Current Events Write-Up: Surveillance of Trump's Campaign, Welfare, Health Care, and Robert Osborne

Time for my weekly Current Events Write-Up!

Surveillance of Trump’s Campaign?

Transcript: ABC This Week for March 4, 2017.

ABC This Week last Sunday, of course, was focusing on Donald Trump’s claim that Barack Obama in 2016 wiretapped Trump’s campaign.  After enduring the propagandists for and against Trump, I was pleased to listen to Michael Mukasey, who served as President George W. Bush’s Attorney General.  Martha Raddatz, who interviewed him, said that Mukasay brought some clarity to the issue.  Mukasey stated:

“I think the president was not correct certainly in saying that President Obama ordered a tap on a server in Trump Tower. However, I think he’s right in that there was surveillance and that it was conducted at the behest of the attorney — of the Justice Department through the FISA court…I base that on news reports that you mentioned in the last spot. I also base it on kind of inadvertent blurting out by Adam Schiff that his committee wants to talk to the counterintelligence agents at the FBI who were involved in this. Now, what that means is this is part not of a criminal investigation, but of an intelligence gathering investigation…They tried to get — apparently tried to get a wiretap based on their criminal investigation function in June. That was turned down. They then tried to get, and got, an order permitting them to conduct electronic surveillance in October. This is October of 2016…It means there were some basis to believe that somebody in Trump Tower may have been acting as an agent of the Russians, for whatever purpose, not necessarily the election, but for some purpose.  And the FBI keeps track of people who act as agents of foreign governments. They keep track of people who act as agents of the Chinese, the Russians, the Israelis, everybody.”

Mukasey also disputed that the Russians wanted to get Trump elected, arguing that they had an another agenda in orchestrating the leaks against Hillary:

“The only crime I that have heard about or seen of that was committed was committed by the Russians when they hacked the DNC. They hacked John Podesta, and they tried to hack the Republican National Committee. That’s the only crime that I’m aware of.  Now, the question is of course is why was it committed? Some people say it was committed to promote the election of Donald Trump. I happen to think that is ridiculous. Because at the time that it had happened, Donald Trump looked like a sure loser. And you’d have to believe that Vladimir Putin was an idiot trying to back a sure loser. I think much more likely he was trying to intimidate a sure winner, Secretary Clinton.”

Welfare

Can Politicians Save the Welfare State by Urging or Even Subsidizing More Baby Making?, by Daniel Mitchell.

Libertarian economist Daniel Mitchell talks about how the welfare state in Europe may become unsustainable, since not enough babies are being born to support it when they become adults.  He doubts that government efforts there to encourage women to have babies will solve this.

Jacobin: The Myth of the Fiscal Conservative: Austerity measures don’t actually save money. But they do disempower workers. Which is why governments pursue them in the first place, by Amir Fleischmann.

Fleischmann makes the case that “Supporting social programs reduces government spending in the long run.”

Health Care

CNN Money: Republicans’ Obamacare replacement bill: The winners and losers, by Tami Luhby. 

This article breaks things down pretty clearly.

Reason: The one number that shows why any health care effort will fail.

I didn’t read the entire article, but the status explains why Obamacare has problems, and why the Ryan plan, if implemented, will have problems.  And people in the comments section tell their own horror stories about the American health care system.

Townhall: The Bizarre Regulatory Idolatry of the Patent Lobby, by Mytheos Holt.

I am pleased that conservative voices are challenging the high prices of big pharma, and the government policies that perpetuate them.

Deaths

MeTV: R.I.P. Film Historian Robert Osborne.

I only watched Turner Classic Movies occasionally, but I always liked Robert Osborne’s humble, low-key, and yet interesting introductions and conclusions to movies.

Current Events Write-Up: Trade, Milo, Media, Health Care, DeVos, Alan Colmes, the Progressive Pro-Lifers, and More

Time for my weekly Current Events Write-Up, in which I link to news and opinion pieces and comment on them.

Dallas News: The first casualties of Trump’s trade wars are Texas cattle ranchers, by Richard Parker. 

“Free trade” has its positives and negatives for Americans.  On the one hand, it allows U.S. businesses and exporters to expand the market for their products.  On the other hand, there are the problems of outsourcing and trade deficits.

Real Time with Bill Maher: Maher’s Interview of Milo Yiannopoulos.

We witnessed the rise and fall of Milo this week!  What interested me about Bill’s interview of Milo is Milo’s remark that humor and satire bring people together.  Maybe he has a point, though some would understandably say that there should be boundaries.  But, if we are to embrace humor and satire as something that brings people together, why should Donald Trump be so agitated and offended by the Saturday Night Live skits about him and his cabinet?

ABC This Week: Jonathan Karl on Trump’s Criticisms of the Media.

Karl was trying to argue that Trump has taken attacks of the media to a new level.  But Karl made good points about how previous Presidents have criticized the media, and how Trump as a candidate made himself available to the media, more than other candidates.  See his comments at the end of the transcript.  Maybe Trump made himself available to the media because he wanted to have his say, rather than allowing others to put words in his mouth (from his perspective).  His making himself available to the media may have coincided with a distrust of the press, in short.

Townhall: Fixing Health Care, by Bruce Biatosky. 

I agree with some of these ideas and disagree with others.  On areas of disagreement, I think that there need to be people who pay into the health insurance system, so that the health insurance can pay for people’s treatments, and also to spread the cost of the insurance around.  I don’t know how we can accomplish this without a health insurance mandate.  I also am skeptical that Health Savings Accounts, by themselves, would be adequate to cover the costs of certain medical treatments.  On areas of agreement, I support reducing the prices of prescription drugs, informing patients of costs, streamlining visits of doctors through usage of modern technology, and high-risk pools, provided that sufficient funds are provided for those pools.

Yahoo Finance: Ivanka Trump visits center for minority-owned businesses, by Catherine Lucey.

“‘I feel like Ivanka listened very intently and asked some very intelligent questions,’ [National Urban League President Marc] Morial said, noting that she wanted to understand which programs worked and could be implemented on a larger scale.”

I applaud Ivanka Trump for doing this.

Slate: Report: DeVos Wanted to Keep Trans School Protections, Was Overruled By Sessions and Trump, by Mark Joseph Stern. 

I am intrigued when someone does the unexpected in politics.  In this case, I was pleasantly surprised.  Betsy DeVos is a conservative Christian, but a conservative Christian who has compassion for transgender students.  And yet, this is not a great surprise to me, for I have read comments by people who know her, and they say she is a good person, one who sincerely wants to help others.  This is not to imply that those who oppose President Obama’s bathroom policies are bad people.  What interested me is that progressives online were praising DeVos for this, and then the next day they resumed attacking her.

London Review of Books: A Short History of the Trump Family, by Sidney Blumenthal.

I read this article over several days, since it is a lengthy article.  It is a damning portrait of Donald Trump.  This is especially the case when it discusses Trump’s alleged treatment of his brother Fred, Jr.’s family and of his mentor, Roy Cohn.  This article brings to my mind Elizabeth Warren’s question: “What kind of man does this?”  And yet, how much of this is unique to Trump?  John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon supposedly had ties to the mafia, which Blumenthal says was the case with Trump.  Blumenthal says that Donald Trump’s father, Fred Trump, Sr., ran a racist campaign, and yet what about the allegation that Blumenthal tried to help Hillary in 2008 by searching for Kenyan connections to Barack Obama (see here for a discussion of whether that happened)?  I am all for exposes, but I have to ask why I am expected to recoil in horror at Trump after reading about his dirty laundry, but not at the “respectable” politicians who likewise have dirty laundry.  Blumenthal’s article was a good read, though: I especially enjoyed his literary references.

Wall Street Journal: Bernie Sanders Loyalists Are Taking Over the Democratic Party One County Office at a Time: In fight to define party in age of Donald Trump, Sanders followers want to transform it from the bottom up by taking control of low-level state and county posts, by Reid J. Epstein and Janet Hook.

This reminds me of a post that I wrote in May 2016: Can Bernie Sanders Supporters Replicate the Success of the Christian Coalition?  I doubt that Sanders supporters got the idea from me.  They are simply doing what is politically astute: getting involved at the local level and in Democratic Party politics.

Yahoo News: I’m a Silicon Valley liberal, and I traveled across the country to interview 100 Trump supporters — here’s what I learned, by Sam Altman. 

