Had a good conversation--let's call it a good and spirited conversation--with some friends yesterday about next week's election; the issues--at least those here in California--and the potential impact that the national electoral outcome could have on the presidential legacy of Barack Obama.
It's hard to believe that California is electing a Governor this year; it might be more accurate to say that California is re-electing a Governor, if only from the standpoint of the amount of campaigning that is going on. There's not much. Jerry Brown, the Democratic incumbent, and Neel Kashkari, the Republican challenger, have met in face-to-face televised debate only once, and that was way back in early September.
The debate was inconsequential in that no new ground was plowed by either candidate. Mr. Kashkari, claiming to be fresh and new, managed to establish the fact that he was new; but as for "fresh," I don't think so, if only because he didn't have much room to differentiate himself from the incumbent. Both candidates position themselves as fiscal conservatives and social liberals; it's hard to tweak those characteristics so as to make them look much different from one person to the next.
Mr. Brown, for his part, used the debate to come across as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon who has an encyclopedic knowledge of the ways in which the levers of political and governmental power can be used in California; once again, nothing new there.
Since the debate, Mr. Kashkari has struggled with a poorly-funded campaign organization; at this point, if what we see in reported polling is accurate, he is still trying to gain enough traction to have people recognize his name. Mr. Brown--who seems to be well-known--has mostly ignored his opponent, and has declined to do a real campaign. I'm not sure that he has even once asked that people vote for him. Seems like an odd way to win a political office. We are all allowed our little eccentricities; it looks to me like Jerry Brown perhaps should be recognized for accumulating eccentricities in the way that some people accumulate stamps, coins, cars, models, artwork and other collectibles.
Four years ago Mr. Brown was elected as a fiscally-conservative and socially-liberal curmudgeon with an encyclopedic knowledge of government minutia; he's the same person, he's done much of what he said he would do if he were elected then; the voters are much the same now as they were four years ago; Governor Brown will likely be re-elected next week.
The California ballot has the usual array of initiatives and candidates for various other offices (why oh why do we vote for so many judges?). With few exceptions, there's not much to generate a lot of enthusiasm; which, of course, has done little to tamp down on the generation of misleading and uninformative campaign advertising, whether done by direct mail, television or radio. Though I am not a great consumer of campaign advertising, my guess will be that 95% of it is misleading and/or uninformative.
(On which point I have to give favorable mention to the small amount of campaigning that Mr. Brown has done: his testimonials for a small number of fellow Democratic candidates, as well as for two ballot initiatives that he has sponsored (#1 and #2), conjure up images of General Patton strutting in front of an audience and proclaiming "Do this for me because I want it done!" Not real smooth, perhaps, but concise. Interviews with him seem to be different; he rambles.)
Regarding the Obama presidential legacy: opinions on that during our spirited conversation ranged the spectrum from "total failure" to "very good." Here's how we got there. I asked this question: Suppose that the upcoming election hands control of the U.S. Senate over to the Republicans (as seems likely, if not certain) so that Mr. Obama is confronted by a totally non-cooperative Congress for the final two years of his presidency, and so we can safely assume that he will add no more accomplishments to his record; after the passage of a few years, what will be the general assessment of his time in office? (I asked the question and moderated the conversation, so the resulting opinions are those of others; you will have to wait for my answer to that question.)
The two liberal-leaning participants agreed that the assessment of the Obama presidency would be "very good;" supporting reasoning for this focused mainly on the Affordable Care Act and responsive actions to the financial crisis and succeeding recession. Mention was also made of progressive environmental and civil rights policies and actions; mention of foreign policy was brief, but perhaps significant for reasons that we can get to later.
The single conservative-leaning participant offered "moderate, at best" as his assessment, largely because of a feeling that the accomplishments during the Obama presidency were not his alone, but were the product of the efforts of others, too. The assessment of "total failure" was offered up in response to my question regarding the opinion of another individual, not present, but well-known in his political leanings (proudly and definitely conservative) and well-known by the conservative-leaning participant in a personal way; so, therefore, I think it an accurate representation of the opinion of one who was with us in spirit if not in person.
Reflecting on this conversation, I am struck by a startling omission: no mention, whether positive or negative, was made of Barack Obama's racial heritage. He is the first black American president--perhaps the second if we allow that Bill Clinton was the first; but that's an old conversation and metaphorical--and that by itself establishes a remarkable legacy for the man.
