The difference in rhetoric between Republicans and Democrats couldn't be starker these past few weeks. Republicans are saying the Fast and Furious program is a scandal far worse than Watergate (which is, as Republicans love to say, laughable, since the program was started under George Bush). They're calling the Supreme Court's decision on the health care law "the end of freedom," when all it does is make people take responsibility for themselves.
Meanwhile, Colorado is burning. Texas is burning, and is likely to be hit by a severe power shortage this summer, causing rolling blackouts. Texas isn't on the national power grid, so they don't know what they're going to do. To make things worse, the prevalent forms of power generation, from hydro, to coal, to nuclear, all use vast amounts of water. Many areas in the western half of the US has been in severe drought conditions for years. Earlier this year the south was clobbered by wave after wave of ferocious tornadoes, starting in February. The eastern half of the country has just been hammered by powerful storms, knocking out power for millions, and is now broiling in 90-100 degree temperatures. This heat and lack of air conditioning will kill dozens if not hundreds of the elderly, children and people with asthma and similar diseases.
The increased frequency and severity of these events are due to climate change, but there's a noticeable absence of hysteria about it from national Democratic figures, even though we're probably past the point of no return on climate change.
If climate change were part of the Republican™ brand, though, they would be screaming it was the end of the world, that Armageddon was upon us. They would label the Koch brothers tools of the devil, in league with Saudi princes to jack up the price of oil and bring Sharia law to America. They would say God is punishing us for destroying the environment by turning the environment against us.
But every time it snows more than an inch, or we have a normal winter like those that were common 30 years ago, they say that it's "proof" climate change is a myth. In Virginia law makers removed references to climate change and sea level rise, changing the law to refer to "recurrent flooding," even though sea levels on some parts of the east coast have risen by as much as 3.8 millimeters a year since 1950. Globally, sea level has been rising by eight inches a century since 1843.
And every time we have a heat wave or hurricane, climate scientists will admit, "We can't say this particular severe weather event was caused by climate change." And the nay-sayers immediately pounce and say, "Told you so!"
But that's because climate scientists are honest and have integrity. They won't make a statement they can't prove to be true, because any particular storm might have occurred under any climate regime. What they have predicted is that there will more tornadoes, hurricanes, and thunderstorms, and that they will on average be more severe. Just as we've seen.
Why? Since the atmosphere and ocean are warmer, there is more energy in storm systems. Since the arctic ice is almost completely melting during the summer, there is more water in the atmosphere, the jet stream over the north pole is shifting and weather patterns are changing. This is causing some areas to be hit by colder winters, while others will have much milder ones (like the Twin Cities, where the ground was still bare in mid-January). Some areas will get socked by big snowfalls and floods, while other areas will languish in drought, without enough snow to replenish the snow pack. The result is that Glacier National Park will cease to have glaciers in my lifetime, and people who depend on winter snowfall in the Rockies for their water supply will have to go thirsty.
And it gets more insidious: higher temperatures have allowed insects like pine beetles to migrate north into formerly cool areas, infesting trees that have no defenses. Entire forests die, and then the dead trees burn. Which is exactly what's happening in the Colorado fire.
In short, the "freak" weather we've seen over the last 10 years is doing exactly what climate scientists said it would do. Temperature increases, CO2 levels and sea-level rise are at or above the numbers predicted by the models.
The Republican tactic of throwing a temper tantrum might work for stopping tax increases or repealing health care for all Americans. But it won't stop people from dying of heat stroke or prevent more intense and frequent hurricanes and floods. In the long run, all that damage caused by severe weather and rising seas will cost us trillions of dollars, money we could spend to make our air cleaner and cooler, and making all Americans healthier.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Say Thanks
Remember a couple of months back when President Obama was secretly plotting to drive up gas prices in order to usher in an area of green and clean energy for all his Solyndra like buddies? (This, along with the same plot to walk guns into Mexico which would, in turn, lead to him being able to take guns away here at home.What a crafty Kenyan!)
Yeah, well, things didn't quite happen that way.
In case you never heard about it, in April the Obama administration asked Congress to spend $52 million to regulate this speculation. According to the Washington Post, this included the following steps:
• Increase by a factor of six Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) surveillance and enforcement staff “to better deter oil market manipulation."
• Boost 10-fold, to $10 million, the civil and criminal penalties against “firms that engage in market manipulation."
• Give the CFTC authority to increase the trader margins — the amount of their own capital that traders must set aside for each bet. The administration officials said such authority “could help limit disruptions in energy markets,” according to the Post.
So what’s happened since April? Oil ended the month at $106, and as of June 22, it had lost 21 percent of its value — sitting at $84. I guess I under-estimated the impact of the CME’s boost in margin requirements for oil speculators.
As I stated back when this flap started, the problem was never the president. The problem was the speculators. Why?
When regulators raise those requirements, oil speculation becomes less attractive to traders, and they place bets elsewhere. And when margin requirements drop, the traders pile into their oil speculations — confident that they can borrow enough to limit their downside while boosting their upside opportunity.
In February 2011, when commodities exchanges raised the amount of their own capital that speculators must set aside in order to trade — according to Bloomberg, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) increased its margin requirements 20 percent to $6,075 per contract, and the International Exchange (ICE) increased its margin requirement 7 percent to $5,200 – the price of oil fell 10 percent within a few months.
And a year later, the commodities exchanges cut the amount of capital that speculators need to set aside before trading — the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cut by 9 percent to $6,885 the amount that Nymex crude speculators have to post to trade the so-called front-month contract, according to MarketWatch – leading prices to soar to $109 that month.
A fine example of how the government can sometimes improve market outcomes and increase market efficiency. These speculators weren't actually trading in oil and were distorting the market.
So, the next time you fill up at the pump. thank the president for implementing this plan. After all, he is saving you hundreds of dollars a year!
Yeah, well, things didn't quite happen that way.
In case you never heard about it, in April the Obama administration asked Congress to spend $52 million to regulate this speculation. According to the Washington Post, this included the following steps:
• Increase by a factor of six Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) surveillance and enforcement staff “to better deter oil market manipulation."
