STILL ON PATROL

Gay Marriage Supporters Have Wrong Perspective

I saw a newspaper photo today from a pro-gay marriage rally in Maine, the latest battleground in that issue's spreading war.  A person was holding a sign that said, "We All Deserve the Freedom to Marry."  The thought pattern that produced that sign, which reflects the approach of much of the LGBT lobby on this issue, is simply and patently wrong.

First, just who is "we all"?  All people?  Or all gays?  Or all Mainers?  I'm confused.

The Word "deserve" is in and of itself troubling.  According to my dictionary, "deserve" means "to be worthy of; merit."  In that sense, are they advocating some sort of condition precedent to marriage, such as a maturiy level to commit to one another?  Or are they saying that gays are somehow more "deserving" of the institution of marriage than heterosexuals?  There are legal requirements for marriage, such as age, but to argue that one "deserves" to marry is at best a misnomer.

My real problem, though, and the point of this post, is the phrase "Freedom to Marry."  I don't really think there is any such thing.  Marriage has two components, only one of which is a legal requirement.  As a matter of civil law, marriage is a state of existence that is recognized for certain purposes.  Tax filing status; health insurance coverage; rights of inheritance; rights of determination such as health care issues; and certain other, specific purposes exist for which it makes a legal difference if two individuals are legally married.  Under the broad, sovereign powers of the states, they can each determine as a matter of state law what persons can achieve the legal status of "married."  Thus, Massachussetts, and several other states have decided to allow gay marriage, while several others have not.

But this is not a fundamental "freedom" that is anywhere enumerated in our Constitutional system of laws.  Some would argue this as an issue of "equal protection under the laws", but to do so is to stretch the meaning of the Equal Protection clause far beyond its original intent and purpose.  Otherwise, gay marriage is not enumerated as is freedom of speech, religion, assembly, bearing arms, and the other freedoms we are granted by our system of laws.  Rather, it is a matter of each state defining those persons who may qualify for the status as "married."

The other component of "marriage" that comes into play in some couples is the religious.  Most religions have provisions for granting and/or blessing a marriage within their ecclesiology.  This has little to do with the civil union I mentioned above; religious ceremonies must be conducted by someone who is also licensed by the state to do so for them to have legally binding effect.  Religious denominations have varying requirements for a couple to become recognized as married - our very freedom of religion allows for each different group to set its own standards.  This freedom, however, is not a "freedom of marriage."

The idea of a "freedom of marriage" is perhaps a good marketing move to appeal to Americans, who tend to treasure our fundamental freedoms at some level.  It is, however, an incorrect basis under which to consider the significant step of legal recognition of "marriage."  The issue is more whether recognition of gay marriage would confer some sort of benefit on society as a whole, and whether it is consistent with our guiding principles and standards.  That is a much more difficult question.

UPDATE:  The voters of the State of Maine appear to have passed a referendum to repeal a state law allowing gay marriages.  With almost 90% of the precincts reporting, the pro-repeal vote had a 53% to 47% margin.

The misperception of the meaning of this vote, however, continues.  One proponent of gay marriage has been quoted as saying, "It hurts. It hurts personally. "It's a personal rejection of us and our relationship, and I don't understand what the fear is."  Ah, yes, the "homophobia" card by another name, plus trying for sympathy by claiming personal rejection.

I have talked to many people about this issue, and I have yet to meet anyone who "fears" anyone from the LGBT lobby.  If there is fear, it is about what may happen to American society if we start down this slippery slope of providing legal recognition to such relationships.  There has long been a societal norm, based in large part upon the reproductive biology with which we have been created.  There remains considerable debate and no scientifically accepted understanding of homosexuality - the "nature vs. nurture" question remains unresolved.  If society chooses, in a democratically-conducted manner, to not venture into the unknown realm of recognition of gay marriage, then that is the legal and Constitutional right of each sovereign state to make that choice.

This debate needs to be removed from the emotional, fear-based accusations being used by the LGBT, and into the arena of facts.  What would it mean, in a civil-legal context, if LGBT relationships were to become eligible for "married-filing-jointly" tax status?  For family coverage in health insurance plans?  To make spousal decisions in health care and inheritance settings?  In countries and states where LGBT marriages are allowed, how do these relationships compare to heterosexual ones?  On all of these bases, is gay marriage something that should be allowed in a civil, secular context?  Why, or why not?

Approval by religious denominations and the availability of rites of marriage is, and should be, a wholly different question.  Each denomination should look to its historic principles and abide by them, in my opinion.  Those who cannot abide by the principles should feel free to break away and form their own denomination, and not hijack that which is existing and is established.  Unlike TEO.

It's Ba-ack - Cap & Trade Legislation Starts Its Path in the Senate

Remember Cap & Trade?  Well, (pardon the pun), it's back for its turn in the Senate, the effort being directed by uber-liberals John Kerry and Barbara Boxer.

 

Cap & Trade is another piece of dangerous, shell-game legislation that is a true wolf-in-sheep's-clothing to the average American.  This legislation is masquerading as "pro-environment", when it more honestly is nothing more than a crippling energy tax the Obama Administration's tax-and-spend policies seek to use to devour an ever-greater share of our incomes.  If enacted in its present form, it will likely cause each family to see over $2,900 more per year in energy costs, including a 58% increase in gasoline prices. 

 

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent .  The total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the Administration's estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.  And you know these estimates are comparable to a drunk driver telling the arresting officer that they had only two beers with dinner - the truth is much higher.

 

So, what exactly is Cap & Trade?  A Cap & Trade program would impose a carbon emissions cap that

follows an arbitrarily set downward trajectory that over time continually reduces the amount of carbon emissions that can occur in the U.S.  The Waxman-Markey Bill passed by the House targets a 17% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and an 83% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.  Some of these guidelines would take carbon emissions to pre-1910 levels, which is an absurd goal in 21st century America.  The Senate bill calls for a 20% initial emissions reduction.

