Morning Fog

Boston Moves To Dixie

Here's an idea whose time has NOT come:  Virginia state legislators are setting an "example" for the nation, busying themselves passing bills (three different ones) that would "make it illegal to require individuals to purchase health insurance."  A number of Democrats in iffy districts were evidently stampeded across the aisle by the "tea-party" movement to vote with Republicans and pass these idiotic and shameful bills.

Idiotic?  Yes, since of course if such a requirement were a part of federal legislation, these bills would themselves be illegal.  And if the politicized Supreme Court were to decide the federal requirement was unconstitutional, these self-indulgent little lawlets would have no standing either.  (My guess is that the Roberts Court would not strike down the mandate, which benefits big health care and insurance companies.) 

Of course, the bills are designed not as law, but to have a political chilling effect and to express a view.  It's the view of a noisy minority whose actions if successful would unwittingly serve, not to declare liberation from an oppressive regime, but effectively to paralyze government and turn the whole country into California.  Some may say that's what they want; but they would not care to live with the result.

Shameful? Yes, Virginians ought to be ashamed of these posturing politicos.  The tea-party movement, despite its name, doesn't fit in the historical or philosophical framework of the U.S. war of independence.  It's a much better match for some of the most heinous moments in history.  The raucous disruption of political gatherings, for example, belongs squarely in the playbook of the Nazis in the early 1930's as Hitler schemed to seize power. 

Virginia politicans in particular ought to recall another shameful moment in history.  This is the Virginia that can't think of any better tourist attraction to advertise in its Richmond motel rooms than being the former capital of the Confederacy; the Virginia where every other highway, park, statue, and public building is still named either "Lee" or "Jeff Davis"; and the Virginia that had as its official state song until just a decade ago, "Carry Me Back to Ol' Virginny," with its talk of "darkies" and such (and no new state song has been chosen).  The efforts to preempt federal legislation with defiant rants in the halls of state capitals is from the Civil War playbook, one with which responsible state assemblymen ought to refuse to be associated - even as they're running like frightened rabbits from the fox (or the mad hatter).

The linked article above helpfully shows who voted in favor of these bills, and I reproduce it here - 18 Republicans,5 Democrats.  If one of them is your state delegate, you might think about sending him/her a note.

Yeas: 23   Charles J. Colgan (D-Prince William), Blevins (R-Chesapeake), Emmett W. Hanger Jr. (R-Augusta), R. Edward Houck (D-Spotsylvania), Robert Hurt (R-Pittsylvania), Stephen H. Martin (R-Chesterfield), Ryan T. McDougle (R-Hanover), Jeff McWaters (R-Virginia Beach), John C. Miller (D-Newport News), Stephen D. Newman (R-Lynchburg), Thomas K. Norment Jr. (R-James City), Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), Phillip P. Puckett (D-Russell), Frederick M. Quayle (R-Chesapeake), William Roscoe Reynolds (D-Franklin), Frank M. Ruff Jr. (R-Mecklenburg), Ralph K. Smith (R-Roanoke), Walter A. Stosch (R-Henrico), Richard H. Stuart (R-Westmoreland), Jill Holtzman Vogel (R-Winchester), Frank W. Wagner (R-Virginia Beach), William C. Wampler Jr. (R-Bristol), John C. Watkins (R-Chesterfield)

Virginia Republicans Do It Regressively

Virginia Republicans, buoyant from the victory of Republican Bob McDonnell in the election for governor last November, seem to have determined that it's time to get out their horses and buggy whips and transport the state and its people back into the nineteenth century (from which we only recently emerged).   The new Governor has declared himself in favor, meaning that his campaign claims of political moderation, and his promises to focus on jobs and economy rather than partisan political issues, have not survived even until his inauguration. 