Altman interviewed Trump supporters, who were diverse.  Many of them expressed reservations about Trump.  All of the comments are worth reading, as they challenge liberal condescension and intolerance while expressing feelings of powerlessness.  The most poignant statement was this one: “He’s crazy, but it’s a tactic to get other nations not to mess with us.”

Yahoo: Fox News Veteran Alan Colmes Dies at 66, by Cynthia Littleton.

On the one hand, the partisan nature of the TV show “Hannity and Colmes” got on my nerves.  Hannity would make a big deal about a Democratic politician doing or saying something bad, then Colmes would provide examples to Republican politicians doing or saying something similar.  Or vice versa.  Here’s a newsflash: Republicans and Democrats are people, with strengths and weaknesses!  No political party has a monopoly on virtuous or wicked people.  On the other hand, I had to respect Colmes.  When he was on a local right-wing talk-show in 2004, the host was saying that John Kerry wanted to raise taxes, and Colmes articulately responded with a more nuanced presentation of Kerry’s position.  Colmes also kept a sense of humor, even when he was criticized.  I remember when Hannity had the audience applaud for him, then he asked Colmes supporters to applaud Colmes.  Nobody applauded for Colmes!  Colmes replied, “I think I heard a vibrator back there!”

World Net Daily: Doesn’t Romans 14 Say Sabbath Is Optional?, by Joseph Farah.

The right-wing site, World Net Daily, has an article defending the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath.  This is of interest to me, since I grew up as a seventh-day Sabbatarian.

Townhall: An Echo of Trump in the Last of the Whigs, by Jeff Jacoby.

I read this on President’s Day.  Millard Fillmore was a nativist and was a bit lukewarm in opposing slavery.  That was a factor in the decline of the Whig Party, which was replaced by the anti-slavery Republican Party.  Whether or not the comparison to Trump is merited, the article was an interesting read.

Crux: How pro-life movement was born as a liberal cause, and more, by Charles C. Camosy.

Camosy interviews historian Daniel Williams, who argues against the idea that the pro-life movement was a right-wing reaction against Roe vs. Wade.  Actually, it existed before then, and it had a lot of progressives!

Current Events Write-Up: Gorsuch, Disability Rights, Health Care, the Senate, Little House, the Big Bang Theory, Etc.

Time for a Current Events Write-Up.

Neil Gorsuch
 
Washington Post: Neil Gorsuch belongs to a notably liberal church — and would be the first Protestant on the Court in years, by Julie Zauzmer.

I learned of this article from Steve Hays, who linked to it on Triablogue.

I especially liked this part of the article: "Staff at St. John’s declined to speak about Gorsuch on Wednesday. One member, who has ushered at services with Gorsuch, said she didn’t even know he was a judge."

Huffington Post:Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Showed Support For His Clerk’s Gay Marriage: But people close to the judge can’t quite predict how he’ll rule on big social issues.

The title says it all.  He personally may have progressive ideas, but that does not necessarily preclude him from making conservative decisions, on the basis of a conservative judicial philosophy.

ACLU: Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Has a Troubling History When Ruling on Disability Rights Cases, by Claudia Center.

This troubles me, as someone on the autism spectrum.

Disability and Gun Control
 
Reason: The House Passes a Gun Measure Supported by the ACLU and Mental Health Advocates. Media Hysteria Ensues:Bad reporting, and bad attitudes, make a sensible move to prevent the government from discriminating against certain Social Security recipients seem like sheer madness, by Brian Doherty.

We've read the story about how the House Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to get guns.  Here is another perspective on the story.  And it links to the ACLU's letter about this issue.  To quote the ACLU letter: "...regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership."

Health Care
 
Townhall: States Should Protect Direct-Pay Health Care Models, by Michael Hamilton.

Sounds good.  It aims to bypass the insurance companies and the overhead that dealing with them entails.  See here for wikipedia's article, which links to sources, pro and con. 

Townhall: Free Dr. Tom Price!, by Andrew Mangione. 

Tom Price is President Trump's selection for the Department of Health and Human Services.  Andrew Mangione praises the legislation that Price supported or introduced in Congress.  Mangione states that Democrats should "look at Dr. Price with clarity and identify what his colleagues already recognize - a passionate advocate for patients, seniors, women, physicians, families and veterans."

Trump and the Muslim World
 
Townhall: The Coming Clash With Iran, by Pat Buchanan.

Pat offers another perspective.  Allow me to quote: "Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining 'security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East,' placing 'American lives at risk.'  But how so?   The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?   Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?”

CNN Politics: 100 evangelical leaders sign ad denouncing Trump's refugee ban, by Daniel Burke.

"Signees include Pastor Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, Christian author Ann Voskamp, Bill and Lynne Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church, preacher and author Max Lucado, Pastor Eugene Cho of Quest Church and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals."

Also, Dr. Gordon Hugenberger is on the list.  I used to hear him speak when I visited Park Street Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Senate
 
New York Times: Kirsten Gillibrand and the Anti-Trump Left: 2020 Foresight?, by Ginia Bellafante. 

"When David A. Paterson, then governor of New York, appointed Kirsten E. Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in 2009, there was little feeling that she would become a key voice in a movement of resistance from the left. As a Blue Dog congressional Democrat representing an upstate district, Ms. Gillibrand had an A rating from the National Rifle Association. She had an uptown bearing but talked about the guns she kept tucked under her bed. Working as a young lawyer, she defended the tobacco industry."
I love stories like this: people acting as you don't expect!  I like the movie Separate But Equal, which was about a companion case to the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision banning racial segregation in schools.  President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and opponents of segregation wondered how Warren would decide.  When they learned that Warren was the Governor who participated in the internment of Japanese-Americans into internment camps, they were not very optimistic!  But Warren surprised them.  Not only did he vote against segregation, but he encouraged all of the other justices on the court to take a principled stand against it.  I hope that President Trump acts against negative expectations and accomplishes groundbreaking reforms.

Yahoo News: Bernie Sanders Reads Coretta Scott King’s Letter on the Senate Floor, Calls GOP Silencing Elizabeth Warren ‘Incomprehensible’, by Tierney McAfee.

Elizabeth Warren was silenced from reading Coretta Scott King's letter on Jeff Sessions before the U.S. Senate, but then Bernie went on to read it!  I think there is another side to Sessions' record than the one that the Left presents.  Still, I believe that Senators should be allowed to read Coretta Scott King's concerns about Sessions: Sessions was not only a Senator, but a nominee for Attorney General.  (Now, of course, he actually is Attorney General.)

Historical Interest
New York Times: Finding America, Both Red and Blue, in the ‘Little House’ Books, by Maria Russo.

I love the Little House on the Prairie TV show!  The politics of Little House has long fascinated me!  I have known that Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter Rose was instrumental in the libertarian movement, and that Laura Ingalls Wilder herself was a critic of the New Deal.  As the article notes, however, LIW herself benefited from the government.  I would be interested in reading something about the politics of the TV series, which this article does not explore.  Michael Landon was supposedly a Republican, yet my impression is that Little House and Highway to Heaven were very progressive, politically-speaking. 

Entertainment
 
Glamour:The Big Bang Theory Season 10 Episode 14 Recap: This Is Why We Should Be Kind to Others, by Jessica Radloff.  

I loved this reflection on the show: "Season 10—even seasons eight and nine—has been more than just guaranteed laughs each week; it's become a weekly therapy of sorts. From anxiety to hoarding to intimacy, the show has somehow found a way to effectively weave in topical issues 24 episodes a season. For a series that started off about a couple of nerds having problems interacting with the hot girl…well, this is no longer that series.  'The writers are realistic about these characters maturing and evolving, and they have [done that] in wonderful ways,' Johnny Galecki (Leonard) acknowledges. 'You couldn't watch 10 seasons of these guys not being able to get a date.' True, but never did we expect the show to evolve into something of a social discussion each week either."

Current Events Write-Up: Premiums and Cancer Patients, Prophet Johnson on Trump, the UN, MLK on Planned Parenthood, and the Other Gettysburg Address

Time for another Current Events Write-Up, in which I link to news and opinion pieces and comment on them.

Health Care

I’d like to use as my starting-point Jason Easley’s article for PoliticusUSA, entitled “Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Replacement Is a Death Sentence for Cancer Patients.”

Paul Ryan had a town-hall meeting, and a cancer patient told him that Obamacare saved his life.  Ryan responded that he, too, believes that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to receive affordable care.  The problem with Obamacare, Ryan says, is that it drives up deductibles and premiums for people.  Is there a way to give coverage to people with costly pre-existing conditions, without driving up deductibles and premiums?  Ryan’s solution is to set up high-risk pools.  Jason Easley argues that, under this proposal, “cancer patients will be given less healthcare and lower odds of survival.”