 

Some people involved in drafting the legislation have privately admitted the guidelines are impossible to accomplish.  How can this possible make sense?  Easy.  The REAL reason for these guidelines is to allow the government to collect abusively high energy taxes, not to actually reduce emissions.  The lower the standard for carbon emissions, the higher the taxes on American businesses, and the American people.

 

The Cap & Trade program is theoretically designed to ration energy use by dramatically increasing the cost of energy in all forms.  The Federal government would sell credits called "allowances" to anyone at an auction.  The cost would be determined by the auction bidding, but can be anticipated to increase rapidly over time as the emissions cap decreases over time. 

 

In theory, the bill on its face pre-supposes that "low carbon" alternate energy sources will be developed on the same or faster schedule as the carbon emissions caps decrease.  This is a risky gamble - in all the years we have been subjected to foreign oil demands and energy shortages, we still do not have any commercially viable alternative energy sources.  And, in some places where wind turbines have been installed, environmentalists are now complaining (and filing class action lawsuits) about personal injuries related to turbine noise, and birds killing themselves flying into turbine blades.  In other words, the "not in my backyard" syndrome is at work holding back potential alternate technologies.

 

There is significant risk in these technologies not developing on a timely basis.  It is anticipated that a commodity futures trading market would develop for the carbon "allowances", which would render our energy markets even more highly susceptible to market speculation and manipulation than they already are.  Such activities can and do cause extreme market price volatility, to the ultimate detriment of all energy producers and consumers.

 

So, what are the risks and likely complications of Cap & Trade?  The dramatic increase in the cost of energy will drive up the costs of manufacturing, damaging the ability of U.S. companies to compete globally.  Overall, a cap-and-trade system that reduces annual GDP by 0.34 percent per year can be expected to reduce U.S. employment by roughly 964,900 jobs per year, reduce household earnings by $37.8 billion, and reduce total  U.S. economic output by $136.1 billion.

If we assume, which is likely, that emerging energy technologies will not arrive on time, there is no question that energy costs will go up as the emissions caps dictate.  We will be forced to forego potential energy independence and national security that exist in untapped oil deposits in the Bakken Reserve in the Dakotas, in the Rockies, in the Gulf of Mexico, and in Alaska, all of which are there and available in amounts that are many multiples of, for example, Saudi reserves.  The ability to have below-$1 per gallon gasoline and be free of energy dependence?  Gone under Cap & Trade.  The value of those goals to America's future?  Priceless.

 

The revenue derived from the allowances auctions will be enormous, and effectively put the Federal government in charge of energy markets.  In addition, there is no assurance that these revenues will be directed toward the development of new energy sources, but rather, the majority of these funds will likely be used to fund expansive social programs, such as universal, public health care.

 

Friends, please don't let them pull the wool over your eyes.  It is but another example of the Obama Administration using the scare tactics of "Global Warming", which has still not been conclusively proven, or the "Environment" generally, as a vehicle to exert government control over another significant segment of our economy.  Can you spell S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M?  The proposed "cure", as with their idea of "health care reform", does not address the real-world problems at all.

 

American energy production is significantly better and cleaner than it has ever been.  Still more and better technologies exist to continue its improvement.  The solution is not to pass legislation that reverses GDP growth, reduces jobs, and cripples the economy with another burdensome level of taxes, all of which Cap & Trade will most certainly do.  The solution is to tap into those resources we already have, secure our economy by reducing energy costs and by eliminating the threat energy dependence poses to our national security, and then, from a position of stability, financial security, and safety, look to the future of ever-cleaner energy sources. 

 

That is what a free economy would do.  Only socialists want these huge segments of our economy enclosed in the chilly grasp of government and taxes.  One need only look at the fiscal and social failings of European Socialist governments to know, with certainty, that we as Americans do not want to go there.  Cap & Trade is dangerous legislation, my friends, and we need to stand up and stop it along with its evil taxation twin, health care "reform."

 

This Ain't No Astroturf Movement - The Issues Are Real

I recently received an e-mail with a number of photos from the TEA ("Taxed Enough Already") Party held in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 2009.  Although the liberal, mainstream media tried to ignore this event, and then downplay it, ABC News finally estimated the crowd at 2 million.  Looking at these photos, I think even that estimate is low.

The first photo is an aerial photo a few blocks from the Capitol, showing streets packed with people who could not get to the grounds for the rally. The tall tower in the right foreground is the Old Post Office; the Capitol is 3-4 blocks further up that street, visible in the distance.  The rest of the photos I am going to post with this are of participants in the rally - young, old, black, white, and from all over the country.  In all the pictures I've seen, there do not appear to be any professionally-organized groups, nor hired rabble-rousers; just Americans who are so scared about what their government is doing that they were compelled to go to Washington to speak out by their presence.

Rather than recognize the serious concerns of American conservatives , whether they are at "town hall" meetings, or at massive protests such as these, Democrats has, as per usual, resorted to insults and

tarring these people with a broad brush.  Nancy "Botox Babe" Pelosi has cutely referred to it as an "Astroturf" movement, i.e., a pseudo-"grass roots" movement.  Anyone who has so many un-natural alterations of her own face, hair, and body should NEVER throw that brick.  Our own Ben "Chicken Little" Chandler here in central Kentucky has refused to even hold a town hall meeting because people are "un-civil."  Actually, Ben, they are "un-civil" when their representatives have not read and know nothing about what is being voted on, and when their representatives vote against the interests of their constituents.

