"Obamacare"

The Constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, referred to on orders from the Republican high command as “Obamacare,”* is being adjudicated by the Supreme Court, the decision to be announced around July 1. Some sage heads have opined that one or two of the Court’s usual majority on controversial issues will defect, upholding the law in its entirety. But these people are Democrats who I believe are wishful thinking. I’d put my money on the usual five dress suit ward heelers who made George Bush president and passed Citizen’s United, ruling true to form

While the entire law is up for review the most controversial aspect, one that could be overruled by itself to the exclusion of the rest  the bill, is the mandate that every American possess, and consequently pay for medical insurance. A recent article in the New Republic by Elner Enhauge specifies instances in our early years where the Founding Fathers had laws imposing similar compulsory expenditures.

Two of them deal specifically with insurance. Owners of commercial ships were required to carry medical insurance on their crews. Crew members were later required to insure themselves for hospitalization when it became too expensive. Where this analogy breaks down is similar to the argument that equates mandated health insurance with the requirement for car owners to carry liability coverage on their vehicles. Automobiles only have to be covered by an owner who wants to them driven. Since shipping was under federal jurisdiction the government had the right to impose its rules on those who chose use the seas and our ports for commerce. The law in question today requires purchasing health coverage simply for being alive, metaphorically a horse of a different color. 

But don’t despair because Mr. Enhauge mentions a third early statute which is directly to the point. Every male was required to have a gun in his home, a mandate that should warm the cockles of most right wing hearts. It specifically reveals the intent of the earliest American citizens in laws enacted by their elected representatives on the matter of federal mandates for simply the privilege of living as an American. Speaking for myself, that seems like a pretty good deal.

*Right wing “analyst” Amy Holmes in a monologue on the Bill Maher show mentioned “Obamacare” about ten times. “It” would have sufficed for the last nine, but then she was only following orders.

A Slice of History

In Jonathan Alter’s history of FDR’s early years he describes the events beginning late in the afternoon of Friday March 3, 1933, the day before his inauguration, on his visit to the White House with outgoing president Hoover. There was no love lost between the two men, but the visit was a tradition. On his arrival he noticed Treasury Secretary Ogden Nash and other big wigs and knew that this was more than a social event, so he sent for Raymond Moley, a member of his “brain trust.” The ensuing conversation was heard by Eleanor Roosevelt through an unintended open door and related by her to several female reporters sworn to secrecy.   Late in that business day there had been an unexpected frantic run on the banks, which were already shut down in most states, but not in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York. Both men knew that a devastating panic would likely result Saturday morning unless banks in these states were closed. Hoover wanted FDR to publicly join him in approving their closing. Roosevelt’s response was “like hell I will.” He told Hoover to do as he wished while he was president and that he, FDR, would declare his own “bank holiday” on Monday.   The upshot of this standoff was that unless something was done in the wee small hours of the morning the banking system would likely have completely collapsed. The day was saved by members of both staffs, acting on their own, waking the governors of these three states, two of whom were in Washington for the inauguration, and having them close the banks that morning.   I mention this not to take either man’s side in their disagreement, but because I find it a fascinating slice of history that shows the even greater depths to which three years of Hoover’s handling of the Depression might have led us were it not for the heroic efforts of subordinates. FDR’s first seven years were no picnic. But most historians would agree that they were a significant improvement on Hoover’s last three. What I also find telling is that the Depression ended with the national armament following the fall of France in 1940, an expense that roughly half of Americans at the time thought extravagant and unnecessary.   The contrast between Hoover’s and FDR’s reaction to hard times is well reflected in our political parties today. Republicans, as Hoover, want to cut expenses that benefit lower and middle income people and reduce taxes, a boon to the rich. Democrats want to prime the pump with investment or stimulus as FDR did in 1933 and as Hitler eventually forced us to do in spades.   It can be argued that ten years of our history do not a policy make. But we should consider that conditions and their causes then were strikingly similar to today’s and the direction of the first three was steadily downhill, while the last seven moved us a long way towards recovery. I see this perspective as a valid and strong argument against those who claim that government is our enemy.

Stick 'em Up

In his comments about the Trayvon Martin killing, Bill Cosby dismissed the racial aspect and placed blame on our lax controls of guns.  I disagree with him on the first part. The odds of a black man spending the night at home after having killed a white person in Sanford Florida are steep, even if it was in one of those black gated communities. But I’m with him all the way when it comes to them there guns.
 
