to counter the Democrat's bill, have read like the pile of scrap wood from the RNC party planks. Start with tort reform (limit those rare, but big settlements), throw in some enhanced competition among insurance companies, but leave the reality of many remaining uninsured. (After all, being uninsured is something you should be free to be.)

A Couple of Good Things to Say

It does appear that the new proposal will increase the number of people insured. And it does address the issue of denial of coverage to those with "pre-existing conditions." As someone with a "pre-existing condition" that precludes me from getting certain insurance coverage, I feel strongly about this aspect of reform.

The Mess We're In

The more I look at it, the best we can expect is to tack on a few modifications to the existing healthcare system. Perhaps, system is too kind a word. Some people have employee-provided insurance, some have government-provided insurance (Medicare, Medicaid), a few buy it, and many are uninsured.

Just as the "system" is so complex, the solutions only add to the complexity. There is no clear vission of a simpler, more understandable system. Instead, we're adding some additions to a structure built on a shaky foundation and with a questionable structural integrity. As an engineer, it doesn't appear to be a sound proposal.

The Shout in the House

On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson was formally rebuked on Tuesday by a vote in the US House of Representatives. No matter what else he does in life, Rep. Wilson will always be know for shouting "You lie!" during Obama's speech to Congress on September 9th.

While I don't agree with Rep. Wilson's views on health care reform, I don't think a Congressional rebuke was necessary.

I think of his shout as an analog "micro-tweet." It was more an interjection than an interruption. Unlike the protesters at some of the recent town hall meetings, the representative did not prevent the President from finishing his speech. He merely interjected a two-word tweet.

And it doesn’t stand up to fact checking.

So, I’d leave it at that.

Sure, it was rude. Sure, a grade school kid would know better. And I and most rational folks wouldn’t want to set a precedent of encouraging anyone to interrupt a speech because of a difference of opinion.

But he knows what he did. He apologized to the President. His actions have been judged in the court of public opinion (not to mention the late night comedy circuit).

Most think he was out of line. A minority applaud him. These are folks who don’t like the Obama Administration and like the idea of someone “putting to him." I say the rebuke only makes him more a martyr for their cause. The rebuke may be counterproductive and energize the opposition to reform.

Most importantly, the whole issue of the shout and rebuke is a major distraction from the debate over the important details of reform.

So, let’s put the Shout in the House in the past and let's get on with a civil discourse where all opinions are heard on this important topic of reforming health care!

Health Care - Do What's Best for You

The health care debate goes on and on. Tonight, President Obama spoke to Congress and the nation to describe his proposal. Using a combination of reason and passion, he tried to dismiss the misconceptions and outline what he's really like to see for reform.

Now, overall, I like his proposal for a number of reasons, but the two main reasons are:

1. It leaves in place the existing coverage that many are satisfied with. No one has to change policies or try to get re-insured. So I can keep my good employer-based insurance, unlike a proposal floated by candidate John McCain.
   
   
   
2. It adds a government-run program to compete with private policies. Now, this is excactly the kind of experiment I'm most interested in: direct competition between the public and private sectors. My philosophy about government is that it should do what it can do better than the private sector. So, let's see which approach is more cost-effective in providing health insurance.
   

Here's another interesting perspective (courtesy of Thomas Friedman, New York Times, Sept. 9, 2009): Obama's proposal is largely based on two Republican initiatives, yet it is widely decried by Republicans. The proposal closely resembles the health insurance program put into place here in Massachusetts by Republic Governor Mitt Romney. It adds in an idea for funding taken from John McCain's proposal.

But will the plan pass Congress? And if it does, what will it turn into in the Congress --- will it get overcomplicated, diluted, or heavy with bureaucracy? Even with a Democratic majority in both houses, the necessary compromises may result in a bill that barely resembles Obama's proposal.

And probably for the worst, it will receive no Republican support. This is highly unfortunate. With a greater balance in power in Congress, a more bipartisan bill might have emerged. Maybe on that would be more effective in addressing the full range of needed reform.