Virginia's Republicans say they are gearing up legislation to challenge the applicability of federal law in the state.  They're not the only ones - there are some reports of legislators in New Jersey and Nevada thinking of challenging the federal health insurance mandate, for example.  But to my knowledge only the backwoods rubes of the GOP's Virginia branch are discussing at least three such born-to-lose challenges by:

• Making it illegal to require people to buy health insurance.
• "Declaring" that the U.S. can't regulate commerce in items produced and sold solely within Virginia.
• Stating that guns made and sold within Virginia can't be subject to federal regulation.

Well, of course, some of this is just loose talk intended to make Democrats nervous; it's possible some, or none, of these initiatives will see the light of day, especially if Republicans consider how ridiculous they look.  Nor is there much probability these initiatives, if passed, would survive a court challenge.  After all, there's little or no legal ground for challenging the health insurance mandate; I'm pretty sure there are some precedents (e.g., cigarettes) where regulation of nominally-intrastate trade has been deemed constitutional for health or other reasons.

Nonetheless, I find fascinating the strong parallel between this discussion and similar ones back in the days of segregation.  In both cases, we have politicians of the south denying the right of the federal government to apply its definition of federal laws - and even the Bill of Rights -  to them.  In the old days, it was Democrats (mainly); now the Republicans have taken up the same tattered banner of states' rights behind which to rally the troops of the regressive cause.  In hypocritically trying to capitalize on the widespread unease and anger their own party's last President unleashed, Virginia Republicans - who meet in Richmond, the proud capital of the Old South - seem prepared to waste time and energy on tilting at windmills, rather than dealing with the state's pressing problems of budget, employment, and transportation.

This isn't new, but it's an increasingly rear-guard action.  The GOP has taken the wrong lesson from eight years of Democratic success in the state. 

Conflict of Interest In Virginia

Our new Virginia Governor, Robert McDonnell, is making some rational moves that everyone can approve, for example, the announcement that he will scale back spending on his inaugural to save money and set an example in these lean times.  Word is that he also intends to try to remove the one-term limit on Virginia governors, which makes a lot of sense.  The latter initiative is a bit ironic, in the sense that if there had been no term limit, McDonnell's predecessor Tim Kaine probably would not have been selected as Democratic National Chairman, would have run again, and would have beat McDonnell.  

On the other hand, news of McDonnell's decision to allow his newly named Secretary of Commerce and Trade, Robert Sledd - not to mention all other cabinet appointees - to continue to serve on corporate boards of directors falls into the "what was he thinking?" category.  Sledd serves on at least three boards, and said he wouldn't serve if he had to give them up.  The Governor and Sledd argue that the latter can just recuse himself if an issue arises involving one of companies on whose boards he sits.

Granted there is no current Virginia law against this practice; conceding that there's nothing amiss with Sledd's qualifications; and even admitting that recusal is one conceivable way to deal with any potential problems; the Governor's decision nevertheless seems short-sighted. 

I don't have any problem believing that a mid-level bureaucrat in Sledd's department could (for example) own stock in, or be a prior employee of, a company that might have significant dealings with the commonwealth.  That person would not usually be in a position to sway policy in major ways.  It's different at the Secretary level, where it's not just the actuality of conflict of interest that should be avoided, but the opportunity and the appearance thereof.  McDonnell should rethink this one and consider adding a law to forbid it.

A Handful of Jelly Beans

Jelly beans?  I never thought much about them until the Reagan years, when we were told that the President kept a dish of the Jelly Belly brand on his desk.  That must have awakened some ancient childhood memory, because since then, I've found it fun to buy a batch now and then.   I'm not much for sweets but what's intriguing about jelly beans is the variety of flavors, most of them pretty accurate renditions of the real thing, juxtaposed in sometimes jarring ways -- you can go from icky licorice (I've never cared for licorice) to "buttered popcorn," to watermelon or coffee (two of my favorites) in a trice.  That's why today's jelly-bean-style mashup brings together disparate items of unrelated "flavors," each of which may evoke different reactions, like these:

The Vain Burglar:  Thanks to Washington-DC area radio WBIG's Lisa for mentioning this odd tale of a burglar being sought by police who didn't like the photo they were using, so he sent them one he liked better over his cell phone.  This is being billed as a really dumb thief, and we do know those exist -- I heard a story somewhere yesterday about one who broke into a place but used the victim's computer to check his facebook page and didn't log off!  But to play devil's advocate, what if this photo-guy is really clever, and sent a photo he took of someone else, over a stolen cell phone?  Time will tell.  No reports yet that the gent has been collared by the long arm of the law.