The most offensive insult, however, has been the declaration by Jimmy "Peanut" Carter and others that anyone who opposes President Obama's policies must be a "racist."  Funny, I remember many of

the same people declaring Obama's election to be the "end of racism" in America - what happened?  I've not heard anyone say they're not going to vote for health care reform, or cap & trade, because Obama is half-black.  Rather, they are frightened of what his Trillion-Dollar ideas will do to this country, regardless of his racial origin.  Many believe his socialistic ideas render him more "RED" than any other color.

This tactic dates back to the early days of civil rights, and has been co-opted by both the womens' and LGBT movements in m ore recent years.  When someone opposes their policies, rather than listening to their position and discussing it in good faith, these people have been trained to respond by slinging highly-toxic adjectives such as "racist", "misogynist", or "homophobe", by which they seek to short-circuit any substantive debate.  Too often, conservatives allow themselves to be put on the defensive by this name-calling, and end up losing track of the honest, substantive agenda.

This knee-jerk tendency to use broad-brush pejoratives is, in and of itself, a form of racism, or whatever insult is being thrown.  If a white person opposes an Obama policy, why can he or she not do

so because they legitimately disagree, for real, non-racial reasons?  To declare such opposition to be, ipso facto, racism, is in and of itself racist, and is damaging to the national debate on critical issues.  To be sure, some who oppose Obama have and will always do so because of his race.  Likewise, there has been opposition to white Presidents by people of color because they are white.  No side in any political debate is free from wrong-thinking people, who take a side for reasons unrelated to the issue.  It would be nice to one day reach a point where we can hold such political debates, and leave the broad brushes of pejorative insults in their fetid, stinking cans.

In these recent instances, the Democrats have substantial majorities in both houses of Congress, as well as the White House.  Blue Dog Democrats aside, does the stridency of the insults - racism, astroturf, etc., say anything about just how far out on a liberal limb the Democrats are going?  If their programs were reasonable and appropriate solutions for the real problems at hand, why, then, do they feel the need to be so insulting and offensive in responding to criticism?  The answer, of course, is that their proposals are neither reasonable nor appropriate.

The overriding problems with America's health care system are high costs and poor allocation of resources.  A clear example of high costs is in the pharmaceutical industry - drugs and medications in America are substantially more expensive than elsewhere.  One of the main reasons is that our system subjects pharmaceutical manufacturers to the double-whammy of over-regulation prior to market, and runaway lawsuits after market.  It takes years and years of research, studies, and field testing to gain FDA approval, which costs billions of dollars.  Yet, once a drug is approved, such approval provides no protection or immunity from liability lawsuits.  In a situation where a drug has been tested many times over, but starts to show other issues once it goes into mainstream distribution, a drug manufacturer receives no protection from the fact that it invested billions to bring the drug to market in the first place.

To contrast, in the railroad industry thee is a doctrine called "pre-emption."  Railroads are highly regulated by the Federal government, for example, on crossing protection.  What sort  of signs, lights, gates, etc., are specified by FRA regulation.  If the railroad in a crossing accident is in compliance with its crossing protection, any claim against it that it should have had more lights, etc., is "pre-empted" and cannot be filed, so long as there is no claim that the mandated protection was not working.  Why should drug manufacturers not also receive a similar protection as a result of FDA compliance?

Tort reform is also widely trumpeted, as one of the favorite pasttimes of liberals is to bash lawyers.  There are some who give the rest of the practicing Bar a bad name, to be sure, but again, let's focus on the real problem.  The real problem is not so much massive jury verdicts (by jurors who are neither lawyers nor doctors - right?), but the volume of frivolous litigation.  In states that have not provided some form of pre-screening, doctors are exposed to "open courts" and suits by anyone who can pay the filing fee.  In some cases, professional malpractice insurance carries will cancel coverage for doctors who may have been sued in "x" number of cases during a policy period, whether the suits were frivolous or not.  To solve this, our court's need to develop some way to pre-screen lawsuits (require competent expert testimony within 90 days of filing suit?), and some way to quickly dispose of the frivolous cases, and the insurance industry probably needs to reform how it decides to cancel such policies.  Damage caps will not fix the real problem.

"Defensive medicine", i.e., multiple tests and procedures ordered for fear of litigation, is in some cases an excuse, not a real issue.  I tell physicians that practicing from fear is a good way to get sued.  Rather, practicing good medicine on a patient-by-patient basis as opposed to pill-pushing or ordering the same battery of tests for all patients, is always going to be something I can defend.  Even more important is treating patients with care, to make them believe the physician is truly concerned about the patient's welfare and not just a clinical automaton.  This problem can be resolved, and it doesn't take an Act of Congress to fix it.

Allocation of health care resources is critical, and is paid little attention in this whole debate.  America has for years failed miserably in preventive care, instead spending gargantuan sums of money on curing illness that can and should be prevented. Obesity, smoking, and other poor lifestyle habits ingrained in American society have caused our relative life-expectancy to drop ten places on the world list in the last several years.  We pride ourselve in our healthcare system, but the results don't support it.  Yet, creating a system to be run by government bureaucrats will not "fix" this problem, but will only further institutionalize it into an entity which has proven it cannot efficiently run things on such a scale.

Talk of "death panels" is unfortunate and distracting, because Americans really do need to come to grips with issues of death and dying being a natural part of life.  Anecdotal stories such as the one about a terminal cancer patient who received open heart surgery even while comatose from the cancer, clearly illustrate part of this problem.  Whose interest are we really taking to heart in these issues?  Are we honoring our elderly, who may wish to pass along peacefully into the afterlife?  Or, are we, by demanding excessive but hopeless treatments, acting out a guilty conscience in the guise of "doing everything we can"?

Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, staunch Presbyterian he, feared nothing on the battle field because he believed that God had fore-ordained the date and time of his death.  While this may be an extreme example, it does illustrate a place of faith in God wherein death is not so much to be feared as accepted, and understood as a natural end-point to every one of our lives.  Modern medicine and science can in many cases forestall death; I know this intimately, having nearly died twice in 2003 during a 13-week hospital stay for acute gallstone pancreatitis.  But there are also times when the patient and his/her doctor should decide "enough", and we all need to learn to be more open to understanding when that time has arrived.