• Boost 10-fold, to $10 million, the civil and criminal penalties against “firms that engage in market manipulation."
• Give the CFTC authority to increase the trader margins — the amount of their own capital that traders must set aside for each bet. The administration officials said such authority “could help limit disruptions in energy markets,” according to the Post.
So what’s happened since April? Oil ended the month at $106, and as of June 22, it had lost 21 percent of its value — sitting at $84. I guess I under-estimated the impact of the CME’s boost in margin requirements for oil speculators.
As I stated back when this flap started, the problem was never the president. The problem was the speculators. Why?
When regulators raise those requirements, oil speculation becomes less attractive to traders, and they place bets elsewhere. And when margin requirements drop, the traders pile into their oil speculations — confident that they can borrow enough to limit their downside while boosting their upside opportunity.
In February 2011, when commodities exchanges raised the amount of their own capital that speculators must set aside in order to trade — according to Bloomberg, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) increased its margin requirements 20 percent to $6,075 per contract, and the International Exchange (ICE) increased its margin requirement 7 percent to $5,200 – the price of oil fell 10 percent within a few months.
And a year later, the commodities exchanges cut the amount of capital that speculators need to set aside before trading — the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) cut by 9 percent to $6,885 the amount that Nymex crude speculators have to post to trade the so-called front-month contract, according to MarketWatch – leading prices to soar to $109 that month.
A fine example of how the government can sometimes improve market outcomes and increase market efficiency. These speculators weren't actually trading in oil and were distorting the market.
So, the next time you fill up at the pump. thank the president for implementing this plan. After all, he is saving you hundreds of dollars a year!
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Won't Get Fooled Again
A while back, last in line chided me for not talking more about Fast and Furious, the ATF flap that has currently engulfed Congress and now has resulted in the first ever contempt vote for an Attorney General of the United States. Honestly, I should have listened to his advice and started digging into it. In fact, the same can be said for the media who were accused of ignoring the story because they are in the tank for the Obama Administration. Right wing bloggers all over the nation screamed that the media should start reporting more on this topic.
Oops.
I guess they woke up the sleeping giant.
The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.
Why didn't they arrest them? And, if they were purposefully walking guns, how is it that it comes out now that they wanted to arrest these guys?
Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
Wait. How can this be? Every single thing that is published on a right wing blog is 100 percent accurate and never retracted. Oh, wait, I see...
How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration.
Amplified, huh...shocking, simply shocking...
Sorry, folks, I really dropped the ball on this one. Had I listened to my regular commenters and dug into this story more extensively we could have been where we are at right now: the truth.
So, I'm very happy to continue to talk about this issue now that all of these facts have come to light.
Oops.
I guess they woke up the sleeping giant.
The agents faced numerous obstacles in what they dubbed the Fast and Furious case. (They named it after the street-racing movie because the suspects drag raced cars together.) Their greatest difficulty by far, however, was convincing prosecutors that they had sufficient grounds to seize guns and arrest straw purchasers. By June 2010 the agents had sent the U.S. Attorney's office a list of 31 suspects they wanted to arrest, with 46 pages outlining their illegal acts. But for the next seven months prosecutors did not indict a single suspect.
Why didn't they arrest them? And, if they were purposefully walking guns, how is it that it comes out now that they wanted to arrest these guys?
Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time.
Wait. How can this be? Every single thing that is published on a right wing blog is 100 percent accurate and never retracted. Oh, wait, I see...
How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today. It's a story that starts with a grudge, specifically Dodson's anger at Voth. After the terrible murder of agent Terry, Dodson made complaints that were then amplified, first by right-wing bloggers, then by CBS. Rep. Issa and other politicians then seized those elements to score points against the Obama administration.
Amplified, huh...shocking, simply shocking...
Sorry, folks, I really dropped the ball on this one. Had I listened to my regular commenters and dug into this story more extensively we could have been where we are at right now: the truth.
So, I'm very happy to continue to talk about this issue now that all of these facts have come to light.
Friday, June 29, 2012
The Health Care Conversation
Here's a recent conversation I had with a Facebook friend who is positively apoplectic about the Supreme Court's decision on health care. I thought I would copy and past some portions of it as it speaks to some of the comments I have received here thus far. His comments are in blue.
Mark, you're missing the point. The Court didn't say that Congress has the power to tax people for not buying insurance because insurance is important and necessary. The Court said Congress can simply tax people for not doing whatever Congress wants them to do. The point is that if Congress can tax us for not having insurance, it can tax us for not exercising or not eating enough green vegetables.
I disagree. In looking at the brief, it's very clear throughout the entire opinion that this ties to health care and shared responsibility. For example,
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
To me, this says that the health care market is unique and sets up a precedent that Congress cannot tax people for not doing whatever it is they want them to do. Roberts details that further.
Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority.
And the fact that everyone should have decent health care doesn't give Congress or the Court the right to trample to trample the Constitution and invent new powers for Congress to achieve a desired end. I agree that those who benefit from receiving health care should pay for it. But that doesn't mean that the federal government, having gotten in the business of providing and paying for health care, has broad power to compel people to buy health insurance.
From the brief...
None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.
Further
The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certainthreshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).
So, it's not "broad or new power." In fact, Roberts points out (as does the law), that it is limited power. Roberts also goes to great lengths to point out in the commerce clause section and necessary and proper section that the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the federal government. So, no trampling here certainly. I'd also urge you to read pgs 41-43 of the brief and take note of Roberts reference to Benjamin Franklin's letter to M. Le Roy regarding the Constitution and taxes.
What if we moved away from an insurance-based model and simply expected that people were going to pay hospital and doctor bills on their own? The cost of healthcare is ridiculously inflated by the comprehensive insurance model, which keeps larding benefits into plans. The government can tax people to put money into a pool available on a means-tested basis for those who can't pay for major health problems. Let people take back ownership for their own health care costs, decisions and priorities.
