The comments of Michelle Bachman and other critics of today's Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act have given me pause and a bit of amusement.
Ms. Bachman talked about how disappointed she is that the Court declared constitutional a law that is clearly unconstitutional. Apparently, she knows better what is constitutional than do a majority of the Supremes.
Here's the thing. The courts, whether Supreme or inferior, do not evaluate a law as a matter of public policy. They don't decide if a law was a good idea. They only decide if Congress is empowered by the Constitution to enact what it did.
Chief Justice Roberts and the other four justices who voted to uphold the law realized that, and I'm sure considered whether they should strike down what a majority of both houses of Congress voted for and the president signed.
The amusement part comes in from the recollection that for years the right-wing denounced the judiciary for "activism." Now, as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, they cried out for the courts to invalidate what our elected representatives had passed.
Actually, as students of history know, the concept of judicial review is not written in the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall assumed the right of review and the courts have exercised it for the last two hundred years.
But either they don't teach that at the Oral Roberts law school or Ms. Bachman has forgotten it in the years since she matriculated.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Our Fair City
Those of you who have been following the news have probably heard by now that there's a major fire burning just west of Colorado Springs. Yesterday the fire jumped both the primary and secondary containment lines and now is burning in the northwest suburbs. News reports claim that about thirty-five houses have been engulfed. Mandatory evacuation orders affect something like 20,000 residents.
Kris and I have a houseguest who is very worried that he won't have a home anymore.
The countryside west of town is the foothills of the Rocky Mountain frontrange. It's rugged country, ridges and canyons, much favored by hikers and apparently by one arsonist or careless smoker. There hasn't been a significant fire there in at least a generation, so there's a large fuel load of living and dead trees and undergrowth. A series of comparatively mild winters has encouraged population growth among bark beetles which burrow into conifers, killing the trees but leaving them still standing. We've had only about nineteen percent of our normal precipitation this year.
All of this has created a situation that was ripe for a catastrophic fire, and now we have one. Bad as the present fire is, however, we cannot discount the prospect that there will be more fires in days to come. Each day without rain, and with record high temperatures makes it just that much more likely that someone else will drop a glowing cigarette, foolishly shoot off fireworks, or just start a fire to see what will happen.
Worst of all from our perspective, our son, daughter-in-law and baby granddaughter have airplane reservations to fly here Sunday for a short visit. Now we'll have to advise them that there's smoke in the air, and they might decide to postpone their trip rather than risk a respiratory problem for little Violet. It would be prudent for them to stay in North Carolina, but Lord, we'd really love to see them.
(Latest newscast, being aired while I type, says 32,000 evacuees now. That's a little more than five percent of the total population of metropolitan Colo Spgs.)
For those of you whose houses are not in danger of burning - everyone who reads this, I hope - spare us a thought and some sympathy today.
Kris and I have a houseguest who is very worried that he won't have a home anymore.
The countryside west of town is the foothills of the Rocky Mountain frontrange. It's rugged country, ridges and canyons, much favored by hikers and apparently by one arsonist or careless smoker. There hasn't been a significant fire there in at least a generation, so there's a large fuel load of living and dead trees and undergrowth. A series of comparatively mild winters has encouraged population growth among bark beetles which burrow into conifers, killing the trees but leaving them still standing. We've had only about nineteen percent of our normal precipitation this year.
All of this has created a situation that was ripe for a catastrophic fire, and now we have one. Bad as the present fire is, however, we cannot discount the prospect that there will be more fires in days to come. Each day without rain, and with record high temperatures makes it just that much more likely that someone else will drop a glowing cigarette, foolishly shoot off fireworks, or just start a fire to see what will happen.
Worst of all from our perspective, our son, daughter-in-law and baby granddaughter have airplane reservations to fly here Sunday for a short visit. Now we'll have to advise them that there's smoke in the air, and they might decide to postpone their trip rather than risk a respiratory problem for little Violet. It would be prudent for them to stay in North Carolina, but Lord, we'd really love to see them.
(Latest newscast, being aired while I type, says 32,000 evacuees now. That's a little more than five percent of the total population of metropolitan Colo Spgs.)