One of the key points in this whole debate, that gets little shrift, is that throwing Trillions of dollars in government money, i.e., our tax dollars, is not the solution.  Creating 53 new bureaucracies is not the solution.  The solution lies in finding some way for Americans to focus on the real, tangible issues, and to focus on them not only in what we ask our government to do, but more importantly to focus on them in the ways we interact with our doctors, our insurers, and the health care system in general.  Personal responsibility for our own health would be a good place to start, as well as achieving the realization that health care is not a competitive, zero-sum game, but is something we are all in together.

 

Obama to Fund Oil Drilling...In Brazil

From the "You've Got to Kidding Me?" file, word comes from the Wall Street Journal that the Obama Administration is planning to fund, to the tune of AT LEAST $2 billion, yes, "billion" with a "B", to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro.  The $2 billion was a "preliminary commitment" and discussions are underway about increasing the amount.  It has not been determined whether these will be loans, loan guarantees, or a combination.

Petrobas is one of the largest corporations in the Western Hemisphere.  The U.S. Treasury has got to be strapped with the trillions of dollars of bail-outs and corporate acquisitions it has executed over the past few months.  Why, then, are we loaning this money?  Why are we promoting oil drilling in Brazil, yet another country to whom we are indebted for oil supply, and steadfastly stonewalling oil exploration and development at home?

As I have discussed in this space several times before, there are known oil deposits within the U.S. that, if tapped, would provide us with the national security of not relying on foreign oil sources and being forced to protect them, and could drive the price of gasoline below $1 per gallon, which would surely boost our economy.  Yet, we're not promoting our own oil development, but promoting that of Brazil?

The pie-in-the-sky notions that we can become a solar and wind energy economy are nice to discuss, but the reality is that even were those technologies commercially feasible, it would take years to convert to them from fossil fuels.  Coal and oil are a viable and dependable part of our economy for may years to come, whether the environmentalists like it or not.  This being the case, the safety, security, and economic viability of this country demand that we continue to strive toward energy independence.

Offshore sources in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico are known and available, and can be tapped with a minimal ecological foot print.  Likewise, known and available oil fields in the Dakotas and Colorado, and oil shale on Federal lands in three western states, provide us the opportunity to have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC states combined, again with a modest ecological footprint.  Clean production technologies exist, as do clean technologies for use of these fuels.  The ability to free us from foreign oil dependence, as well as from the chains of high energy prices, is literally at our fingertips.

Yet, the Obama Administration wants to send BILLIONS to Brazil to boost their oil production?

Not only is the Administration's plan wholly inconsistent with its public stance on energy, it is directly and significantly counter productive to the most basic of American interests - national security.  Given that Obama seems to have forgotten the Constitution in his trampling of individual rights with such legislation as healthcare and cap & trade, it should not be surprising that one of the most basic purposes for creation of a Federal government was to provide for a common entity to deal with America's foreign relations.  Not only is Obama sacrificing an opportunity to put our national security on a safe footing for the first time since the end of WW II, he is promoting the economy of a foreign nation at our own expense.

Billions for Brazilian oil is just not right, while our government turns a blind eye toward our own resources and potentials for economic development and national security.

Foolish Scots "Justice" Secretary Releases Lockerbie Murderer

I remember the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.   I remember the discovery that the crash had been caused by a bomb planted in luggage in Malta, that rode with the plane to Frankfurt, Germany, and Heathrow Airport in London, before exploding as the jet was en route to New York.   I remember the horrendous photos of jet debris scattered over acres of the Scottish town.  And I remember the 259 passengers and crew, and eleven Scots on the ground, who were killed by the bombing.

Apparently Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill has forgotten all of that, just as he forgot that the bomber from that incident, Abdelbeset Ali Mohmed al Megrahi, was sentenced to LIFE in prison for the mass murder of 270 people.  Maybe I'm missing something, but to me a LIFE sentence means that the convicted criminal will spend the rest of his/her life in prison for their crime.  Or in this case, at least 270 crimes.

Apparently, al Megrahi has been diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer, and has been given three months to live.  MacAskill could have transferred him to a Libyan prison to be closer to family members, but he simply released him outright, citing "compassion" as his reason.  I don't get it - so what if his LIFE sentence was about to run out short of its projected time?  Will Scotland release every criminal who has a terminal disease?  In Scotland, it seems a LIFE sentence means next to nothing.

And what of the representations made to the families of the victims, and the U.S., from whence many of the victims came, that al Megrahi would serve his entire sentence in Scotland?  Those were apparently meaningless as well, for MacAskill gave those representations, and U.S. demands that this murderer not be released, very short shrift.

"Compassion" went out the door when al Megrahi planted that bomb.  He showed no compassion for the 259 people on that jet, nor for the people of Scotland for whom death would come raining from the skies.  This Libyan, in simple terms, was a terrorist and a murderer.  He did not deserve "compassion" in any sense of the word.  He deserves a long and painful sentence to the nether regions, and nothing more.

This will be seen among Islamic radicals as but another sign of Western weakness.  Had al Megrahi committed the crime of murder in an Islamic culture, much less 270 murders, he would have been executed long ago.  Islamic fundamentalists see Western ideas of "compassion" for criminals as part and parcel of our overall weakness and lack of resolve to respond to their jihadist tactics, including such acts of terrorism as the Lockerbie bombing.  We give them no reason to fear the consequences of their actions, their exalted view of suicide and sacrifical tactics notwithstanding.  I believe there are dozens of fundamentalist Islamic leaders who today are having another laugh at the expense of Western society.