Easley criticizes Ryan for implying that cancer patients are ruining health care for others, by driving up their deductibles and premiums.  On online discussions, commenters have expressed similar sentiments.  On the one side, there are cancer patients who fear losing their coverage under the Affordable Care Act: that would impose insurmountable financial costs on them, and perhaps even cost them their lives.  On the other side, you have people who are complaining about the Affordable Care Act on account of the high deductibles and premiums.  They wonder why they should spend hundreds of dollars each month on premiums, for insurance that they may not even use.  Many in the former group are accusing people in the latter group of being selfish: of wanting to save bucks and have a more comfortable life at the expense of the cancer patients’ very existence.  Even if people in the latter group never use their health insurance, the money that they pay into the health insurance system will cover the treatment of someone else who does need the health insurance.

I thought back to a conversation that former Governor Ed Rendell had on Charlie Rose’s show back in 2012.  Rendell was referring to Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry’s proposal for health care during his 2004 election campaign.  Rendell said that Kerry’s plan would insure that cancer patients are covered, while bringing down premiums for others.  I was curious about the details of this plan, and I found a 2004 New York Times article that summarized it.  Here is the relevant section:

“For the vast majority of Americans and most businesses as well, the chief worry is soaring premiums.  Here Mr. Kerry has proposed an innovative solution. He would have a federally funded ‘reinsurance’ program reimburse employers for 75 percent of all medical bills exceeding some catastrophic limit — say, for example, $30,000 a year. That would mean companies and group health plans would no longer have to shoulder the most costly cases that account for a huge chunk of all health expenditures. In return, the companies would have to pass the savings on in reduced premiums, cover all workers and set up disease management programs. The Kerry camp estimates this might reduce premiums by 10 percent, mostly by shifting the cost to the taxpayers.”

There are probably strengths and weaknesses to this proposal.  Still, something should be done to ensure that cancer patients receive care, while also taking into consideration the concerns of people who are burdened by monthly premiums, and may not fall into that economic niche that would get them sufficient Obamacare subsidies.

Political Figures

I’ll start with this Vox article defending Jill Stein.  Is Jill Stein against wi-fi?  Does she believe that vaccines caused autism?  This article defends her against these charges, while mildly critiquing her for failing to stick to her guns on certain issues (i.e., Brexit).

Benjamin Corey criticizes a statement by Prophet Jeremiah Johnson, which appeared in Charisma Magazine.  Johnson said the following:

“I was in a time of prayer several weeks ago when God began to speak to me concerning the destiny of Donald Trump in America. The Holy Spirit spoke to me and said, ‘Trump shall become My trumpet to the American people, for he possesses qualities that are even hard to find in My people these days. Trump does not fear man nor will he allow deception and lies to go unnoticed. I am going to use him to expose darkness and perversion in America like never before, but you must understand that he is like a bull in a china closet. Many will want to throw him away because he will disturb their sense of peace and tranquility, but you must listen through the bantering to discover the truth that I will speak through him. I will use the wealth that I have given him to expose and launch investigations searching for the truth. Just as I raised up Cyrus to fulfill My purposes and plans, so have I raised up Trump to fulfill my purposes and plans prior to the 2016 election. You must listen to the trumpet very closely for he will sound the alarm and many will be blessed because of his compassion and mercy. Though many see the outward pride and arrogance, I have given him the tender heart of a father that wants to lend a helping hand to the poor and the needy, to the foreigner and the stranger.'”

Corey makes legitimate criticisms of Johnson’s prophecy, especially when Corey wonders how Johnson’s vision of Trump helping the foreigner and stranger meshes with Trump’s stance on illegal immigration.

Still, the prophecy resonates with me.  I am not saying that I believe Johnson is expressing the opinions of Almighty God on Trump.  I am just saying that the statement resonates with me, in areas.  Trump does go against the grain.  He comes across as fearless.  People attack him, and he keeps on moving forward.  And I would like to think that there is more to him than bluster, pride, and arrogance.

In 2008, I read “prophecies” about Barack Obama, one negative and the other positive.  I talk about that in my post here.  The positive prophecy said that Barack Obama is a person who hungers for righteousness, and that resonated with my understanding of Barack Obama at the time: I saw him as a decent human being who sincerely wanted to find common ground with the other side and help find solutions to the nation’s problems.  Eight years later, my response to Obama is rather “meh.”  I don’t think he was a horrible President, or even that he is a bad human being.  But he had to contend with a lot of gridlock, to the point that he came across as a lame-duck.

There is a part of me that hopes that President Trump will be able to cut through a lot of crap and accomplish positive reforms.  Whether my optimism is misplaced or not, I cannot yet say.

The UN

Mother Jones had an article entitled, “Obama Just Took One Final Step to Fight Global Warming: And There’s Nothing Donald Trump Can Do About It.”  Here is what President Obama did: “On Tuesday, Obama transferred $500 million to the UN’s Green Climate Fund, a key program set up to finance climate change adaptation and renewable energy projects in developing countries.”

Over at Townhall, Terry Paulson has a column, “Is It Time to Defund the UN?”  He leans in the “yes” direction, saying that the UN condemns Israel while privileging Israel’s radical Islamic enemies, and that the UN ignores Nigeria’s brutal oppression of secessionists.  Interestingly, Paulson provides a quote that indicates that at least some of those secessionists are placing their hope in Donald Trump.

I do not know much about this issue, but it would not surprise me if the UN is inconsistent in applying its principles, as many institutions are.  The same is true of the US.

Will Trump care about Nigeria?  I am not too optimistic.  Unfortunately and sadly, I tend to agree with economist Bruce Bartlett when he said: “Serious question. If it wasn’t for oil and the Jewish vote, would anyone care what happens in the Middle East? It would be like Africa, where thousands of people die all the time and no one gives a rat’s ass. If it don’t affect us, materially or politically, Americans just don’t care, at all. That’s an undeniable fact.”  Maybe that compassionate father’s heart that prophet Johnson talked about will influence Trump to care, but that remains to be seen.

Historical Interest

Media Matters has an article entitled, “Reminder to Conservatives: Martin Luther King Jr. Praised Planned Parenthood.”  That does not surprise me.  MLK believed a lot of things that would not resonate with conservatives.  Rather than saying that MLK would agree with them if alive today, perhaps conservatives would do better to argue that their views, in areas, are closer to the principles that MLK defended, even if MLK himself did not apply his principles in that manner.

I was reading a book that told the usual story of the Gettysburg Address: how the person who spoke before Lincoln went on for two hours, and then Lincoln delivered his short Gettysburg Address.  I was curious about the person who spoke before Lincoln.  His name was Edward Everett, and the goal of his speech was to discuss the significance of the American Civil War in light of American history and also the history of Greece.  So says Ted Widmer in this NYT blog post.  And here is Everett’s speech, if you want to read it!  It looks rather flowery to me, but I may read it at a later time.  It is cool what the Internet provides!

Current Events Write-Up: Pharmaceuticals, Barack Obama's Departure, a Three-State Solution, Patricia Heaton, Anne Frank, Etc.

Time for another week of links to news and opinion pieces!

Pharmaceuticals

“Cory Booker and 12 Other Dems Just Stopped Bernie Sanders’ Amendment to Lower Prescription Drug Costs,” by Walter Bragman.

Bad news!  Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment that would allow importation of cheap prescription drugs into the United States, and Cory Booker and twelve Democrats helped kill it.  Of course, most of the Republicans voted against it, too.  And yet, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for the amendment!  Good for them!  And is that not a conservative approach: allow competition to bring down prices?  UPDATE: See here for Cory Booker's side of the story.

Meanwhile, at the Halls of Justice!  Peter Welch is a Democratic Congressman from Vermont, and he praises Donald Trump for finding common ground with him on pharmaceuticals:

“Today, President-elect Donald J. Trump strongly endorsed an issue I have been pushing hard for in Congress – requiring the federal government to use its significant bulk purchasing power to cut the price of prescription drugs for seniors and taxpayers. Here is what he said at this morning’s press conference:  ‘We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world. And yet we don’t bid properly. We’re going to start bidding. We’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.’  Music to my ears. It’s crazy that Medicare buys drugs at wholesale but pays retail prices. I’ve introduced a bill that would require price negotiations with Big Pharma. It will cut drug prices, save taxpayer dollars, and shore up the Medicare trust fund. I’m ready to get to work with President-elect Trump to pass this commonsense legislation.”