The issue I have here is inelastic demand. If services and products were directly available to the public without insurance in the way, what's to stop the supplier from charging a high price. In many health care markets, demand is inelastic because people aren't going to leave the market when the price goes up. The suppliers will know that they have their customers trapped and will undoubtedly act to increase profit. So, these markets would not allocate resources efficiently and consumer surplus would erode. Believe me, I'd love to remove insurance from the equation. My wife and I pay nearly 800 dollars a month for our family! But that would lead to higher prices unless the government got involved and put price controls in place. That also would be detrimental as it would erode market efficiency.
Don't forget that the Democratic Congress and the Administration argued loudly and repeatedly that revenue in re: the individual mandate was NOT a tax. The Court has declared that it is, so therefore it is constitutional. It's bizarro-world. Again, what practical limits are there now on Congress' power to force people to do whatever it happens to decide is in the people's best interest?
These practical limits are pointed out extensively in the brief as I have listed above. You and I have different sensitivities when it comes to the federal government so we will likely have to agree to disagree here. My hope is that you take some solace in Roberts' words, though:)
Enumerated powers is effectively a dead doctrine, and now the federal government can do anything that the constitution and Court precedent have not explicitly forbidden. Think about that, and what that might mean when a political party and/or President you don't like get back in power.
Well, this speaks to our differing views on government. Yes, government is indeed bigger today but so is the private sector. I don't see a problem with that. We have a 15 trillion dollar economy and a global marketplace that is in a constant state of change every single day. In my view, having less government in light of these facts (and regardless of who is in power), would be detrimental.
That's it so far. Likely the conversation will continue...
Mark, you're missing the point. The Court didn't say that Congress has the power to tax people for not buying insurance because insurance is important and necessary. The Court said Congress can simply tax people for not doing whatever Congress wants them to do. The point is that if Congress can tax us for not having insurance, it can tax us for not exercising or not eating enough green vegetables.
I disagree. In looking at the brief, it's very clear throughout the entire opinion that this ties to health care and shared responsibility. For example,
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
To me, this says that the health care market is unique and sets up a precedent that Congress cannot tax people for not doing whatever it is they want them to do. Roberts details that further.
Congress’s ability to use its taxing power to influence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitive exactions obviously designed to regulate behavior otherwise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority.
And the fact that everyone should have decent health care doesn't give Congress or the Court the right to trample to trample the Constitution and invent new powers for Congress to achieve a desired end. I agree that those who benefit from receiving health care should pay for it. But that doesn't mean that the federal government, having gotten in the business of providing and paying for health care, has broad power to compel people to buy health insurance.
From the brief...
None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.
Further
The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are subject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certainthreshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).
So, it's not "broad or new power." In fact, Roberts points out (as does the law), that it is limited power. Roberts also goes to great lengths to point out in the commerce clause section and necessary and proper section that the Constitution does indeed limit the power of the federal government. So, no trampling here certainly. I'd also urge you to read pgs 41-43 of the brief and take note of Roberts reference to Benjamin Franklin's letter to M. Le Roy regarding the Constitution and taxes.
What if we moved away from an insurance-based model and simply expected that people were going to pay hospital and doctor bills on their own? The cost of healthcare is ridiculously inflated by the comprehensive insurance model, which keeps larding benefits into plans. The government can tax people to put money into a pool available on a means-tested basis for those who can't pay for major health problems. Let people take back ownership for their own health care costs, decisions and priorities.
The issue I have here is inelastic demand. If services and products were directly available to the public without insurance in the way, what's to stop the supplier from charging a high price. In many health care markets, demand is inelastic because people aren't going to leave the market when the price goes up. The suppliers will know that they have their customers trapped and will undoubtedly act to increase profit. So, these markets would not allocate resources efficiently and consumer surplus would erode. Believe me, I'd love to remove insurance from the equation. My wife and I pay nearly 800 dollars a month for our family! But that would lead to higher prices unless the government got involved and put price controls in place. That also would be detrimental as it would erode market efficiency.
Don't forget that the Democratic Congress and the Administration argued loudly and repeatedly that revenue in re: the individual mandate was NOT a tax. The Court has declared that it is, so therefore it is constitutional. It's bizarro-world. Again, what practical limits are there now on Congress' power to force people to do whatever it happens to decide is in the people's best interest?
These practical limits are pointed out extensively in the brief as I have listed above. You and I have different sensitivities when it comes to the federal government so we will likely have to agree to disagree here. My hope is that you take some solace in Roberts' words, though:)
Enumerated powers is effectively a dead doctrine, and now the federal government can do anything that the constitution and Court precedent have not explicitly forbidden. Think about that, and what that might mean when a political party and/or President you don't like get back in power.
Well, this speaks to our differing views on government. Yes, government is indeed bigger today but so is the private sector. I don't see a problem with that. We have a 15 trillion dollar economy and a global marketplace that is in a constant state of change every single day. In my view, having less government in light of these facts (and regardless of who is in power), would be detrimental.
That's it so far. Likely the conversation will continue...
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Today's Decision
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Directly after this decision was handed down, conservatives around the country went even more batshit than they are already are and took to Twitter and Facebook to scream about the federal government.
"What doesn't the federal government have the power to tax?" one of my FB friends asked? Xanax? Therapy?
Anyhoozles, here are my thoughts on the decision.
As I noted yesterday, everyone wins. The president's signature bill is Constitutional. The Democrats can now run with a very large win under their belt as there will be no more legal challenges to the ACA. Mitt Romney wins because now he can now energize the base for this election with promises of repeal. I know he is saying "Repeal and Replace" but I have yet to see the "Replace" part of that equation. In fact, is there a solution from anyone on the right other than "Do Nothing?" Regardless, there are a lot of Armageddon shelter builders out there that will now turn out to vote.
The main thing I keep thinking about is how this was originally a GOP plan. It originated at the Heritage Foundation and does, in essence, what the right bitches about all the time-ELIMINATE THE FREELOADERS. Since the law states that we must treat everyone, then everyone should have health insurance. If you choose not to (that's right, no one is forcing you), you have to pay a penalty.
Now the GOP were all for this until January of 2009 when Obama and the Democrats got behind it in the completely hilarious hope that the Republicans would support it as well. That ended up going something like this.
"What?!!!? Dad and Mom support it now??!! Fuck that noise!"
