Opponents of same sex marriage offer, uninvited, grand scale predictions about the perils that gay marriage will visit upon our society. We know them all. It would be the end of civilization, monogamy will be abandoned and people will marry dogs if gay get married. If any of those things happen it will be because of many reasons I would not pin it on gay marriage.
Before we get to these extreme results what would be some discernible benchmarks to show that these predictions may be true not just bigoted hyperbole. Well Steve Chapman at Reason had the brilliant idea to ask the gay marriage doomsayers exactly that question. With six states have essentially experiments in gay marriage what would the signs that the end of civilization is coming or that monogamy is being abandoned.
"But with the experiment looming, some opponents seem to be doubting their own convictions. I contacted three serious conservative thinkers who have written extensively about the dangers of allowing gay marriage and asked them to make simple, concrete predictions about measurable social indicators—marriage rates, divorce, out-of-wedlock births, child poverty, you name it.""Yet none was prepared to forecast what would happen in same-sex marriage states versus other states."
Of course proponents of gay marriage had no problem saying that there would be no impact on the course of civilization. At least none that will be noticeable by statistics.
Chapman:
"In a few years, we won't have to rely on such forecasts, because the facts will be there for all to see. And they should settle the issue once and for all.
But I have a strong suspicion that both sides of the debate are right. The supporters of same-sex marriage are right in predicting that it will have no bad side effects. And the opponents are right not to make predictions."
It seems the tone of the agriculture town halls are more civil than those for health care. The respective stories for each are also more imaginative and pleasant. Ria Misra at Politics Daily:
"On Wednesday at the Iowa State Fair, a group of farmers gathered from all over the state. Walking straight past the 1,000-pound squash, a 600-pound butter sculpture of a cow and the stand selling fried Milky Way bars, the farmers sat down to detail some of the problems they were facing to their former governor."
But the two town halls intersect. Misra:
"It's not just the lack of insurance that's troubling farmers. Vilsack estimated that the out-of-pocket costs for people living in rural communities was about $1,000 more per year than their urban counterparts pay. 'Rural America really comes out at the short end of a very long stick under the current health care system,' he said."
You would think that Iowa's senior Senator would be talking about the health care plight of Iowan farmer's.
Sphere: Related Content
"The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel)."
And this:
"'As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains (Undue influence,' Aug. 8): the government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of 'living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families' on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.
Significantly, Lane adds that, 'The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint).'
But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are 'purely voluntary.' In response, Lane - who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter - advises us:
'To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.''"
And this:
"I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will - as some of the current bills seem to imply - have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?"
What the hell does that mean? Here is a letter to the editor of the St Cloud Times in Minnesota:
Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are like-minded conservative women. They are standing strong against the breakdown in America’s culture and government today. They challenge the sophistication that looks down from self-constructed Towers of Babel at the spontaneity of good common sense and grassroots wisdom. Advertisement
When Palin and Bachmann say “beware,” sophistication laughs. This kind of reaction is a syndrome that goes back to the time of Noah.
Noah built a huge ship on land where there was no body of water. People laughed. In the end, he and his family survived a huge environmental disaster while the others did not.
Today, liberalism is a cultural and governmental disaster. It is now eating itself alive by vastly increasing the national debt with no end in sight. Authentic restraint is above the “pay grade” of liberals in both political parties.
Now is the time for conservative women to face the breakdown for the sake of a breakthrough. Liberal women, including Bachmann’s opponent for the next election, are a major part of the breakdown.
Without common-sense restraint, liberalism leads to tyranny. Liberals are noticeably adept at doing whatever they want while trying to control others. Lack of me-control naturally projects itself into you-control. Beware, then, of liberalism and its sinister impulse to take over everything and everyone.
Those who see a straight-line connection between “lawful” killing of babies in the womb and terminating elders approaching the tomb know something about logic. Logical consistency does its thing no matter how much sophistication laughs at it. If such an atrocity as abortion is “health care,” what else, logically and lawfully, can be called “health care?”