For those of you whose houses are not in danger of burning - everyone who reads this, I hope - spare us a thought and some sympathy today.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
My Colleagues
At work, a colleague was looking at an Internet site, and commented that there are trillions of barrels of oil under the Rocky Mountains. Another colleague immediately said, "Yeah but the environmentalists won't let us get it." My first workmate then said, "Think of the energy independence. And the jobs that could be created."
I don't talk politics at work, don't think it's appropriate, so I didn't say anything. If I had said something, it would have been something like this. "Whose information is that about the amount of oil? Could it be the American Petroleum Institute? Do you think they might be a biased source?
"Also, did you know that what they're calling oil is actually oil shale? And extracting oil from shale requires enormous amounts of water? Water that's scarcer and scarcer here in the west.
"Finally, did you know that the oil shale extraction proposals will require construction of roads, oil extraction apparatus, and probably pipelines through a lot of our very scenic countryside, displacing animals and possibly affecting the tourist business?"
But there's little convincing people. It would be another dialog of the deaf.
I'd be curious to know, however, what my colleagues think the motivation of "the environmentalists" might be. If we just have an honest difference of opinion, that's okay. What bothers me greatly is the imputation many of the pro-development people have that we who want to preserve our beautiful environment are somehow trying to sabotage the country. As if we want the country to be weaker, more dependent on overseas sources of oil, even as if we want America to fail.
Far from it in truth. What I want, what I believe my environmentalist friends want, is a more vigorous stronger nation, and the way to that is to move as rapidly as possible into the post petroleum world of renewables as our source of power.
Just think. No more mountaintop coal mining, no more offshore oil drilling, or any oil drilling for that matter, no pipelines criss-crossing the land, spilling oil into our rivers and onto our land. No more fatalities in mines and on platforms.
I don't talk politics at work, don't think it's appropriate, so I didn't say anything. If I had said something, it would have been something like this. "Whose information is that about the amount of oil? Could it be the American Petroleum Institute? Do you think they might be a biased source?
"Also, did you know that what they're calling oil is actually oil shale? And extracting oil from shale requires enormous amounts of water? Water that's scarcer and scarcer here in the west.
"Finally, did you know that the oil shale extraction proposals will require construction of roads, oil extraction apparatus, and probably pipelines through a lot of our very scenic countryside, displacing animals and possibly affecting the tourist business?"
But there's little convincing people. It would be another dialog of the deaf.
I'd be curious to know, however, what my colleagues think the motivation of "the environmentalists" might be. If we just have an honest difference of opinion, that's okay. What bothers me greatly is the imputation many of the pro-development people have that we who want to preserve our beautiful environment are somehow trying to sabotage the country. As if we want the country to be weaker, more dependent on overseas sources of oil, even as if we want America to fail.
Far from it in truth. What I want, what I believe my environmentalist friends want, is a more vigorous stronger nation, and the way to that is to move as rapidly as possible into the post petroleum world of renewables as our source of power.
Just think. No more mountaintop coal mining, no more offshore oil drilling, or any oil drilling for that matter, no pipelines criss-crossing the land, spilling oil into our rivers and onto our land. No more fatalities in mines and on platforms.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Musings While Waiting for an Oil Change
Sitting in the waiting room at Tire World gives a fellow some time to think, especially if the fellow neglected to bring his reading glasses along with him. Here's what was on my mind.
Today marks the sixty-eighth anniversary of the D-Day landings in France. Most of the veterans are deceased by now, and many of the rest are infirm in one way or another. A kid of eighteen in 1944, and almost all the soldiers that day were older than eighteen, would be eighty-six by now.
Most people will pass the day without a thought for what happened back then. A few will recall what they saw on Saving Private Ryan, but that'll be about it. But if those men hadn't gone ashore that day, the world would be much different now. Hitler would still have lost to the Red Army, but the USSR might have dominated all Europe in the aftermath.
The governor of Wisconsin beat back an attempt to fire him last night, to the delight of Republicans and other right wingers around the country. The election was presented as a referendum on the governor's attempt to hamstring the public employees' unions there.