And then they hated it.
Toss in all the feelings and emotions they have about the other side winning and you have all the usual.
I'm sadly disappointed in Anthony Kennedy for not siding with Chief Justice Roberts and the other four justices in the majority. For being a "swing voter," he certainly does seem to fall on libertarian grounds more often than not. The fact that he couldn't see it as a tax shows how his personal ideology interfered with his supposed blind judgement. That's also true of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
Speaking of taxes, wasn't it great how Chief Justice Roberts did the Democrats job for them? The fact that they were so chicken shit back in 2009-2010 that they couldn't call it a tax says a lot. Now, of course, it's fine to talk about raising taxes on the wealthy after the OWS movement but where were they back then when it took real guts?
Doing a piss poor job of effectively communicating why this bill is needed while allowing the right to panic monger the shit out of it.
I guess I'm happy, mostly, though with the outcome today. It's the best option we have right now for dealing with this problem and I'm grateful that John Roberts saw this in a larger picture rather than his personal ideological lens.
"What doesn't the federal government have the power to tax?" one of my FB friends asked? Xanax? Therapy?
Anyhoozles, here are my thoughts on the decision.
As I noted yesterday, everyone wins. The president's signature bill is Constitutional. The Democrats can now run with a very large win under their belt as there will be no more legal challenges to the ACA. Mitt Romney wins because now he can now energize the base for this election with promises of repeal. I know he is saying "Repeal and Replace" but I have yet to see the "Replace" part of that equation. In fact, is there a solution from anyone on the right other than "Do Nothing?" Regardless, there are a lot of Armageddon shelter builders out there that will now turn out to vote.
The main thing I keep thinking about is how this was originally a GOP plan. It originated at the Heritage Foundation and does, in essence, what the right bitches about all the time-ELIMINATE THE FREELOADERS. Since the law states that we must treat everyone, then everyone should have health insurance. If you choose not to (that's right, no one is forcing you), you have to pay a penalty.
Now the GOP were all for this until January of 2009 when Obama and the Democrats got behind it in the completely hilarious hope that the Republicans would support it as well. That ended up going something like this.
"What?!!!? Dad and Mom support it now??!! Fuck that noise!"
And then they hated it.
Toss in all the feelings and emotions they have about the other side winning and you have all the usual.
I'm sadly disappointed in Anthony Kennedy for not siding with Chief Justice Roberts and the other four justices in the majority. For being a "swing voter," he certainly does seem to fall on libertarian grounds more often than not. The fact that he couldn't see it as a tax shows how his personal ideology interfered with his supposed blind judgement. That's also true of Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
Speaking of taxes, wasn't it great how Chief Justice Roberts did the Democrats job for them? The fact that they were so chicken shit back in 2009-2010 that they couldn't call it a tax says a lot. Now, of course, it's fine to talk about raising taxes on the wealthy after the OWS movement but where were they back then when it took real guts?
Doing a piss poor job of effectively communicating why this bill is needed while allowing the right to panic monger the shit out of it.
I guess I'm happy, mostly, though with the outcome today. It's the best option we have right now for dealing with this problem and I'm grateful that John Roberts saw this in a larger picture rather than his personal ideological lens.
Chief Justice Roberts Mans Up
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, is constitutional in a five to four decision. The ruling lets stand the personal mandate and most of the other provisions, the exception being the penalties imposed on states that refuse to expand Medicaid.
This is a major milestone for the Supreme Court, which for the last twelve years has made many decisions for political instead of legal reasons. This ruling, along with Monday's on the Arizona immigration law, may indicate that Chief Justice John Roberts is evolving into an independent jurist who takes his stewardship of the law of the land seriously, and is not a political puppet bent on satisfying his political masters or pursuing a partisan agenda. The different between Roberts and Antonin Scalia is particularly striking.
The interesting thing about the ruling was that the mandate was found constitutional not on the commerce clause, but on the federal government's authority to levy taxes. This was always obvious to me from the beginning, but Democrats avoided characterizing it that way because they didn't want to be painted as creating a new tax. During oral arguments the justices seemed to denigrate the commerce clause as a justification for the mandate, making many think it would almost certainly be overturned. Scalia attempted to equate the mandate to forcing people to buy broccoli.
This was always a bogus argument, because people who don't buy broccoli don't eat broccoli, but people who don't pay for health insurance can still use health care. If you have a medical emergency the hospital is required by law to treat you. Which means that if you have a heart attack while jogging you won't die just because you didn't have your insurance card with you.
The law does not make it a crime to avoid buying health insurance. You just have to pay a penalty if you're not covered. In essence you have the choice between a) buying health insurance and b) paying an obstinacy tax. Furthermore, if you really can't afford to pay for health care the law provides subsidies and exceptions.
People have characterized the mandate as Obama's plan, but during the 2008 presidential primary he frequently voiced his opposition to it. Hillary Clinton had endorsed mandates by 2008 because conservatives, like Mitt Romney and Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation, had proposed it to counter the health care plan she developed during the first Clinton administration. Obama and many Democrats compromised and reluctantly signed on to the mandate thinking that they could get some number of those same conservatives to be consist and continue to support what they themselves had invented. But almost no Republicans signed on; they only cared about handing Obama a political defeat.
Everyone knows that our health care system is too expensive and inefficient, that hospitals can't be expected to provide emergency room treatment for free, and that people should be responsible for themselves. Republican opposition to the health care law is simply political sabotage.
It's a relief to see Justice Roberts admit that and do what's right for the country.
This is a major milestone for the Supreme Court, which for the last twelve years has made many decisions for political instead of legal reasons. This ruling, along with Monday's on the Arizona immigration law, may indicate that Chief Justice John Roberts is evolving into an independent jurist who takes his stewardship of the law of the land seriously, and is not a political puppet bent on satisfying his political masters or pursuing a partisan agenda. The different between Roberts and Antonin Scalia is particularly striking.