Furthermore, the absence of mention of this fundamental, observable and so far unique presidential accomplishment--that is, the accomplishment that was not only the election of 2008, but also the re-election of 2012--is perhaps testimony to growth in the maturity of American social inclusion. If the conversation of a small circle of friends is in some way representative of the population at large,then I would say that we as a nation have achieved, or on our way to achieving, a monumental goal.
More on this subject later as there is more contributing conversation and thought.
As for thoughts on the California election: mostly I like the Democratic candidates (no surprise there!) with the realization that one or two Republican candidates for state-wide office are probably as well-qualified and as acceptable as are their Democratic opponents (surprise!). Well, heck, even Mr. Kashkari isn't all that objectionable, but Gov. Brown has performed in the way that he was elected to perform, and so he is deserving of re-election.
On the various propositions: #1 is good, because it gets the state started on some water cleanup and storage projects that should have been started years ago (a fact made obvious by the current drought). #2 (establishing the so-called state "rainy day fund" for use in future fiscal emergencies) is deserving only because the real fix to the problem will have to be through some dramatic changes to the state's taxation and budgeting policies, and that's not happening any time soon, so this proposition is the next best thing currently on offer.
None of the other state-wide propositions--there are four others on the ballot--is of existential importance, although I believe that two of them have merit and deserve approval:
#45 will give the state's Insurance Commissioner the power to reject rate increases by health insurers if those increases are deemed to be excessive; this is a power that this same office has held for the last quarter century over auto insurance rates (as a result of a previous ballot proposition that was approved by California voters) and which experience has shown to have been exercised carefully and prudently in favor of the state's consumers.
#46 would address a couple of major issues regarding medical practice that have been brewing for several years: if approved, it would adjust the current limitation ("cap") on malpractice lawsuits for pain-and-suffering from $250,000--an amount established back in the 1970s--to a current inflation-adjusted value of $1.25 million, with a provision for future adjustments for inflation; and, it would implement drug/alcohol testing of doctors. This one has some rough edges in the details, but those are the major goals, and I believe them to offer fair and even-handed treatment to those seeking medical services, as well as to those who provide the services.
Finally, I hope that California's electoral turnout for this election surpasses the turnout for the primaries a few months ago, because that turnout was dismal.
I have voted.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Friday, October 17, 2014
U.S.A & West Africa: Ebola -- facts, not frenzy; let common sense prevail
Feeling saturated with ebola news? Are you getting the feeling that there's too much unhelpful political posturing? Yep, I thought so; me, too. So this will be short and quick and probably the most concise thing you can read on this subject.
There's no doubt that this is a complicated and dangerous disease. The chances are pretty good that it's going to become more complicated and more dangerous before there's any really good news to report. The timeline for eradication is probably years, not days or weeks or months. This thing will mutate and evolve; for all we know, it might be doing this on a daily basis, but could go unrecognized for months or years. Victory over ebola will not come easily, nor will it come quickly.
And victory over ebola will not happen in the United States. It can happen only in those areas where it is already firmly entrenched. Those areas appear--based on everything we know at this time--to be in west Africa. Call it the "hot zone" for ebola if you want to. That's where it already has thousands of human hosts in which to incubate, and is aided and abetted by those nations' limited abilities to provide effective medical treatment and recovery care.
Is there a danger to the United States--or, for that matter, to Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Nigeria, Brazil and all the other nations of the world--from the arrival of ebola-infected travelers? Yes, but it's a danger that is recognized. If you are saturated with the news, then you already know that the danger is being mitigated. It's something new for us to deal with, so a little time--remember that as of the date of this writing we are talking about an experience directly affecting America and Europe of only a few weeks--has passed, much has been learned, mistakes have been made, more has been learned from the mistakes, adaptations have taken place, and effective procedures, protocols and tools have been activated to deal with the issues involved in medical care and exposure.
With a few lines of text, we have summarized a massive medical, governmental and logistical response to a major event of great importance. So far, so good, but that's just the easy part, because America and Europe have been exposed to only the smallest of dangers from ebola.
The second danger--horrible as the first one is, this one is much worse--is the potential for some kind of ebola-induced social disintegration in these hot zone countries. If these countries are not provided with massive additional amounts of medical and social assistance--including on-site guidance and help by trained practitioners--then this disease might simply evolve and spread until it is out of control.
