1st and 2nd Amendment Rights

The tragedy that took place last week at Fort Hood, Texas, was the work, it would appear, of a deranged person. It would seem that this person simply snapped, and began shooting people he did not know, and who had done nothing to him. There seemed to be no sense in these shootings and no escape for the shooter.

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an officer in the US Army is alleged to be the shooter. He was said to have been depressed because he was about to be deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. What ever the reason, other than insanity it is difficult to explain his actions. While Major Hassan denied those he shot their Constitutional Rights, he took advantage of the first and second Amendment in carrying out these shootings.

Hassan purchased automatic hand guns, clips and plenty of ammunition in his local community. He just walked in and bought far more “protection” than he needed, no questions asked. He had no criminal record and his right to own multiple weapons had recently been affirmed by none less that the US Supreme Court. Common sense interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would support reasonable controls on what type of fire arms people could own and how much ammunition should go along.

But Hassan waited almost to the end to take advantage of the 1st Amendment. It has been reported that Hassan gave copies of the Koran to several of this neighbors in the days leading up to the fateful last day, and in the best of Islamic tradition, announced “God is Great” when he pulled out his guns and started firing. There should be no further evidence needed than recounting these words when, (if he lives and gets to trial), he pleads not guilty by insanity.

I do not see this as a Muslin event. The shooter could have just as well been a born again Christian or someone like the Korean who shot up Virginia Tech. The greatness of the first Amendment is the separation of Church and State. People who devoutly believe in God can be as misguided as a headless chicken, and certainly are if they take their religion’s teachings as literally true.

The Fort Hood tragedy underscores the need for much more regulation around “bearing arms”, and far more diligence on keeping Church and State separated.

 

Missed Opportunity?

President Obama’s swing at the health reform ball may go down as another “missed opportunity”. It will not, in the lens of history, go down as a misdirected effort, but rather as another misjudged effort. The fact that the Democrats have a 41 seat majority in the House of Representatives and are stumbling to pass a less than perfect health care reform bill, speaks volumes.

For six months we have heard discussed in the media, death panels, abortion coverage, and government run health care, instead of first having established with the American people what is wrong with the current system, what options exist to fix it, and why it should be fixed. Without this primary debate, why should we expect there to be a consensus. Too many people make too much money with the current arrangement, and too many people, who are already insured, refuse to open their minds to other possibilities and even more profoundly, the morality of universal coverage.

If the country was committed to universal coverage, and the debate today was about whether the proposed legislation accomplished that, then we all could be proud of our Congress. That is not the case, and we are close to have wasted an important opportunity.

 

Putty

Today’s newspapers are carrying stories and pictures of a manufactured protest, held in Washington, DC, against the pending House version of health care reform. Pictured are scores of people, each with signs that essentially say, “don’t touch my health care”. These protest, sponsored by the GOP, make you wonder what they are thinking. These people look like “putty” in the hands of master manipulators.

The US has a health care delivery system that is the most costly in the world, delivers below average outcomes compared to other industrialized nations, and is heading for bankruptcy in 20 years. On top of that there are an estimated 30 million people who are uninsured and millions more who are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions even though they were once insured. And, you want me to believe that “don’t touch my health care” is an appropriate response?

This is shameful politics and is being brought to you by the same people who beg for votes by bashing gays and lesbians, who turn their backs on women and their right to reproductive health, and treat undocumented workers as chattel. Health care is both a moral and an economic issue, and is being treated as a win-lose proposition.

Citizens need to reflect upon why some (actually, read most everyone who has insurance) should have coverage they do not fully pay for, and at the same time, work to deny others who do not have coverage. The height of hypocrisy is government (federal, state, or local) workers who boast of working for their coverage and not wanting others who do not work to get coverage. The government workers, general, enjoy better than average coverage at highly subsidized rates. How can they look themselves in the mirror?

The GOP is heartless on this matter and is only too ready to put the putty in their hands and have shaped an ugly object.

 

Political Realities

Since Tuesday’s elections, the heavy breathers who tell us what we should know about the political landscape as well as all issue affecting daily life, have advised that there was a “wake up” message for President Obama in those results. These sages main points were

• Bipartisanship is key
• Jobs is a must
• Health care is distracting
• Balancing the budget must also be a goal

The comment on bipartisanship is quite amazing.  During George W Bush’s Administration, Tom Delay and others had the votes and chose to consult only with K-Street lobbying firms.  Bi-partisanship is over rated when it is substituted as a means to methodically delay and derail policy development and implementation.

These sages point out that jobs have not bounced back and the Democrats have spent too much time on health care, and have not included Republicans to boot. The hand writing is clear. Unless Obama and the Democrats change, power will shift in 2010, and President Obama could be looking at being a one term President.