Over at the conservative web site Townhall, Devon Herrick writes on how “Congress Should Take Steps to Make Drugs More Affordable.”  He criticizes, among other things, how the FDA takes a long time to approve new drugs.  At the conservative web site, The Federalist, Margot Cleveland actually praises President Barack Obama for moving in the direction of correcting that!  Yet, as far as Herrick is concerned, there is more work to be done: “The FDA’s bias toward approving newer, first-in-class therapies has increased approvals for expensive drugs to treat rare diseases, which are at a historic high. Approvals of me-too drugs are down, however, which limits competition within drug classes, leading to higher prices, and limits patient choices.”

Jill Stein and the Russian Hacking

Jill Stein posted a link to an article by David Swanson, questioning the U.S. Government’s Russian-hacking report and defending Wikileaks against the U.S. Intelligence community.  That’s the Jill Stein I voted for, not the one who has been challenging the election results!

The Donald: A Different Kind of Republican

I enjoyed Reihan Salam’s article on Slate, entitled “Will Donald Trump Be FDR or Jimmy Carter?”  Salam is not too optimistic about the coming Donald Trump Presidency, as far as I can see.  Yet, I appreciated an observation that Salam made, and I have made the same observation myself.  In the past, many Republicans ran their campaigns by distinguishing between the makers and the takers, shaming the poor who receive assistance from the government.  Remember Mitt Romney’s 47% comment!  Trump’s campaign did not do that, as far as I can recall.  Rather, Trump’s campaign held that people are struggling economically on account of a systemic problem.  Trump blamed illegal immigrants, and many may not care for that kind of scapegoating, but Trump also criticized big corporations for sending jobs overseas.

President Barack Obama

George Stephanopoulos at ABC This Week interviewed President Barack Obama.  I especially appreciated this moment of candid self-criticism on the part of the President: “And so [Democrats ha]ve got to do a better job of showing up. And I was able to do that when I was the candidate. But I have not– I’ve not seen or– or presided over that kind of systematic outreach that I think needs to happen.”

As I read my friends’ expressions of sadness over the coming departure of Barack Obama from the Presidency, I have wondered why I have not shared their sadness.  It may be because I rarely see Barack Obama speaking to the public: it’s like he’s in hiding, so he has not made much of an impression on me.  And, when he does come out, it’s often to lecture, which comes across as rather self-righteous.  But don’t get me wrong: there have been times when I have appreciated what Barack Obama has had to say.  When he expressed openness to conservative ideas on bringing down the cost of higher education and health care, I applauded him.  That was the Barack Obama I loved in 2008: the transformative candidate!

At Townhall, Jeff Jacoby has a column, “Barack Obama’s Legacy of Failure.”  There’s not much that is new there, but the section on foreign policy got me thinking, or at least reminded me of some things that I have been thinking lately.  I have been gravitating towards the conservatism that supports isolationism, which is not to say that I embrace the domestic policy of the right, but rather than I enjoy reading conservatives who support a non-interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to the neo-cons.  That is one reason that I like Donald Trump, at least for the time being.  But Jacoby’s column criticizes President Obama for being non-interventionist on foreign policy.  And isn’t that accurate, on a certain level?  Permitting the Arab Spring.  Being reluctant to bomb Syria.  Aren’t those examples of President Obama’s non-interventionism?  Of course, one can point out the opposite, too: President Obama’s support of regime change in Libya, and his use of drones.  Still, I wonder if his non-interventionism has worked.  Yet, as a counterweight, I do not want the U.S. to go back to the disastrous interventionism of the Iraq War.

James David Audlin had a status comparing the vilification of President-elect Trump with the 2008-2009 vilification of President-elect Obama.   Of course, people are responding by saying that is a “false equivalence,” a term I have heard often over the last several months.  Okay, maybe there are differences between the criticisms of the respective Presidents-elect.  Still, I find that I am turned off by the criticisms of Trump today, as I was by the criticisms of Barack Obama in 2008: the caricatures, the mockery, the attitude that he cannot do anything right, the tendency to read a sinister motive into everything he says and does.  The criticisms of Obama in 2008 were among the factors that moved me to the left.  Today, the criticisms of Trump are not moving me to the right, so much, but they have encouraged me to read more from the right.  Actually, the reason that I liked Obama in 2008, and a reason that I like Trump now, is that both expressed openness to ideas of the other side of the spectrum.  I am not so much against constructive criticism: it may actually move Trump in a positive direction, as Trump looks for queues about what to do.  The vilification is what turns me off.

Israel

Over at Townhall, Bruce Bialosky has an interesting article entitled “The Three State Solution.”  We hear a lot about the two-state solution.  But, as Bialosky notes, there are actually two regions that have Palestinian authorities: Gaza, led by Hamas, and the West Bank, led by Fatah.  And, according to Bialosky, the West Bank under Fatah is more prosperous than Gaza under Hamas.  I appreciate that Bialosky does not lump the Palestinians together.

Entertainment

Christianity Today had an interview with actress Patricia Heaton.  Heaton has had two successful sitcoms: “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Middle.”  I love both shows!  Heaton talks about the insecurities that exist in the acting career, the contrasts between acting in “Everybody Loves Raymond” and acting in “The Middle,” and her own Christian faith and charity work in the Third World.

Historical Interest

“The Holocaust Survivor Who Hated Anne Frank,” by Philip Graubart. 

Basically, she thought that Anne Frank was mean and spoiled!  Graubart astutely says:
“She didn’t like Anne Frank. At first I couldn’t absorb the sentiment, couldn’t really believe my ears. It was like hearing a Catholic say she wasn’t fond of the Virgin Mary, that she was sick of all her tiresome bragging. Virgin birth – big deal. But then I realized that Trudy’s distaste for Anne Frank the person – whatever girlhood tiff set it off – returned the Holocaust to where it belongs, in prosaic human history. It’s not a myth, or a sacred narrative, with demigods and martyrs and supernatural heroines. It’s not a biblical story, a tragic moment pointing to redemption. It’s a story of girls and boys, Annes and Trudys, and their brothers and sisters and parents, murdered and tortured the way humans have murdered and tortured since time immemorial.”

Current Events Write-Up: Israel, Health Care, Sessions, and Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds

Time for my weekly Current Events Write-Up, in which I post links to news and opinion pieces that caught my attention this week.  I just want to make clear: I include different perspectives, so no author whom I include would necessarily agree with, or even like, another author whom I include.

Israel

Israel has been in the news this past week, on account of the UN Security Council’s resolution condemning Jewish settlements in disputed territory and John Kerry’s subsequent speech.

Eric Chabot reviews The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land (IVP Academic, 2016), which is edited by Gerald McDermott.  Chabot quotes this statement by McDermott, which appears on pages 295-296:

“When has the United Nations blamed the Grand Mufti or other Islamic leaders for their hateful speeches that have led to thousands of Israeli casualties? Why does the United Nations not protect persecuted minorities like Christians and Yazidis from terrorism in the Middle East conducted by Muslim powers (like ISIS) or states (Syria)?  Israel is routinely charged with violation of international law for its supposed occupation of the West Bank. When was the last time the United Nations condemned Turkey for its illegal occupation of one-third of Cyprus for forty-one years and its deployment of forty thousand Turkish troops there? Or China’s brutal occupation of Tibet? Where are the United Nations resolutions condemning present and past genocides by Muslims against Jews and Christians in the Middle East? A Palestinian journalist exclaims, ‘It is a scandal of global proportions that the UN in general and UNRWA in particular—as well as the EU—ignore the hundreds of thousands of killed and maimed and the millions of refugees desperately in need of aid in the neighboring Arab countries.'”

My friend Rachel Roberts offers a different perspective.  She tries to get Jews to empathize with the plight of Palestinians by employing a “Candyland” analogy:

“There is a lot of discussion in my Jewish community about how the world ‘singles out Israel’ so I’d like to do a little experiment. Say any other country, any other democracy, were to do what Israel is doing. Let’s call that country Candyland. Say that Candyland had forced out 750,000 Jews during a war for its independence and kept them out. Say the new government only offers automatic repatriation to ethnic Candylanders. Say that Candyland had taken over neighboring territory in war where a majority Jewish population were living, subjected the residents of that territory to military occupation for 50 years, sent children as young as twelve to prison for months without access to a lawyer and without formal charges, started building communities for the benefit of ethnic Candylanders and at the expense of the local Jewish population, and say they justified it on account of the persecution the Candylanders faced under communism. You know what you’d stand for, right? Even though Candyland has beautiful beaches and has produced important technology, right? If Palestinians were Jews, you would sit exactly where I sit.”