The interesting thing about the ruling was that the mandate was found constitutional not on the commerce clause, but on the federal government's authority to levy taxes. This was always obvious to me from the beginning, but Democrats avoided characterizing it that way because they didn't want to be painted as creating a new tax. During oral arguments the justices seemed to denigrate the commerce clause as a justification for the mandate, making many think it would almost certainly be overturned. Scalia attempted to equate the mandate to forcing people to buy broccoli.
This was always a bogus argument, because people who don't buy broccoli don't eat broccoli, but people who don't pay for health insurance can still use health care. If you have a medical emergency the hospital is required by law to treat you. Which means that if you have a heart attack while jogging you won't die just because you didn't have your insurance card with you.
The law does not make it a crime to avoid buying health insurance. You just have to pay a penalty if you're not covered. In essence you have the choice between a) buying health insurance and b) paying an obstinacy tax. Furthermore, if you really can't afford to pay for health care the law provides subsidies and exceptions.
People have characterized the mandate as Obama's plan, but during the 2008 presidential primary he frequently voiced his opposition to it. Hillary Clinton had endorsed mandates by 2008 because conservatives, like Mitt Romney and Bob Dole and the Heritage Foundation, had proposed it to counter the health care plan she developed during the first Clinton administration. Obama and many Democrats compromised and reluctantly signed on to the mandate thinking that they could get some number of those same conservatives to be consist and continue to support what they themselves had invented. But almost no Republicans signed on; they only cared about handing Obama a political defeat.
Everyone knows that our health care system is too expensive and inefficient, that hospitals can't be expected to provide emergency room treatment for free, and that people should be responsible for themselves. Republican opposition to the health care law is simply political sabotage.
It's a relief to see Justice Roberts admit that and do what's right for the country.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
SCOTUS EVE
'Twas the night before the Supreme Court ruling and all through the house, predictions and prognostications were stirring even the mouse! Any thoughts on how it will go? Politico has an interesting piece up that essentially says that if the law is partially or entirely struck down, everyone loses.
I agree.
I agree.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
To the Ends of the Earth!
A lot of the people who support Big Oil are skeptical that human CO2 emissions from the burning of coal and oil could possibly change the climate. But Big Oil is about to make out like bandits because the receding arctic ice cap has uncovered a new supply of oil near the North Pole. Because the ice cap is now gone most of the summer, Shell Oil will be able to start exploratory drilling this summer.
According to an article in Scientific American (which has frequently run ads for Shell):
That means the entire reserve in the arctic would last the world about a thousand days, or less than three years. However, it will likely take years or decades to extract that oil, because the oil fields are remote, frigid and deep beneath the ocean. If you thought the technological challenges of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were daunting, imagine drilling for oil when the temperature is 40 below zero and the wind is blowing 50 miles an hour. Because even though the arctic sea ice now melts almost completely in the summer, winter at the pole is still terribly harsh. And since countries like Russia, Norway, Sweden, Canada and Finland will also have claims to arctic oil the amount the United States could drill would likely last less than a single year.
Doesn't it seem a little crazy to spend that much money and risk men's lives in such a treacherous environment to extract that last little bit of oil from the ends of the earth? At this point it makes more sense to invest those resources on a renewable source that will provide us with energy for long term. We can always wait to go after that oil later, after the technology has improved.
But it makes you wonder: are Big Oil's supporters intentionally lying about global warming so they can get at that last bit of oil?
According to an article in Scientific American (which has frequently run ads for Shell):
The US Geological Survey estimated in 2008 that the Arctic holds up to 90 billion barrels of oil — 13% of the world’s technically recoverable supply. Exploration and production is already under way on the other side of the Arctic, off Norway and Russia, for example (see The great Arctic oil race begins). Many parts of the Arctic circle are becoming ever-more accessible thanks to improved technologies and a reduction in summer sea ice because of climate change.That 90 billion number is interesting, because the estimated world consumption of oil for 2010 is about 90 million barrels a day, according to this website and by adding up the numbers on the CIA world factbook website.
That means the entire reserve in the arctic would last the world about a thousand days, or less than three years. However, it will likely take years or decades to extract that oil, because the oil fields are remote, frigid and deep beneath the ocean. If you thought the technological challenges of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico were daunting, imagine drilling for oil when the temperature is 40 below zero and the wind is blowing 50 miles an hour. Because even though the arctic sea ice now melts almost completely in the summer, winter at the pole is still terribly harsh. And since countries like Russia, Norway, Sweden, Canada and Finland will also have claims to arctic oil the amount the United States could drill would likely last less than a single year.
Doesn't it seem a little crazy to spend that much money and risk men's lives in such a treacherous environment to extract that last little bit of oil from the ends of the earth? At this point it makes more sense to invest those resources on a renewable source that will provide us with energy for long term. We can always wait to go after that oil later, after the technology has improved.
But it makes you wonder: are Big Oil's supporters intentionally lying about global warming so they can get at that last bit of oil?
Step One: Be A Giant Dick
When 14-year-old boys sound exactly like you do and can produce radio shows and books and speeches that sound exactly like yours, maybe you should rethink the shit that comes out of your mouth. Remember the Republican debates we had this year? They applauded for the idea of letting a sick man without insurance die. Herman Cain got cheers for saying he’d electrify the border fence. They booed a gay man serving his country in the military. No wonder 14-year-old boys can do your act, you act exactly like 14-year-old boys.
There’s no ideology here. It’s just about being a dick.
Yep.
There’s no ideology here. It’s just about being a dick.
Yep.
Monday, June 25, 2012
A Victory? Really?
Today in what many are calling a victory for the Arizona immigration law, the Supreme Court ruled most the law unconstitutional:
The justices let stand for now the part of the law that requires police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared that decision, on the part of the law that had generated the most controversy, a victory.
The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally.
The court also said the part of the law it upheld — requiring officers to check the immigration status of those they detain and reasonably believe to be illegal immigrants — could be subject to additional legal challenges once it is implemented.This means that the state of Arizona can force the police to you for your papers if they've stopped you on the street for some other reason, but the cops can't arrest you if you fail to do so, they can't arrest you for applying for a job without producing papers, and they can't arrest you just because they suspect you're here illegally.
What's the point of being able to ask for your papers if you can just say no, and there's nothing they can do if you refuse?