But, to me, it is clear that the key to the Republican strategy for gains in the 2010 midterm elections is to ensure the Obama health plan fails, or if it passes, that it is widely disliked by the public. So, I'm not optimistic about the success of true health care reform.

So, we may all still be where we are now: some of us will have decent employer-provided insurance. The elderly and disabled will have Medicare. Many will try to get individual policies. And many will remain uninsured.

If reform fails, health care will amount to doing what's best for yourself (if you can)!

More on Health Care Reform

The national debate on health care reform has provided the most entertainment in the political circuit since Sarah Palin’s debut last year, just about at this time.

We had the new version of the “do nothings” shouting down politicians and their fellow citizens alike at town hall meetings. We have the wild and crazy campaign of misinformation featuring the “death panels” who will decide who deserves treatment and who will be left to die. Other misinformation includes the idea that the government is taking over health care (therefore people would lose their existing coverage).

Perhaps most amusing is the right wing pundits comparing Pres. Obama to the Nazis. This last one is especially absurd if you recall the Arian supremacy plank of Nazism and happen to notice we now have an African American President.

Legitimate Concerns

There are some legitimate concerns about change. Many of us have good coverage at work and don’t want to see an end to this. (See my post on this topic.) Also, many like me have pre-existing conditions and may not be able to get coverage if we lost what we have.

So, there are many that have good or decent coverage who don’t want government messing with it. With this I agree.

Need for Reform

The basic need is simply the rising cost of health care. Not far behind this is the clear cross-subsidies where those covered are paying for those without insurance or those whose policy does not pay the full cost of insurance.

While many realize this problem, I’d say many are content to keep the status quo. After the recession and market fall, the rich and middle class are still risk adverse. Thus, even people who have rationally examined the issue are not open to change.

Basis of Proposals

As President Obama has explained, the idea is not to replace existing coverage, but rather to add a government program to compete with the private sector plans (e.g., employer plans, individual plans, group plans).

As a point of reference, today, there is a large, popular and successful federal government-run medical insurance program known as Medicare. This flies in the face of many of the arguments of adding another national program.

Possible Political Tactic

So, why all this opposition, particularly that organized by the right and by Republicans?

My theory is they are following the 1994 playbook. First, they put up a strong opposition to the Clinton health care reforms. Once this opposition was seeded in the populous, it was not long until this translated into widespread opposition of Clinton programs and then midterm victories for the Republicans.

As I see it, this full-court press on health care is not about health care. It’s a strategy to swing the American popular opinion from the Obama camp to the Republican camp, paving the way for Republican gains in the House and Senate in 2010.

To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?

To Stimulate or Not to Stimulate?

That is the question for Republican governors. Whether they should be a populist and spread out the manna from DC, or to take a stand, no matter how politically ill-advised, and refuse these tainted funds.

Now, neither I nor the President and his advisors, nor most economists have any real idea of how to get the economy out of this nose dive. How low will it go? But, the President has chosen action over inaction.

When unemployment hits 10% and multitudes of the former middle class have lost their homes, woe to any governor who “stood her/his ground” and refused the stimulus funding.

Even our former Gov. of Mass. Michael Dukakis, a man didn’t know how to say no to federal aid, once refused federal highway funding for low priority improvements (as a transportation engineer, I agreed it wasn’t something that was not really needed). But, he had to quickly make a 180 and agree to taking the funds.

I don’t know if the stimulus will do anything long-term for the economy.

But I’ll bet that governors who refuse the stimulus will have a short political life, especially with double-digit unemployment!

The Stimulus: Is It Pork?

One of the recent criticisms of the Stimulus (particularly from Republicans) is that it is full of pork.

Anytime the government spends, there is a high probability that pet projects or programs (a.k.a, “pork”) will be included. And when the biggest spending bill ever works its way through Congress, there’s no way it can survive without picking up some pork along the way. Granted, no “earmarks” were allowed, but there are other ways to get pork in a bill.

I think it was Tip O'Neil who said "One person's pork is another person's bacon" or something similar. (Apologies to those who keep Kosher.)