Our gun control policies are simply too liberal. Yes liberal! What better word describes laws that specifically defend owners’ rights to carry loaded weapons openly in places like bars and churches? (OK. “Permissive” or “lenient” will do.) People who feel as I do often cite a laundry list of tragic events such as Tucson, Virginia Tech and Columbine. But it could be and is argued that the need to be armed outweighs these negatives. A far more accurate measure is the comparative homicide rates in nations, states and cities. Every report I’ve heard showed conclusively that the stricter the controls the fewer the killings
 
“I’m an NRA member AND I VOTE” was the text of a popular bumper sticker awhile ago, to which I’d often mumble to myself “yes, but only once.” I wonder why it’s been years since I’ve heard of any polling results on this subject. At that time the public was generally in favor of more regulation. After Googling the subject I found that it still is, not on the most severe measures such as restricting handgun ownership to law enforcement, but on the future of gun control in general, stricter regulation was the clear winner in poll after poll. The status quo was second choice with less control a distant third.
 
The reluctance of the Democratic Party to take a position on this subject over the years has mystified me. Of course the NRA controls considerable votes. But it has been, and never more than today, a de facto arm of the Republican Party. Barack Obama hasn’t said or done a thing on gun control as president and yet the muckety mucks of the NRA have publicly made his defeat a priority.
 
Public opinion in the polls I saw favored gun control, but by less of a margin than in previous years. It’s moving in this direction because the gun lobby has been dominating the public conversation. Our president is a smart man. But he has yet to show he understands that on this subject appealing to independent voters is a much more fertile field for him and most Democrats than trying to pacify National Rifle Association mentality.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Travon Martin

The Trayvon Martin killing is indeed an important event. But as a story I found it tedious because developments haven’t kept pace with media attention. This situation changed yesterday with the announcement by a state appointed prosecutor that second degree murder charges will be filed against Zimmerman, who is now in police custody.
 
Many of us on the left have come to tentative guilty conclusions. An armed man chasing, shooting and killing an unarmed teenager lends itself to this sort of thinking. But I believe that we will come out best by keeping our conclusions to ourselves until there is more time to gather information. Predictably the right has already leaped to Zimmerman’s defense with nothing but an opinion.* Still “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high standard at which I direct the following conundrum. Can any person maliciously kill another in the absence of witnesses and successfully claim self defense? The paucity of witnesses in this case is a by itself cause for raised eyebrows. Were there none? Has information been withheld?
 
Whatever can be said for reserving judgment on Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, there is no defending the performance of law enforcement prior to yesterday's announcement. Should a person taken to police headquarters after having killed another be sent home to get a night’s rest? I’m surprised, disappointed and saddened by the fact that only 35% of white Americans polled believe that racial consideration was involved in his treatment by law enforcement. Do 65% think a black on white killing in most Southern cities would have been treated as delicately?
 
This case doesn’t figure to go away any time soon. I for one would be pleased if Zimmerman pleads guilty by virtue of insanity. This idea is not far-fetched judging by his recent behavior. After all, racists are irrational by definition and convincing a jury that he’s a racist should be a lead pipe cinch.
 
 
*In a textbook sample of good old fashioned racism one of Zimmerman’s defenders, referring to Trayvon Martin, said “when you plant corn you get corn.” 
 
 
 
 

"Hate Crimes"

While I haven’t followed the Trayvon Martin killing as closely as some I’m certainly interested and, from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t look good for the police. However I prefer waiting for the final returns before getting enthusiastic. One obvious conclusion is that there’s something very wrong with Florida’s “stand your ground” law. It’s worth knowing that it was enacted by the Florida legislature with aggressive promotion by the Governor Jeb Bush.

An ancillary argument has developed on which I have a firm opinion. That is the place of separate legal treatment for “hate” crimes. The following was written five years ago when I was learning the advantage of the computer over the electric typewriter and hadn’t got to email. I consider it equally relevant today. I don’t expect complete agreement on this one.