I am afraid these pundits are close to correct. Correct, that is on the political reality of “no jobs, no votes for Democrats”. But these pundits are telling only part of the true reality. American jobs have been leaving the shores for years and flooded overseas during the Bush years. The low unemployment rates of the Bush years resulted from the bubble economy that rested upon housing and trickle down effects from unsustainable banking and investment profits. When the dam burst in George W Bush’s last year, the reservoir emptied. It will take a while to rebuild the number of jobs if we want them to last more than 6 months.

Health care is more problematic. President Obama decision was to reform and not change health care, and that has consequences. With the rest of the civilized world have better health care coverage at far lower prices, the debate here revolves around how many will be included (why not all?) and public option or not (as an option of last resort, why not?) The President must have decide to go for half a loaf rather than none.

Balancing the budget is (or should be) an important concern.  Here we see “reality” and “political reality” collide.  Government programs which were authorized by Congress, cost money.  The same Congress needs to step up and pass the necessary tax revenue generating legislation.

History is yet to be written, and of course, will be the final judge. But just if these past elections are a harbinger of the Democrats demise, why not go down for principles rather than crafty, behind the door, deals with health care industry officials who want profit first and health care if it does detract from profits, or put more workers on the Federal payroll, or to continue to look the other way on the deficit.  The art of politics is, of course, to make the correct decisions and still get elected.

Christie, Next Great Hope?

I can, already, hear the music  beginning to play. “Here is the next President of the United States, Governor Chris Christie”. Is that a dream or a nightmare?

Yesterday, former US Attorney Chris “let me throw my weight around” Christie was elected New Jersey’s next Governor. He won on a relentless stream of negative television ads coupled with a fizzled bid by third party candidate, Chris Daggett . The present Governor, Jon Corzine ran a campaign similar to his past four years, a lot of hot air and not much substance.

New Jersey has arcane legislative processes and a history of “home rule”. This leads to a Belgium like solution to most problems, one for the North, one for the South. On top of that, every turn in the road has a school district, police department, mayor (or equivalent), and lots of elected or appointed officials. The joke is that people wonder why New Jersey has trouble passing its State budget even though it has the highest property taxes in the Country and one of the largest debt obligations.

Christie ran on the same platform as Corzine had four years before. Christie is going to cut spending and waste, create jobs, and lower property taxes. If he can accomplish that, then maybe we should not be surprised to see him become a top candidate for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2012 or 2016.

My guess is that he will have no more impact on New Jersey’s situation than past Governors. My guess also is that in the land of the blind, the GOP will not care and may banter his name around even for 2012. Watch out Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, and Huckabee, there’s a new kid in town (and he can fight dirty too).

 

Birth of a New Political Party?

Today’s congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, may be the signal that a new political party is about to happen. The conservative (and entertainment) media is hailing the possible victory of Doug Hoffman as proof that the conservative right speaks for the proverbial “silent majority”. I think they are dreaming.

It is quite possible that Hoffman may win and it is also true that a lot of disenfranchised thinking voters may see Hoffman as the type of protest they want to make against the current established Parties. But Hoffman stands for policies that in today’s world can not work and an humanitarian spirit that will divide the nation while leaving the critical issues unresolved. You can’t make progress with a platform of “no”.

But I do not see the conservative party Hoffman represents as the “new political party”. Hoffman’s, Palin’s, Thompson’s, Armey’s, and Pawlenty’s type of Republican conservatism is DOA and will shortly be seen as a non-starter. What I see as a new political party is an amalgamation of the moderate wings of the Republican Party, 21st century Libertarians, and centrist Democrats who band together in order to put government back on a common sense path.

We can not wish away health care reform or can we disavow the need to run a balanced budget. We can not look to the 1940’s and apply solutions that worked then to the country in 2010. Libertarians need to help spread the fear of ever increasing government but in a responsible manner, as part of the government. Their call should not be “roll back” but rather “demonstrate that government works, or fix it”. Democrats need far more focus on government paying for itself, and delivering the services promised. Those Democrats who believe in this idea will join the new party.

I think they will call this party the “Real World Party”.

 

Single Payer

Americans, for the most part, like the current health care delivery system they currently have. They can pick their doctor and their hospital or clinic. They generally can be seen when they want. They are usually cured of serious illnesses, or have successful surgical repairs to all parts of their bodies and joints. All in all, what more could anyone want. This is America where the best of everything exists.

Unfortunately most Americans do not know much about the world, let alone health care. If they did, Americans would realize our present health care delivery system is the most costly in the world, and on top of that, delivers poorer outcomes than most other industrialized countries. American health care may be good but it is far from the best and if left as is, will bankrupt the nation.

