Morning Fog

Supreme Court Votes NRA

It was predictable.  It was predicted.  The Roberts court has struck down handgun restrictions that have been in place in Chicago for some years, using the completely insupportable argument that "bearing arms" is a fundamental right, and ignoring the context in which the framers asserted that right, to wit, the "well-regulated militia."  Note that this qualification of the right to bear arms was apparently so important to the framers that they stated it up front, even before specifying the "bearing arms" bit they were talking about.

Such blatant and purposeful disregard for the letter of the Constitution is to my mind, malfeasance by at least five justices of the supreme Court.  At the very least, as I said in February, it should dispel any claims that Roberts and his benchmen don't want to "make law," and just want to get back to the basic texts of the Constitution.  But then, we already knew that, didn't we?

The Message Of The Burning Bush For Republicans

I hate to sound like a broken record* but on the other hand, our Republican Party leaders don't seem to let that concern stop them, as the GOP drags out its worn drum again to complain that the Obama administration's budget is all wrong and they won't support it.  So I'll just reiterate that the huge deficit they're so worried about was created by their President - the one who left office just a year ago.

It's interesting how seldom we hear that guy's name (except from the Democrats, of course).  For Republicans, he's a black hole in the party history; they prefer to deny his existence.  If you have a Bible (I'm partial to the Ishka bible myself) you can find there the tale of Moses and the burning bush.  The latter was an attention-getting device to assure that Moses heeded an important message (as in later years, as the old joke runs, you had to use a 2x4 to get a mule's attention). 

Now, what was that last President's name?  .... Bush! Yes, that's it!  Glad you were able to recall it, because unlike the biblical bush, this one seems to have been consumed by the fire.  As the administration of George Bush caught fire and went down in flames, the modern-day Moseses of the Republican Party (for example, take minority leader Mitch McConnell...please!) were either too oblivious even to look (the mule syndrome) or they got the message garbled (e.g., many say the problem with Bush was he wasn't conservative enough, he should have cut taxes even more and that would have saved the economy, for sure.)

Regrettably, many people today seem willing to let "Dubya" slip unobserved and unlamented under the waves of history.  But I would still be very doubtful about relying on this crop of Republicans to lead us out of the wilderness.

  * How many expressions such as "like a broken record" will disappear in the next 10-20 years? For readers under 40 or so, I'll just note that back in the dark ages, music came on things called "LPs" which were different in two ways from today's digital downloads: (1) you had to pay for them and (2) they could stick in one groove and endlessly repeat some little phrase or snatch of music.  Some people still acquire music on LPs, or collect old ones, but even I'm not that retro. 

While we're on the subject of the ancients, Ishka Bibble and Henny Youngman were comedians of a very different era - my dad's more than mine - yet they don't seem so out of date in the context of today's Republican leadership.  I'll bet Mitch McConnell remembers them! 

Solstice Day - A Christmas For Everybody

Is Christmas obsolete?  No, but it's certainly changing.  Even the staid old Washington Post recognized, in an editorial a couple of days ago, that "Christmas" has increasingly become an ecumenical, even secular, holiday, one that's observed in some fashion or other by far more Americans than are card-carrying, practicing Christians.  According to the Post, we might want to blame or praise Irving Berlin for this trend.  His song White Christmas, appearing in 1942, got us all thinking about the holiday in a different way. 

More accurately, of course, Berlin simply put into music and feeling that was already a part of our collective consciouslness.  At its best, Christmas these days is a spirit of goodwill and giving in which many non-Christians, and even the areligious, get caught up.   Christian religions should be pleased to take credit for this aspect.  At its worst, the holiday is an exercise in mass-crass commercialism, and orgy of buying each other stuff we often don't need.  People of all beliefs get caught up in that, too; and our fundamentally commerce-oriented culture can (and does) take credit for that aspect. 