With that possibility in mind, it's not hard to conjure up images of consequent mass migrations of human populations, eventually causing chaos, greater numbers of deaths, prolonged and exacerbated human suffering and potentially national failures throughout much of Africa. This, then, would become a humanitarian and national security crisis of unspeakable proportions for the rest of Africa, all of Europe and North America. With that thought, can there be any doubt about the value of President Obama's arrangement for appropriate American military personnel to be a part of the containment and relief efforts?
I don't know if international travel restrictions--an idea with a companion conversation that is consuming much of the political and media atmosphere at the moment--are helpful or hurtful, or a combination of both. What I do know is that the most helpful approach would be one that includes liberal amounts of common sense, which means recognizing that a complicated problem is going to be fixed only with a complicated solution.
In the spirit of promoting common sense--not able to fix the problem with this, but perhaps it can help certain parts of the problem from getting any worse--here are a few simple facts about ebola--put together by the Obama Administration for American consumption, but applicable everywhere--that I hope will be helpful (to see this at its origin, visit the White House blog via this link):
There's no doubt that this is a complicated and dangerous disease. The chances are pretty good that it's going to become more complicated and more dangerous before there's any really good news to report. The timeline for eradication is probably years, not days or weeks or months. This thing will mutate and evolve; for all we know, it might be doing this on a daily basis, but could go unrecognized for months or years. Victory over ebola will not come easily, nor will it come quickly.
And victory over ebola will not happen in the United States. It can happen only in those areas where it is already firmly entrenched. Those areas appear--based on everything we know at this time--to be in west Africa. Call it the "hot zone" for ebola if you want to. That's where it already has thousands of human hosts in which to incubate, and is aided and abetted by those nations' limited abilities to provide effective medical treatment and recovery care.
Is there a danger to the United States--or, for that matter, to Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Nigeria, Brazil and all the other nations of the world--from the arrival of ebola-infected travelers? Yes, but it's a danger that is recognized. If you are saturated with the news, then you already know that the danger is being mitigated. It's something new for us to deal with, so a little time--remember that as of the date of this writing we are talking about an experience directly affecting America and Europe of only a few weeks--has passed, much has been learned, mistakes have been made, more has been learned from the mistakes, adaptations have taken place, and effective procedures, protocols and tools have been activated to deal with the issues involved in medical care and exposure.
With a few lines of text, we have summarized a massive medical, governmental and logistical response to a major event of great importance. So far, so good, but that's just the easy part, because America and Europe have been exposed to only the smallest of dangers from ebola.
The bigger danger hasn't yet hit the news
The bigger danger is in those African countries that are saturated with the disease. The danger there is two-fold: First, near-term ebola deaths that have the potential to suddenly spike from the current count of thousands to a possible death count--over the next few months--of tens of thousands.The second danger--horrible as the first one is, this one is much worse--is the potential for some kind of ebola-induced social disintegration in these hot zone countries. If these countries are not provided with massive additional amounts of medical and social assistance--including on-site guidance and help by trained practitioners--then this disease might simply evolve and spread until it is out of control.
With that possibility in mind, it's not hard to conjure up images of consequent mass migrations of human populations, eventually causing chaos, greater numbers of deaths, prolonged and exacerbated human suffering and potentially national failures throughout much of Africa. This, then, would become a humanitarian and national security crisis of unspeakable proportions for the rest of Africa, all of Europe and North America. With that thought, can there be any doubt about the value of President Obama's arrangement for appropriate American military personnel to be a part of the containment and relief efforts?
Let common sense prevail
America, of course, is key in seeing to it that none of these dire scenarios prevails; simply put, the United States--and Europe, too--have the most to offer in terms of medical and humanitarian assistance. It's a combination of science, know-how, money and commitment.I don't know if international travel restrictions--an idea with a companion conversation that is consuming much of the political and media atmosphere at the moment--are helpful or hurtful, or a combination of both. What I do know is that the most helpful approach would be one that includes liberal amounts of common sense, which means recognizing that a complicated problem is going to be fixed only with a complicated solution.
In the spirit of promoting common sense--not able to fix the problem with this, but perhaps it can help certain parts of the problem from getting any worse--here are a few simple facts about ebola--put together by the Obama Administration for American consumption, but applicable everywhere--that I hope will be helpful (to see this at its origin, visit the White House blog via this link):
Thursday, October 9, 2014
U.S.A. -- This is (hopefully) the last thing you need to read about same-sex marriage
As hot-button topics go, the issue of same-sex marriage ought to be cooling off by now. It's explicitly legal in most of the country--although the most conservative people and states still cling to the notion that it is and/or ought to be illegal--and public opinion clearly illustrates popular support by a majority of Americans. Nonetheless (sigh), since we are less than a month away from a mid-term election which includes posturing for the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election, the politics of opposition to same-sex marriage are consuming a significant amount of the available oxygen.
