Biden Bites Cheney!
Just kidding, but the coverage of the aired-at-the-same-time, filmed-at-different-times Sunday news shows (Biden on NBC, Cheney on ABC) will make it sound that way. But really, I just want to look a quote from Cheney:
Now, President Obama has taken [options for ‘enhanced interrogation’] off the table. He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army Manual which doesn’t include those techniques. I think that’s a mistake,” Cheney said in an exclusive interview on “This Week.
I’m just wondering; does anyone actually live in this alternate universe? Have you ever met anyone that runs around proclaiming the efficacy of torture? I never have. …And yes, I just called ‘enhanced interrogation,’ ‘torture.’ It is.
Does this world actually exist? Where the most secure feeling is one where you frequently resort to torture? Where are these people? It’s a mistake to not torture people? Ummm… ARE YOU SURE YOU WERE THE VICE PRESIDENT OF A DEMOCRACY? I wonder if he-who-must-not-be-Cheneyed really thinks it’s a mistake.
If the protests today in Iran, on the 31st anniversary of the overthrow of the Shah, interest you, find good coverage by Andrew Sullivan, the Huffington Post, Real Clear World, The Times (UK), and others.
Best quote:
One of the pitfalls in analyzing the ebb and flow of a reform movement by crowd size and exuberance is that you end up with rather bipolar measurements for success and failure…Whatever happens today will not change the fact that Iran is changing.
Here there is the beginning of the working of a doctrine. Let us address, as many have done before, the purpose and right of government. What do I mean by government? Speaking mainly of our own federalist system, I mean a system in which localities are subject to the laws of states (states being the fifty states), and states are subject to laws of the nation. In an ideal world, the nation, too, is subject to international laws. What do I mean by the purpose of government? The purpose of the government is to act within its rights granted by the constitution. What do I mean by the right of government? Precisely as I just said; the government must act in accordance with the constitution. What it means to be in discord is subject to what law has been broken, and what, if any, prescribed remedy exists.
The government, through its very existence, wields political power. The godfather of American political theory – John Locke – defines political power as,
POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.
There is a timeless debate over what these aspects of political power allow, if these are to be allowed at all. A right of making laws with penalties of death? We allow that, just as we allow “all less penalties.” We leave it to the government to regulate and preserve property; when the government does not regulate property there is a housing bubble crisis that upends even the international economy. The government (in all its entities) have the right – claim the right – to affect all these laws. It is, or was until very recently, that defense of the nation fell solely to the hands of the government.
All of the above actions the government takes, or has a right to take, – should take – for national well-being. Others will tell you, and this is not yet out-of-date, that the role of the government is to provide citizens with all things that they cannot provide themselves. Defense. Right to property. The right to healthy living and health care. In some years from now this debate will seem quite antiquated, just as the right of suffrage has been settled, and the right to an education has been settled, and many other things besides that are provisions of the government. But as of yet, the debate – over the issue of health care – is not settled.
There is a fear, there is always a fear, that the government shall tax too much. But at what point is too much? For what should the government tax? If the purpose of government, constrained by the rights set down in the constitution, is preservation of property and assurance of well-being of citizens, it should be clear that the government should levy taxes only for this; if there is a further purpose of the government, that too may require a tax. By levying taxes the government, especially the federal government, acquires a share of the Gross Domestic Product. That share may be ten percent, or fifteen percent, or twenty-five percent. That will depend on the economy.
Is health care necessary? Currently, there is a system of health care in our country. People with jobs – and there are many without jobs – can buy insurance that allows them health care, unless the insurance company decides not to cover the cost of a claim. The company is entitled to do this. The citizen is entitled to pay insurance to ameliorate the cost of health care, when cost occur. Who is in the right? … That is the mainstay of the system. The government too – and rightly so, according to the purposes of the government laid out above – intervenes in providing citizens with health care. For the poor, making under standard living wages; for the old, who have contributed to the country; to those in need of temporary assistance — to these the government provides aid, including health care. Now the government suggests it improve its role in this function.
Let us assume our system is in accordance with Locke. Would the government be acting in the public good? Yes. Would the government be regulating and protecting property? Yes. Is it a danger that the government will raise taxes to a level that will negate its attempts to improve the provision of health care? That seems counter-productive. Providing the one-sixth of the population who do not currently have any guaranteed form of health care coverage with some form of coverage seems, rather, to allow these fifty million people to become increasingly productive. Is the other fiscal option to pay for the costs of providing health care – lowering spending – an option? Certainly. There are many areas from which spending could, and should, be cut (see, for instance, military operations). Like raising taxes, the result of cutting spending would be a net-positive. A cut in spending on not-necessary projects (necessary projects would include transportation, communication, aiding a recovering housing market) would increase money for health care, which, like raising taxes, would allow citizens to spend money on products besides health care.
The question at hand is, what should the role of the government be in providing and guaranteeing health care? The likely methods of paying for such care – a necessary action – has been described. What would be the role of a state (as opposed to the country)? It is to the states that police powers – health, welfare, and morals – are given. Health is foremost among the police powers. Then, it has to be wondered, why are the states not in charge of comprehensive health care? The can be, could be, and will not be restricted in providing health care if the federal government chooses to develop a national plan. Massachusetts can, and has, passed a state-wide health care coverage plan. Like voting and minimum wage before it, the federal government has a right (indeed, perhaps a duty) to intervene in interstate commerce such as health care.
These thoughts there are on health care. The federal government has a right to guarantee health care. The federal government has various options to pay for health care. The idea is neither novel nor, thus far, successful. The correct method, or whether the idea is correct at all, has not been resolved in debate or in legislation. To reject the notion of health care, while proclaiming to be in favor of a Lockean government, however, is thus far foolish.