Conservative women like Palin and Bachmann refuse to give this logic of liberalism its “go ahead.” They represent the wisdom of authentically human culture and government.
I appreciate his acknowledgement of the scarcity of medical care.His basic economics is correct that as demand rises prices will likely rise as well.The assumption misses the possibility that there is already demand for and consumption of medical care by the currently uninsured that helps to drives medical cost up.It is not as if the uninsured will be entering the market for health care for the first time.They will enter it in a more efficient method as opposed to the emergency room door.
As Stossel agrees with most reasonable people that the government is not actively trying to kill people with “death panels” so why is rationing an issue.Why shouldn't scarce resources be rationed or prioritized?We currently try to ration medical resources such as vaccines.We prioritize older people and younger people to be vaccinated for flu primarily because we have a scarcity of vaccines and some people are more vulnerable.
As it has been pointed out before is insurance company rationing more desirable?
The market place for medical services for people with insurance is weird.Stossel is correct that there is a "principal-agent problem." As you enter the doctor’s examination room are you the consumer of the medical services.I don’t think so.You are the consumer of health insurance but the insurance company is the consumer of the health care since they are the ones paying the doctor. Or at least that is what Stossel leads to believe.I think he is correct but why would a government payer make this problem worse.
I now that Stossel’s concern is for self-determination. Does the current health insurance structure give people the opportunity for self-determination after the purchase of the policy?Does a public option do any less?For real self-determinative system we would need to undo all insurance and make health care fee for service. You only get it if you can pay for it.
"After being besieged by protesters at meetings across his home state of Iowa, Grassley said he has concluded that the public has rejected the far-reaching proposals Democrats have put on the table, viewing them as overly expensive precursors to ''a government takeover of health care.'"
Grassley has made himself redundant by saying that the people have rejected the current health care proposals. The Post story reports Grassley as saying:
"Calls for reform are 'not quite as loud as people that say we ought to slow down or don't do anything,' he said. 'And I've got to listen to my people.'"
Grassley has joined Bachmann in not understanding his job.
"I think it's worth mentioning that the Grassley theory of 'the public' is pretty much the exact opposite of how American democracy is supposed to function. Famously, public representatives are supposed to distinguish between the 'vicious arts' of faction (Madison's words) and the 'permanent and aggregate interests of the community' (Hamilton's). Of course, it might be the case that protestors laying seige to Fort Grassley actually represent the aggregate interests of the public. But you won't find evidence for that conclusion at a townhall meeting.
On the other hand, there's a pretty interesting question about the nature of democracy here: Formal democracy measures only the number of preferences (tallying votes), and not the intensity of preferences (like passionate townhall protests) or the quality of preferences (like the opinion of some group of philosopher kings). But I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Senator Grassley is not asking those rich philosophical quesitons."
Clarke is correct Grassley is not pursuing any grand philosophical goal. He is playing politics and not doing his job.
The Boston Globe reports that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has begun conversations to modify the state succession law to ensure that Mass. has two senators.
Hopefully the Mass. legislature can make this change quickly. This announcement from Kennedy does sound as if he plans to step down when the law is changed if he does not die before then.
Unfortunately the Globe reports that there may not be any political will to change the law.
"It is not within our power as members of Congress, it’s not within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, for us to design and create a national takeover of health care. Nor is it within our ability to be able to delegate that responsibility to the executive."
Bachmann is wrong about the congressional authority. What can promote the general welfare of the people more than health care. Article I section 8 if the US Constitution says:
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
"Bachmann, however, is wrong about both the contents of the health care plan and the requirements of the Constitution. There is nothing in any of the health care bills under consideration which resembles a 'national takeover of health care.' Conservatives like to use this language when referring to the public health option. Like other insurers, the public option would collect premiums from people who choose to buy into it, and then spend those premiums to insure these participants.