This years health care reform measures, which are still not certain, appear that they will lessen two current indignities.  health care insurers will be prohibited from denying coverage to anyone due to pre-existing conditions, and steps will be taken to ensure more people can afford coverage. (Both of these conditions, of course, are not an issue in other civilized countries.)

The right path to reform, I think, would have been right through the “single payer” argument. Instead of pandering and nibbling at the edges, a straight forward assault on the “for profit” insurance system and the patently unfair distribution of coverage (which depends upon your employer), the reasons why all parties in the current health care delivery system prefer to keep it the same or similar, and not adopt single payer, would be exposed. The reason is not health care, its profit.

Health care is not free, and nor under any reform now or in the future, will it be free. The question should be why should profit be involved with a middle man, and why should health care be available for some and not others?

 

Say Again?

Yesterday, Dede Scozzafava announced she was dropping out of the three way race for New York’s 23rd House district. The press described her as a moderate. She had been picked by the New York State Republican party as a candidate that could appeal to a broad cross section. Ms Scozzafava, however, has run into a storm of protest from conservatives, many from outside the State, who claim she is too liberal.

Running as an independent, Doug Hoffman, has been backed by all sorts of national Republicans (from Sarah Palin to Dick Armey). The Democratic candidate (actually registered as an independent), Bill Owens could squeeze by and win if enough Republicans split their allegiance.

What are the liberal signs that has made Ms Scozzafava so unworthy? The Hoffman camp points out that she supports a woman’s right to choose, is for gay marriage, and actually voted to raise taxes. With the Country facing a weak economy, two wars overseas, a health care and social security crisis at home, and a projected budget deficit in the $10 trillion range, tell me again why Ms Scozzafava is unworthy? (It may be that both Owens and Hoffman might be better candidates who once in the House would be helpful versus these matter, but why?)

What should come through to Americans is that the George W Bush years of divisiveness and fear mongering politics is still alive and well, just hiding in the weeds. Our country has significant problems, and woman’s right to choose or gay rights are not any where near the most important. On top of that, raising taxes will be essential to restoring fiscal soundness to our country. The current conservative agenda and those who preach it, are very dangerous for the future. The Country can not walk away from its responsibility for affordable health care for all residents, or a social security safety net for retired workers. We need a rich and inclusive dialog to find the best path to lower health care costs and gain better outcomes. Rhetoric that takes us off message and panders to the anti-gay and anti-women hate mongers do no one any favors.

 

Tenacity?

New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote yesterday about President Obama and Afghanistan. Brooks commented that the “experts” he consulted were not concerned with the time it was taking for President Obama to decide on the General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops. They assumed he would make a reasoned decision. They were worried (lack of information) about whether Obama had the fortitude to stick it out in good times and bad.

There is something smug about that concern. It is like, “well anyone can see we need to be in Afghanistan, but I do not think he has the guts to stay with it when things look bad.” How do these people know what is “right” and in any case what is their argument for continuing to stay in Afghanistan?

President Obama is undoubtably familiar with the ordeal that Vietnam represented for three Presidents. Vietnam was like a tar baby, it could not be shaken away. We went to Afghanistan to capture and destroy al Qaeda, and to remove the Taliban lead Afghan government that provided sanctuary for them. For oh so many foolish reasons, the US did not focus on building a stable Afghan government, and here we are 8 years later with a corrupt regime ineffective in delivering basic services and lacking popular support. Why stay?

There are many reasons given. The most frequently heard is that the Taliban will overthrow the Afghan government and they will destabilize the region again. This is not a pleasant outcome but ask this question, “who are Afghan’s neighbors?” Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, China, and Pakistan (for Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, read Russia).

The future stability of Afghanistan is a world problem and not that of the US alone. Someone is supplying the Taliban with plenty of weapons, munitions, and money. The Taliban has already shown that they share nothing in common with any of their neighbors and will sponsor suicide bombings where ever they choose.

I do not know whether President Obama will have the courage to stick by his decision in good times and bad. I do want him, however, to really think through “why are we there now”.

Leadership

Former President Harry Truman used to like to say, “the buck stops here”. Former President George W Bush said, “I’m the decider”. One of these men will be remembered as a great President and the other will not. Taking responsibility for ones decisions and their consequences is a large part of leadership as well as individual greatness.

Yesterday we learned that President Obama had made an unannounced visit, shortly after midnight, to Dover Air Force Base in order to be present when the bodies of US soldiers and citizens recently killed in Afghanistan arrived. The President greeted each coffin with a salute. He also met with family members who were  present. Later the President said that this experience would weigh in his decision about the future of US involvement in Afghanistan.

It is not clear just how this visit will weigh in President Obama’s deliberations but what is clear is that he understands the human costs of war. As the commander in chief, he stood tall and symbolically showed that, “the buck stopped with him”.