Some time ago, a not-so-famous blogger suggested that we need to redefine and re-calendar some of our official holidays to better adapt them to our changing multicultural society.  Specifically on Christmas, he wrote this:

....Christmas.  Although it's a Christian holiday, it is commonly observed in various ways by people of many faiths and persuasions.  I have known Hindus and Muslims in this country who put up a tree and exchange gifts as a secular tradition of the season.  To non-Christians and even many Christians, it has become more about gift-giving than anything else, and of course for retailers, it's lifeblood.  The date is arbitrary -- we celebrate Christ's birth at this time of year because it roughly coincided with pagan rites accompanying the winter solstice.  My suggestion:  December 22, Solstice Day, a time of rejoicing, a festival of cheer and light that chases away winter doldrums; a time, too, of gift-giving and of the all-important end-of-year extravanganza of buying that drives our economy. Maybe the change would also help move some of the commercialism away from the "real" Christmas on December 25.

It's still a great suggestion.  The time is nigh.

DST (Deranged, Spurious Time) Ends

Tomorrow, Americans -- those who remember to change their clocks, and who arise before midmorning -- will awaken to find dawn occurring at a different hour.  The breaking light may not be bright and cheery (more like wan and subdued), but it will at least not be pitch black and foreboding.  That's because our Orwellian masters have decreed that the nonsensically named "Daylight Saving Time" ends during the wee small hours of Sunday morning.

But relief will be temporary.  Big Brother himself (otherwise known as Rep. Ed Markey, chair of the House Energy Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment) decrees this brief hiatus in DST as a form of mental torture.  In the fall, now that it's still dark until almost 7:00 AM DST, he permits us a handful of tantalizing days when we can see a few pitiful glimmers of weak indirect sunlight (if it's not too cloudy) at 6:00, before the continuing winter shortening of the daylight hours deprives us of it again.  And, just when it begins to get light by 6:00 AM in the spring, the shutters slam shut, we shift to DST, and are condemned to another 45 days of early-morning darkness.  It's a lot like keeping a man in a cell on a bread-and-water diet, but letting the aroma of a sizzling grilled steak waft in on him every 9 months or so. 

Big Brother enjoys this kind of mind game, but of course it's important to have a way of justifying it.  So, if "War Is Peace," "Freedom Is Slavery," and "Ignorance Is Strength," now  "Darkness Is Light."  To which I might add, "Idiocy Saves Energy," since the energy-saving benefits of DST are much touted but little demonstrated.   

Care to read another classic about DST?  Check here.  Or a book about DST? See the right-hand margin for links to buy.

 

Getting Rid Of Government

I have to admit, I'm intrigued but puzzled by all those anger-challenged people out there screaming that they want government out of their health care.  But it occurs to me that there is an excellent, everybody-happy solution to the continuing gridlock over "reforms." 

Let's just establish two systems.  Choice, that's what it's all about in Amurrica, right?  So, we offer choice.  Let's start with health care.  An individual could complete a simple checkoff, "yes" or "no," to choose whether he/she wanted health care with government, or without - for the rest of his life.  Sort of like, your coffee with cream, or without. Those who say "with" would continue pretty much as they are now, and would in very short order also enjoy the basic principles of health care that are already built in to the systems of every other developed country in the world -- universal care, no hairsplitting about what's covered, no refusal for "pre-existing conditions," and the like.

Those who say "without" would not be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs (if in the military, they'd give up their access to the military's already-socialized medicine and go out on the free market).  They could go without workmen's comp or unemployment benefits (at least insofar as unemployment was caused by health problems).  They might get very cheap prescriptions, but they would have to buy medicines uncertified by the FDA, maybe produced in China with a healthy admixture of goat dung and toxic chemicals.  Their insurance would be strictly private, without any employer contribution to the cost (because after all, that's mandated by government).  Their physicians would be uncertified and unlicensed by any government authority.  When they needed hospitalization, they'd go only to privately operated hospitals.  If they were hit by a car or had a heart attack, they'd depend on the kindness of a neighbor or a friendly taxi, since most EMR services are operated by the hated government (though possibly in time, there would be private services). 