Basically, the Supreme Court says it's okay for Arizona to make laws that require the police to hassle people on the street. It's okay to pass laws that produce an oppressive cloud of suspicion on anyone who looks "Mexican."
The Court also left open the door for challenges the law once it goes into effect. This seems quite likely because different jurisdictions will enforce it differently, and different officers will exercise varying degrees of "reasonable suspicion," meaning that there will be selective enforcement and individuals will not all receive equal treatment under the law.
This doesn't sound like a big victory for Jan Brewer and the "centerpiece" of law. It sounds like this law was just gutted of its enforcement provisions, and will promptly be challenged when Joe Arpaio's men start harassing people for DWL (driving while Latino). And since the entire basis of it is blatantly subjective, it will probably face a skeptical Supreme Court if the state bothers to appeal it that far.
Dude, Is This My Flying Car?
The e-volo volocopter won the Lindbergh Prize for innovation in aviation in April, but I didn't hear about it until I recently read this article in Scientific American.
At first glance the thing looks crazy and more than a little dangerous with all those whirling knives. The design calls for a small 50-75 kw engine (typical of ultralight aircraft) that generates electricity for the 18 electric motors that drive the carbon-fiber propellers. There's also a lithium battery backup power supply. It steers by changing the speeds of individual rotors, using a joystick for control rather than standard helicopter rudder pedals, control stick and throttle. A computer will magically translate your directions into commands for the 18 rotors.
Using a bunch of small inexpensive rotors instead of one big rotor and tail boom drastically reduces the mass of the aircraft. Having 18 rotors provides redundancy that standard helicopters don't have—the craft should be able to fly with as few as 12 rotors, as long as they don't all fail on one side. That doesn't really comfort me, though: if you run into a tree or power line you're gonna lose all the rotors on one side.
They've done exactly one test flight as a proof of concept. The test vehicle used an exercise ball as its primary landing gear. The thing looks like something they built in a garage. But the Wright brothers built their first plane in a bicycle workshop, so more power to them.
I don't know if the volocopter will ever get off the ground, but the amazing thing is that the inventors are from Germany. Apparently not all innovation has been crushed by that over-regulated union-run health-care-for-all socialist European economy.
Bladerunner was set in LA in 2019. Maybe Philip K. Dick and Ridley Scott's bleak vision of a future with flying cars and megacorporations where Americans speak a patois of German/Spanish/Japanese/English isn't so far off.
Now, where are those basic pleasure model androids that look like Daryl Hannah?
A Sad Witness
I'm glad Nikto got up a post yesterday as I was too ripped to put anything up after my weekend in Wisconsin for my mom's retirement. Sadly, I was a witness to an old and dear friend (he's 84 years young) complete submission to the Cult.
It didn't take him long to bring up Barack X as he loves to talk politics.
"The biggest problem I have is that Barack Obama is a Muslim," he said with vehemence.
"No, he's not. He went to the same Christian church for over 20 years. Reverend Wright, remember?" I replied.
"Ah, bullshit. He wasn't even born here either. That birth certificate is fake."
I tried to convince him but the facts just bounced off.
And no, he's not an outlier.
It didn't take him long to bring up Barack X as he loves to talk politics.
"The biggest problem I have is that Barack Obama is a Muslim," he said with vehemence.
"No, he's not. He went to the same Christian church for over 20 years. Reverend Wright, remember?" I replied.
"Ah, bullshit. He wasn't even born here either. That birth certificate is fake."
I tried to convince him but the facts just bounced off.
And no, he's not an outlier.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
—All You Zombies—
The New York Times has an interesting article about the employees at Apple stores. These guys, mostly in their 20s and mostly with college degrees, make up 30,000 of Apple's 43,000 US employees and earn between $11.25 and $17.31 an hour.
It's a decent enough job, as far as retail goes. Unlike Walmart, they offer health care, 401(k) contributions, a chance to buy Apple stock and discounts on Apple products. But unlike employees at Verizon and AT&T stores, they're not on commission. They work in very hectic and stressful conditions and have no real path to career advancement. It's a dead-end job. But many Apple store employees move up to $3 million a year of expensive Apple products.
Now, some people will say that these guys don't deserve a piece of the action because Apple products sell themselves. Apple's customer base is essentially a cult who will buy anything emblazoned with the logo, no matter how expensive it is, and they will buy it over and over again each time the company releases a new version with even the most trivial enhancements just so they can say they have the latest Apple gewgaw.
As such, Apple store employees are just glorified cash registers. But the fact is, these guys do more than ring up purchases. They help you pick the right product and provide tech support: no matter how fabulous the product might look in the ads, there are always problems that require real human beings to fix.
But let's say that this is true. Apple store employees are interchangeable cogs that don't deserve a living wage because Apple customers are zombies with an insatiable hunger for brains—err, iPhones. The genius of Steve Jobs, his vision, drive and cynical manipulation of his customers' egos made Apple what it is today. Fair enough. But if so, what's good for the employee is good for the CEO.
According to the article, Apple CEO Tim Cook "received stock grants, which vest over a 10-year period, that at today’s share price would be worth more than $570 million." Yes, Apple's CEO Tim Cook is worth half a billion dollars just because Steve Jobs died. Cook did squat to earn that kind of compensation, he's just the guy who happened to sit down in Jobs' chair when the music stopped.
This is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with executive compensation in this country. Pretty much anyone could have inherited Steve Job's job and kept Apple profitable, just be staying out of the way of product designers and marketers. If Tim Cook got hit by a bus tomorrow, Apple wouldn't skip a beat.
The fact is, the guys on top of pretty much any publicly owned corporation are just as interchangeable as Apple store employees. But since interlocking corporate boards of directors (CEOs typically sit on the boards of other companies) decide compensation, for the last 50 years CEOs have been sitting around voting each other pay raises. In that time CEO pay has risen from 40 times the average employee's salary to 400 times.
But we still haven't mentioned the people who are really responsible for Apple's success: the engineers and programmers who design these products, and the workers in China who work 18-hour days at a rate of $22 a day to build them. And, lest we forget, the legions of zombies who ultimately provide all the company's profits, the customers themselves.