Looking Ahead To Veterans Day:   Thanks to a friend who sent me this piece: http://www.rememberingthebrave.org/speech/.  It pretty much speaks for itself, with Veterans Day coming up.  It's about Marines, and appears to have been photographed at the Marine base and museum at Quantico, Virginia, but I think those of us who did our service in other branches will nevertheless be grateful for the Marines' legendary expertise with photographic equipment in addition to their weapons.  Don't forget to mark the day tomorrow.

I Was Just Lion Around When This Deer...:  Another DC-area tale of a confused deer who leapt the enclosure at the National Zoo and landed in with...two lions!  By the time the deer was rescued, it was a goner and had to be dispatched.  Evidently most spectators were rooting for the deer, and mothers rushed their innocent kids away.  My contrarian instincts tell me, however, that:

• This should have been a great learning experience for zoo visitors; isn't this why we have zoos?
• The report suggests that the lions were ineffectual or perhaps overfed, apparently failing to recognize "prey" for what it was; how otherwise could they have failed to kill the deer? It speaks to how our zoo animals aren't really "themselves" in the captive environment.
• Deer are in overpopulation almost everywhere in this country, including in the urban woods surrounding the National Zoo. In many places, hunters are sent in for a day or two to cull the populations so that forests aren't destroyed. This incident suggests another use for overpopulated deer, and could help address the other two issues I mentioned above.

Virginia's Governor Race - One Vote Decided

The October 12 debate between Creigh Deeds and Robert McDonnell, respectively the Democratic and Republican candidates for governor of Virginia, was televised, but not very much; I'm betting most people didn't see it.  And it threw a little more light on the candidates' respective positions, but again -- not very much. 

Regular readers know that, though I'm an independent and a moderate, I've leaned in recent years more toward Democratic positions (mainly because there don't seem to be any moderate Republicans any more).  But I don't accept the idea that the Virginia election is a referendum on Obama.  Here, it's state issues that are important, and I considered both candidates for what they say they hope to deliver:  road improvements high on the list, but also the state's strong bond rating, its reputation as business-friendly, and achieving a more equitable distribution of revenue between urban and rural areas.  As is often the case, both candidates seek to garner votes in populous Northern Virginia and a few other urban enclaves by claiming to support these generic goals; even a mild skeptic would have doubts about how seriously they mean it, and whether they will follow through. 

The debate offered just enough impression of both candidates to decide me for Deeds, on two factors:

On the big transportation issue, McDonnell makes much of the fact he has a "plan," but most elements of his plan are not new; they've been tried before and haven't been enacted due to political resistance (more often than not, from McDonnell's own party).  Deeds's "plan" consists of forming a bipartisan commission to look into the issues and make recommendations; that may sound a little loopy but to me it makes good sense.  It's the only thing I can see that might work, given the logjam that's existed for decades on the nexus of road improvements and taxation.  And frankly, I also like that he's been honest (sort of) in not completely ruling out tax increases for roads (presumably if his commission recommended that) -- that's a realistic position.  McDonnell keeps saying "no new taxes" but his suggestions for avoiding them are weak, and failure to consider new revenue likely means stealing funds from other pots, like education, services, and business/tourism promotion.