Depending on the provisions of the policy written by their benevolent private insurance company, the no-government crowd might - or might not - find that everything they need is covered.  They wouldn't have to share medical costs of those "freeloaders" who are already sick and can't get insurance (surely all those people would choose the government option). But, just as children now are included on their parents' health insurance, the government-free gang's kids would also be government-free.  The young 'uns could have a chance to make their own choice at age 18 or so, but meanwhile, if born with a preexisting condition, their care would be completely at the parents' cost, since that's the preferred M.O. of insurance companies and there would be nothing to require the insurers to change that. 

The rates in the no-government sector would be uncontrolled by any federal or state entity, and the doctors they could go to would undoubtedly still be dictated by the insurance companies, as they mostly are now, though the companies would undoubtedly be putting greater emphasis on finding low-cost providers.  Medical costs would not be deductible on income tax returns, of course.   

Judging from what I hear daily in the news, I'm certain the "no-government" option would be extremely popular.  There must be millions of independent-minded, self-sufficient, freedom-loving citizens out there just itching to sign up.  Let's offer the choice, and find out.  And the rest of us could get on with business.

White House: Jones Should Go

I'd never heard of Van Jones until I saw a little blurb in the Washington Post today.  If in fact he signed a petition in 2004 suggesting that George "Dubya" Bush purposely allowed the attack of September 11, 2001 to occur, as he seems to admit, then he ought to have resigned; he must understand that even if he has apologized for the petition, his continuing presence on the national security staff is an embarrassment to the administration.  Since he has not resigned, Obama should dump him.

I confess, the cynic in me has sometimes thought that 9/11 was almost too "perfect" an enabling event -- it provided a casus belli for Iraq, which Bush clearly wanted, and not coincidentally, had no small impact on his reelection.   But I've never seriously thought that Bush knew about it, and let it happen.  What garbage!  (Now Cheney, maybe....)

Actually, this kind of conspiracy thinking isn't all that uncommon.  Kennedy assassination, anyone?  It's similar to the ongoing accusations that Obama isn't really a native-born American, but a secret terrorist who didn't have enough sense to change his middle name.  And while nuts without government responsibility may be free to voice their "birther" paranoia, people higher in government than Mr. Jones who imply they believe it, like Sen. Shelby of Alabama, for example, should also resign. 

Corporate Snoops Are Your Friends, Mr. Orwell

Yesterday I wrote about the privacy of your personal information in the modern world.  Another aspect of privacy, of course, is the privacy of not having anyone watching your every move, meddling in your private life, or even dictating every step you make.  That was the specter raised by George Orwell in 1984.   

In the contemporary health care debate, people are railing about "government takeover of health care" and express their fear of too much government in their lives.  Maybe it's because Orwell wrote about government, rather than General Motors, Nestlé, or Shell Oil, that makes people more afraid of what government may do.   Perhaps it's the example of now-defunct totalitarian states like the Soviet Union.  (Yet these states are mostly defunct, and even the remaining ones are shifting away from total-control mode, realizing it doesn't work).  Actually, I think the Orwellian threat could come just as easily from the "private" sector as from government. 

The great irony of the healh care discussions at this time is that there's plenty of evidence available of extreme corporate power and the abuse thereof, yet the opponents of government "interference," (whenever they aren't cashing their social security checks or selling their "clunkers" in exchange for a government handout) seem oblivious to, or perfectly willing to accept, the equally insidious control that private enterprise exercises over their lives. 

One of the clearest examples is near at hand, in that selfsame health care debate.  Let me honest here: if you believe that so-called "public option" is really about the government making health care decisions for you, I think you've allowed yourself to be duped; you just haven't done your homework.  It is no such thing.   

Companies that have something to lose from lower prices in health care are spending millions to save themselves billions in profits.  They're also engaged, like "Big Brother," in every aspect of the process; fighting a propaganda battle, bribing your Congressman to look the other way, denying existing problems, beavering away to shape legislation to their liking, making indefinite promises of future "savings" in return for guarantees that nothing will change.  Oh, and today the Washington Post reports that roughly 94% of physicians have a "relationship" with at least one company in the health care industry.