It's really All You Zombies out there who made Apple a success. If you think the guy at the Apple store who fixed your iPhone helped you more than Tim Cook ever did, let Apple know that Apple store employees deserve a piece of the action.
It's a decent enough job, as far as retail goes. Unlike Walmart, they offer health care, 401(k) contributions, a chance to buy Apple stock and discounts on Apple products. But unlike employees at Verizon and AT&T stores, they're not on commission. They work in very hectic and stressful conditions and have no real path to career advancement. It's a dead-end job. But many Apple store employees move up to $3 million a year of expensive Apple products.
Now, some people will say that these guys don't deserve a piece of the action because Apple products sell themselves. Apple's customer base is essentially a cult who will buy anything emblazoned with the logo, no matter how expensive it is, and they will buy it over and over again each time the company releases a new version with even the most trivial enhancements just so they can say they have the latest Apple gewgaw.
As such, Apple store employees are just glorified cash registers. But the fact is, these guys do more than ring up purchases. They help you pick the right product and provide tech support: no matter how fabulous the product might look in the ads, there are always problems that require real human beings to fix.
But let's say that this is true. Apple store employees are interchangeable cogs that don't deserve a living wage because Apple customers are zombies with an insatiable hunger for brains—err, iPhones. The genius of Steve Jobs, his vision, drive and cynical manipulation of his customers' egos made Apple what it is today. Fair enough. But if so, what's good for the employee is good for the CEO.
According to the article, Apple CEO Tim Cook "received stock grants, which vest over a 10-year period, that at today’s share price would be worth more than $570 million." Yes, Apple's CEO Tim Cook is worth half a billion dollars just because Steve Jobs died. Cook did squat to earn that kind of compensation, he's just the guy who happened to sit down in Jobs' chair when the music stopped.
This is a perfect illustration of what's wrong with executive compensation in this country. Pretty much anyone could have inherited Steve Job's job and kept Apple profitable, just be staying out of the way of product designers and marketers. If Tim Cook got hit by a bus tomorrow, Apple wouldn't skip a beat.
The fact is, the guys on top of pretty much any publicly owned corporation are just as interchangeable as Apple store employees. But since interlocking corporate boards of directors (CEOs typically sit on the boards of other companies) decide compensation, for the last 50 years CEOs have been sitting around voting each other pay raises. In that time CEO pay has risen from 40 times the average employee's salary to 400 times.
But we still haven't mentioned the people who are really responsible for Apple's success: the engineers and programmers who design these products, and the workers in China who work 18-hour days at a rate of $22 a day to build them. And, lest we forget, the legions of zombies who ultimately provide all the company's profits, the customers themselves.
It's really All You Zombies out there who made Apple a success. If you think the guy at the Apple store who fixed your iPhone helped you more than Tim Cook ever did, let Apple know that Apple store employees deserve a piece of the action.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
A Conversion and a Remembrance
Yesterday one of the staunchest opponents of gay marriage, David Blankenhorn, had a change of heart and announced his support for gay marriage in an editorial in the New York Times.
Blankenhorn was a big supporter of California's Proposition 8, and was one of only two witnesses called in the California Supreme Court trial over the anti-gay marriage proposition that had been adopted by voters (Proposition 8 was pushed hard by the Mormon Church). But his testimony in the trial has often been characterized as being personal opinion rather than expert scientific testimony, and many believed that he actively hurt the case by testifying that gay marriage would reduce the divorce rate. The ban was struck down by the court.
Blankenhorn's evolution on gay marriage is good news, and further evidence that acceptance of gays is continuing an inevitable trend. I welcome his recognition that gays should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and that they can and have made significant contributions in science, society and even war.
Take the case of Alan Turing, who was born this day 100 years ago. Turing was a mathematician and, by many accounts, the father of the digital computer. During WWII Turing worked at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking center. He was responsible for building the machine that was able to find the settings for the Nazi Enigma cipher machine, which played no small part in the Allied victory over Hitler. (By the way, today's Google doodle is a reference to the Turing Machine.)
After the war Turing went on to design one of the first stored program computers. In 1952 his home was broken into and matter-of-factly Turing mentioned to the police that he had a male lover. He was charged with "acts of gross indecency." Turing accepted chemical castration by taking female hormones. He died two years later of cyanide poisoning. At the time his death was ruled suicide, but some recent theories posit that his death was accidental (he was experimenting with cyanide in his home, as his research had expanded beyond computing into chemistry and biology). Rather than being despondent, Turing was characterized as defiant, cheerful, and humorous by acquaintances in the days before his death.
In Turing's day, a mere sixty years ago, laws across the world were used to persecute gays and lesbians. Now such discrimination is limited to countries like Iran, where they executed three men for homosexual activity last year and have sentenced four more men to hang last month. Does conservative America really want to align itself with Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs on the issue of gays and gay marriage? Doesn't the American ideal of liberty and justice for all have a better ring?
Blankenhorn was a big supporter of California's Proposition 8, and was one of only two witnesses called in the California Supreme Court trial over the anti-gay marriage proposition that had been adopted by voters (Proposition 8 was pushed hard by the Mormon Church). But his testimony in the trial has often been characterized as being personal opinion rather than expert scientific testimony, and many believed that he actively hurt the case by testifying that gay marriage would reduce the divorce rate. The ban was struck down by the court.
Blankenhorn's evolution on gay marriage is good news, and further evidence that acceptance of gays is continuing an inevitable trend. I welcome his recognition that gays should enjoy the same rights as everyone else, and that they can and have made significant contributions in science, society and even war.
Take the case of Alan Turing, who was born this day 100 years ago. Turing was a mathematician and, by many accounts, the father of the digital computer. During WWII Turing worked at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking center. He was responsible for building the machine that was able to find the settings for the Nazi Enigma cipher machine, which played no small part in the Allied victory over Hitler. (By the way, today's Google doodle is a reference to the Turing Machine.)