The story that everyone wants to tell is that the Democratic Party is disheartened and disintegrating. Teabagger Republicans are juiced up and on top. Or so the media says, over and over again.
But no one has reported that the House candidate who raised the most money, from the most people, is a proud Democratic populist. No one.
… except for this report.
The last line is a good one.
What’s the most important element in society that needs commenting on? Should there be commentary on everything? I’m going to write about what I find most intriguing. That’s a sad, but almost definitely, almost always, true fact. Someone else, somewhere else, will write about things that are most interesting to them; I may miss those stories entirely. I apologize. It is the problem of those who write that they cannot write about everything?
But what is most important? I call this social commentary. Should I be commenting most on sociology? On mathematics and science; NASA? On natural evolution, geology, Earth history? Should I be commenting on politics – international politics, national politics, local politics, the policies of a single group or person? Healthcare? War? Torture? Environmental policy? Economics? Just political economics, or the larger aspects of economics (they are related)?
At various times, all of those topics sound interesting to comment on. I can only comment on what I have some knowledge of, or write a flaming opinion-piece about something in which I have no knowledge. And I can only write about something that sparks my attention.
I realize that when I write ‘social commentary’ and leave out everything on popular entertainment that a lot is missing. There’s not much I can do about that, unless you want some opinion pieces, and even those won’t be very accurate. So I know that’s a part of ‘social commentary,’ and I choose to leave that for the more interested and more informed.
There’s a lot about CA Prop 8 that’s not worth laughing about. But every once in a while, a laugh comes along. See two examples.
Want to ban gay marriage, or gay marriage by any other name? Why not ban divorce, too? As only Californians could do, that is exactly the – fake – plan. However, John Marcotte seems serious enough about it to have an actual petition circulating to make this a proposition. Just for laughs. Thanks, California, for all the laughs.
The recent example is that, as you may know, the Supreme Court banned cameras that filmed the twelve days of argument, just ended. The laugh is that it’s actually been recorded after all. As you may know, there were transcripts in several dozen places, including here. Which means it’s not all that hard to reenact. According to SF Gate, Hollywood actors are going to be filming the case from the transcripts, and it will be on youtube.
I’m not even going to try to write it better than this. I can’t. Enjoy the read, and read the whole thing. Here’s an excerpt:
12. The only hope you have of ever seeing another pay raise is if Congress passes health care reform. Without health care reform, the increasing cost of your health insurance will swallow this year’s raise. And next year’s raise. And pretty soon it won’t stop with just your raise. Without health care reform, the increasing cost of your health insurance will start making your pay go down.
13. I wish I could tell you that this was just a worst-case scenario, that this was only something that might, maybe happen, but that wouldn’t be true. Without health care reform, this is what will happen. We know this because this is what is happening now. It has been happening for the past 10 years. In 2008, employers spent on average 25 percent more per employee than they did in 2001, but wages on average did not increase during those years. The price of milk went up. The price of gas went up. But wages did not. All of the money that would have gone to higher wages went to pay the higher and higher and higher cost of health insurance. And unless Congress passes health care reform, that will not change.
Well, it will change in the sense that it will keep getting worse, but it won’t get better. Unless the problem gets fixed, the problem won’t be fixed. That’s kind of what “problem” and “fixed” mean.
almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of ‘why no bipartisanship?’ There’s really nothing more to be said about ‘why no bipartisanship,’ once one recognizes the GOP party discipline (emphasis original). On this issue, it’s absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It’s doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again…
Read the actual conversation at the top of the article. It is an apparently word-for-word conversation about how ‘bipartisanship’ works.
“If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues — if everyone can find a way to talk about them — that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to ‘No’ as a bloc,” seems like a pipe dream by James Fallows. But who can blame him. He outlined, in this one post (go read it!) the failures of our federal legislative system. Thankfully, that’s just one branch of the federal government. There are (if they are still functioning) other branches of the federal government, and (also, hopefully still functioning) state governments.
The thing is, the conversation doesn’t end here. And there will be more elections in the future. Hopefully, things stay together.
As many of you know, the courtroom is just another theater. There are a few goals: get some laughs, know your lines without stumbling, and prove your point more effectively than the other side. Just like theater. It amazes me that professionals are surprisedby this.
[F]ollowing the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial over the past three weeks has been a reminder that a courtroom can also be a great and theatrical classroom, where the values of thoroughness, precision in speech, and the obligation to reply have a way of laying bare the fundamentals of certain rhetorical positions….The crucible of cross examination forces the witness to confront the other side; they can’t fall back on bumper sticker slogans.”
Generally, if you sit through some college classes – I daresay that most of these journalists have – you figure that out. Hopefully you reflect, ponder, enough to realize that this is exactly what the courtroom is. It is a showcase for ideas; it is theater.
How do you persuade? It’s not easy. But have you seriously forgotten that that’s what happens in a court of law? And, just as a closing thought, in response to the truly odd assertion that, “you sometimes hear it said that a courtroom is not the best venue for playing out battles in the culture wars—better that they be fought in the legislature, or at the ballot box, or even in the blogosphere,” when was the last time you really thought an American court isn’t sufficient for solving some issues? Have the not-yet-in-the-works trials of ‘terrorists’ in New York scared us that much?
1788 – Isaac Briggs and William Longstreet patented the steamboat. (See also, Gibbons v. Ogden)
1790 – The U.S. Supreme Court convened for the first time in New York City.
1884 – The first edition of the Oxford English Dictionary was published.
and more.
The Dole Blog 