As blog readers know, I worked for the National Park Service for many years, but in only one park where I worked was there a union, and it represented only maintenance employees who cared to join. The union was not allowed to negotiate salaries, only working conditions. Most of that had to do with establishing a schedule for when the outdoor employees could come back to the yard, a sliding schedule of temperature and humidity.
The Wisconsin unions will still have some clout, negotiating teacher contracts and preventing abuses and fighting terminations, but even that might be too much for the Wisconsin voters. Wisconsin always seemed a little schizophrenic to me. The same state that elected progressives "Battling Bob" LaFollett and Russ Feingold also sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate.
In the aftermath of yesterday's election, Sarah Palin is quoted as saying that "Barack Obama's goose is cooked." I wouldn't argue the point that when a president's party loses an election anywhere that president is weakened somewhat. What burns me is the intemperate nature of the remark. It's an election year and some hyperbole is warranted, but Ms. Palin almost seems gleeful. Disapproving of a president is grounds for trying to elect someone else, it's true. That's the essence of democracy. To enjoy a president's discomfiture is the triumph of partisanship over patriotism.
Oddly enough, the same electorate that voted to keep Governor Walker said in exit polls that they prefer the president over Mr. Romney and by about the same margin. So, go figure.
Today marks the sixty-eighth anniversary of the D-Day landings in France. Most of the veterans are deceased by now, and many of the rest are infirm in one way or another. A kid of eighteen in 1944, and almost all the soldiers that day were older than eighteen, would be eighty-six by now.
Most people will pass the day without a thought for what happened back then. A few will recall what they saw on Saving Private Ryan, but that'll be about it. But if those men hadn't gone ashore that day, the world would be much different now. Hitler would still have lost to the Red Army, but the USSR might have dominated all Europe in the aftermath.
The governor of Wisconsin beat back an attempt to fire him last night, to the delight of Republicans and other right wingers around the country. The election was presented as a referendum on the governor's attempt to hamstring the public employees' unions there.
As blog readers know, I worked for the National Park Service for many years, but in only one park where I worked was there a union, and it represented only maintenance employees who cared to join. The union was not allowed to negotiate salaries, only working conditions. Most of that had to do with establishing a schedule for when the outdoor employees could come back to the yard, a sliding schedule of temperature and humidity.
The Wisconsin unions will still have some clout, negotiating teacher contracts and preventing abuses and fighting terminations, but even that might be too much for the Wisconsin voters. Wisconsin always seemed a little schizophrenic to me. The same state that elected progressives "Battling Bob" LaFollett and Russ Feingold also sent Joe McCarthy to the Senate.
In the aftermath of yesterday's election, Sarah Palin is quoted as saying that "Barack Obama's goose is cooked." I wouldn't argue the point that when a president's party loses an election anywhere that president is weakened somewhat. What burns me is the intemperate nature of the remark. It's an election year and some hyperbole is warranted, but Ms. Palin almost seems gleeful. Disapproving of a president is grounds for trying to elect someone else, it's true. That's the essence of democracy. To enjoy a president's discomfiture is the triumph of partisanship over patriotism.
Oddly enough, the same electorate that voted to keep Governor Walker said in exit polls that they prefer the president over Mr. Romney and by about the same margin. So, go figure.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama
"Click if you liked the 'stand up' foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and not the appeasement policy of Barack Obama," said a recent marginal "poll" on Facebook. One of my numerous cousins was among the clickers.
This is what is called a "push" poll, of course. It's akin to the "What if I told you your preferred candidate was a spouse beater and drug addict," kind of question. "Well, naturally I wouldn't support him then," the person being polled will answer, and the pollster then adds the respondent to people opposed to that candidate.
Note that the pollster doesn't actually make an accusation - it's all conditional, but the thought lingers in the target's mind - is my candidate a spouse beater and drug addict?
The "poll" on Facebook got me to thinking about foreign policy, however, and about American myth-making. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Younger Americans will have very little recollection of his years in office. Since he left the presidency he has become the very apotheosis of what a Republican president should be. He is invoked by every Republican who seeks political office, from town clerk up to president.
