Obama Takes Low Road By Invoking Religion in Healthcare Debate

Barack Obama, in desperation to pass comprehensive healthcare reform (bordering on government control over that entire sector of the economy), has despicably and desperately appealed to peculiar religious views which is contrary to the Constitution. Not only is he invoking a divine right to take over healthcare, he’s accusing his opponents of “bearing false witness.” Never mind the fact that he did that himself by suggesting AARP endorsed his plan (though he has no plan) and that doctors made thousands of dollars for ripping out tonsils or amputating limbs. One demagogue’s splinter is another’s beam.

I remember the outrage against GW Bush for saying anything about his spirituality — even to the point that his words were taken out of context to suggest that America’s actions were intended as being divinely inspired. I’m not waiting for a similar outrage from the same crowd who lampooned Bush. They simply will not speak out against Obama’s much more overt suggestion that healthcare reform is a divine mandate. That’s because the Left is filled with gutless and nasty small-minded hypocrites who frankly don’t care about anything but scoring cheap points and winning political battles at any cost.

I didn’t agree with Bush’s religious views. I also don’t agree with Obama’s.

I think it’s wrong for any government official of any political persuasion to invoke peculiar religious views into public debates. Those are, and should remain, matters of personal conscience. The entire nation shouldn’t be subjected to following what one adminstration or another thinks is divinely inspired or guided policy. Especially when someone (probably correctly) expresses that such things are above his pay-grade during an election. We don’t elect popes, we elect presidents.

I think the religious views of the Left are to be as abhorred as the views of the Right insofar as they’re offered as public policy. Both sides use the same scriptures to justify polar opposite political positions. This is their right, but it’s also my right to vigorously object when public policy is guided by such religious interpretation rather than honest appraisal of issues and an exchange of ideas. Particularly when anyone seeks to bind the entire nation to taking irreversible and expensive steps according to religious ideals or doctrine.

I objected most strongly to President Bush’s “faith-based initiatives” for many reasons, but the only reason needed to end such policy is the First Amendment. Government simply shouldn’t fund the work of churches or other religious groups. Unfortunately, the Obama administration is only expanding this shady area of the law and using the same unconstitutional arguments to defend it. Those who opposed Bush’s unconstitutional goals cheer them when Obama expands them.

Our Constitution is very clear about government’s role when it comes to religion: it has no role. It’s wrong when the Religious Right attempts to lead a theocracy or fund religious organizations; it’s wrong when the Religious Left attempts to lead a theocracy or fund religious organizations.

We must be vigilant about separating church and state regardless which party or group seeks to impose its will against any group of any size. The party in charge today will lose its power and the vacuum will be filled by the next party-in-chage. That means a state-run healthcare program that subsidizes abortions — which the Left wants now — can just as easily change to one that forbids abortions — which the Right wants now — under any circumstances, including for medical necessity or in cases of rape or incest.

Either way presents a form of tyranny, not freedom. And I find it utterly distasteful when it’s done “in the name of God.” 

If the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism (cf the Pelosi-Hoyer letter against “un-American” sorts redressing grievances against this government), what is it when politicians are left with vapid arguments invoking religion as a reason for legislation?

We should demand rule only by the Constitution with its limitations on the scope of the state and its checks and balances. We should oppose rule by any and all peculiar interpretations of the Bible.

AARP Dallas Meeting Abruptly Ends Due to Audience Opposition to Obamacare

Are these the well-dressed American protestors dawning their Brooks Brothers and Prada attire to engage in “fishy” stuff against Obama’s healthcare take-over?

Link

Apparently these people have a different idea of “change” than the Brown Shirts at the White House and AARP’s leadership. Feel free to snitch on me to flag@whitehouse.gov because we all know dissent and political opposition cannot be tolerated under such an authoritarian regime as this.

Why Isn’t This Freakshow Over?

I wasn’t surprised. After all, the guy had been in my dead pool for a few years.  And with his addiction history, it was bound to happen eventually. Nothing good ever comes out of drug abuse.

The freakshow known as Michael Jackson should be over. Unfortuantely, the impact of pop culture on the broader culture means that the freakshow has really just begun. That was obvious when ESPN included news updates during the NBA Draft.