Health care companies would like to convince you that government will "stand between you and your doctor," because they would hate for you to realize that currently, they stand in that position, limiting what they will pay for, denying treatments, charging whatever rates they want, tracking your medical problems and prescriptions, denying coverage for your "preexisting condition" (such as being human).  They're in that position, and they love it.  They'll be happy to distract you from thinking about the cost of health care, because higher costs, under current conditions, are not something they wish to control.

Is it possible Orwell had the right idea, but was 50 years too early, and was looking in the wrong place?

Following Up: Daylight Time

A week ago, when we converted to Daylight Saving Time, I offered my view that DST is a useless nuisance at best, but I mentioned the existence of a Department of Energy study I hadn't been aware of before.

As follow-up, I have now added my brief analysis of the DOE's findings at the bottom of my original post on this topic, which also contains a link to the DOE study itself.  The short version: My opinion hasn't changed. 

A Dark Day Indeed - Daylight Saving Time

By the time most readers in the U.S. read this, we will once again be officially on "Daylight Saving Time."  It's a nonsensical name for a nonsensical concept; there's only so much daylight; we can't "save" it, we can only move it around.  Thanks to a rule change and a slugabed Congressman a couple of years ago, we now suffer it even earlier in the spring, and later in the fall - early March to early November, a full two-thirds of the year.  Personally, I'd just as soon stick with regular time all year, and put DST back on the ashheap of history where it belongs. 

First, my personal objection:  I get up early.  When I was working I had to get up at 5:15;  now I sleep in until 5:30.  We (my wife and I) take a walk nearly every morning, and I can tell you that there are a lot of people in my residential neighborhood who are also up at that hour.  At this time in March, we're just getting a little light at 5:30 -- finally, after all the darkness of winter, a cheering bit of dawn, maybe even sunrise, and equally important, the ability to see where we're going without stepping in a pothole (there are no sidewalks in many areas) or slipping on a patch of ice.  Now, after two or three days of this exhilarating event, it's being snatched away again by Congressman  Ed Markey.  Here's my view (left) walking on Saturday morning; and

below on the right, what I will see Sunday AM.

  Ed, you see, is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Collecting and Legislating  Utterly Lousy and Egregiously Stupid Stuff  (CLULESS) in the U.S. House of Representatives.  When he proposed extending DST by another month on each end, he reportedly said that he "gets up about 7:00" and doesn't see any problem if it's dark before then.  But Ed is a lawyer (probably) and a Congressman.  He probably gets to work at 9:00 or even 10:00.  He may not realize that much of the world has to be up and running well before that.

Now in fairness, I must note that Mr. Markey also believes that the extension of DST saves significant amounts of energy.  Others, in the past, have made the same argument but there was no data to prove whether the theory was right or wrong.  This led to fatuous statements like this one by Markey's partner in crime, Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan:

the additional hour of sunshine in the evening will help chase away the winter blues,”

(Actually, it's the morning sun that helps chase away the winter blues.  But I'm betting that Rep. Upton isn't upton-at'em much before 7 a.m., either.)

I've just discovered, though, that Markey commissioned a study on energy savings by the Department of Energy.  It was issued in October 2008.  You can see the basics on Markey's website, or you can have a look at the DOE report. 

I remain skeptical.  Government agencies can be terrible whores when someone who controls their budget asks them to "study" an issue, and they know what result is needed. I'd like to study the study and its assumptions.  I'm willing to be convinced; but I'm not yet.  And if it's totally persuasive on the energy issue, I still won't like DST any better.  

The following was added March 15, 2009 -

Keep reading below for impressions of the DOE study (link above).

A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part II

On Monday, I delved into some reasons we might want to move the Monday holidays back to their specific dates.  (A (Not-So-) Modest Proposal Regarding Holidays, Part I.  Now, I'd like to add some other thoughts about modernizing our calendar, bringing it into closer harmony with the shifting characteristics of our nation.