Why? What is there in Reagan's record that excites so much admiration? Let's examine his foreign policy and that of President Obama to see who did better.
President Reagan's partisans will immediately point out the collapse of the Soviet Union as his great achievement, and I think his military buildup and intransigence about negotiating arms deals certainly did help bring on the downfall of the USSR. One could argue as persuasively that the Communist government fell because of its own internal contradictions and because inept leadership allowed the country to become embroiled in the Afghan war and support for Marxist regimes in other places, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba. Those efforts bankrupted them and destroyed public support within the country.
The Reagan administration provided military aid to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua and the government of El Salvador, that was at least loosely allied with "death squads" which killed suspected rebels without proof, trial, or mercy.
It was a cynical policy and one that saw the world without nuance. Reagan even hosted Mujahadeen leaders in the White House and called them the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - these precursors of the Taliban.
Afghanistan, it must be said, has been a mess for thousands of years. Warring tribes, little infrastructure, and ferocious resistance to any outside influences are their hallmarks.
Not too long after Reagan left office, the government of Nicaragua, which had gained power in a bloody revolution, called an election in the expectation their party - the Sandanistas - would win easily, and then surrendered power peacefully when they lost. A peace of sorts was eventually worked out in El Salvador and a leftist revolution was thwarted - partially.
When Marxists seized power in Grenada, Reagan sent to US Army to boot out the usurpers and restore democracy. From the standpoint of power politics, the invasion also prevented the Cuban air force from building a runway there that would have been used to ferry Cuban soldiers to and from Africa.
Reagan made much of his refusal to negotiate with terrorists, but when air pirates seized a passenger airliner and began murdering Americans, he did in fact yield somewhat to them.
He sold military equipment to the radical regime in Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in defiance of Congress, then shrugged off the whole matter saying it was just one little airplane of material.
It's a mixed record, in my opinion. It's cold blooded, hardball international politics, but it did achieve some positive results.
And what of President Obama? He inherited a protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had to deal with international monetary problems and economic difficulties. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya and Syria were under assault by their own populations. He has ended the Iraq involvement though some American troops are still there. He has promised to wrap up the Afghanistan involvement on a schedule that will presumably give the client government there a chance to survive. (I'm very pessimistic about it though.)
Obama's foreign policy favored the Eqyptian revolution that ultimately succeeded, and American planes materially assisted the Libyan rebels who toppled Moammar Khadafy. Currently, he is calling for a new government in Syria, where the despot is killing his own citizens left right and center.
The Obama administration has made extensive use of drones to wreak havoc on the leaders of al-Qaida, killing some innocents in the process, and conducted the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. (Drones were not available to President Reagan.)
Obama is still trying to make nice with the duplicitous government of Pakistan. He has been trying very hard to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. A substantial part of the game involves Israel and their stated intention not to tolerate an Iranian bomb. Since Iran is a significant producer of oil, economic sanctions will not be sufficient to stop President Ahmadinajad, in my opinion.
Concerning North Korea, the Obamaites are trying to use a carrot and stick approach, with only modest success. One can only hope the suffering people of that land will soon throw off the tyranny there and achieve some measure of peace and freedom.
European nations have yawed back and forth in the last few years between conservatives preaching austerity and leftists who want to retain social programs in the face of large operating deficits and debts. I don't see any overarching strategy concerning Europe from the Obama administration.
As with the Reagan presidency, Mr. Obama has used American power to rid our country of those who threaten us. We can with significant justification call both policies ruthless and cynical. Both have had successes and failures. But I don't see any grounds to claim Reagan was steadfast and Obama has "appeased" anyone. The myth of Ronald Reagan is being fastened on the country despite the mixed record of his presidency.
This is what is called a "push" poll, of course. It's akin to the "What if I told you your preferred candidate was a spouse beater and drug addict," kind of question. "Well, naturally I wouldn't support him then," the person being polled will answer, and the pollster then adds the respondent to people opposed to that candidate.
Note that the pollster doesn't actually make an accusation - it's all conditional, but the thought lingers in the target's mind - is my candidate a spouse beater and drug addict?
