on Thanksgiving: Not to be grateful for whatever you please

Californians from both camps will rally to the cry of protecting marriage rights, but when the man issuing the call has the power to redefine “marriage” at his will, no legal action on the people’s part can ensure their protection. It is in the name of protecting marriage rights that California Attorney General Jerry Brown pushes for the repeal of the latest constitutional amendment, which defines marriage to be between man and woman.

With marriage defined as a heterosexual union (legally now, and erstwhile tacitly), nullifying the amendment does not protect marriage rights. Brown’s rationale only stands if he is allowed to redefine words whenever he pleases—a practice former President Clinton raised to a high art in his peculiar use of the word “is.” If we sanction this exercise of doublespeak, a marriage law applies just as correctly to congress with a dog in the park—provided that the dog be consenting and of age. Whether that age be considered in dog years or human years must vary from court to court, however, because under Jerry Brown’s authority, words do not have meanings in legal settings.

Today’s paper quotes Brown to say that he now finds the latest amendment at variance with the declaration of basic freedoms in Article I of the Constitution. He refers to the clause, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.” Does this constitute legal grounds for him to exercise his will in affairs of marriage? The fact is that marriage mentioned only two places in the Article I: in the context of property possession …and in the Prop. 8 amendment. There is no legal ground to impute Prop. 8 with violation of the Constitution.

Equality of rights has been called into question, nevermind that from a legal standpoint, homosexuals have and always will have equal marriage rights with heterosexuals: to wit, any man may marry a woman, and any woman may marry a man. Say it’s not fair, a person cannot choose the object of his or her attraction? If I am a pedophile, bestialist, polygamist, or practicer of incest will you make legal recognition of the morality of my union?

American Socialism - Healthcare

Today’s Wall Street Journal shared the humorous story of Nebraska’s experience with its new “safe haven” law. A safe haven law states that parents can give their child to a hospital if they believe that they will not be able to care for the child. Many states have had such laws for many years, stipulating that within so many days of the child’s birth, the parents may return it to the hospital. Nebraska’s safe haven law failed to stipulate any sort of age ceiling, and of a consequence, the law was invoked for a number of children, mostly teenagers, but not a single infant. The Nebraska government was obliged to retool their legislation.

Yes, it is a sad story because it reflects the sorry state of the family in our society, the extreme difficulties presented by some children, and the incapacity of parents. But it is also a funny story because the intent of a new law was entirely without effect. And it is also a horrific story because it shows what the government is permitted to do, despite its own ineptitude: to wit, the government regulated that certain private businesses must provide new services to the public, outside of their expertise, beyond their ability, and at their own expense.

This is just a glimpse of socialism at work in the US. It isn’t strictly socialism because the government has not been actually holding the reins in the healthcare industry, but it has been building the fences that keep the industry corralled for years. In the coming months, we face the possibility of having the country’s entire healthcare industry nationalized, and we had better give some thought to what that would mean.

First of all, it would not mean a complete change of management. The government already exercises great control on the industry, as the previous paragraph describes. The government is moreover considering requiring all employers to provide employees with healthcare plans. Nationalization in this case would mean dissolving the partnership between government and private business holders, only to the exclusion of the latter.

Second, it would mean the elimination of competition, not all competition, of course, since US citizens should still have the opportunity of going to other countries for medical care. Already Americans sometimes visit foreign nations for cosmetic surgeries. Nevertheless, looking at how the last big government-run businesses, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, faced the task of staying economically sound, this writer avers that competition is our life preserver.

Third, it would mean a healthcare plan for everyone who cannot afford their own. “Great!” says a segment of the population. “Socialized healthcare means free healthcare, and healthcare costs are too high as it is.” Costs certainly are high, and the US healthcare industry is approaching a crisis, but how myopic not to suppose that the great leap into socialism could be the endpoint crisis. In addition to considering the last two paragraphs, reflect that a promise of free healthcare is only going to be fulfilled in the provision of a free healthcare plan. Anyone who has had to go through a PCP to see a specialist has an idea of the difference between the two; a friend of mine had to go through three physicians, paying each for a visit, before getting treatment for a problem that he accurately self-diagnosed.

The healthcare industry knows that it’s in trouble. One of the healthcare giants out here responded by getting a grant from the taxpayers for itself placed on the last ballot; voters (not synonymous with taxpayers) approved the bill. The other healthcare giant here is researching cost-effective healthcare provision in foreign countries in order to implement their better business models. The first example shows a provider being floated by the government (see also: socialism/communism). The second shows a corporation working to become economically viable (see also: competition). Under a nationalized healthcare system, we don’t get to pick which one we patronize.

A secret ballot? Not in the information age. Voters face reprisal.

The case of Scott Eckern, erstwhile artistic director of California Musical Theatre, is hardly breaking news; here’s a swift recap. Eckern came under fire following the election because of his support for Prop 8, the California initiative to legally define marriage in the terms it has traditionally held. He resigned Wednesday. While people are permitted to cast their ballot in a narrow stall with blinders or via mail from the comfort of their homes, protection of their privacy extends no further than this.

