There are decisions that most of us believed were made long ago that are becoming relevant today about the nature of America.
The biggest of those questions concern the nature of the country.
Are we a diverse melting pot where everyone is treated equally without regard to race, religion, sex or are we a bastion of white, Christian, male privilege?
It almost seems ridiculous to ask but the second option is on the rise and is becoming insidious.
We see it in all these social media posts talking about the good old days as if we all grew up in Mayberry RFD.
Well we didn't and despite the warmth exhibited on the show, it would have been no picnic.
People of color or people who were different didn't fare too well in places like that.
They often didn't even do well in bigger cities.
We really have to decide what kind of country we want to be.
We are already on the road to diversity and inclusion and attempts to stop it are doomed in the long term.
They can be pretty harmful in the short term though.
Is everyone entitle to be free and pursue happiness, or just some people?
I vote for everyone.
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Health Insurance
We see the attacks on the Affordable Care Act continue as the administration has decided to support the ruling that it is unconstitutional.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Almost no one thinks that is a good legal argument, it is based on some convoluted logic concerning the last decision, that the individual mandate was constitutional under the congress' ability t tax.
Since subsequently they reduced the penalty (tax) to zero, it is no longer a real tax, meaning the individual mandate is unconstitutional. The argument goes on to say that the mandate is intertwined so deeply that if it is unconstitutional, the whole thing is.
Now this flies in the face of the act passed by congress that reduced the tax.
However, as odd as the argument actually is, the question arises why would the administration attack the rest of the law?
It has become very popular with most people, at least the provisions related to the pre-existing conditions, the dependent age increase, and the increase in coverage to so many.
It is almost as if the administration, who got hurt in the last mid-terms over health care, want to give their incumbents a handicap.
Still it is something to watch and in the very unlikely scenario where the entire law is invalidated, we will have to see what is offered up instead.
Maybe millions of uninsured, the Republican goal.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Obstruction?
We are now going to spend a lot of time trying to get the full Mueller report released. One would think that since Republicans are saying it exonerates the President, they would want it out there. Well they don't. This is not because they have read it themselves, at least most of them, simply because they are concerned about what is actually in it.
The fact that actual collusion between the campaign and Russia wasn't found doesn't mean there aren't lots of other embarrassing details in it. The difference between acting badly and acting criminally is more important in a courtroom than in the realm of public opinion.
More significantly is the area of obstruction of justice.
The conclusion in the report was that the call was a difficult one and it left it to the Attorney General to determine. As a Presidential appointee, you might argue this is a foregone conclusion, although it could be legally sound also.
Part of the logic though is at best questionable.
One of the conclusions was that since the crime of collusion was not found, what was he obstructing?
Well the simple answer would be the investigation when he obviously was afraid that a crime might be found.
I believe the crime is obstructing Justice, not obstructing if guilty. Take a similar charge such as resisting arrest. If the police attempt to arrest you, even if they have the wrong person, and you resist, you are guilty of resisting anyway.
Similarly, if you obstruct, even if it turn out you didn't need to, well, you still obstructed.
The fact that actual collusion between the campaign and Russia wasn't found doesn't mean there aren't lots of other embarrassing details in it. The difference between acting badly and acting criminally is more important in a courtroom than in the realm of public opinion.
More significantly is the area of obstruction of justice.
The conclusion in the report was that the call was a difficult one and it left it to the Attorney General to determine. As a Presidential appointee, you might argue this is a foregone conclusion, although it could be legally sound also.
Part of the logic though is at best questionable.
One of the conclusions was that since the crime of collusion was not found, what was he obstructing?
Well the simple answer would be the investigation when he obviously was afraid that a crime might be found.
I believe the crime is obstructing Justice, not obstructing if guilty. Take a similar charge such as resisting arrest. If the police attempt to arrest you, even if they have the wrong person, and you resist, you are guilty of resisting anyway.
Similarly, if you obstruct, even if it turn out you didn't need to, well, you still obstructed.