None of what I’ve seen or heard can top the inane prattle of Fox News anchor airhead Julie Banderas — who is neither the prettiest nor brightest of the Fox News hotties (I admit that’s the primary reason I watch FNC; never enough legs and boobs) – last night from Times Square. She tried to segue from a comparison about the death of Princess Di to Jackson: “You know you just mentioned Princess Diana. Here in our country we don’t have a king or a queen. But for this country, certainly, pop.” Yawn. Shut up and show some cleavage.

He wasn’t a king. The man was an entertainer. His contributions to our culture are also debatable. For all the legitimate points about his influence on music and videos, there are counter-points about things like all the crotch-grabbing.

I’m not diminishing the role Wacko played in music, dance, music videos, fashion, or anything else. I realize he was a trendsetter. I also appreciate the comparisons to other notable artists like Sinatra and Elvis. I remember when my friends were dressing like him and trying (poorly) to dance like him. I don’t doubt that his music will have an enduring appeal and continue to influence other musicians. The same is true with many other groundbreaking musicians whether they die young (e. g., Hendrix, Morrison, Buddy Holly) or old (Les Paul, anyone?).

I guess I just find all this crazed fascination and glorification of a very flawed man whose talents were eclipsed by his incessant self-mutilation with plastic surgery, living beyond his extravegant means, arrested development, and questionable choices in spending so much time (including pajama parties) with other people’s children as weird as I found him. A middle-aged dude who hangs out with a freaking chimpanzee and sleeps with little boys or carries them around like accessories (Google images: michael jackson webster) is pretty weird . I shouldn’t even mention the stuff about trying to alter his appearance to the extent that age progression software would never match how he turned out (“a poor little black boy can grow up and become a rich old white woman”). I know everyone has sins and shortcomings. Jackson seemed to revel in many of his despite the consequences of being accused on multiple accounts of child molestation. He also seemed to overlook other consequences in his life related to finances.

The world goes on without him. He hadn’t released a new album or toured in years — at least not since his last molestation trial. He was resting on his laurels, tranquilized and listless by many accounts and surrounded by yes men and toxic enablers. Yet other musicians continue to release songs, tour, break new ground.

There are much more important things happening right now but the news cycles are stuck on reporting little more information than they had last night. Congress is voting today on legislation that will likely increase the cost of energy for every US citizen. People are dying on the streets of Iran because they dare to challenge their government and clergy over an election.

Where’s the balance in the coverage? Where’s the balance in the lives of his fans? Where’s the balance in the popular culture?

There isn’t any. The news cycle is stuck repeating the same shit over and over, replaying 911 recordings, and speculating. I should just sell my TV.

Moneyball Movie Gets Axed

Filming of a screen adaptation of Michael Lewis’ Moneyball has been axed by Columbia Studios the same week it was scheduled to go intro production. Studio execs reportedly got cold feet over repeated revisions of the screenplay, co-written by Steven Zaillian and Steven Soderbergh. The film was to star Brad Pitt.

Lewis’ Moneyball looks at Oakland A’s GM Billy Beane and his use of sabremetrics — objective analysis of baseball statistics — to judge free agents and prospects rather than traditional metrics which are subjective and, in some cases (e. g., win-loss records for pitchers, batting average which ignores the importance of walks in creating runs, etc.), entirely misleading. The book was written at a time during with Oakland had considerable success with young players like Adam Piatt, Johnny Damon, the Giambi brothers, and Miguel Tejada. Beane’s methods looked for guys like these before  they hit their prime earning potential so that he could maximize talent and minimize payroll (Oakland shares a small market in the Bay Area with the SF Giants); then when the players are eligible for free agency, you let other teams over-pay them.

It’s important to note that for all of Beane’s successes in the early part of this decade, his teams never advanced to the ALCS or World Series. They lost against teams with higher payrolls. There’s a lot more to success in baseball than having an optimized budget.