Then there is the question of commitment, by which I mean, which candidate might actually carry out what he's promising, and if he did, what are his chances of success? The often disheveled, sometimes inarticulate Deeds is from a rural constituency and makes no bones about it; but he seems a commonsense, practical man, and I also judge that he's a moderate one, having been elected as a Democrat from such a constituency.  I think that qualifies him to work with both parties to find solutions to the state's problems, and to the issues that our different regions face.  By refusing to become a cardboard cutout of himself, Deeds comes across as honest.   His opponent, I'm afraid, does not (to me), and despite his harping on the fact he grew up in Northern Virginia, his adult life -- and his political life -- has been spent in Richmond, the center of the socially and fiscally conservative cabal that has done nothing for its most populous and revenue-generating urban counties.  I am unsure if he really means to deal with northern Virginia problems (he seems to have discovered them only when he decided to run for governor), but I am rather certain that he's not the guy who can reach across party lines to craft workable solutions to them.   

I'm not under any illusions that Deeds will win the race, though.  Virginia's very evenly divided red/blue electorate hasn't been fundamentally altered by a couple of Democratic wins in the Senate, or in the last two Governors' races.  It's the Republicans' turn; a win by McDonnell would demonstrate little more than that.  A Deeds victory on November 3, however, could indicate a degree of permanency in Virginia's gradual shift from "red" to "purple." 

Full Moon Crazy 2: Environmental Impact of Roadbuilding

Every now and then you get one of those days when everybody driving around you is doing something really dumb.  Usually I say to my wife, or she to me, "It must have been a full moon last night."  And surprisingly often, it actually was.

Today seems to have been a full moon day in terms of current events.  This is the second of five miniposts on the theme. 

Officials of Maryland's Montgomery County propose to require extensive environmental impact studies for road projects.  These folks must have been smoking road tar themselves!  This is the kind of unthinking "green" claptrap that gives environmentalism a bad name.  If such a plan were enacted, county residents might want to consider acquiring a horse, since it ought to pretty well put a stop to road-building.  Surely everyone understands that roads bring pollution of the air, dust, and other bad things.  Yet for centuries, people have voted with their feet to go where the roads are.  When we choose to live in an urban area, we accept the downsides of pollution, crowding, traffic, higher crime.  These factors may all be ameliorated, but they won't be eliminated.  Want clear air? Live in the country.

Virginia Politics: The Value of Junk Mail

I'm pretty good at recognizing junk mail, and usually throw it out unopened.  Receiving an envelope with no return address but "absentee processing center," and marked "Commonwealth of Virginia Absentee Ballot Application Enclosed," I knew I was getting junk mail.  But it was the red-lettered legend, "Do Not Tamper: Official Document" that made me decide to open it to see who was sending me this junk, so I could report this probably illegal implication that this mailing came from a government entity.

Gee, it was just my old friend "Bob."  As in Robert "Bob" McDonnell, candidate for Governor of Virginia.  Yes, the envelope did contain an application for an absentee ballot (that I had not requested), but it contained a campaign epistle with the same tired old lies his party has pushed for the past year and more: according to "Bob," the federal government is "attempting a government takeover of health care, while pushing massive tax increases...."  Also, as a writer, I was amused by the grammatical errors of the letter -- McDonnell is receiving lots of Republican Party bucks for this off-cycle election; he has money to hire a coiffeur to give him the bland blow-dry look of the slick professional pol, but can't find a writer who knows "its" from "it's."

Back in June I suggested that our upcoming gubernatorial race in Virginia would be an interesting faceoff between a Republican (McDonnell) who's striving to present himself as a moderate, and a Democrat (Deeds) who has espoused some very un-liberal ideas.  This blurring of lines is reflected in the recent refusal of popular moderate ex-Governor Wilder's refusal last week to formally endorse either candidate.