The simple fact that a murdering animal such as al Megrahi today walks free makes me sick to my stomach.  Only my Christian beliefs restrict me from wishing him a slow and painful death, and only the certainty of his afterlife being across the River Styx offers any comfort to the families of the Lockerbie victims and the rest of humankind.

How Do We Deal With the Issue of American Slavery in the 21st Century?

Coming on the heels of a comment earlier this week taking me to task in light of the existence of slavery for writing of the grace, honor and civility of the antebellum South, I was skeptical when I saw the headline of a commentary piece on CNN.com today.  The piece, written by Katrina Browne, is "Slavery Needs More Than an Apology."  Grumbling to myself, I still clicked on the link, and to my surprise found a remarkably well-written, brutally honest, and well-crafted discussion of how we should respond to the slavery issue in the 21st century.  While I have a few points of disagreement with Ms. Browne, overall this is one of the better things I've read on the subject.

Ms. Browne has a personal stake in this question:   "I'm the seventh-generation descendant of the worst slave traders in American history. I found out from my grandmother when she was 88 and I was 28, a few years before she died.  Over three generations, from 1769 to 1820, the DeWolfs brought more Africans to the Americas than any other family. They conducted the trade from Rhode Island, the "largest" slave trading state, contrary to what most of us would expect."

And, she "gets it" that slavery was not simply a sin of the American South as it is usually portrayed, such as by my commenter earlier this week.  Ms. Browne correctly points out:  "Slavery was not just a Southern but also a Northern institution. Northerners, including the "middling" classes, owned slaves for over two centuries; they dominated the slave trade (which included ship-building, producing trade goods, regular folks buying shares in slave ships, etc.); they fueled industrialization with slave-picked cotton. From workers to the wealthy, everyone was part of the slave-based economy, even if just as consumers."

Ms. Browne puts forth an interesting analysis of the long-term effects of slavery:  "Slavery benefited immigrant families, even after the Civil War. Millions of Europeans flocked to the "land of opportunity" for jobs in a booming economy built largely on unpaid labor. Immigrants struggled when they arrived but then found routes to prosperity closed to African-Americansfor a century after slavery as a result of official and unofficial segregation.  Within two to three generations, my Irish ancestors were solidly middle-class, not because they worked harder than African-Americans but because they were white. They worked hard, and the system worked for them: home loans, home values that rose in white neighborhoods and not in black ones, college loans, access to better-paid jobs ... it all added up." 

In other words, the unspoken allegation here is that racism and its effects were a national institution, not a Southern one, and that the latent effects of how African-Americans have been viewed and treated in this country were pervasive, not regional.  While I might disagree with Ms. Browne that all of the economic variances among the races can necessarily be traced strictly to slavery, but is a multi-factor matter of causation in which all sides are complicit, she is entirely correct in her conclusions that the effects of racism were national, and that slavery was an indelible part of those effects.

Ms. Browne then discusses the idea of apologies and expressions of regret by modern Americans, which have become en vogue among liberals over the last few years, including Congress and the Episcopal Church (which discusses apologies and reparations even while looking down its patrician nose at African Christians who hold orthodox beliefs).  Browne sees some value in these gestures, in the sense that they represent an acknowledgement of the issue.  My problem, and my criticism of "apologies" is that too many people want to sign onto an "apology" and then believe they've truly done something.  They have not, except perhaps to further inflame the fires of racism by the self-righteous smugness about what they've "done".

I think Ms. Browne agrees that without action, apologies don't get very far, in that she says,  "I have this image of us all coming up shoulder to shoulder on the same team, as fellow citizens. Not facing off against each other but looking the same way, facing the shared challenge: the legacy of this painful history. The past is not of our making, but it has shaped us indelibly, and we have the power to make things right, together, today."

The group of living historians with whom I participate, Lee's Lieutenants, is sometimes criticized because some see us as glorifying the slave-holding past of the South.  We first hasten to point out that most of the Generals we portray, and indeed most Southerners, were not slave-holders and fought to preserve state sovereignty, not specifically the institution of slavery. 

But the primary point for which we pursue our avocation of living history is to tell the truth about the War Between the States and what was going on in the early 19th century in America.  There are powerful lessons to be gleaned from knowing the reality, not the fiction.  We believe that facing that truth with an honest analysis, rather than allowing it to be swept under the rug in favor of the revisionist, "Lincoln freed the slaves" tripe that is in modern textbooks, is highly instructive and necessary to understand the present Constitutional crises we are facing.

The War Between the States was not simply about determination of the existence of slavery.  Even Mr. Lincoln once said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing a single slave, he would do so.  Slavery became a political focal point to keep Northerners rallied to a "cause" when the glow of fighting for the Union began to wear thin as the War continued.  Thus, this is the reason I refer to the Emancipation Proclamation, which in reality freed exactly zero slaves (go read it and understand it before criticizing me for this statement), as the consummate political document.

Slavery was but a part of the greater economic clash between the North and the South.  The South's agricultural economy was producing almost 90% of the world's cotton by 1860, and tariffs on imported goods received in exchange for that cotton were funding over 2/3 of the Federal budget by that time.  Under the Morrill Tariff, for example, steel and iron goods were taxed at a rate of 50%.  Tariff policies of the Federal government, passed primarily by Northern interests in Congress, were the cause of crises in 1829-32, and in the early 1850's, in which compromises averted Civil War.  By 1860, however, it was clear that the problem would continue, and the Southern states considered the "compact" represented by the Constitution to be broken, and essentially over.

By 1860, Northern industry had divested itself of slaves, mostly selling them South.  Northern industrialists realized that they could rely on cheap immigrant labor and not incur any cost to feed, clothe, provide health care, or otherwise maintain the lives of their work force.  The South, of course, was in significant part economically dependent on slave labor to generate its agricultural riches, upon which the entire nation profited.  For this reason, many Northern industrialists and bankers did not oppose slavery, but were rather interested that it continue.