Does the Stimulus Bill contain pork? I say: “Tell me something new!”

The real question is: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate.

To be continued………….

Creation and Politics

It was Christmas Eve in 40 years ago. It followed a tumultuous year that saw the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. It saw riots at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In Vietnam, American troops killed civilians in the infamous My Lai massacre.

But on that day in 1968, humans saw, for the first time, an earthrise over the surface of the moon. Apollo 8 was the first manned flight to leave earth’s gravity. William Anders, Jim Lovell, and Frank Borman were the first humans to orbit the moon. Inspired by this breathtaking view – a photo that is credited with inspiring not only Earth Day but the entire environmental movement – the three astronauts read about creation as written in the Hebrew Book of Genesis.

A moment of awe and reverence?

Maybe to some, but it may have been the first salvo in battle in the national political scene over the biblical creation account.

Accounts of Creation

Anthropologists will tell you that every culture and civilization typically has some account of creation. The details vary, but often there is acknowledgement of a creator god who was responsible for it all.

In the US, creation as described in Genesis is the most known account. But, within the sects of Christianity and Judaism, there are disagreements about how Genesis should be understood. While nearly all of these sects would acknowledge Genesis as the inspired word of God, some take it more literally than others. Some believe God literally took 6 days to create the world, while others say that timeframe might have been a little longer (maybe even 15 billion years).

Here’s where I have to state my position. Yes, I am a Christian, but I don’t think the “days” in Genesis were 24 hours. You see, in Psalm 90, the psalmist, who really understood the eternal nature of God, says that a 1,000 years to us may be like a single day to God. So I say, 6 days, 1,000 years, or 15 billion years, what does it matter to an eternal God?

Creation and Politics: The Origins of Conflicts

Perhaps the first major conflict between the Genesis creation account and national politics was 1925 Scopes Trial. The state of Tennessee enacted the Butler Act, which prohibited teaching any theory that denied the Biblical account of the origins of humans. John Scopes, a high school teacher, was found guilty after intentionally violating the Act.

After the reading of Genesis from Apollo 8, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, an atheist, sued the United States government, alleging that government employees were involved in public prayer in space. While the suit was dismissed by the Supreme Court due to lack of jurisdiction, this action irritated many Christian religious leaders.

Creation and Politics: The Invention of Creationism, Creation Science and the “Intelligent Designer”

The conflict of evolution vs. Genesis is still alive nearly 80 years on. We now have seen some advocates of a literal reading of Genesis come up with Creationism and Creation Science as “scientific theories” that should be taught side by side the “theory” of evolution.

This is quite an interesting development. While in science, many ideas are called “theories” even if there is a substantial body of empirical evidence supporting the theory, we have seen others throw out these “theories” even though there may be no scientific evidence to support them.

What we see here is the translation of the fair coverage principal in the media (covering each side of a new story) to the realm of science. Only here, fair coverage is expected to apply to whatever crazy “theory” anyone throws out.

More recently is the invention of an “Intelligent Designer” who supposedly worked out all the details of creation. Instead of the random mutations and other incremental changes integral to natural selection in evolution, there was intelligent causes that guided the evolutionary steps.

Another editorial interjection: Personally, I don’t believe in this new-fangled Intelligent Designer, but rather the good old-fashioned Almighty God, Creator of All! In fact, I believe the Christian Right has created a false idol. I believe God the Creator did not have to “sweat the details.” Creation is the product of a loving act of the Creator. When parents create a new life through a loving act, they do not “sweat the details” of their baby. Much the same with creation.

Creation and Politics: Why Does the Right Cling to Creationism?

The easy answer would be votes. A significant number of Christian voters do not believe in evolution, and many are easy votes for the Republicans: if they say “I oppose abortion and gay marriage. I believe in a balanced discussion of evolution” they’ve won a lot of the values voters.

But the second point goes a bit deeper. Creationism or evolution – this is irrelevant to national politics. But global warming is. I’ve seen Creation Science expanded to propose other “theories” on environmental issues form global warming to the extinction of species. Interestingly, these “theories” align with business interests, particularly, the reduction of environmental regulation.