Over the intervening months since the candidates were named, however, McDonnell has run into trouble trying to sell himself as a "moderate."  Though claiming to be pro-business, his public campaign materials have focused more on his military background (wave the flag) and on his belief in strong families (ever the original thinker, he figured out how to father five kids).  He has sought, not too successfully, to play down extreme anti-women and anti-gay views he argued for in his thesis at a local religious university only twenty years ago.

So, junk mail has a certain value, but maybe not the one envisioned by this candidate.  Too often, choice in elections is between the lesser of two evils (last year's Presidential election was one of the first exceptions in many a year).  Is it possible I'll receive an equally dumb bulk mailing from McDonnell's opponent Creigh Deeds? Yes.  Would I reconsider? Yes, perhaps, because I seek to be open-minded. I'm the moderate pragmatist McDonnell claims to be but isn't.  But the odds are...that this straw broke the camel's back.  McDonnell has shown he's more a goober than gubernatorial.

Postscript:  Yesterday I wrote in support of an idea McDonnell is pushing to privatize the wasteful state-owned "Alcoholic Beverage Control" stores in Virginia.  I'm happy to see the Washington Post editorial staff today agrees with me: It's a valid idea, but NOT because it would generate much savings. (It won't.)

When The Answer Is To Privatize

Virginia is one of those states that allows hard liquor to be sold only in state-run stores.  The buildings are state-owned (or leased), the staff are state employees, the prices are high and the selection is poor.  For years, I have wondered why we didn't put the liquor business in private hands.  The state could still get its tax revenue, but it would save a bundle on the costs of owning or leasing property and buildings, as well as the employee salaries and benefits.  All gain, no pain.  I can't see a downside.

Now, finally, Robert McDonnell, the Republican candidate for Governor, proposes to do exactly that.  He also points out another benefit, i.e. that privately owned stores would pay property and other taxes into local communities, as government stores of course do not. (McDonnell is on much weaker ground when he claims that this will produce savings that will contribute significantly to the state's crying need for road improvements.  It's only a drop in the bucket.)  Nevertheless, the idea is worth considering on its own merits.  Here's a case where there doesn't seem to be any benefit to citizens by having government involved, so the candidate proposes to get the government completely out, which is key to saving money.  I wish him well in implementing it if he's elected. 

Flashing Lights

It seemed a fairly routine news story:  Driver ticketed for flashing headlights after being warned of a speed trap, driver challenges ticket, ticket is dismissed.  Not something I'd think to blog about usually, but on reflection, I realized this mundane tale has so many facets that it's a perfect parable for the complexity of modern life.  Check out the link, then consider:

Our love-hate relationship with "government."  The whole question of speeding enforcement and avoidance is illustrative:   It's a sort of national sport, if not an obsession.  Few of us dispute that governments do, and should, establish speed limits.  Government authorities set them as a general guide for safety, and most are not unreasonable given roads, traffic conditions, and the generally bad driving habits of most Americans.  Still, everyone believes it's OK for him personally to drive faster.  So government attempts to enforce the law are declaimed as merely cynical attempts to increase revenue, the answer to radar is radar detectors, and the answer to speed cameras is new systems that load camera locations into software that warns you through your GPS.  

Lying in polls.  The newspaper running this story also had a reader survey.  When I saw it, 50% of respondents said they "always" warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap, and another 40% said they might, depending on circumstances.   If that were true, you'd see a veritable blaze of light like Fourth-of-July fireworks coming at you whenever you were approaching a speed trap.  Have you ever seen more than one or two?  I haven't.

Interpreting the law.  According to this article, Maryland law forbids "driving with flashing lights."  This seems to me to refer pretty clearly to a constantly flashing light such as highway maintenance vehicles might have.  Was the officer correct to issue a ticket to someone just flashing headlights once?  Probably not. After all, flashing headlights (once) does have legitimate functions; it can indicate you are letting somebody pull out ahead of you; sometimes it's a friendly gesture to acknowledge another driver's behavior or even that she drives the same puce VW bug as you do; it's also about the only way to tell some fool at night to get his high beams off.  And, as we see here, it's a way to let somebody know there's a speed trap ahead.  Could the Maryland lawmakers really have intended to negate all these legitimate uses of headlights? 