Many Southern leaders saw that the institution of slavery was, and should be, on its way out.  Jefferson Davis educated his slaves, and allowed them self-government on his properties, by way of preparing them for what he saw as their eventual freedom.  Southerners sought to eliminate slavery in a manner so as to not destroy their economy altogether, but between tariffs and other pressures from the Federal government, this was not to occur.  It was thus the overall economic issues between the factions of the country that led to War, not simply slavery and its eradication.

Most Southerners were not slave-holders.  The big, antebellum plantations were indeed large slave-holders, but were a low percentage of overall Southern agricultural production.  This brings the question of why did most Southern soldiers sign up to fight what many now see as a rich man's War?  The reality is that Southerners still followed the Constitutional model of state sovereignty, i.e., the state being the principal political unit that conferred only limited powers to the Federal government.  When the issue came down to Federal vs. State, their automatic allegiance was to their State.

We are now faced with a burgeoning Federal government that seeks to impose itself into virtually every aspect of our lives.  The present Tenth Amendment crisis, perpetrated by a Federal government that has far overstepped its powers assigned by the Constitution, is little different in its essence than that crisis which resulted in the War Between the States.  While slavery was a part of that issue, the central problem was the Federal invasion of state sovereignty, and the resistance of the South to that most critical violation of its rights. 

The only real difference is that those people were still close to the words of Jefferson, warning against a massive Federal government, while we seem to have forgotten them.  For example:   "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them."   Or this:  "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government."

So, I would agree with Ms. Browne that the  way that we as a country should respond to our slave-holding past is to acknowledge it, and embrace it as a part of our collective history.  It happened, and we cannot and should not sweep it under the rug as if it did not.  Neither can we escape the issue by placing blame on a particular region, culture, or faction of the American country or populace, or by relegating it to the dark basement of the past.  We need to accept that is was part of our early culture, and try to comprehend that culture and why and how slavery existed amongst it.

There are issues that remain today, which call for sensible ways to address them.  I tend to believe that quotas and government handouts are not the solution.  Racial equality will not come about until the people, as Ms. Browne puts it, stand shoulder-to-shoulder and make it happen.  No President and no government can decree it.  To my way of thinking, this will only come after we teach and recognize the truth of history, and the complicity of all 18th and 19th century Americans, not just Southerners, in the existence of slavery, so that there is no reason for finger-pointing and blame-laying.

The way to honor the memory of those who lived in bondage is to remember the truth of their existence, and to make tangible strides toward removing impediments to human freedom and equality wherever they exist.  In America, this means working together towards the end of racism, regardless of who may be the perpetrator.  Many African-Americans still use the "race card" where it is simply not an issue, and engender resentment by doing so.   Racism, no matter by whom and to whom it is directed, is not acceptable.

Many believe human slavery ended with the American Civil War, but the reality is that there are still over one million humans in bondage TODAY around the world, including some in America.  In the memory of those who lived and died in similar restraint of their freedom, slavery in any form should be eradicated.  Apologies and blame-laying may be a salve to soothe the liberal conscience, but in my opinion they are of little use or value unless and until the real problems are addressed.

 

How Low Can You Go? Man, 60, Convicted of Groping Minnie Mouse

The Orlando Sentinel is reporting today:

A jury this morning found John William Moyer guilty of groping of a woman playing Minnie Mouse at Walt Disney World.  Moyer, 60, of Pennsylvania, was convicted of misdemeanor battery for the June incident this morning.  Judge Wayne Shoemaker imposed the sentence this morning.

"The verdict reinforces the fact that this type of behavior is not acceptable," said Walt Disney World spokeswoman Zoraya Suarez. Disney officials also banned Moyer from entering any of the company's resorts, Suarez said.

According to the sentence, Moyer has to write a letter of apology to the victim, Brittney Duncan McGoldrick. He also is under supervised probation for 180 days, must complete 50 hours of community service within four months, pay $1,000 in court costs and submit to a mental evaluation with treatment, if necessary.

Before sentencing, Moyer's adult son spoke on his behalf.  "He's a good man," Emory Moyer said. "He's a nice guy."  Emory Moyer also described his father as a man who would never touch a woman inappropriately.

Later, Moyer spoke briefly to the judge.  "I am innocent, I am not guilty of the crimes that I've been charged with," Moyer said.  Moyer has no criminal history and has never received a speeding ticket, he said. This was his first offense.

McGoldrick told prosecutors at the Orange County Courthouse on Monday she had pushed Moyer away from her after the incident.  "My first reaction I just pushed him down. I was doing everything I could to get his hands off my breasts," Duncan McGoldrick said.

Questions abound.  If, indeed, he would never do this to a woman, did this guy somehow not know there was a real human being inside?  At age 60, does he not know that Minnie Mouse is a fictional, animated character?  Did he somehow believe that this WAS Minnie Mouse?  If he did, doesn't that make him disgustingly weirder to be groping a MOUSE? 

More importantly, where is Mickey in all of this?   Where was he as Minnie was being groped?  Was he in the courtroom to support his long-time girlfriend?  Where is he now, and does he own a gun?  Moyer might consider watching behind him until this all cools down - I hear Mickey has quite a temper when it comes to this kind of thing.

Now that Moyer has been convicted and sentenced, the real remaining question is whether TEO Bishop Leo Frade can be far away?  After all, he was readily present when former Catholic priest Alberto Cutie was busted by being caught in photos of him groping his secret girlfriend on the beach in Miami.  Frade "included" Fr. Cutie into TEO post-haste - should not his "inclusivity" also gather in the mouse-groper? 