There has been criticism of President Obama on account of the U.S. sitting out on the UN resolution.  David Sieradski had the following response to such criticism, as he looked at George W. Bush’s record on the issue:

“George W. Bush let five UNSC resolutions pass against Israel, called on Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian land, called for a contiguous Palestinian state unfettered by Israeli settlements, condemned the settlement enterprise repeatedly, withheld U.S. loan guarantees to Israel, implemented strict restrictions on Israeli travel to the U.S., condemned the building of Israel’s security wall, condemned Israel’s attacks on Gaza, pushed Israel into the Annapolis conference and the Road Map, sold weapons to Arab states in violation of an agreement with Israel, pressured Israel to allow Hamas to run in the Palestinian elections, prosecuted AIPAC staffers for espionage, and refused to support an Israeli bombing run on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Nonetheless, his last year in office, with the financial support of Sheldon Adelson no less, he was honored at the first Israeli President’s Conference (which I attended) as Israel’s protector and the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House. If you think Barack Obama is an antisemite and anti-Israel, it’s not because his Israel policies are worse for Israel than Bush’s — in fact they’re far better. It’s because he’s black and you are, in fact, a racist.”

Pat Buchanan had a column this past Tuesday, entitled “Barack Backhands Bibi.”  This column is interesting because it observes that even allies of Israel voted for the resolution, discusses Netanyahu’s policies against the backdrop of current Israeli politics, and talks about the possible impact of President Obama’s decision on American politics.

Buchanan had a column later that week, “Israel First or America First,” in which Buchanan warned that Trump’s stance on Israel could alienate the Arab world.  Linda Muller, who sends out Pat’s column to subscribers (for free), and whom I remember because I subscribed to Pat’s updates during his 1996 run for President, introduced Pat’s column with some comments and links:

“Brigade, See below another powerful column from PJB. Please forward this one to all. Hopefully a copy will find [its] way to President-elect Trump.  For the Cause – Linda[.]

“PS — For more on this topic here’s an interesting article covering the history between Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu — and potential problems for the Trump administration:

Netanyahu vs. the Generals  Also see this from Haaretz: The UN Settlements Vote: Netanyahu Is Dragging Israel Into the Abyss[.]”

Buchanan, of course, supported Trump in the 2016 election, but, unlike Trump, Buchanan is critical of right-wing Israeli policies and supports the Iran nuclear agreement.

Whereas Pat Buchanan is concerned that Trump acceding to neo-conservatives or Israeli right-wingers could alienate other countries, Reuters had an article saying that “Britain, Edging Towards Trump, Scolds Kerry Over Israel.”  Could there be a May-Trump alliance, similar to the Thatcher-Reagan alliance in the 1980’s?

Health Care

Thom Belote, a UU pastor with whom I attended Harvard Divinity School, discusses travails that he had as he tried to get health insurance.  Like Thom, I received health insurance at schools that I attended.  I don’t even recall having to pay anything for it!  Then I went to a smaller school and had to pay high premiums.  I looked for inexpensive health insurance and found health insurance where I only had to pay $90 a month, yet it had high copays and a high deductible.  That experience opened my eyes to the problems with the American health care system.  And, yes, I know there are many people in America who have it worse.  Much worse.

Thom linked to a disheartening Vox article: “Why Obamacare Enrollees Voted for Trump.” The people interviewed do not want to lose their Obamacare benefits, yet they voted for Trump.  They give their reasons.  To her credit, the author of the article does not look down on them.  The article acknowledges the weaknesses of Obamacare, yet it also argues that Trump’s proposal could make matters worse.

The Trump Transition and the Trump Cabinet

I liked this Politico article about Trump’s outreach to Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Julia Hahn at Breitbart had a lengthy article defending Trump’s controversial choice for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions.  I read some parts of it and skimmed other parts, and I cannot vouch for what it says about certain personalities.  Still, it is an article to read if you want another perspective on Sessions.

I found the wikipedia article on Sessions to be balanced, and it linked to a Washington Post article that presented Sessions’ controversial voter-fraud case as having merit, while still mentioning the argument that Sessions did not significantly challenge white voter-fraud.

The Death of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds

Like many, I was saddened by the death of Carrie Fisher and her mother, Debbie Reynolds.   I learned that the two were close to each other and even lived next to each other, and I appreciated that more after reading about their time of estrangement.  I love stories about estranged people becoming reconciled.  And I was interested to learn that there was a 1990 movie, Postcards from the Edge, which was based on their relationship.

I was angered by all of the politically-correct outrage and bullying in response to Steve Martin’s innocent tweet.

Steve Hays of Triablogue, had thoughts on why, in this day and age, we care so much about the death of celebrities.  For Steve, it relates to the decline of family, community, and a common social-glue.

Current Events Write-Up: Sessions, Bannon, and Health Care

I am thinking of doing a weekly version of what I did in my Election Day post this year: collecting links to news and opinion pieces and briefly commenting on them.  Whether I have the discipline to do that over the long haul remains to be seen!  I will write such a post today, however.  And I have to warn you: you may not like what I say!

Right now, at least, I am going to follow the format of my Election Day post.  I will have two categories: “pro-Trump” and “anti-Trump”!  If there is an article that I like that does not belong to either category, I will put it in a separate category, entitled “Other.”

To reiterate what I said in my Election Day post, by “pro-Trump” and “anti-Trump,” I do not necessarily mean that the authors of these articles support or oppose the President-elect.  What I mean is that these articles say things that reflect positively or negatively on Trump, in my eyes.  Many “pro-Trump” articles that I post will be by people who support Trump, and many “anti-Trump” articles will be by people who oppose him.  But that will not always be the case.  For example, today, I will put a Breitbart article in the “anti-Trump” section, even though the article is not opposed to Trump.

Here we go!

Pro-Trump

Weekly Standard: In Alabama Jeff Sessions Desegregated Schools and Got the Death Penalty for KKK Head.

President-elect Trump’s selection for Attorney General is being called a racist.  Is there another side to the story?  Has Jeff Sessions done anything against racism?

Yahoo News: Trump’s Attorney General Could Halt Obama-Era Criminal Justice Reforms.

I happen to support the Obama-era criminal justice reforms, so much of what this article says concerns me.  At the same time, kudos to the article for mentioning the pro-reform aspects of Jeff Sessions’ record.  The article cites Holly Harris, who is executive director of the pro-criminal justice reform group, the U.S. Justice Action Network:  “Harris said that while it’s clear Sessions is not a fan of sentencing reform, the Alabama lawmaker has supported legislation in the past to help people who get out of prison reintegrate into society. Sessions also backed a bill to reduce the vast sentencing disparity between crimes involving crack vs. those involving powder cocaine in 2010. (Crack offenders, most of whom were black, were sentenced 100 times more harshly than people who sold powder cocaine, despite the fact that it’s essentially the same drug.)”

Breitbart: Trump Considering Woman, Openly Gay Man for Leadership Posts. 

Okay, confession time.  I subscribed to the Breitbart newsletter last week!  I wanted to see what all the buzz was about.  Don’t worry: I’m not checking my brain at the door.  I still think there is sensationalist stuff on Breitbart, and here I am speaking in terms of what I have seen and read on it, which is far from comprehensive.  But I figured that at least I would get an alternative perspective by reading Breitbart.  With the avalanche of criticisms on Trump’s transition, Cabinet picks, and potential appointees this past week, this article was refreshing, since it highlights at least a few areas in which Trump is moving his cabinet in the direction of diversity.  I should also mention that this article is actually an AP article.

Breitbart: Team Trump Announces Five Year Lobbying Ban for Administration Officials. 

We’ve heard that President-elect Trump isn’t really draining the swamp but is hiring lobbyists to be on his transition team.  Okay, those are valid criticisms!  But is there anything positive that Trump is doing, in the area of lobbying reform?  People have criticized the revolving door that exists in Washington, D.C., as people leave government and immediately become lobbyists.  Is Trump doing something to redress this problem, on some level?