It’s also fair to look at other factors contributing to the success of Oakland during this period, such as the number of players who have since been linked to steroids. The Giambis, Tejada, Piatt, and others have either come clean about their use of PEDs or were named in the Mitchell Report. Many people overlook the issue of power-hitting and argue that one of the reasons the A’s were so good for so long had at least as much to do with their pitching as their offense. The A’s had a dominant offense to match their good pitching. You don’t win unless you outscore your opponent. Ask another accused steroid user if pitching trumps offense: Roger Clemens probably should’ve had at least another Cy Young while in Houston if his W-L record had better reflected his sub-2.00 ERA than his own team’s lack of offense.

I’m not so sure this movie would’ve been too interesting. I think something based on the life of sabremetrics practitioner Bill James (who coined the term “sabremetrics”) might be more interesting; James languished in relative obscurity for years while “baseball people” ignored his ideas and analyses which he sold in annual editions of his Baseball Abstract. How many night-watch security guards at bean packing plants end up influencing baseball general managers like Beane or become advisors to MLB teams (James is such an advisor to the BoSox)?

Moneyball spends more time on Billy Beane than Bill James; presumably, this is because Beane is the All-American, the stud who didn’t pan out in the big leagues but was able to turn a low-salary team into a contender using unorthodox (by baseball standards) methods. With a central character like Billy Beane, you cast a Brad Pitt. While James’ role in Moneyball merits a lot more space than it got, Moneyball is still interesting reading. I’m kind of glad the movie is dead.

Obama Fires AmeriCorps IG for Investigating Supporter: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

Byron York outlines events leading to the firing of Gerald Walpin, who is was Inspector General of AmeriCorps:

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accuses prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  Prominent Obama supporter has to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  Obama fires AmeriCorps IG.

Hmmm. Didn’t President Bush and AG Alberto Gonzales take a lot of shit for firing US attorneys? So much for change. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Another Day, Another Czar… And Related Thoughts

The administration announced YAC (yet another czar) yesterday. They’re calling him a “special master” and his task is to oversee executive compensation at companies the government either now owns or is bailing out.

First, free citizens don’t have a need for “masters.” Only slaves do. That’s what you get when you accept government money. You lose your freedom. You are a slave.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it will stop there with the seven companies the feds now own and/or run. This administration has lied about its role and ambitions every step of the way. Obama said he didn’t want to run the automakers, yet he sought and got the resignation of GM’s CEO. Obama said nationalizing industries or even countries wasn’t on the agenda, but the government is taking huge stakes in banks and automakers.

Second, you don’t need YAC for looking at executive compensation at seven companies. Like anything else government does, the role will expand to nitpick at other companies whether they receive government bailout money or not. Indeed, there are moves in Congress and in the administration to expand this to other publicly-traded companies. Give the government an inch, they take a mile.

The irony is the “pay czar” is only looking at executive compensation and ignoring the massive liabilities of the auto union pension funds and other benefits that drove the car companies in the hole. Executive compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to what thousands of UAW retirees get. Rather than deal with the biggest part of the problem, all Obama has done is shuffle it and push it to the side for a few years. Worse, he’s done it by taking from one group of private investors and giving to the UAW and taking an unconstitutional stake for the government with money the government doesn’t have. Hundreds of years of property rights down the drain — all in the name of paying off political supporters.

Yields on new treasuries are rising. This means mortgage rates will increase, which (ceteris paribus) will result in lower sales of homes. We can’t sell our debt on the cheap because the buyers of our debt are shying away from this administration’s reckless spending. The US is now being lectured on fiscal responsibility by Eurpoean countries. And rightly so.

We’re right back where we started with this whole bailout boondoggle. Worse, it’s spilled over to other sectors rather than containing toxic assets. All because politicians couldn’t restrain themselves from going beyond one troubled area (subprime mortgages) and have instead seen a chance to grab as much power as possible.

This isn’t hyperbole. TARP — Troubled Asset Relief Program — still hasn’t resulted in reallocating toxic assets. Not one fucking toxic bank asset has been reallocated, not under Bush and sure as hell not under Obama. TARP has been used to take equity stakes in (formerly) private companies and to undo hundreds of years of property rights. Congressional overight? Separation of powers? Constitutional protections of our civil and property rights? Forget about it. Change has come.