Therefore, in the spirit that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to misrepresent the law, here's a short question-and-answer overview of how same-sex marriage fits within the U.S. Constitution. The questions are from the public discussion of this subject--and, in fact, have been in popular discussion for about twenty years--and the answers are based on my own reading of a well-thumbed copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. As you probably know, the Constitution is a fairly short document, and its Amendments are few and typically concise, so it isn't a big job to do this. But, in case you might be wondering about some of the constitutionally-related comments that are thrown around in hopes of winning a few votes, this might save you the time of reading the Constitution yourself if you are looking for what might be the basis for some of those comments.
And with that, on with the Questions and Answers:
Question 1. Is marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Answer 1. Nope. Nothing there about marriage.
Question 2. If there's nothing about it in the Constitution, then what laws establish the legal act of getting married?
Answer 2. State laws.
Question 3. Is there something in the Constitution that supports/enables/authorizes the states to make these laws?
Answer 3. Yes. More specifically, Amendment 10--the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights--says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Question 4. So, then, since the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and it also devolves non-specified "powers" in general to the states, then each state can set up its own laws regarding marriage, and those laws can, among other thing, define marriage as only being legal when it involves a man and a woman, right?
Answer 4. Well, no, that's not what the Amendment says. The Amendment clarifies the Constitution and explicitly says that the states can make laws--which they were doing anyway at the time that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted--but it doesn't take anything away from the Constitution.
Question 5. What's your point?
Answer 5. Good question. There are at least two other places in the Constitution--one in the main body, and another in a later Amendment--that would (and do) conflict with any law that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The first place--admittedly, this is my own observation, since I have not yet seen it remarked upon in any reporting of the various legal aspects of same-sex marriage--is in the opening sentence of Section 2 of Article IV, in which is stated "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I'm not qualified to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, but if that statement is to be rendered into plain American Standard English for purposes of this discussion, it sounds suspiciously like it is saying that if a same-sex couple is legally wedded in, for example, the state of California, and they move to another state (maybe Texas?) then that second state is obligated to recognize the legal status of the incoming couple's same-sex marriage. After all, that would be a "privilege" granted, by law, in another state. There's probably more that could be made of this, but that's enough for now.
Question 6. That seems kind of iffy; you got something else that's better?
Answer 6. Yes, I mentioned an Amendment. It's Amendment 14. Section 1 of that Amendment reinforces the concept of "privileges and immunities" by saying that states may not make laws that abridge those things. And then to be crystal clear, that Section concludes by saying that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It's not a very big leap of constitutional logic to conclude that any state law that defines marriage in such a way that it excludes same-sex marriage--or, perhaps, interracial marriage (yes, that's been done, too)--is unconstitutional because it would therefore be a law that is applied differently for different groups of people, and is therefore unequal in its protection.
Question 7. That conclusion is just your opinion, isn't it?
Answer 7. No, not "just" my opinion. Several Federal appeals courts have said the same thing. At this point, no such court has said anything that contradicts that conclusion. For that matter, opponents of same-sex marriage--to my knowledge--don't seem to dispute the conclusion that such laws would be unequal. If there is an argument by anybody that a law that explicitly defines marriage in the way that we are discussing it here would constitute "equal protection," then I've not read about it, and I read a lot of stuff. As a result, any state law that says something that would rule out same-sex marriage in that state is on very thin constitutional ice.
Question 8. Will the U.S. Supreme Court eventually issue a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage?
Answer 8. Maybe. They are almost certainly going to have to take a case on the issue when a Federal appellate court issues a ruling that conflicts with the appellate rulings that are already on record, and that could happen at any time (and, eventually, it will happen). As for the ruling being "definitive". . .who knows?
Question 9. Could the U.S. Constitution be amended to make a national definition of marriage?
Answer 9. Yes.
Question 10. Is it likely that the Constitution will be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only?
Answer 10. Anything is possible, but at this point the success of such a proposed amendment would be nothing more than a pipe dream.