Breitbart: Bill Kristol: Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew

Read the article!  Don’t just rely on what you’ve heard about the article.  Read it!  The mainstream media have been referring to this article to argue that Trump’s appointment for chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is an anti-Semite.  But this article isn’t anti-Semitic.  First of all, it is written by David Horowitz, who himself is Jewish.  Second, its argument is that Bill Kristol, by criticizing Trump, is empowering Israel’s enemies.  Technically, this article does not make me feel that much better about Trump or Bannon: it sounds rather neo-connish to me.  But it does make me wonder how often the mainstream media read past the headlines!

Anti-Trump

Breitbart: An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right, by Allum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopoulos

This article is disturbing in its description of the Alt-Right.  What’s more, one of its authors is Milo, who is a prominent voice on Breitbart.  The article is giving a layout of those who are part of the Alt-Right, and one group in it is the “natural conservatives.”  This is the part that disturbs me.

“The conservative instinct, as described by [social psychologist Jonathan] Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism. Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity. They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.”

There is legitimate discussion out there about assimilation and what cultural glue should hold this country together, but the above sounds like stigmatizing the “other.”  In my opinion, we should learn to get along and appreciate people who are different from us, rather than trying to exclude them.

I should note that Milo is a homosexual with Jewish background, and the authors of this article note that Breitbart itself has embraced diversity.

LA Times: Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Is a Favorite GOP ‘Reform.’ Here’s Why It Makes No Sense, by Michael Hiltzik

This article critiques the idea of allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines.  I wonder if there is a way to bypass some of the problems that the article identifies, while still allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines.  Why not have the same standard national regulations for all health insurance companies, rather than letting each state set its regulations?  David Frum and Bill O’Reilly have suggested this.  The other problem the article identifies, that insurance companies negotiate with hospitals that are in their proximity, remains as a challenge to the idea, though.

Paul Krugman's Critique of Bernie Sanders

I want to pass on a couple of Paul Krugman’s recent blog posts.  They are critical of Bernie Sanders.  Paul Krugman is a notorious liberal economist who won a Nobel Prize.  He is an influential voice on the Left.

Weakened at Bernie’s

Health Reform Is Hard

I am not sharing these blog posts because I agree with them entirely, but I do think that they raise valid considerations.  I appreciate Krugman’s honesty in these posts.  Some of what Krugman says also overlaps with why I have a difficult time deciding between Hillary and Bernie.  If I had to judge, I would say that Bernie is better in terms of character.  But Hillary seems to me to be better at realistically assessing the political scene to determine what can get passed, and also at developing policy proposals that have nuance and substance.  Sanders often seems to me to be spouting cliches.  I have no doubt that he sincerely believes those cliches, and even that there is merit in them.  But what Hillary says sounds more substantive to me.
On the other hand, allow me to share a positive statement about Bernie by Robert Reich (see the January 17, 2016 status on Reich’s Facebook page):

“Hillary presented herself as an experienced politician who is prepared to assume the presidency, while Bernie presented himself as the leader of a political revolution. Both characterizations seem fair. If you assume Washington is not changeable and that the vicious cycle of wealth and power dominating our politics and economics is unalterable, Hillary’s experience is relevant; she will make a first-class president for the system we now have. But if you believe Washington must be changed, and that system can be altered for the benefit of the many and not the few, Bernie’s leadership is more relevant; he is heading up a political movement.”

Two Perspectives on Bernie Sanders' Health Care Plan

I want to share two articles about Bernie Sanders’ health care plan.  The first is opposed to it and agrees with Chelsea Clinton’s characterization of it.  The second offers a different perspective.

Chelsea Clinton Was Right: Everyone’s Health Care Is Threatened Under Bernie’s Plan

Bernie Sanders Has Released His Medicare-for-All Plan: Here’s How He Pays For It

AP: Ben Carson Sometimes Deviates From GOP Health Care Thought

https://www.yahoo.com/health/ben-carson-sometimes-deviates-from-gop-health-care-144459046.html

Hopefully, he’ll continue being an independent thinker, rather than giving into the right wing.

John Kasich on ABC This Week: He Reminds Me of the Huckabee I Loved in 2008!

This morning, Republican Presidential candidate John Kasich was on ABC This Week.  He was on shortly after Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who was defending Kim Davis.  Here is the interaction between George Stephanopoulos and Kasich on Kim Davis (see the transcript for the show here):

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, we saw Governor Huckabee earlier in the program say that he stands by Kim Davis, her decision not to issue those marriage licenses. Do you agree with that?

KASICH: No, I don’t agree with him. I think, you know, the court has spoken, the court has ruled as everyone know. I — or most people know, I believe in traditional marriage, but the court has ruled.

But George, there’s one other big issue here, we have a lot of young people who sit on the fence on an issue like this. And they also think about their, you know, their belief in god. And you know for me I think we need to talk a lot about the dos, about humility, about helping our neighbor, about the need to live a life bigger than ourselves. And when we see these kind of battles going on I get a little bit afraid that it turns people off to the idea of faith in god, what it means to be a Christian.

For me, it’s giving me a solid foundation to deal with the strong winds in life, to be a better person, a better guy.

Now, I respect the fact that this lady doesn’t agree, but she’s also a government employee. She’s not running a church. I wouldn’t force this on a church, but in terms of her responsibility I think she has to comply. I don’t think — I don’t like the fact that she’s sitting in a jail, that’s just absurd as well. But I think she should follow the law.

Kasich reminds me of what I liked about Mike Huckabee in 2008, before Huckabee became a Foxified cultural warrior.  Believe it or not, I was actually thinking of voting for Huckabee in 2008!  Huckabee in 2008 talked about faith, but it went beyond the usual culture war issues.  It entailed the type of people we are and the kind of country we should be.  Huckabee in 2008 struck me as a humble Christian man who served others, and whose Christianity led him to care about the vulnerable and to have a holistic and compassionate view of how faith could relate to public life.  That is my impression of John Kasich.

Huckabee in 2008 defended his decision as Governor of Arkansas to help expand health insurance for children, when conservative groups like the Club for Growth were questioning whether he was fiscally conservative for so doing.  Similarly, John Kasich supported Medicaid expansion and has been quoted as saying: “Now, when you die and get to the, get to the, uh, to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not gonna ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but he’s going to ask you what you did for the poor. Better have a good answer” (see here).  Mike Huckabee in 2008 pointed to the large number of African-Americans who voted for him when he was running in Arkansas gubernatorial races.  Kasich also has sensitivity towards racial issues.  In this video, Kasich talks with George about race and police brutality, and the need to make the excluded feel included, to give them a chance, and to make them feel that their grievances are heard.  Kasich then says that he believes that it was what the Lord wants us to do.  Amen to that!

I disagreed, somewhat, with Kasich’s statement that Kim Davis should be required to provide same-sex marriage licenses.  I do believe that her office should provide them, in compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.  If she has a problem personally providing them because that violates her own conscience, then someone else where she works should do so.  That is how a number of states handle this.  The thing is, I think that, for Kim Davis, this is about more than her own personal conscience: I suspect that, in her mind, she is performing an act of civil disobedience against a policy that she believes is wrong.  She believes that America was founded on godly, biblical principles, that America is a Christian nation, and that the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage violates America’s Christian heritage.  She is right that religion has played a significant part in America’s heritage, but so has the separation of church and state and pluralism.

My comments on Kim Davis aside, will I vote for John Kasich?  I may in the primaries.  I was talking with my Mom, explaining Kasich’s expansion of Medicaid.  She asked me, “So he supports Obamacare?”  I responded that he most likely does not, and I doubt that he does: he is, after all, a Republican.  He is a better Republican, but a Republican nonetheless.

See this article for more on Kasich’s faith.  The article, interestingly, is entitled, “Does John Kasich’s religiosity turn off religious conservatives?”

NCPA: Occupational Licensing and Health Spending

The NCPA is conservative, but I like some of what it says about health care: reasons that costs are so high, and ways to bring the costs down.

healthblog.ncpa.org/occupational-licensing-and-health-spending/

The Affordable Care Act: Did the Author Goof?

I was thinking about the recent King v. Burwell U.S. Supreme Court case yesterday.  Right before I went to bed, I was listening to some of the oral arguments and the questioning by Supreme Court justices on C-Span.

King v. Burwell is about the Affordable Care Act.  Under the Affordable Care Act, states are supposed to set up their own health insurance exchanges.  If they do not do so, then the federal government comes in and establishes a health insurance exchange for them.  The question that was before the court was this: Can people in states that have the federally-established exchanges legally receive government subsidies/tax credits to purchase health insurance off the exchange?  The reason that this was an issue was that the Affordable Care Act says that people can receive subsidies to buy insurance from the exchanges established by the state: it does not explicitly say anything about the federally-established exchanges there.