Finally, the real economic problem we faced last year (and the year before and the year before) is rearing its ugly head again. Oil prices are soaring with analysts expecting oil to hit $100 sooner rather than later. Some even think it could hit $250 a barrel. I dread the kind of action this administration will take to control oil prices because they’ve already demonstrated through their incompetence that they’re less concerned about results than they are about hyping events to centralize more power through an unapologetic and unrestrained abuse of power.

Pie in the sky bullshit about smart cars and “innovative” green energy are impediments to economic recovery because they don’t do anything about the technologies we use now. Lofty platitudes about “the way things should be” don’t improve the economy, they just show a detachment from reality. And the longer you avoid dealing with reality, the worse it gets. The worse it gets, the more government wants to take power away from private citizens.

It’s a deadly cycle for freedom. We’re fucked.

San Diego County Home Church Couple Afoul of the Law

I heard about this story yesterday involving an anonymous couple who claim their county is shaking them down for holding home Bible studies. According to their attorney, the couple were drilled about what they do in these studies and then sent a written notice that they’d need a permit to continue their studies. The attorneysays the couple will file suit if the notice isn’t rescinded.

Many are emoting about this issue across the Internet, with the predictable claim from the far right that this is some kind of violation of the First Amendment free exercise clause.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This, though, is about neither the establishment of religion or the prohibition of it. It’s about zoning laws and other restrictions — all of which are constitutional — which define acceptable land use to protect the peace and quiet of neighborhoods. The couple might have a case if the county were looking to restrict them from opening a church in a certain location zoned for that, or if the county would require some kind of doctrinal compliance. Instead, they demand the right to tie up their street on a regular basis without any permit to do so.

I’ve run into issues like this locally. Neighbors on an adjacent street to mine used to hold “services” in their home even though our city has very strict zoning. Most of the neighbors were okay with those “services” when there were only one or two extra cars in the street. The “services” became objectionable when it became an ordeal to get in and out of drive ways, to walk the streets, and when the “services” moved outdoors and caused quite a commotion — the spectacle of “healing services” and exorcisms (!!) shouldn’t be held out on the lawn where neighbors have no place to go to avoid listening to them. We live here, too.

As far as the lawyer’s claim about Tupperware parties and Super Bowl parties, those don’t typically occur every week. Those are anomalies. This couple’s studies aren’t anomalous, they’re apparently frequent and large enough to draw complaints from neighbors and/or the attention of law enforcement or other agencies.

And the same applies to those who mix part of the assembly clause (excluding the part about redressing grievances against the government) with the exercise clause. The problem for the couple is that they live in a community with laws which have been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has upheld restrictions on some forms of worship. That includes snake handling services and forms of “worship” which involve criminal activity, from providing peyote as part of ritual (Employment Division v. Smith) to human sacrifice.

The couple can continue to practice their religion. They can even practice it in their own home. They just can’t infringe on the rest of the community and neighborhood when they do it. I think it’s more than acceptable if the county allows them to obtain a permit to continue these things in their home. Some jurisdictions won’t make such exceptions to their zoning codes in residential neighborhoods because the neighbors also have rights — including to be able to get in and out of their homes without the burden of excessive traffic or cars parked on the streets.

Senseless Loss of an Old Friend

I learned today that an old friend of mine from junior high died. I’m getting to be an age where this kind of thing should be less surprising, but the circumstances of his death make it hard for me to accept that he’s gone. Especially the part that he’s gone by his own hand, that he took his own life.

We’d known each other since sixth grade from various sports (I hit the longest freaking foul ball off him just as the game was called due to lightning) but didn’t become friends until eighth grade. We were at times really good friends (we worked together for a while) and at times we had some typical teen friction between us. Sometimes it was stupid stuff, sometimes it was just kids being kids. I’d use language he’d disapprove of or I’d make fun of his current girlfriend. He’d only come around to making fun of her, too, whenever they’d break up. Then the cycle would repeat, sometimes even with him making fun of my current girlfriend.

We ended up on different paths in high school and ended up with little overlap in our lives except at school; I think we only had a couple classes together. But he always said hi to me, came over to talk with me at lunch, and made sure I was on his team (he remembered how far that ball went even though the umpire called it foul) whenever we played during PE. It was just one of those things where kids eventually make new friends and old friends kind of take a back seat to each other’s new interests. Guess that happens throughout life.