Monday, March 25, 2019
No Indictment
There are still a lot of unanswered questions related to the Mueller report but the conclusions as provided by the AG indicate that no charges will be filed against the President, at least by the special counsel.
While this is being celebrated as vindication by the President, it is at best a minor hiatus, as we know the Democrat controlled House and possibly the Southern District of New York will continue investigating.
In fact on obstruction of justice the report left that decision to the AG because the evidence could be interpreted either way. The fact that the AG is not going to prosecute in no surprise, and it is certainly not exoneration since the jeopardy is still intact.
The report did highlight that the Russians did attempt to influence the election, and may have succeeded to at least some extent. The indictments that have been filed are generally for lying under oath although some are related to the actual election interference.
I suppose the celebration is similar to that of a accused criminal who hears the Grand Jury did not return an indictment.
Its better than the alternative.
While this is being celebrated as vindication by the President, it is at best a minor hiatus, as we know the Democrat controlled House and possibly the Southern District of New York will continue investigating.
In fact on obstruction of justice the report left that decision to the AG because the evidence could be interpreted either way. The fact that the AG is not going to prosecute in no surprise, and it is certainly not exoneration since the jeopardy is still intact.
The report did highlight that the Russians did attempt to influence the election, and may have succeeded to at least some extent. The indictments that have been filed are generally for lying under oath although some are related to the actual election interference.
I suppose the celebration is similar to that of a accused criminal who hears the Grand Jury did not return an indictment.
Its better than the alternative.
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Affirmative Action
When you give someone more rights you aren't diminishing your own, although in some instances you might be losing an unfair advantage.
I was reading an account of a black man who got into and did well in an elite college. While he was there he was frequently (at lest it would seem frequently) accused of stealing a more deserving persons place because of affirmative action.
While it was unclear if affirmative action played any role in his admission, for the sake of argument lets say it did. Would he then have denied a more deserving person a place at that school?
Well more deserving isn't clear since any differences in their entrance qualifications could have been negated by the degree of difficulty they each faced. If the objective is to admit the most qualified students, admitting one who has demonstrated the ability to succeed in very difficult circumstances over one who was marginal in the best circumstances is not unfair.
These schools are looking for students who can excel and succeed in life. Evaluating the background and hardships faced is certainly a factor, as it is in all admissions (except those bought illegally or legally).
It is of course a measurable thing, since the students who get admitted to these schools don't all graduate. It turns out that the differences between affirmative action and non-affirmative action graduation rates is statistically insignificant. So they do belong and they do succeed.
It should also be noted that these schools have far more qualified applicants than slots. If you fail to get in it is because of everyone who got a slot, not just a black student.
Obstacles faced by applicants is a legitimate qualification and if someone faced with a lot more obstacles has a harder time getting to the finish line, he/she may still be a better.
Eliminate the obstacles if you want a level playing field.
I was reading an account of a black man who got into and did well in an elite college. While he was there he was frequently (at lest it would seem frequently) accused of stealing a more deserving persons place because of affirmative action.
While it was unclear if affirmative action played any role in his admission, for the sake of argument lets say it did. Would he then have denied a more deserving person a place at that school?
Well more deserving isn't clear since any differences in their entrance qualifications could have been negated by the degree of difficulty they each faced. If the objective is to admit the most qualified students, admitting one who has demonstrated the ability to succeed in very difficult circumstances over one who was marginal in the best circumstances is not unfair.
These schools are looking for students who can excel and succeed in life. Evaluating the background and hardships faced is certainly a factor, as it is in all admissions (except those bought illegally or legally).
It is of course a measurable thing, since the students who get admitted to these schools don't all graduate. It turns out that the differences between affirmative action and non-affirmative action graduation rates is statistically insignificant. So they do belong and they do succeed.
It should also be noted that these schools have far more qualified applicants than slots. If you fail to get in it is because of everyone who got a slot, not just a black student.
Obstacles faced by applicants is a legitimate qualification and if someone faced with a lot more obstacles has a harder time getting to the finish line, he/she may still be a better.