Let me say at the outset that, practically-speaking, I am happy that the Supreme Court decided as it did.  In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people in states that have the federally-established exchanges can still receive subsidies to pay for health insurance.  That means that a lot of people can keep their health insurance and be able to pay for it.

But, to be honest, there was a part of me that could sympathize with Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent.  The law says exchanges established by the states.  Now, do I believe that those who voted for the law expected for those with the federally-established exchanges to receive subsidies, too.  I do agree with Justice John Roberts’ statement that the purpose of the Affordable Care Act was to expand access to health insurance, and so allowing those with the federally-established exchanges to receive subsidies accords with the spirit and goal of the law.  I could find myself nodding my head in agreement with some of what the U.S. Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, said in his oral arguments, which I was listening to last night: parts of the Affordable Care Act would not make sense if subsidies could not go to people who live in states that have the federally-established exchanges.  Still, the law referred to exchanges established by the states.

Personally, I think that whoever wrote the Affordable Care Act goofed.  The author made a careless oversight.  The author should have referred to exchanges established by the states or the federal government, but the author did not do so.  The author probably meant that, but that is not what the author put into the law.  The question then becomes: Should we go with the intent of the law, or with the text of the law?  That is probably a complex legal question, in a number of cases.  The intent behind the law certainly enters legal discussions.  Yet, so do the technicalities of the text itself, which is why lawyers are able to find loopholes.  

What somewhat intrigued me last night was that the lawyer who was arguing that the subsidies only applied to the state exchanges seemed to be saying that his view actually accorded with the intent of the Affordable Care Act: that whoever wrote the Affordable Care Act actually intended for people with the state exchanges to receive subsidies, while those with the federal exchanges do not.  At least that was my impression of what he was saying, and I have to admit that he was harder for me to follow than the U.S. Solicitor General was.  This lawyer did not seem to me to be saying that the author of the Affordable Care Act goofed, but rather than the author wrote that part about the state exchanges by design.  Justice Scalia, as far as I could tell, was the only one who was saying that the Affordable Care Act is not exactly an elegantly-written law: Scalia could have been leaning in the direction of saying that its author goofed.

I’ll leave the comments on.  Feel free to share your opinion.  Please do so tactfully, and remember that I am not a lawyer!

Political Discussions

I was going to do a book write-up today about a book that I just finished.  I’m not in much of a mood to do that right now, even though it was a very good book!  I’ll probably write the review tomorrow.  The reason that I’m not in a mood to write it right now is that I am recovering from something.  This morning, I ventured into territory that I have not ventured into for a long time: I entered into a political discussion.

The topic was the recent Supreme Court decision about Hobby Lobby.  Then it got into Obamacare.  There are some anti-Obamacare arguments with which I sympathize.  Who am I to argue against people’s experiences—-people who say that their hours are getting cut, or that they have to pay higher premiums, or that their insurance is not as good now as it was before?  Obamacare looks great on paper: the government forbids health insurance companies from turning away people with pre-existing conditions, has a health insurance mandate to bring money into the health insurance system (preventing premiums from shyrocketing due to the people with pre-existing conditions) and to keep people from using the emergency room without health insurance (which drives up costs), and provides subsidies based on income.  Some of that is working out.  Other parts aren’t.  One guy was telling me about loopholes to the whole pre-existing condition part.  Another was saying that people without insurance still use emergency rooms.  Another was saying that some people aren’t getting health insurance.

What can I say?  I hope it works out?  Something had to be done.  I hope that Obamacare works out.  I cannot ask people to share my optimism or faith, though, since they concern a reality not yet seen.

I can sympathize with these arguments, but the arguments against an entitlement mentality or the government doing anything at all get on my nerves.  Some conservatives seem not to grasp that there are economically vulnerable people out there: that not everyone can change jobs when dissatisfied, or afford certain forms of health care.  I wonder what exactly their reality is.  Some of them complain about becoming poorer and poorer due to rising health care premiums and copays, so they obviously experience the harsh realities of real life.  They are not multimillionaires in some air-conditioned mansion, oblivious to the struggles of the working class.

Political discussions.  I sometimes feel like I have to say something.  Then I find that I am a bit over my head.  Yet, that something still needed to be said!

The Ends of Power 13

On page 411 of The Ends of Power, H.R. Haldeman (with Joseph DiMona) states the following:

“By presenting Nixon, or attempting to, as 100 percent pure and good, we were setting him up for a disastrous fall when it was demonstrated that he fell short of that absolute—-as all humans must.  Had he been more accurately portrayed as he really was, complete with flaws, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have succeeded mightily because his reality, the total balance of light and dark, was more than enough to place him in the topmost echelons of great American presidents.  The problem was that there was no way to present an objective portrayal of Nixon as he really was.  There was only the adversary process of the opposition portrayal of absolute bad and our portrayal of absolute good.  Neither was on the mark.  We were much closer to right, but the opposition had more resources than we did in getting their story across.”

Politics is ridiculous when one side tries to demonize the other, while portraying its own side as infallible.  We see that too often on both sides, Republican and Democrat.  It’s so phony.  How stupid do politicians think Americans are?

Are there ways to see the human side of politicians, good and bad?  Well, yes.  Biographies can give a fairly decent picture of that—-not perfect, mind you, but fairly decent.  At least when I read a biography, I usually don’t walk away thinking that a person is totally good or totally bad.  This also applies to biographies that I have seen on television.

But then there are people who claim that what we read in biographies is not the full picture of who these politicians really are—-that there are sinister things that politicians do behind closed doors.  They’re probably right.  I wouldn’t say that certain politicians are actually lizards, as some conspiracy theorists suggest, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a number of politicians who are selfish, cynical, and just plain corrupt.

What discourages me about political mudslinging is that it takes attention off of important issues.  Case in point: the health care debate.  Maybe President Obama was wrong to go around the country telling people that, under his plan, they would be able to keep their health insurance plans if they liked them.  Perhaps Obama made a mistake there.  But that’s not as important to me as the need to cover the uninsured, both because people need access to affordable health care that does not bankrupt them, and also because covering the uninsured can save the health care system money.  All politicians are flawed.  There’s no question about that.  The question should be what policies will help people.

President Nixon: Alone in the White House 18

On page 572 of President Nixon: Alone in the White House, Richard Reeves says the following:

"What America did not seem to want was the aid Nixon had pledged to Vietnam, both South and North, in the peace agreement...[E]ven J. William Fulbright said aid should not be considered until after impounded domestic funding was released by the President...[Newsweek] quoted a Republican leader in the Senate as saying privately: 'It won't wash.  How can a senator support cuts in hospital, flood and education spending at home and then vote money for the same thing in Hanoi?'"

The conflict between domestic and foreign policy has perplexed more than one Administration.  That Republican Senator wondered how a Senator could support cuts in government spending for hospital, flood, and education, while voting to increase spending on those very same things in Vietnam.  Well, more than one person asked during Hurricane Katrina how our government could get supplies so quickly and efficiently to Afghanistan, but not to people suffering from the effects of Katrina.  More than one person has asked how the U.S. Government under President George W. Bush could spend money on universal health care in Iraq (see here), while opposing the notion that health care is a right here in the U.S.  And Richard Nixon, in No More Vietnams, argues that President Lyndon Johnson held back from waging the Vietnam War aggressively because he was trying to safeguard his Great Society legacy.

Those who support spending money on programs abroad, while not supporting the spending of more money on similar programs at home, could perhaps argue that they're not supporting foreign aid programs just because they are nice people.  Rather, they're doing so because those other countries that they want to support have a strategic importance.  I'm not certain that they argue this, but I can imagine it.  Perhaps they would have a point about those countries' strategic or geopolitical significance, and yet I still can't help but ask: Why are certain programs acceptable for people in foreign countries, but not for people in the United States?

The thing is, do we have to choose between foreign aid and domestic programs?  There are times when we do feel that we have to choose.  I remember watching the West Wing, and President Jed Bartlet told Zoey's French boyfriend that the reason the U.S. does not spend as much money as France on domestic programs is because the U.S. is spending money protecting Europe!  Do we have to choose?  Well, if universal health care actually saves money, as some progressives like to argue, maybe we can have our cake and eat it, too.  I don't know.