After the war Turing went on to design one of the first stored program computers. In 1952 his home was broken into and matter-of-factly Turing mentioned to the police that he had a male lover. He was charged with "acts of gross indecency." Turing accepted chemical castration by taking female hormones. He died two years later of cyanide poisoning. At the time his death was ruled suicide, but some recent theories posit that his death was accidental (he was experimenting with cyanide in his home, as his research had expanded beyond computing into chemistry and biology). Rather than being despondent, Turing was characterized as defiant, cheerful, and humorous by acquaintances in the days before his death.
In Turing's day, a mere sixty years ago, laws across the world were used to persecute gays and lesbians. Now such discrimination is limited to countries like Iran, where they executed three men for homosexual activity last year and have sentenced four more men to hang last month. Does conservative America really want to align itself with Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs on the issue of gays and gay marriage? Doesn't the American ideal of liberty and justice for all have a better ring?
Huh?
Any of the commenters that migrated from Kevin's site care to explain this video?
The last four years have seen more relaxed gun laws and, honestly, the decimation of the gun control lobby so I don't get it.
The last four years have seen more relaxed gun laws and, honestly, the decimation of the gun control lobby so I don't get it.
Friday, June 22, 2012
The Blatant Quid Pro Quo
The basis of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is the assumption that the presence of unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns does not lead to corruption, or even the appearance of corruption. The incredibly naive assumption they're making is that when people donate money to political campaigns there is no quid pro quo expected.
The Supreme Court should hear what some of these donors have been saying recently to see how campaign donations work in practice. From an article in the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
Bob Cummins, who has donated more than $3.5 million to Minnesota Republican causes, is telling allies he has had it with Republicans in the Minnesota Legislature and will not give their campaigns any cash this year, according to multiple sources.The reason? Cummins paid Republicans to put a union-busting "right-to-work" amendment on the 2012 ballot, and they failed to do so. Instead, they put a voter suppression "voter ID" amendment and an anti-gay "marriage" amendment on the ballot.
The Republicans wanted to bust the unions, but they feared a backlash that would bring a flood of union money and a big labor turnout on election day that would defeat all three amendments and their Republican backers. Since this is a redistricting year, the whole legislature is up for grabs--there are no "safe" Senate seats. If there's a huge Democratic turnout in 2012 the Republicans will lose control of the House and Senate, which they took in 2010.
Now, you can see why Cummins is mad. He gave a quarter million dollars to Republicans last year, expecting them to pass a union-busting amendment. All he got was this stupid gay marriage amendment. The Republicans just aren't doing what he paid them for.
Everyone assumes that there's an unspoken quid pro quo associated with campaign contributions, but big Republican donors aren't even hiding it anymore. They have publicly announced that they expect direct and immediate action when they give politicians money.
Cummins and Grover Norquist are committing blatant political extortion and assassination. Norquist has already driven several conservative Republican icons such as Dick Lugar from office because they were too accommodating to their constituents' concerns: i.e., working with Democrats to actually get things done.
Republicans will come to regret Citizens United and the increasingly demonic role of money in politics. Soon, it won't matter how conservative you are: the only thing that will matter is how much pork you provide your corporate donors. Business interests will quickly diverge from mainstream conservative thought and focus purely on promoting a corporate kleptocracy that has no ideology other than money.
You need look no further than Mitt Romney's campaign promises: he would cut all government expenditures, except for defense. Why? Defense spending goes directly into the pockets of giant corporations. The same old military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Using Government to Enforce Religious Orthodoxy
This November Minnesota has an amendment on the ballot to ban gay marriage, although there's already a law on the books that prevents it. This has brought out many of the usual suspects, such as the Catholic Church, which supports the ban, and the ACLU, which opposes it.
But there have been a few surprises, such as General Mills coming out against the ban, and two influential pastors who have decided not to take a public stand on the amendment.
This last development seems surprising, but is quite logical once you think about it. Both men have spoken out against gay marriage in the past, so it's clear what they think. But the Rev. John Piper said in a sermon:
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, does not get it. If the Catholic hierarchy believes government has the ability to dictate something as basic as who you can and can't marry, then government certainly has the authority over picayune details such as requiring Catholic universities to provide their employees with health insurance policies that include birth control.
In other words, the Church can't complain that the government is trampling their religious freedoms while simultaneously calling for the government to trample other people's religious freedoms.
Hasn't the Catholic Church learned its lesson after centuries of bloodshed in its name? The Church has burned homosexuals at the stake, executed people for heresies as trivial as the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation and the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and gone to war for that most heinous of heresies, the Protestant heresy, which according to current Catholic doctrine "denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself."
Amending a state constitution to enforce Catholic orthodoxy on everyone is less bloody than the Inquisition or the massacre of thousands of Calvinist Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day by King Charles IX of France. But it's no different than Muslim countries incorporating Sharia law into their legal code, something which Catholics and Protestants alike can agree is a bad thing.
But there have been a few surprises, such as General Mills coming out against the ban, and two influential pastors who have decided not to take a public stand on the amendment.
This last development seems surprising, but is quite logical once you think about it. Both men have spoken out against gay marriage in the past, so it's clear what they think. But the Rev. John Piper said in a sermon:
Don't press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism, Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative mandates, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word.I applaud these men, because they realize that it's not in religion's best interests to enlist the government to enforce religious beliefs on others.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, does not get it. If the Catholic hierarchy believes government has the ability to dictate something as basic as who you can and can't marry, then government certainly has the authority over picayune details such as requiring Catholic universities to provide their employees with health insurance policies that include birth control.
In other words, the Church can't complain that the government is trampling their religious freedoms while simultaneously calling for the government to trample other people's religious freedoms.
Hasn't the Catholic Church learned its lesson after centuries of bloodshed in its name? The Church has burned homosexuals at the stake, executed people for heresies as trivial as the Protestant rejection of transubstantiation and the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and gone to war for that most heinous of heresies, the Protestant heresy, which according to current Catholic doctrine "denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself."
Amending a state constitution to enforce Catholic orthodoxy on everyone is less bloody than the Inquisition or the massacre of thousands of Calvinist Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day by King Charles IX of France. But it's no different than Muslim countries incorporating Sharia law into their legal code, something which Catholics and Protestants alike can agree is a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)