The data of donors and the sizes of their contributions is available, and for Prop 8, it is more available than for most elections: the local paper mentions three websites that have posted the names (and in some cases businesses) of contributors to the Prop 8 campaign.

The demographics of the voters are, likewise, no secret to newspaper readers. Election reports show the black community, for instance, overwhelmingly voting yes on Prop 8. And why should this ethnic group vote otherwise? The no-on-Prop 8 campaign argued strongly that the legal definition of marriage is a violation of their civil rights—are black Americans (or anyone else) to equate the horrific civil rights violations which Dr. King battled in the previous century with this year’s question of broadening the definition of marriage?

Holly Jacobson of Elk Grove writes to the opinion page, expressing her wish as a black Californian not to be associated with the yes-on-Prop-8 voters, due to the backlash of anger and persecution that has hit the state since the election results. Protests continue to be held (not campaigns for the next election but protests against the due process that has already taken place). Voters are not ashamed of their stances, but they do not wish to invite vindictiveness from their ideological opponents. Some California professionals had their spouses donate for them in order to avoid retribution for their companies. Churches and temples have been vandalized. And of course, individuals have been persecuted, which returns us to the matter of Scott Eckern:

The theatre industry is known for homosexual-tolerance (a misnomer: “tolerance” is defined as bearing up under something unpleasant or harmful; the theatre industry is homosexual-bolstering, the country at large is homosexual-tolerant). In the California theatre crowd, many Prop 8 opponents are outraged, some feel betrayed by Eckern’s fiduciary support to the Prop 8 campaign. Hairspray-composer Marc Shaiman has been very vocal on the affair and urged fellow members of the community to boycott California Musical Theatre. He says: “[I] come to find out, I helped put money in his pocket that helped get this proposition passed.” This writer would call Mr. Shaiman’s attention to the fact that statistics indicate he has also put money into the pockets of countless pro-Prop 8 local merchants, from the gas station attendant to the restaurant owner. Shaiman understands what Eckern’s dismissal would advertise against the anti-Prop-8 camp, but he declared that he would not permit his material to be performed in any of CMT’s venues so long as Eckern was in position. CMT is, according to its website, "the largest nonprofit musical theatre in California" and entertains 300,000 patrons a year.

Shaiman’s position is heartfelt and expressed diplomatically, but his actions and those of cooperators amount to persecution; and the only point of view which permits them to escape that label is looking the other way—a perilous point of view, taken too often in these times.

A few more details:

Early this week, Eckern issued an apology for making his donation to the Prop 8 campaign and promised to donate equally as much money to support equal rights for homo- and bisexuals. The tragedy now becomes that not only did his job suffer, but he sold out and recanted whatever principle inspired his alignment with Prop 8. Bad move, guy.

Eckern states that he left CMT in order to prevent it being damaged by the opposition inflicted upon him. CMT wishes to make clear that the company in nowise pressured Eckern to tender his resignation.

The matter at hand is a question of upholding the rule of law, not a discussion of gay-vs.-straight ideology. However, an expression of the Prop 8 ideology is relevant: “There’s nothing about supporting traditional marriage which is anti-gay,” one of the campaign managers said in a telephone interview.

Information relayed in this column is drawn from the past several days’ issues of the Sacramento Bee.

If you would like to contact Governor Schwarzenegger with even a few words voicing your support or opposition to the turmoil which still rages over this matter, the following link leads to an easy email form:

http://gov.ca.gov/interact#email

$700 billion of US taxes to a special interest group?

Why are all three of our Detroit auto makers lobbying for loans to rescue them from economic collapse? Because Americans don’t want to buy their cars. We’ve said as much with our failure to purchase their goods. Our unwillingness despite, Congress will decide whether to use our $700 billion Wall Street rescue fund to keep these companies afloat.

What brought our economy to the recession that leans so hard upon this and other industries? After all the name-calling and spurious accusations quiet down, the finger points at irresponsible investing: Bernie Mac and Fannie Mae extended “high-risk” loans (loans that are likely to be defaulted) so that citizens could live in houses they couldn’t afford. When the citizens reaped the results of imprudent use of credit, so did the banks. Did we learn our lesson? ...At the bottom of the article, consider whether a $700 billion bailout for Detroit is responsible investing.

Are the Detroit auto makers a high-risk investment? They certainly have not demonstrated impeccable business sense. “The Detroit Three depended … on profits from gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles,” says today’s Wall Street Journal. The Journal furthermore offers for evidence of the industry’s adherence to harmful work rules the job banks which hold workers on payroll when they are disemployed due to plant restructurings or are replaced by automation.

The financial straits of our auto industry manifests how very poor its business model is. What happens when we support their behavior but not that of Japanese auto makers Honda and Toyota (who have been adapting to the market and are not currently in crisis)? At worst, the effective businesses could go under, and we’re stuck with the ineffective businesses for the long term. At least, we’ve burned up billions of dollars to give an industry the chance to consume more raw materials, whose products we won’t buy. (It were better we paid the auto makers to take a vacation.)