Obama Health Care Plan: Treatment and Diagnosis Do Not Meet

         Now that everyone has an opportunity to catch their breath and really examine the health care plan being put forth by President Obama, as opposed to being given the bum’s rush to pass it without even knowing what it really says, there are three very basic questions that must be answered at each and every point of each proposal.

            First, what is the exact problem we are trying to solve?  Second, does this legislation have the direct potential to solve it?  And third, if this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

 

            Actually, to what extent is there even a problem?  Are the people wholly without health insurance being denied coverage, or have they made a choice, like my sister, to gamble that their out-of-pocket costs would be lower than the premiums?  Quality-wise, the media scare reports about medical errors notwithstanding, the U.S. still has the highest cure rates for diseases like cancer, and better access to health care than any other country in the world.

            What we are seeing from the pro-reform Democrats is a series of anecdotal “problems,” usually in the form of horror stories from the realm of health care, and then a rather blurry, un-connected statement that the proposal will “fix” problems like these.  Because President Obama is so eloquent, many have simply ingested the Kool-Aid on this proposal without giving it even a cursory hard look.

If this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

One of the most troubling issues is one of choice – will Americans be forced to go to a government-chosen doctor?  At first blush, the proposals on the table do not overtly force Citizens to drop their doctor or their insurance plan.  The problem, though, as with many things being proposed by this Administration, is that what is not done openly is instead done with a hidden tax.  Some tax provisions being proposed may create a situation where it is cheaper for employers to drop employee health coverage, which would result in employees moving to government plans that may not include their chosen physician.  Other tax provisions may virtually bankrupt health insurers, forcing them out of the market.  And strict renewal limitations, which may not allow renewals if there is a minimal change in the coverage, will bar access to private coverage if implemented.

If this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

Another troubling issue is whether seniors will be denied care which is somehow deemed not necessary, in a greater societal sense, for their quality of life.  Some have even charged that this sort of provision may lead to assisted suicide being a part of American health care, as a choice to be offered as opposed to treatment of terminal illnesses.  The source of this is a provision that would require Medicare to pay for counseling sessions for senior citizens on advance-directives, i.e., a living will and health care surrogacy.   The provision as now written does not compel anyone to use this, but it is nonetheless troubling for government to intervene in this most personal decision.

If this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

Hand-in-hand with the concern of seniors, and should be everyone’s concern, is the concern over rationing of care.  In most socialized health systems, the government sets limits of what, and how much of a given procedure, or medication can be used, and strict guidelines for their use.  My niece was once denied an antibiotic for a painful ear infection in England because “someone worse off may need that drug later this year.”  She was fortunately able to get to the U.S. and got the antibiotic. 

 

While some contend that we are already somewhat under rationing because of insurance guidelines, there is substantial evidence that such guidelines are not nearly as restrictive and arbitrary as government-run systems.  Those guidelines are usually for determining what treatment is or is not considered effective, or "covered", not with rationing between a current need and a perceived future need.  Do you trust guidelines that will be set by Federal bureaucrats?

If this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

What should be the scariest part of the proposals is what they will do to our economy, to the Federal budget, and the Federal deficit.  This Administration has demonstrated its ability to blow through massive sums of money in very little time.  While President Obama claims his health care “reform” will not raise the deficit, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office flatly states that the proposals lack any mechanisms to bring health care costs under control.  Thus, again, the proposed solution has no connection to a real problem.

 

Obama financial aides have now exposed the honest tax-and-spend philosophy of this Administration - that no one may be exempt from higher taxes if that is what it takes to punch through their agenda.  So much for the $250,000 income promise.

If this is so good, why are Congress and the President exempted from the plan?

From my analysis of the proposals, the  few well-documented problems in American  health care, including the overall costs and lack of efficiencies in allocating resources, are simply not being addressed.  What we have is yet another effort by the Administration and Congressional Democratic leadership to control our daily lives and personal well-being, all the while taxing us to pay for it.  I say, send them back to the drawing board until they can answer my three questions to this country’s satisfaction, honestly and with facts, not vague promises.

 

What about the polls that indicate that at least half of the country (and climbing) oppose this plan?  This is why Obama was trying to rush this thing through, to get it done before anyone had the time to understand what he was doing.  By the time Congress returns from its August recess, I expect that number to grow.

 

Now the Administration is accusing those Americans who have been attending "town meetings" and opposing the health care plan when their Senators and Congressmen cannot answer even the most basic questions except to say "trust us", of being some kind of paid operatives sent out to shout down the Democrats.  This is so typical of the liberal left - when they are losing, instead of making a factual argument, they turn their broad brush of insults on their opposition.  Now, the attack word is "facism", just as they have in the past wielded "misogynist", "Homophobe", and "racist" against those with whom they disagree.

 

Yesterday I heard the most outrageous and ridiculous argument in favor of the health plan yet - that we need to get on with passing this while Ted Kennedy is still around.  I didn't know whether to laugh or throw up at that one.  Ted Kennedy didn't give a damn about Mary Jo Kopechne's health care as he let her drown in his car while he walked away.  He should have been in prison for negligent homicide and leaving the scene of an accident about forty years ago.  Ted Kennedy can pound sand.

 

If you can get to a town meeting in your area, do so, and tell the Democrats what a load of crap their health care plan is.  If you cannot, e-mail them, call them, write them.  Remember, their ultimate motivation is votes for the next election.  Tell them you do not plan to sit idly by while they bankrupt this country under trillions of dollars of debt just so they can play puppetmaster with our lives.

 

Air Passengers' Bill of Rights Long Overdue

There was yet another in a long line of news articles this week over the ongoing efforts to get Congress to pass an airline passengers' bill of rights.  These bits of legislation, in case you haven't heard, are designed to address such things as passengers being forced to sit on airliners for hours on end due to airport delays, etc.  On this issue, the version presently being debated in a Senate committee limits those wait time to THREE HOURS, and the airlines are, as usual, complaining that this limit would cause even more delays.