Had Bachmann bothered to read Article I of the Constitution before going on Fox, she would have learned that Congress has the power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" and to 'provide for….the general welfare of the United States.' Rather than itemizing specific subject matters, such as health care, which Congress is allowed to spend money on, the framers chose instead to give Congress a broad mandate to spend money in ways that promote the 'general welfare.'"
On another issue of our form of government. In the video Sean Hannity says a congressman will vote for health care reform even if some of his constituents don't want him to. Hannity goes to say that he always thought that the job of a congressman was to represent his district. I know that this is a common thought and an understandable one, but it is not true by the constitution or by other founding documents.
Article I does not go into detail that a representative is simply a proxy for his constituents or what method should be utilized for deciding how to vote on legislation. James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 was concerned with the power of factions to influence laws and how to control for faction whether they be a majority faction of minority faction. Madison understands that the problem of faction can not be removed for society. He writes:
"CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS"
He continued:
"The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
Madison believes that the representatives are not the proxies for the people but a filter for the public's views that may be more consonant "to the public good" than the voice of the people themselves. It can debated whether the current health care proposals are for the public good but it is does not debatable that congress can pass reform legislation even if a faction of constituents are against it.
The constitution limits the power of the branches of government to the delimited areas but doe it also limit the power of the populous in the process of legislating? It seems that the founders wanted it that way. Maybe Hannity should get a copies of both documents and share them with Representative Bachmann.
A digression:
In going back to the Federalist Paper #10 this evening I came across this line:
"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?"
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Dems plan to split the health care bill in two pieces. They hope to handle the controversial stuff first then pass it through reconciliation.
The Journal reports:
"Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a parliamentary maneuver called reconciliation.
In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.
Other parts of the Democratic plan would be put to a separate vote in the Senate, including most of the insurance regulations that have been central to Mr. Obama's health-care message.
That bill would likely set new rules for insurers, such as requiring they accept anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the health-care overhaul has already drawn some Republican support and wouldn't involve new spending, leading Democratic leaders to believe they could clear the 60-vote hurdle."
"I know that there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate and there are a some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness. I need you to spread the facts and speak the truth.''
The administration seems to be getting back to its massive organizing skill. The Times:
"Organizing for America, the president's political organization based at the Democratic National Committee, is trying to rally its members. Last week about 60,000 volunteers sent messages to lawmakers, urging them to support Obama's health care agenda.
Obama plans Thursday to promote his plans in a conference call and online address to supporters that could draw huge numbers of listeners. He also will speak with Philadelphia-based radio talk show host Michael Smerconish, who will broadcast from the White House."
Michael Steele's doesn't let new information in or the truth out. As Republicans across the country, including stalwarts at the National Review, are announcing their shunning of the "death panel" claims Michale Steele continues to straddle both sides. The Mind of Steele said on MSNBC about "death panel" claims:
"Some characterize it as unfortunate. Others characterize it as a reflection of what they think and what they feel. That comes from some place and is something that’s out there in the grassroots of America, not just Republicans.”
His response to Joe Scarborough asking is Steele believes there will be "death panels":
“It may or may not be. I don’t know. We don’t know what the bill is. But there’s clearly an attempt by at least the House members to put in place a structure that causes concern for the American people in respect to end of life decisions. I think that’s a legitimate point. You don’t have to call it death panels if you don’t want to. You can call it a panel. I call it rationing.”
Is this guy really this disconnected from the reality of his party?
"During a hearing in San Francisco, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ordered lawyers on both sides of the case to gear up quickly for the trial, which foes of California's same-sex marriage ban hope will be the first step in getting the legal fight over gay marriage to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Backed by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and prominent lawyer David Boies, two same-sex couples sued in federal court this past spring to overturn Proposition 8, approved by voters in fall 2008 to restore California's ban on gay marriage. The lawsuit maintains Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples by denying them the equal right to marry, and marks what is likely to be the first crucial legal test in the federal courts over the issue.