“Jobs!” Did that make you jump? Well, it works on some people. When they hear that jobs will be lost, it’s a call to open the communal coffers of our tax revenues. While keeping factories open and building more factories does create jobs, it does not support workers. Wages do not come from the work that they do; wages are paid by the customers who choose to patronize a business. So what happens when the relief money is spent, and the US auto makers are still ineffective? Maybe floating them didn’t work last time because we didn’t use enough money…

Either captial gains tax OR the free market

The economy is in a downturn, the worst since the beginning of the 80’s, and it has the potential to surpass that recession. Let’s examine what help we can hope for from the new administration:

There are two points regarding our president-elect’s plans for taxes to mention here: 1) increased capital gains tax—that is, the tax for positive returns on investments, 2) higher taxes for the rich. First, a brief economics lesson about the money supply:

The nation’s money supply consists of more than just what cash is floating around. When I lend you five dollars, expecting you to pay me a usury of 20%, I think I have six dollars, and you think you have five, and our money supply together is eleven dollars. Then we both continue to engage in trade with the “money” that we have: I buy a television on my credit card, and you buy lumber to build a lemonade stand. (A close enough parallel to what I mean by the nation’s money supply.)

What if because of the economic slump, you decide not to invest in a lemonade stand? You won’t borrow the money from me, and you won’t contribute to the market with your new lemonade business. And I’ll only have five dollars instead of six, so I won’t buy the television. When investment drops, the national money supply diminishes, and so does trade.

In light of our brief economics lesson, we see a solution for our economic downturn: to have the citizens with the most money (the rich) put it into the market by buying goods and services (investing). However, by means of the increase in capital gains taxes and taxing the rich harder, we are punishing the very people who have the means to correct the problem (the rich) for doing the very thing that we want them to do (pump money into the economy by making wise investments). “Punishing”? Yes, punishing, because if the investors do not invest or if they make poor investments, they will not be hit with the capital gains tax.

The capitalist’s hero, Adam Smith, explained that the invisible hand of a free market pushes the economy to its optimum. Artificial attempts to govern the economy prevent it from reaching that ideal. Need evidence? Look at the wealth that capitalism (free market) has produced compared with communism and socialism (government control). Our philosophy in the US for many years has not been one of a free market but rather of the idea that the economy should not be allowed to make decisions for itself because some people and industries will be marginalized.

Every year, we’re looking for “change,” the magic word to make all the problems go away. But the economic change we implement is only to shift in what way we artificially influence the market. This looks like change, but it is not a change of principle, a change in what we allow to govern the market. In fact, our “change” is often nothing more than intensifying previous efforts to effect change, which only exacerbates the problem.

Let’s lay the rosary of change to rest, stop calling on its name in prayer, and stop interfering with the capitalist free market via higher taxes, bailouts, stimulus packages, and heightened tariffs (there’s another thing that the new administration is considering).

Addendum:
What benefit comes from unshackling the market? The buyers patronize the suppliers who are offering what they want, with the marriage of quality and thrift which they want at the time. So the useful producers and are promoted, and their effective behavior is promoted in the market at large.

Obama 2008 - What racial barriers do you mean?

Racial barriers

"Obama shatters racial barriers," reads the behemoth headline in this morning’s Sacramento Bee. Are there racial barriers to presidency? If so, they are not legislative; they can only exist in the racist hearts of the voters.

…But we, the country, chose Barack Obama for president. California, a decidedly blue state (not noted for being mired in antiquated traditions of prejudice), chose Barack Obama for president. How are we, the voters, a racial barrier and at the same time the proponents of the candidate in question? Will we wear this slanderous label? Fortunately for the nation, the headline suggests, Barack Obama triumphed over the voters. Is that how election works? Is that how this election worked?

I am confident that the Bee would not say so.

Poor press

This is only a single example of poor press, and we have only considered the most attention-grabbing portion of the paper, but this sort of codswallop is not anomalous in my local paper, neither in some other papers across the country. We have an interest in our news providers; we choose to pay them for keeping us informed of the doings around us.

If you’ve watched “All the President’s Men,” the film about the journalists Woodward and Bernstein, who brought the Watergate presidential scandal to light, consider what fell within their demesne as journalists. If you haven’t watched it, I recommend it to you.

I have long been unsatisfied with my local paper and so do not patronize it. It is my perception that it reads like it was edited by a remedial high school elective class. The matters that receive focus tend toward the sensational, rather than the useful. Many matters I find represented with obvious bias. Will we continue to pay out for whatever drivel spills from the press onto the page?

Reading has been long considered an exercise for the mind, but it is not so if the reader passively accepts whatever drivel has spilled from the press onto the page—and how much worse when the reader pays to keep the provider employed. Let us inform our news providers what we will sanction and what we will not.

I will write to my local paper.

Amendment:

I have perhaps erroneously declared that the voters are not racist when I really meant to say that they are not racist in the way that the press would have us believe. In truth, I believe that the votes of many were influenced by race in this election, that for some, there was little examination of policy compared with the examination of pigment.