Okay, you're right; that last one there is my own opinion. But it made me feel good to write it, and I truly believe that most people in this country feel the same way.
And that's the way that the hot button cools.
Therefore, in the spirit that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is entitled to misrepresent the law, here's a short question-and-answer overview of how same-sex marriage fits within the U.S. Constitution. The questions are from the public discussion of this subject--and, in fact, have been in popular discussion for about twenty years--and the answers are based on my own reading of a well-thumbed copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. As you probably know, the Constitution is a fairly short document, and its Amendments are few and typically concise, so it isn't a big job to do this. But, in case you might be wondering about some of the constitutionally-related comments that are thrown around in hopes of winning a few votes, this might save you the time of reading the Constitution yourself if you are looking for what might be the basis for some of those comments.
And with that, on with the Questions and Answers:
Question 1. Is marriage mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?
Answer 1. Nope. Nothing there about marriage.
Question 2. If there's nothing about it in the Constitution, then what laws establish the legal act of getting married?
Answer 2. State laws.
Question 3. Is there something in the Constitution that supports/enables/authorizes the states to make these laws?
Answer 3. Yes. More specifically, Amendment 10--the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights--says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Question 4. So, then, since the Constitution says nothing about marriage, and it also devolves non-specified "powers" in general to the states, then each state can set up its own laws regarding marriage, and those laws can, among other thing, define marriage as only being legal when it involves a man and a woman, right?
Answer 4. Well, no, that's not what the Amendment says. The Amendment clarifies the Constitution and explicitly says that the states can make laws--which they were doing anyway at the time that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and adopted--but it doesn't take anything away from the Constitution.
Question 5. What's your point?
Answer 5. Good question. There are at least two other places in the Constitution--one in the main body, and another in a later Amendment--that would (and do) conflict with any law that would define marriage as between a man and a woman only. The first place--admittedly, this is my own observation, since I have not yet seen it remarked upon in any reporting of the various legal aspects of same-sex marriage--is in the opening sentence of Section 2 of Article IV, in which is stated "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." I'm not qualified to argue this in front of the Supreme Court, but if that statement is to be rendered into plain American Standard English for purposes of this discussion, it sounds suspiciously like it is saying that if a same-sex couple is legally wedded in, for example, the state of California, and they move to another state (maybe Texas?) then that second state is obligated to recognize the legal status of the incoming couple's same-sex marriage. After all, that would be a "privilege" granted, by law, in another state. There's probably more that could be made of this, but that's enough for now.
Question 6. That seems kind of iffy; you got something else that's better?
Answer 6. Yes, I mentioned an Amendment. It's Amendment 14. Section 1 of that Amendment reinforces the concept of "privileges and immunities" by saying that states may not make laws that abridge those things. And then to be crystal clear, that Section concludes by saying that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It's not a very big leap of constitutional logic to conclude that any state law that defines marriage in such a way that it excludes same-sex marriage--or, perhaps, interracial marriage (yes, that's been done, too)--is unconstitutional because it would therefore be a law that is applied differently for different groups of people, and is therefore unequal in its protection.
Question 7. That conclusion is just your opinion, isn't it?
Answer 7. No, not "just" my opinion. Several Federal appeals courts have said the same thing. At this point, no such court has said anything that contradicts that conclusion. For that matter, opponents of same-sex marriage--to my knowledge--don't seem to dispute the conclusion that such laws would be unequal. If there is an argument by anybody that a law that explicitly defines marriage in the way that we are discussing it here would constitute "equal protection," then I've not read about it, and I read a lot of stuff. As a result, any state law that says something that would rule out same-sex marriage in that state is on very thin constitutional ice.
Question 8. Will the U.S. Supreme Court eventually issue a definitive ruling on same-sex marriage?
Answer 8. Maybe. They are almost certainly going to have to take a case on the issue when a Federal appellate court issues a ruling that conflicts with the appellate rulings that are already on record, and that could happen at any time (and, eventually, it will happen). As for the ruling being "definitive". . .who knows?
Question 9. Could the U.S. Constitution be amended to make a national definition of marriage?
Answer 9. Yes.
Question 10. Is it likely that the Constitution will be amended to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only?
Answer 10. Anything is possible, but at this point the success of such a proposed amendment would be nothing more than a pipe dream.
Okay, you're right; that last one there is my own opinion. But it made me feel good to write it, and I truly believe that most people in this country feel the same way.
And that's the way that the hot button cools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)