Writing legislation and regulation that really defines what it's about.  Could the law be written more clearly, so there would be no doubt about how the officer should have interpreted it? For this case, surely.  Sometimes it seems as if legislators and regulators purposely strive to write ambiguous legislation.  On the other hand, every regulation is bound to run up against unpredicted real-life complications.  By common sense and accepted usage, the law's reference to "flashing lights" pretty clearly rules out headlights.  But wait - when you're driving at 60 (in a 45-mph zone, of course), and your engine just dies on you, isn't punching on your four-way red flashers about the first thing to do, to warn others of a problem?  Did the state of Maryland really mean to outlaw that option?

Lawyerly excess.  The driver who got his ticket annulled isn't happy yet.  He's a lawyer, and he has demanded an apology, while threatening a lawsuit if he doesn't get one.  That's over the top, but it's what lawyers do.  It brings to mind a regionally notorious case in which a judge sued a dry cleaner for losing a pair of pants - for $50,000 in damages!  The case dragged on for months, drove the dry cleaner out of business, and still isn't fully resolved. 

Well, that's about it (and plenty enough, you say?).   But here in microcosm are many of the same factors and behavior patterns that make all today's bigger, national, front-page issues so complex, be it health care reform, the GM bankruptcy, consumer protection, climate change, revamping the financial system, or resuscitating the economy.  The answers our representatives in Congress come up with won't be entirely clear, they won't succeed in dealing with every contingency, they won't satisfy everyone, and they won't escape being challenged.  To a surprising degree, we are all still Charlie Chaplin wrestling with the complications of Modern Times. 

District of Columbia Representation in Congress

Those in Congress who have supported the efforts by the District of Columbia to obtain representation in Congress have given up for now.  It doesn't seem this should be a "political" issue -- in the 21st century, action to correct a clear disenfranchisement of a group of our citizens should be a slam dunk  -- but it is, nonetheless.

Opponents of the pending bill to deliver justice for D.C., have cited concerns that the only legal means to fix the problem is by Constitutional amendment.  Republicans among them were also worried about the political effects of the District's longstanding strong Democratic majority (that's why the deal was to include an extra representative for über-Republican Utah, whose population growth will probably win it another seat after the next census anyway).

This compromise had awakened some hopes, but then came the Second Amendment issues.  The District has had fairly strict gun control; the gun lobby and its Congressional supporters decided to amend the pending bill to nullify DC's gun regulations and to set limits on its power to enact future regulations.  District leaders, in turn, refused to accept this amendment. 

Does that seem childish? Should DC's leaders have accepted these limitations?  Perhaps that would have been the smart move politically, but let's be clear that they are standing on a principle:  Should the rights of a group of people to representation in Congress be infringed by preconditions on how their leaders could use those rights?)   I'd say not. 

No, I think it's the gun lobby and its supporters who are being venal and anti-democratic here.  I believe if the District were to accept the limitations, they'd eventually find their way to the Supreme Court, where even the most conservative Justices (especially the most conservative Justices!) would find them hard to swallow.  The Second Amendment is one part of the Constitution relating to a very specific right.  Surely any reasoning person might conclude that a more basic right to be represented in Congress without conditions would be a higher priority?  Unfortunately, not enough Congresspersons seem capable of grasping that point; those who do don't have the courage to buck the NRA. 

People who don't live in the District should be grateful to DC's leaders for taking a stand; to accede would mean turning over to the NRA Congress's authority to legislate in the area of "bearing arms" (of course we're close to that already), and the judiciary's right to interpret the Second Amendment.  We should look ahead a bit (as the NRA's lawyers no doubt have) to the point where success in circumscribing the District's options on gun purchase and registration would lead to efforts to legislate similar controls on the States.