Our paths hadn’t crossed in years, but I knew he’d been doing well in life. He had a law degree and had a successful practice. From all accounts, he’d been successful at everything he wanted to do. He was also likable, a really nice guy (especially for a lawyer). I’d call him “sweet” because he really didn’t have a mean word for or about anyone.

Maybe that’s why it’s such a shock to learn what happened.

You grow up and have these ideas of guys being pretty even-keeled and with everything going well for them, guys who you know bust their butts but stuff would just seem to come easy to them even if they were to slack. He was one of those kinds of guys — he didn’t slack but everything seemed to go his way. He came from a good and loving family, he had ambition, he set goals and achieved them, and pretty much had a great life going for himself.

You never know, though, what’s going on deep down inside where you can’t see the darkest parts of people, their hurts and agonies, the chemical imbalances that drive people to hurt themselves and, as a result, everyone around them.

I knew he had some “down” moments when we were young (and I chalked some of the friction off to that), but I never saw him as someone who’d ever hurt anyone or himself. From what I’ve learned, he’d been fighting depression for some time and it was obviously much deeper and more toxic than I could ever imagine.

It’s easy to sit here so far removed from his life for so long and say, “I wish I knew.” I know there’s not a damn thing I could’ve ever done to stop him. None of his friends, old or new, could’ve stopped him once he set himself in this motion, succumbing to whatever drove him to end his life. Not even the love of his family was able to convince him that whatever dark feelings he had were nothing compared to what they — and many, many others — thought of him.

My heart aches for his parents. I got to know them when we worked together and they’re kindhearted people. I can’t imagine the grief they feel over his loss. I can’t imagine the questions they’ve asked themselves trying to make sense of any of this.

The only person who could answer the question “Why?!” isn’t around to explain. I’m sure he couldn’t answer that, otherwise why would he do this senseless thing to himself, to his family, and to everyone who cared about him.

I don’t understand. Dammit, I’ll never understand.

Empowerment Experiment – NOT Racist

I was listening to the radio this morning as I was stuck in traffic. The radio was set on the only remaining local news-talk format station. The topic of the day seemed to be  a story about a couple,  Maggie and John Anderson, from Chicago who’ve decided to try to buy from black-owned businesses for a full year. They call it the Empowerment Experiment.

I wasn’t too surprised by the lines drawn by the hosts of the show. One of them thought it was racist or near-racist; this was predictable because he’s a simpleton Bubba type guy. Another thought it was perfectly fine. The station’s program director, who kind of acts as moderator of the morning show, was typically reserved in offering an opinion; he seems to prefer to let everyone else issue opinions while he directs the traffic.

Some of the callers were a bit more put-off by the concept of buying from black-only businesses. That included one self-identified black caller who said he preferred to do business where he got the best service and best prices regardless of who might own a shop; he elaborated that buying on the basis of race alone makes you something of a captive audience — if you’re using race as your primary criterion, he suggested, then you’re restricting your choices and will face higher prices, worse service, less convenience (a problem the Chicago couple admits is a big one), and so on. Some of the other callers were less hesitant to call it racism: they said white people would be called all kinds of names if they were to buy from white-only businesses.

I have a different angle on this. I don’t see it as racist at all. The couple didn’t say they’re doing this to hurt white-run businesses, they’re only doing this as an experiment in finding out how many black businesses can fill all their needs. As they’re finding, it’s not an easy task. The article says they’ve yet to find a black-owned mortgage company, toy store, or home security system vendor. They’re also finding that there are many inconveniences to doing this — from having to travel further to shop to making other concessions in their purchasing habits.

I think the one argument against this experiment is probably the most obvious: blacks already own many businesses through their pensions, IRAs, 401(k)s, and other investments. Companies large and small have some measure of black ownership through the securities markets. I appreciate, though, that this experiment wants to go a bit further. After all, there was a time before desegregation when blacks were forced by circumstances to do business only with blacks; with the end of systemic segregation came an end to many black-owned businesses. 