On this blog, I have said often that in politics we need to work to rediscover common ground among various parties and factions.  I think that's also true in society generally. As the United States becomes more multicultural and more pluralistic, we need to move beyond holidays that mark observances of only one religion, or one group of citizens (like the suggestion that Patriot Day be a full-fledged holiday).  

In brief, I suggest that MLK Day, Easter, Columbus Day, and Christmas all need serious rethinking -- and renaming.  Some may see that as radical (sorry, I ought to have warned you to get the smelling salts out ahead of time).  But shouldn't our federal holidays be defined in a way that all of us can identify with?  If you are among those who value the religious or Italian-American aspects of these days, ask yourself if you would also support federal holidays for Eid-al-Fitr, Kwanzaa, Passover, Cinco de Mayo, Greek Day, and a host of others, for which federal status might legitimately be claimed, and which would create an interesting but unworkable crazy-quilt of holidays.

Thanksgiving is the quintessential "American" holiday.  Its focus is family and friends, it can be celebrated by all of us regardless of religion, ethnicity, or other factors, AND it is blessedly free of the commercialization that accompanies many of our other holidays.  We need more days like it.

Let's look at Martin Luther King Jr. Day.  It might seem that this is a day for African-Americans.  Some states and regions interpret it that way.  But I see it differently.  The more reading I do on U.S. history, the clearer it becomes that the issue of slavery -- along with its legacy of emancipation, civil rights, separate-but-equal, affirmative action, discrimination, and continuing racism -- has affected our society throughout our history and continues as a political factor today, even after the election of our first African-American President.  Issues of equality continue to come to the fore for other groups like Latinos, or gays, as well.  We should continue to observe the day, but we should rename it ("Equality Day"?). Despite its cold January proximity to New Year's, let's keep it on the same date because the identification with MLK gives it significance (besides, it's my birthday too!) 

Easter is not a federal holiday, but we often refer to the school breaks or other events at this time of year as "Easter," which has meaning only for Christians; I prefer "spring" break for this, because even those who may not consider it religiously significant nearly all conceive of it as a time to celebrate the arrival of spring, to dye eggs and give the kids easter baskets.  It's analogous to Halloween in that respect.   If anyone ever feels we need a new holiday, this is the time of year we could use one (we have none in March or April). The spring season is already identified with environmental efforts in the U.S. and internationally, so we might consider making Earth Day (April 22 - it is an already-existing observation originally proposed by U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson), an official federal holiday.    

Columbus Day needs work too.  For starters, Columbus didn't "discover" the Americas. For most Americans, it's just a meaningless day off.  For many Italian-Americans, it's a day to honor their cultural tradition.  But that suggests it should be more like St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, or Kwanzaa -- celebrated by those to whom it is truly meaningful, ignored by the rest of us.  Better yet, why not celebrate our ethnic pluralism, from Native Americans on, with an Ethnicity Day, or a Cultural Heritage Day, at this time of year? 

And last, Christmas.  Although it's a Christian holiday, it is commonly observed in various ways by people of many faiths and persuasions.  I have known Hindus and Muslims in this country who put up a tree and exchange gifts as a secular tradition of the season.  To non-Christians and even many Christians, it has become more about gift-giving than anything else, and of course for retailers, it's lifeblood.  The date is arbitrary -- we celebrate Christ's birth at this time of year because it roughly coincided with pagan rites accompanying the winter solstice.  My suggestion:  December 22, Solstice Day, a time of rejoicing, a festival of cheer and light that chases away winter doldrums; a time, too, of gift-giving and of the all-important end-of-year extravanganza of buying that drives our economy. Maybe the change would also help move some of the commercialism away from the "real" Christmas on December 25.

So, that's my whole package.  Religious holidays, and regular events like Valentine's Day and Halloween, would still be observed by those who wanted to, who would decide whether to take a day off work or not.  I omitted Inauguration Day (January 20), the one federal holiday that is not widely observed except around Washington DC, and which comes only once in four years.   I also considered whether we need a new word besides "holiday," since so few of our special days are "holy."  But we all use the word generically now for any day off, and besides, I couldn't think of a better one.  Keep reading below for a calendar that summarizes all this.