If you've flown much at all, you know the feeling of being treated more like a commodity than a person.  The treatment within the terminals is only heightened when passengers are crammed inaside an aluminum tube with other coughing passengers, bad body odor, crying babies, and generally obnoxious other human beings.  yet passengers who might complain too vociferously, much less try to get off the plane, are subject to Federal security laws and arrest for misconduct aboard an airplane.

Three horrific stories have provided much of the impetus behind these bills.  First, in 1999, a Northwest flight was heldon the tarmac for over eight hours, with no water, no working toilets, no food, and no honest answers about what was going on. 

In December 2008, American Airlines stranded passengers on the tarmac for eight hours in Austin, Texas.  The treatment of the passengers was  heartless this time as well: five hours into the ordeal, an elderly woman asked for some food. A flight attendant told her there were a few snack boxes available and charged her $4.00.  American relented at the eight-hour mark only when it became obvious that a diabetic patient onboard was in danger.  When the passengers were released, no assistance was available at the terminal or on airline phone banks.  In other words, they were abandoned.

And in February 2009, one JetBlue airliner was held in New York for ELEVEN hours.  In all of these cases, the terminal was but a few hundred  yards away, if that far, yet passengers were imprisoned in their metal tube.  Some of the JetBlue passengers have sued for false imprisonment and breach of contract.

After the 1999 debacle, and other lesser but similar events, the airlines got together and drafted a "Customer Service Initiative", which was full of charming platitudes, but in reality was little more than a revision to nicer language of their "Contract of Carriage", which is more like a list of the dozens of things for which the airlines cannot be held at fault.  In other words, a PR fluff piece that was useless.

One of the American passengers from December 2008 has formed the Coalition for Airline Passengers' Bill of Rights.  Their proposed Bill of Rights reads as follows:

All American air carriers shall abide by the following standards to ensure the safety, security and comfort of their passengers:

Establish procedures to respond to all passenger complaints within 24 hours and with appropriate resolution within two weeks.

Notify passengers within 10 minutes of a delay of known diversions, delays and cancellations via airport overhead announcement, on-aircraft announcement and posting on airport television monitors.

Establish procedures for returning passengers to terminal gate when delays occur so that no plane sits on the tarmac for longer than three hours without connecting to a gate.

Provide for the essential needs of passengers during air- or ground-based delays of longer than three hours, including food, water, sanitary facilities and access to medical attention.

Provide for the needs of disabled, elderly and special-needs passengers by establishing procedures for assisting with the moving and retrieving of baggage, and the moving of passengers from one area of airport to another at all times by airline personnel.

Publish and update monthly on the company's public Web site a list of chronically delayed flights, meaning those flight delayed 30 minutes or more, at least 40 percent of the time, during a single month.

Compensate bumped passengers or passengers delayed due to flight cancellations or postponements of over 12 hours by refund of 150 percent of ticket price.

The formal implementation of a Passenger Review Committee, made up of non-airline executives and employees but rather passengers and consumers -- that would have the formal ability to review and investigate complaints.

Make lowest fare information, schedules and itineraries, cancellation policies and frequent flier program requirements available in an easily accessed location and updated in real time.

Ensure that baggage is handled without delay or injury; if baggage is lost or misplaced, the airline shall notify customer of baggage status within 12 hours and provide compensation equal to current market value of baggage and its contents.

Require that these rights apply equally to all airline codeshare partners including international partners.

This all sounds very reasonable to me.  In exchange for paying hundreds, if not thousands of dollars for an airline ticket, paying nickel and dime fees on luggage, etc., allowing ourselves to be treated like so many cattle in the terminal and boarding process, and then crammed into impossibly tiny seats with narrow aisles, I don't think this is asking too much of the airlines.  In fact, I think extending the wait period to as much as three hours is a quite generous compromise to airlines' operational needs.

But the big point that needs to be made is to require that the airlines be honest with passengers on a timely basis.  The level of dishonesty with terminal personnel, to flight attendants and so on is beyond the pale.  And for the most part this is not a problem with the individuals, but an enforced policy of the airlines to treat the passengers like mushrooms, i.e., keep them in the dark and occasionally dump some crap on them.  Passengers cannot get the truth on why there are delays, the expected duration, re-booking possibilities, or anything else in a delay situation.

Although airline disasters are statistically rare, there is still no question that passengers are putting their lives into the airlines' hands every time we fly.  Given that abiding truth, passengers are entitle to humane treatment, and timely, honest treatment from the airlines.  Anything less is unacceptable.

So, call or write your Congressman and Senators to push this bill forward.  This is a no-brainer and should be passed with much more haste than the Obama Administration is putting on its other pet projects.

Report: Mr. Ed Cancels Myrtle Beach Vacation Plans

It has not been a good week to be a horse in South Carolina:

A woman has gotten a ticket for riding a stolen horse down the main street in a small town in northwestern South Carolina. The Greenville News reported Tuesday the 40-year-old woman was given a ticket for disorderly conduct after a pedestrian flagged down an officer in Six Mile and told them the woman was about to fall off the horse.

The sheriff's report said an officer found a large tan horse tied to a bench at a convenience store and found the woman trying to use a phone inside.

The report said the woman's speech was slurred, she had an aroma of alcohol and was unsteady on her feet. She said she was riding the horse to her boyfriend's house. Her name was not released.

The horse's owner said the animal was taken without consent, but he didn't press charges.

To be fair, one of my favorite horses-and-the-law stories does come from Kentucky: a Pulaski County man was charged with DUI after being observed on his horse, passed out drunk, travelling along a county road between a local "watering hole" and his home.  The man responded that he always rode the horse to his favorite bar, because "he knows the way home."  The charge was later amended to public intoxication after it was determined that a horse was not a "motor vehicle" under the state penal code.