The California Supreme Court this past spring upheld Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage, but the justices left intact an estimated 18,000 gay marriages that took place last year before voters approved the measure by 52 to 48 percent. Those weddings took place after the state Supreme Court struck down the state's previous laws banning same-sex marriage."
In an odd twist the judge in this trial made comments about the state lack of a defense in this case:
"Walker took a swipe at Schwarzenegger's position at the conclusion of today's hearing, saying, 'I must say I'm surprised at the governor's position in this case. ... This is a matter of some importance to the people of the state.'"
"Mr. Olson, who is not a regular churchgoer, began to elaborate on his view that religious beliefs were insufficient legal justification for government to refuse to recognize same-sex marriage."
I would assert that religion is not a basis for any legal judgment, in as far as you can remove those ideas from your thought process.
Two quotes from the profile that shows the stupidity of the idea that people, even those with well defined ideologies, should be ruled by monolithic sets of ideas:
"Last month, at a Federalist Society lunch, Mr. Olson delivered his annual roundup of the Supreme Court term. He was greeted warmly, but there was palpable discomfort over the marriage case. Not a single person mentioned it to him, save for an oblique ribbing by David Bossie, whom Mr. Olson is representing in a case involving his scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton. After pecking Ms. Olson on the cheek, Mr. Bossie told her husband, “I’m not going to kiss you, even though apparently you wouldn’t mind.”
William Bradford Reynolds, another Reagan-era colleague, said later that while Mr. Olson presented a thoughtful case, 'He’s taking a more assertive view of how one should interpret the Constitution than you would normally expect Ted to take.'"
Jill Lawrence at Politics Daily posits that perhaps the current spot that the health care debate is at may be a part of the master Obama Strategy. She Writes:
"I were formulating strategy at the White House, I would be thinking it's way too early to play hardball about anything, especially the public insurance proposal that has inflamed both liberals (who insist on having it) and conservatives (who insist it must be dumped)."
Is it better to play "hardball" at the crunch time or in the beginning getting the ducks lined up and ready to quack in unison?
She writes:
"But health reform has many more complexities and congressional phases than the Senate's one-shot authorization of a war. My view – to be honest, my hope – is that Obama is deliberately keeping people guessing as the delicate process unfolds. Princeton scholar Fred Greenstein, author of 'The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush," told me that's a definite possibility. He called Obama 'a constructive political chameleon' who is making 'studious use of ambiguity.'"
I like to read about these awesome theories of political maneuverings that seem dramatic but unrealistic. The idea that using the slow legislative policy to your advantage to get a bill through the senate and then try to get a few defectors from the right side of the aisle seems awfully speculative. A strategy that depends on moving at least two republican senators along with eight conservative democrats is long odds.
If there is some amount of confidence that a plan with the public option can get one or two safe republican senator supporters the administration should pursue that option but you still need to get all eight democrat swing senators. Five of the senators are up for election over the next three years, three in 2010 and two in 2012. I think it is very unlikely to get all five of these senators to support a bill.
Perhaps a better strategy is to get Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd to retire to acquire two functional democrat votes. It only makes the road easier.
Sphere: Related Content
"The big litmus test, though, will be who Crist appoints as a placeholder to serve out the rest of retiring Senator Mel Martinez's term. The odds are overwhelming that Crist's pick will cast a vote on a major climate bill in the Senate later this year. Environmental groups are already pressuring Crist to appoint someone who reflects his views on energy and global warming. But, of course, if Crist appoints a green Republican who votes for a climate bill, he risks the wrath of the GOP base in next year's primaries. So what's it going to be."
Just like Glenn Beck, anything for a dollar. Here is a Beck episode condensed to ten minutes. He implies that he does not think eugenics is coming but goes on to inform us what eugenics is with what is essentially film of the genre that you will see in an old school sex ed classes.
I believe that if the three guys sitting with Beck at the beginning had said they thought eugenics was coming Beck would have went that way.
He cries.
When will Murdoch cut this guy loose?
Beck hasn't tweeted in four days, perhaps he is looking for a new job.
Sphere: Related Content