*                                                   *                                                       *

While I accept the legitimacy of arguments of those who want a special category for “hate crimes” I disagree with their conclusion. For openers, the word “hate” in this context takes in too much territory. There are many hate induced violent crimes that don’t affect homosexuals, ethnic or religious minorities such as acts between any combination of jealous husbands, wives or lovers. At the risk of seeming homophobic, I have only begrudgingly accepted the loss of two perfectly good words that have been part of the English language for centuries, queer and gay. I can get by with synonyms. But hate is too big a word to be co-opted by any group to support its agenda.

As a practical matter, our ability to determine intent in the commission of crimes is inexact. Then there is the possibility that courts in homophobic or racist communities might use this tool against the people it was meant to protect.

Most important, I believe that murder is murder and armed robbery is just that, nothing more or less. I grant the need for a federal statute against murder. It was incongruous for O.J. Simpson to be acquitted of that crime in California and convicted in Federal Court for depriving people of their civil rights by murdering them. But I’d be as upset by a violent act committed against me for the contents of my wallet as I would by the same act committed because my parents were Jewish. When it comes to violent crime, I am an equal opportunity hater.

Point Spread

On the subject of gambling my attitude is libertarian. I do criticize state lotteries as essentially taxes on the poor. Still the libertarian wins out over the Good Samaritan and I say let them have at it, a view consistent with the hours I’ve spent at blackjack tables.
 
In legal gambling, as we tend to think of it, the rules are an open book. We know they favor the house or state, not necessarily to the same degree. The last I heard, the return on  state lotteries was a fourth of casino slot machines, information available to any interested bettor. It’s my understanding these rules of the game are well enforced. If foul play were discovered, either at private or state owned facilities, it would work to the financial detriment of the state.
 
But there are games going on in lower Manhattan that leave the aggregate of these games of chance in the dust. They take place in virtual secrecy with considerably less policing. They provide a breeding ground for foul play compounded by the fact that the big guys get to keep their winnings and pay for their losses with other peoples’ money, ours.  
 
I don’t fault Bush’s TARP or Obama’s Stimulus. I place a higher value on survival than on propriety. But a system that allows a select part of the private sector to inflict this cost on the nation is in need of major revision. It seems unthinkable that, horror of horrors, less regulation is in order. Clearly the opposite is the case. The two major financial collapses of the past century followed extended periods of deregulation.
 
We’ve heard some of the unpleasant details of avarice by the big players that has caused this country such harm. It’s unfair to paint all of Wall Street with the same brush. But the stereotype does exist. We know what these people take from the country. There are times when I get to wondering what even the decent folks down there give back. Then I realize that there is a legitimate need for honest bookies.
 
The price paid by the N.Y. Mets for Willie Mays to end his career with them was the promise of a place in the organization on his retirement from the game. He lost the position after taking a second job as a greeter at Bally’s Casino in Atlantic City. Pity he didn’t take up with a respectable outfit like Goldman Sachs!
 

Misogyny

No I haven’t  ceased sending emails to the usual victims. My recent silence has nothing to do with a lack of material, but because I have little to add to the coverage I’ve heard from the media. As I see it the actions of Republicans, in tandem with the right wing in general , have done nothing in this period to enhance the party’s approval among women.
 
The Fat Man was in full bloom for a few days with his less than flattering description of a law school student who didn’t see things his way, as a “slut.” There are numerous synonyms for this word, but no euphemisms, so his excuse of bad word choice doesn’t pass muster. I sense a general agreement on both sides of the spectrum, a bit more begrudging on the right, that it isn’t cricket to impugn the character of someone with whom one disagrees. The old battle cry “they all do it” is the next thing to admitting that your guy was naughty too, but only because “they” made him.
 
When it comes to misogyny the Fat Man is small potatoes compared to the Virginia legislature. Most of us have sufficiently considered and condemned the male chauvinistic nature of this law with its pre abortion rituals. What has been largely overlooked is that this is an attempt to effectively nullify a Constitutional right specified by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in 1973. 
 
The purpose of this law is purely and simply to penalize abortion. The penalty is not a fine or prison, but shame. Not embarrassment involving others, but shame directed at one’s self. This sort of thing is not unheard of in our history. But then the Scarlet Letter was set in 1642 America, nearly a hundred and fifty years before our Constitution.
 
Of course if Hester had access to proper contraceptive coverage she wouldn’t have earned her “A” and Nathaniel Hawthorne would have had one less story to his credit.