Reinventing Richard Nixon 7

In my blog post today about Daniel Frick's Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession, I'll use as my starting-point a passage on pages 167-168.  There, Frick states:

"For liberals, Richard Nixon serves as more than an easy target----he functions as a touchstone for the validity of their values.  In 'Angst for the Memories,' a September 1993 episode of Murphy Brown, a situation comedy about a 60 Minutes-like television newsmagazine, Murphy (played by Cand[i]ce Bergen) lands an interview with the reclusive author of a landmark 1960s novel, Technicolor Highway.  The excitement of this scoop fades when Murphy discovers that her literary hero has become a virulent neoconservative.  Commiserating afterward at their favorite tavern, Murphy and her co-workers admit that they too have changed.  One by one, these denizens of the liberal media offer confessions----one now believes that many welfare recipients are lazy, another has considered purchasing a gun----until one of them cuts to a final test: 'Does anyone here think Nixon might have gotten a raw deal?'  Instant denials reassure them, and, with great relief, Murphy and her colleagues clink glasses, toasting, 'At least we've still got that,' affirming Nixon's villainy as their one bedrock belief."

I checked the Internet Movie Database for this episode, and I noticed that Martin Sheen was on it.  I wonder if he was the actor who played the author who became a neoconservative.  It would be cool if he was!

Change.  I'm interested in shows that depict a change in one's ideology or religion, whether that change be from right to left, or from left to right, or from either extreme to someplace in the middle.  I was intrigued when I read a description of an episode of Family Ties, "My Back Pages," which was during Season 5: "An old college friend comes to Steven to ask his help in starting up an old left wing political magazine, 'The Scavenger.' But after hanging around with the other staff, Steven realizes he no longer has the same ideals he had back in the 1960's, fearing he has accepted the middle of the road thinking he protested against as a youth."  What specifically was Steven's ideological change?  Essentially, he came to support the PTA, and he voted Democratic rather than taking the radical approach of rejecting both parties.

Frick elsewhere in his book talks about people's ideological changes.  There was Ron Kovic, whose belief in American myths about America being the good guys and the good guys being winners were undermined by his own experience in Vietnam, along with its aftermath.  There is another Vietnam vet Frick quotes, who said that he realized that the American soldiers in Vietnam were like the Redcoats during the American revolution, the ones who were depicted to him as evil back when he was a child.

A conservative relative of mine once told me that more liberals become conservatives than vice-versa, as if liberalism is naive idealism, whereas conservatism is a more realistic, "grown-up" perspective.  But my conservative relative is wrong, I suspect, in saying this, for I know a number of conservatives who became liberals as a reaction against the extremism of the Tea Party.  While I believe that the inefficiencies and intrusiveness of government can convince a liberal to question his or her faith in big government and to become a conservative, I also think that a conservative can lose faith in the tenets of conservative mythology, as they shatter against the brick wall of reality: that everyone has a chance to succeed in America, that many who are poor are poor due to lack of effort, or that America is consistently a force for good in the world.

A problem that Frick highlights more than once in this book is that liberals have not successfully replaced the widely-accepted conservative mythology with their own narrative that can catch on.  There may be some truth to what Frick is saying.  I can think of reasons that cause me to doubt his sentiment.  For example, liberals are good storytellers in terms of crafting populist narratives.  Which is more inspiring: the little guy taking on a big corporation that is polluting his area's water supply, or a corporation resisting big government regulations?  I suppose that Atlas Shrugged is a fairly good story, even though it's in the latter category, and yet I find the former narrative to be more widespread and inspiring.  Championing the downtrodden against the rich and powerful makes for good storytelling.

But I cannot deny that conservatives have crafted quite an influential narrative.  During the debate on Obamacare, a liberal I know was complaining that, although Democrats were in power at the time, conservatives had still managed to shape the debate about health care.  We were hearing, and many were assuming, standard conservative lines about the issue: that government-run health care is a bad thing, that the Canadian health care system is terrible because it has long lines, and the list goes on.

One problem, if you will, with the liberal narrative may be that it just does not resonate with a number of Americans.  That does not mean that the liberal narrative is necessarily false, but rather that it's not what many Americans may want to hear.  In a country that prides itself on rugged individualism and pioneer spirit, many may not want to hear about community, or the importance of society taking care of the least of these.  In a country that sees itself as a force for good in the world, many may not want to hear the argument that America does not consistently do good when it comes to its intervention in other countries.  I realize that my definition of "liberal narrative" here is rather simplistic, since there are times when a liberal might support American interventionism into other countries, whereas a conservative may not.  But it is often those on the left who question the assumption that America is a force for good in the world.

Anyway, that's my rambling for the day!

Atlas Shrugged, Part II

I watched Atlas Shrugged, Part II yesterday.  Atlas Shrugged, Part II is the second of a three-part series of movies that are based on Atlas Shrugged, a novel that was written by the philosopher Ayn Rand in the 1950's.  To read my review of the first movie, see here. 

In my opinion, Atlas Shrugged, Part II is a much better movie than Atlas Shrugged, Part I.  I'll go even further: I actually enjoyed watching Atlas Shrugged, Part II.  I have three reasons for this:

First of all, one of the early scenes in the movie has Robert Picardo in it.  That was a huge plus for me, since I am a Star Trek: Voyager fan, and the Emergency Medical Hologram whom Robert Picardo played is one of my favorite characters on the series (not that it's easy to choose from the characters, since I like most of them). 

Second, I found the music to be powerful.  It was especially effective during Hank Rearden's trial scene, as the audience in the courtroom applauded his speech before the judges about his right to do with his own invention (Rearden metal) what he wished.  The music was also powerful at the end of the movie, when a shadowy figure reached out his hand to Dagny Taggart and identified himself as John Galt.  John Galt is the subject of the famous "Who is John Galt?" line that people in the novel ask whenever they don't know the answer to a question.  He has also invented a motor that would not require the use of gasoline, and he is the mysterious figure who has been inviting the self-made industrialists and talented of the world to a secluded spot where they can be free to create and produce, apart from intrusive government regulation.

Third, I liked the actors more in the second movie than I did in the first.  The second movie used a different cast of actors.  In the first movie, the characters struck me as rather cold and mechanical, whereas they came across to me as much more authentic and human in the second movie.  I also admired their integrity.  I could tell from the interviews on Youtube with the actors in the second movie that some of them made a decent effort to empathize with their characters.  Perhaps that is why they acted as well as they did.  (At least I thought that they did well----I know that there are plenty of reviewers out there who are calling their performances wooden.)

As far as my reaction to Rand's philosophy goes, I'm all for inventors and producers being able to profit from the fruit of their imagination and hard work.  But why does that have to be deemed inconsistent with a high regard for the common good, which is what Rand seems to suggest?  Hank Rearden in his trial, after all, although he said that profiting from his invention was his primary motive, also appealed to the good to the public that his metal provided: jobs, revenue, etc.  I could not find that particular line in the book, but the book as a whole is largely about the ill-societal effects from the government cracking down on free-market capitalism.  Obviously, the common good was important to Ayn Rand, on some level, whether she admitted that or not.  Moreover, in the movie, Hank Rearden submits to the government when it blackmails him by threatening to reveal his affair with Dagny Taggart, a famous capitalist in her own right.  Was Hank Rearden being altruistic in that case----taking the fall to protect Dagny?  I thought that Randian philosophy abhorred altruism!  (Perhaps its point is that voluntary altruism is okay----I don't know.)

While I think that the movie could have done a better job explaining the ideology of the villains (how exactly they were saying that their policies and regulations would enhance the public good), I am sympathetic to the movie's message about the evils of crony capitalism.  I suppose that I myself, on some level, tolerate corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers in my support for Obamacare and green energy policies (assuming that the government is picking winners and losers in those cases), but I do have problems with the government favoring the influential and enacting policies that restrict competition.  The thing is, I feel that I have to pick from the options that are presented to me.  If the choice is between Obamacare and nothing at all (which I feel is the choice that is presented to me, whatever "plans" on health care the Republicans claim to have), then I choose Obamacare.  If my choice is between green energy jobs and simply cutting taxes on the rich and expecting for that money to magically trickle down to everyone else, then I choose the green energy jobs.

I'll stop here.  I will say that I have not read every Ayn Rand book that was ever written, so, objectivists, please be charitable to me in your comments.  I'm not telling you to be altruistic to me, but just to be kind!  I watched a documentary that said that Ayn Rand was against altruism, not benevolence.