The "poll" on Facebook got me to thinking about foreign policy, however, and about American myth-making. Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 to 1989. Younger Americans will have very little recollection of his years in office. Since he left the presidency he has become the very apotheosis of what a Republican president should be. He is invoked by every Republican who seeks political office, from town clerk up to president.
Why? What is there in Reagan's record that excites so much admiration? Let's examine his foreign policy and that of President Obama to see who did better.
President Reagan's partisans will immediately point out the collapse of the Soviet Union as his great achievement, and I think his military buildup and intransigence about negotiating arms deals certainly did help bring on the downfall of the USSR. One could argue as persuasively that the Communist government fell because of its own internal contradictions and because inept leadership allowed the country to become embroiled in the Afghan war and support for Marxist regimes in other places, particularly in Nicaragua and Cuba. Those efforts bankrupted them and destroyed public support within the country.
The Reagan administration provided military aid to the Mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, the Contras in Nicaragua and the government of El Salvador, that was at least loosely allied with "death squads" which killed suspected rebels without proof, trial, or mercy.
It was a cynical policy and one that saw the world without nuance. Reagan even hosted Mujahadeen leaders in the White House and called them the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers" - these precursors of the Taliban.
Afghanistan, it must be said, has been a mess for thousands of years. Warring tribes, little infrastructure, and ferocious resistance to any outside influences are their hallmarks.
Not too long after Reagan left office, the government of Nicaragua, which had gained power in a bloody revolution, called an election in the expectation their party - the Sandanistas - would win easily, and then surrendered power peacefully when they lost. A peace of sorts was eventually worked out in El Salvador and a leftist revolution was thwarted - partially.
When Marxists seized power in Grenada, Reagan sent to US Army to boot out the usurpers and restore democracy. From the standpoint of power politics, the invasion also prevented the Cuban air force from building a runway there that would have been used to ferry Cuban soldiers to and from Africa.
Reagan made much of his refusal to negotiate with terrorists, but when air pirates seized a passenger airliner and began murdering Americans, he did in fact yield somewhat to them.
He sold military equipment to the radical regime in Iran and used the proceeds to fund the Contras in defiance of Congress, then shrugged off the whole matter saying it was just one little airplane of material.
It's a mixed record, in my opinion. It's cold blooded, hardball international politics, but it did achieve some positive results.
And what of President Obama? He inherited a protracted involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has had to deal with international monetary problems and economic difficulties. Tyrants in Egypt, Libya and Syria were under assault by their own populations. He has ended the Iraq involvement though some American troops are still there. He has promised to wrap up the Afghanistan involvement on a schedule that will presumably give the client government there a chance to survive. (I'm very pessimistic about it though.)
Obama's foreign policy favored the Eqyptian revolution that ultimately succeeded, and American planes materially assisted the Libyan rebels who toppled Moammar Khadafy. Currently, he is calling for a new government in Syria, where the despot is killing his own citizens left right and center.
The Obama administration has made extensive use of drones to wreak havoc on the leaders of al-Qaida, killing some innocents in the process, and conducted the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. (Drones were not available to President Reagan.)
Obama is still trying to make nice with the duplicitous government of Pakistan. He has been trying very hard to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Whether this is possible remains to be seen. A substantial part of the game involves Israel and their stated intention not to tolerate an Iranian bomb. Since Iran is a significant producer of oil, economic sanctions will not be sufficient to stop President Ahmadinajad, in my opinion.
Concerning North Korea, the Obamaites are trying to use a carrot and stick approach, with only modest success. One can only hope the suffering people of that land will soon throw off the tyranny there and achieve some measure of peace and freedom.
European nations have yawed back and forth in the last few years between conservatives preaching austerity and leftists who want to retain social programs in the face of large operating deficits and debts. I don't see any overarching strategy concerning Europe from the Obama administration.
As with the Reagan presidency, Mr. Obama has used American power to rid our country of those who threaten us. We can with significant justification call both policies ruthless and cynical. Both have had successes and failures. But I don't see any grounds to claim Reagan was steadfast and Obama has "appeased" anyone. The myth of Ronald Reagan is being fastened on the country despite the mixed record of his presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)