So, here’s the benefit. In another post, I explained how the Bush Administration believes science should not be independent of politics, but should serve the party line. So, creationism is the “gateway theory.” If you can put creationism and evolution as competing theories, you can take theories of global warming or other environmental issues and throw out competing theories. Now you can take any theory from the world of science and, if it conflicts with national policy, simply say “it’s just one theory and here’s another theory.” That’s the wedge.

Conclusion

In the long unfortunate national debate on evolution vs. Biblical creation, we have seen the politicization of science, particularly in the Bush Administration.

What have we lost? We’ve lost the sense of simple reverence and awe on seeing the beauty of our planetary home.

Iraq—Searching for the Real Story, Volume 4 – What Have I Learned?

For better or worse, the next President will inherit the mess of the ongoing occupation of Iraq. In this volume, I look at what I have learned and what the Administration should have learned.

What Have I Learned?
This should be titled “what have we learned” but I fear that the Bush Administration, the Republican and Democratic Party Platforms, and a vast number of Americans have not learned much for these years of US occupation in Iraq. The politicians still view events through the strong lens of partisan policy. Americans are tired of the endless war and clearly interest is waning.

So here are my conclusions. I believe these are the realities that the next President must come to grips with to work towards the goal of eventual US withdrawal.

• We can’t trust the Bush administration to learn from experience – they are guided only by neo-conservative think tank theory with no need to understand any details of the Iraqi people, particularly the objectives of the constituent factions.
  
  
• Though unjustified, ill-conceived and poorly executed, the invasion/occupation did achieve two objectives aligned with Bush Administration policy (but don’t expect the Administration to be as frank as I will be about this):
  
  1) The extremist terrorists function as alpha male primates. The lack of any retaliation would be interpreted as weakness. Direct retaliation against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was needed. The invasion of Iraq (though it was unjustified) can be seen as another retaliation in the testosterone-based dance to establish dominance among alpha male primates.
  
  2) The placement of American troupes in the Middle East acts as a lightning rod – saving would-be extremist terrorists the cost of air fare as they only need travel to Iraq for the opportunity to kill Americans.
  
  In these 2 aspects, there may have been some reduction in the possibility of terrorists attacks against the US homeland.
  
  
  
• On the other hand, the invasion/occupation was one of the greatest recruiting tools for anti-American terrorist groups.
  
  
• The invasion/occupation has greatly benefited Shia Iran, deposing a hated enemy, replacing a hostile Sunni regime with a more desirable Shia majority government, while pacifying the Kurds who are generally happy with the invasion/occupation.
  
  
• The Bush Administration chose Iraq because it was the weakest nation to invade and there was and remains a high level of pro-American feelings in the general population.
  
  
• The terms “enemy” and “victory” cannot be easily defined as it was in the wars of old, fought by nation-state against nation state. Factions and militias change alliances from time to time. One month, they are firing on US troupes, the next they are aligned in the fight against a common enemy.
  
  
• The violence in Iraq is at times closer to the gang violence of LA: in the post-Saddam era, rival factions are positioning for the issues are turf and creating a new pecking order. Even attacks on US troupes may be less about hatred of Americans and more about self-boosting.
  
  
• Success (i.e., the lessening of violence) in Iraq requires the constructive engagement of the major factions and militia.
  
  
• The non-indigenous “al-Qaeda in Iraq” is an oppressor of the Iraqi people and is opposed by most factions.
  
  
• Most Iraqis want the US to withdraw, sooner than later.
  
  
• Democracy, at least as we understand it in the US, is not the “magic potion” to unite Iraq.
  
  
• Despite the violence of the last 4 years, the Sunni and Shia in Iraq generally don’t hate each other. During the iron rule of Saddam Hussein, many Sunni were close friends of Shia and vice versa. The opening of Pandora’s Box resulted in a power vacuum which was filled by violent power struggles among militias and factions.
  
  
• There is hope.

Where Do We Go From Here?
To be continued……………..