Eliminate the obstacles if you want a level playing field.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
Well It Didn't Go On Forever
The report has been delivered to the Attorney General and what is going to be released to the public is the question that needs to be answered.
We will now spend time arguing over what should or should not be released, unless of course the entire thing is released.
That would also not stop the ongoing questions and speculation about what didn't get into the report or what is in the supporting documentation.
When we are still speculating about who assassinated Kennedy, whether the Moon landing was real and what happened to Amelia Earhart, the odds that the report will put an end to ongoing speculation and recriminations is unlikely.
We do live in a time of media circuses and while real circuses have lost their appeal, the media ones go on and on.
There are still organizations that want to prove that one or both of the Clintons should be in jail.
Maybe they should, but there is no evidence of anything criminal, even if there is plenty of evidence of some bad judgment and some infidelity.
If we start making those things crimes very few of us would still be free.
The bad judgment is a killer.
We will now spend time arguing over what should or should not be released, unless of course the entire thing is released.
That would also not stop the ongoing questions and speculation about what didn't get into the report or what is in the supporting documentation.
When we are still speculating about who assassinated Kennedy, whether the Moon landing was real and what happened to Amelia Earhart, the odds that the report will put an end to ongoing speculation and recriminations is unlikely.
We do live in a time of media circuses and while real circuses have lost their appeal, the media ones go on and on.
There are still organizations that want to prove that one or both of the Clintons should be in jail.
Maybe they should, but there is no evidence of anything criminal, even if there is plenty of evidence of some bad judgment and some infidelity.
If we start making those things crimes very few of us would still be free.
The bad judgment is a killer.
Friday, March 22, 2019
Republic or Democracy
There are people, and some of our founding fathers were among them, who consider the average person untrustworthy.
If you allowed "the mob" to rule, they would be both unpredictable and probably attack the privileged property owners.
The constitution as originally written included a number of protections, certain restriction on who could vote (most of those have been eliminated) the Senate and the Electoral college.
The Senate was originally envisioned as respected property owners selected by each State's legislators to provide a check on the House, elected by the populace.
In addition they came up with the Electoral College, an indirect way to select the President, hoping to prevent a demagogue from swaying the masses and taking over.
Senators are now still apportioned evenly, 2 to State, but in those States they are elected via popular vote. They therefore still represent a check on the Government protecting the interests of smaller states.
The Electoral college is still in existence and because of that we have now in a number of cases had a President who did not receive the most popular votes.
Is this desirable? Well it doesn't represent the will of the people but it does allow a well organized minority party to manipulate the system (legally) and win an office they couldn't win in a popular election.
It has now become a political issue which is opposed by a majority of Americans.
Naturally we are seeing all sort of self interested arguments effectively repeating the insulting mantra that the "mob" cannot be trusted.
The Oligarchs making that argument are much more untrustworthy than the average person, they have been manipulating the system since the nation was founded.
May we should opt for real democracy?
If you allowed "the mob" to rule, they would be both unpredictable and probably attack the privileged property owners.
The constitution as originally written included a number of protections, certain restriction on who could vote (most of those have been eliminated) the Senate and the Electoral college.
The Senate was originally envisioned as respected property owners selected by each State's legislators to provide a check on the House, elected by the populace.
In addition they came up with the Electoral College, an indirect way to select the President, hoping to prevent a demagogue from swaying the masses and taking over.
Senators are now still apportioned evenly, 2 to State, but in those States they are elected via popular vote. They therefore still represent a check on the Government protecting the interests of smaller states.
The Electoral college is still in existence and because of that we have now in a number of cases had a President who did not receive the most popular votes.
Is this desirable? Well it doesn't represent the will of the people but it does allow a well organized minority party to manipulate the system (legally) and win an office they couldn't win in a popular election.
It has now become a political issue which is opposed by a majority of Americans.
Naturally we are seeing all sort of self interested arguments effectively repeating the insulting mantra that the "mob" cannot be trusted.
The Oligarchs making that argument are much more untrustworthy than the average person, they have been manipulating the system since the nation was founded.
May we should opt for real democracy?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)