Maybe this is one of the weird anomalies of desegregation — even when other immigrants absorb into America’s melting pot, the new immigrants continue to do business within their own communities. Chinatown, Little Italy, etc. It’s not just the restaurants that continue to flourish after the population fans out into the general society. Many continue to support the “old” businesses from their communities even after they’ve integrated. Blacks seem to be an exception to that rule.

And it’s not just with immigrants, it extends to other aspects of culture like religion. I have a lot of Christian friends who have those fish symbols on their business cards, on the vehicles used in their businesses, etc., and they openly admit to doing business primarily (if not exclusively) with other Christians via Christian networking groups and Christian phone books.

Are they bigots for preferring to keep their money “close to home”? (Leaving aside other questions about bigotry.)

I wanted to ask one of the hosts on this morning’s show that question because I recall him being a proponent of the local Christian yellow pages. If it’s good enough for Christians, why isn’t it good enough for anyone else?

One of the great things about America is that it’s big enough to hold a lot of people who don’t agree with each other, and that we’re (for the moment anyway) free to choose with whom we do business. Segregation hurts people whether it’s voluntary or involuntary. This experiment, though, isn’t about segregation and the Andersons are voluntarily finding out about the inconveniences of limiting their spending to certain businesses. They may ultimately choose convenience over community, as many people do. But as a matter of principle, how many consumers weigh their options as diligently as the Andersons?

I think the Andersons should be commended for carefully weighing their spending options and for trying to see how difficult or easy it is to support black-owned businesses. I don’t know if their experiment will really become a new movement or if this interest is a novelty that has (or soon will) hit its critical mass. As a long-time proponent of enterprise zones and entrepeneurship, there’s one thing I am convinced of: it won’t just be black consumers who’ll benefit from more black-owned businesses. Everyone benefits when new companies form, when more people are hired, and when great products and services are available at competitive prices.

That’s not racism, unless you have something against the color green.

Mark Cuban Apologizes After Dissing Kenyon Martin

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has once again found himself in middle of a maelstrom. This time the cancelled reality show host has infuriated fans of the Denver Nuggets as well as friends and family of Kenyon Martin. A Dallas fan called the Nuggets “thugs” and then Cuban looked at KMart’s mother and said, “That includes your son.” Cuban then proceeded to call Martin “a punk.”

Today Cuban has apologized to Martin and his mother, Lydia Moore of Dallas. In what seems to be typical Cuban fashion, the apology seems hollow because he insists nothing was said or at least shouldn’t have ever been reported.

It doesnt matter why I said it. I shouldn’t have said anything. Now, the reality is that this has gotten out of hand.

Funny how that seems to happen so often. Cuban shoots off his mouth about San Antonio, about Spurs fans, about referees, about everything, then wonders what the big deal is all about after he speaks disrespectfully of others. And while he thinks everything and everyone else is the problem, he’s always the one paying the fines and making the apologies and eating his words. Imagine that.

That’s true again with this latest episode. Cuban complains about security at games, especially during the playoffs, as if he’s above the hyper-crazy rivalry crap that occurs between fans. Fact is, he’s guilty of provoking it more often than not. That includes calling other players names — like punk, crybaby, etc. — and speaking disrespectfully of fans in other cities (especially San Antonio). Cuban isn’t a peacemaker, he’s a serial instigator; I’m not buying any sincerity in his apology because I’ve seen him stir up too much shit before.

If you want others to respect you on the road, you might try respecting them first. Here’s another idea, Mark (if I may call  you by your first name), if you find it too difficult to respect others: Why don’t you just shut the fuck up?

You’re not doing anyone a service by opening your mouth. You don’t make the NBA any more interesting (quite the opposite), and you aren’t a coach or a player so you have no business getting on the court. Team owners shouldn’t be seen or heard unless they get to hold up a championship trophy with their players. Guess what, your team’s never been that good.

I won’t be surprised if Mrs Moore and KMart accept Cuban’s apology. But I would skip the dinner invitation — I prefer to not dine with people who go out of their way to be assholes. Leopards don’t change their spots. After millions of dollars in NBA fines, I don’t expect Cuban to ever learn his lessons.