Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, she has now weighed in on an aspect of locating the mosque at Ground Zero. The implication of her statement is that bigots who are trying to stir up other bigots should be investigated and that thoughtful non-bigots like herself should remain unconcerned with the affront. It’s one thing to be aware that there is nothing which can or should be done through the law to prevent this provocative action. It is quite another to wonder about “who is funding” this “issue.” It is a legitmate and newsworthy story which really doesn’t need a lot of “funding” if an active press, much of it New York based, pursues it. Also, what the heck is this Treasure Island that she talking about that is so much more newsworthy?
I’m pretty sure that if this mosque ever gets located at Ground Zero she’ll be blaming the groundswell of anger on the people who are angry hoping for anti-Islamic violence which she can tear up about and use to justify some sort of restrictive legislative action!!!! What of her former concern about stirring up a climate in which “violence occurs?” She is just plain out of touch with reality as well as flyover Americans.
It is really interesting to see the media and politicians pontificating about the issue of “permitting” observant Muslims to build a mosque at Ground Zero. The positions create crosswinds on the part of the political/media class which cause some of them to contort their thoughts in nearly unrecognizable ways. Let’s examine some of the issues presented.
The first thing to do is to boil down the legal issue. Can we “not permit” the building of the mosque at Ground Zero? The legal question is how can the building of a mosque be prevented in a world where owners generally have the right to use their own property as they see fit. In this instance, of course, private property will be utilized by a religious sect for non-violent religious purposes. Do we even have to get to the idea that the bill of rights prohibits legal impediments against the free exercise of religion when somebody is using their own property for any lawful purpose? Although the religious purposes to which the property will be used are well known, the fact is that the use is religious only adds strength to the legal right of owners to use their property for their own purposes. This, according to the Republicans I know, is as clear a right as any right guaranteed to us in this country. The use of this property as a mosque violates no law which the state or city of New York have enacted. It poses no direct threat to public health or safety. Hence, to me, the organizers appear to have the clear legal right to establish a mosque on their land even though others are offended.
Notwithstanding the obvious legal rights of the owners, a Republican candidate for governor, Rick Lazio, opposes use of the property for the stated religious purpose. What gives, are Republicans advocates of property rights or not? Or is this just another issue of electoral politics trumping principle? By what legal authority does Lazio advocate the state of New York investigate the “funding sources” for purchase of the property and construction of the mosque? What is he hoping to find? Is he suggesting that there is probable cause to believe that the mosque will be used as a staging ground for terrorists? Or, is he suggesting that the so-called “victory” mosque should be stopped solely because it’s location hurts the feelings of New Yorkers because the 9-11 terrorists were unanimously Islamic and they cloaked their terror in a religious veil? Does the fact of bruised feelings raise issues limiting the rights of property ownership, religious rights or the free speech rights of the mosque site owners? I think not, the organizers are within their legal rights to build it and worship in it unless American law changes. Do we really want those changes at a fundamental level? Regardless of what Lazio says, aren’t we all better off respecting the rights of Muslims to do this even if we think it’s a poke in the eye? What rights will we be giving away if we insist that the Muslims have no right to build their mosque? But, you say, this is a special situation. Does that change fundamental constitutional rights? I don’t think so. But if she spoke up, Speaker Pelosi and her ilk may have a different opinion as to the extent of the rights of the Muslims to build their mosque or at least she would if she were being consistent. Let me explain.
What could be motivating Muslims to spend $100 Million to build a mosque on a site where they know American feelings will be terribly hurt and their anger stoked? This is the real emotional belly of this matter, isn’t it? Could locating the “victory” mosque at Ground Zero be seen by some as a tangible sign that Islam has triumphed over the Great Satan? Do Americans have the right to take such a perceived motivation, whether intended or not, as an affront to themselves, their country and to the victims of 9-11? Are Americans required to accept at face value the protestations of the organizers that the mosque’s location means no such insult and is in fact an outreach of brotherhood? Does the fact that this perceived insult hurts American feelings create a potential for anger and hence indirectly increase the possibility for violence? Is it fair to say that because this insult appears in the eye of the beholder, after all the organizers having eschewed such an intent, that the beholders are bigoted to take it as such? Can Americans, who don’t even believe in the concept of face, believe that they will lose face by allowing Muslims to build at Ground Zero? Of course, just because an insult is implied and not stated are you not within your own rights to be offended? Says Ms. Pelosi, however, about the creation of a previous climate of violence:
What sort of responsibility do you think Ms. Pelosi would have in mind if the “victory” mosque creates an atmosphere of violence notwithstanding the protestations of the builders? Or, do you think she might be among the first to blame the people acting violently rather than the builders of the mosque? The climate of violence leading to the murder of Harvey Milk by another gay man causing Ms. Pelosi to briefly tear up on camera would, I believe, pale in comparison to the climate created by the mosque being built at Ground Zero. I think that the would be builders know this very well but refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of New Yorkers and Americans at the implications of building a mosque at Ground Zero. Ms. Pelosi’s silence on this powder keg issue, where she was previously so outspoken against those using villifying language in the health care debate, speaks volumes.
Another interesting take is the Republican candidate for the governorship of New York, Carl Paladino, who has suggested that the state use it’s power of eminent domain to condemn the land for “public use.” Of course, former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, author of the majority opinion, might not want the private property rights of these Muslims to be invaded by the state but in Kelo v. City of New London he established the precedent allowing private property to be taken from one owner and given to another if the city will benefit financially. After all, this lower Manhattan property is highly valuable for commercial and therefore taxable uses which would benefit the city much more than a mosque at the site. Such commercial use would generate higher sales tax receipts and probably much higher income taxes for the city. If this is not done the property will essentially be taken off the tax rolls by reason of the establishment of a “church” at the site. Why not condemn and then sell the property for commercial and therefore taxable purposes? If the people of New York want to prevent this mosque being built on “hallowed ground” a few bucks ought to do the trick and the US Supreme Court has led the way with its ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. This is a result which the rather left of center justices who supplied the bulk of the votes in favor of the city of New London most likely would not have desired but, I imagine, would fall within the letter of their law. It is also interesting that a Republican candidate for governor, a lawyer – real estate developer, would want the government more involved in decisions concerning the uses to which private property may be put.
And then there is President Obama, chief magistrate of the entire country weighing in on what is no more than a local land use issue. Reminds me a little bit of the silly Republican intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo. You remember that the Congress intervened in this case which was certainly an issue of personal importance to the family and a case providing 24/7 media coverage but not an issue rising to the level of being addressed in the national legislature. Of course, the intervention of the president in favor of the building of the mosque contradicts the very same arguments made by fellow progressive Congressmen Frank, Waxman and Wexler Congress during the Schiavo affair that the matter does not rise to the level requiring congressional action.
And then there’s the extremely strange charge of bigotry leveled by the media against Ground Zero mosque opponents. How can the people who oppose the mosque on offensiveness grounds be legitimately called bigots? First it must be decided that a reasonable person would never possibly find the mosque’s creation at Ground Zero offensive. If anyone answers this question in the affirmative I think that they should forfeit their right to call themselves thinking human beings. A large majority of those Americans polled believe that the mosque should not be located at Ground Zero. Such a majority of Americans are unreasonable? I don’t think so. Hence, the twisting of the idea of bigotry and racism to fit this scenario is just another shopworn effort by media pundits to cast the rest of us as ignorant, unthinking boobs in need of leadership by the anointed. Flatly arrogant? I think so.
In any event, there are two trains headed in opposite directions on the same track. One train has the clear legal right of way. The other has the hearts of the people riding on it. This is a very dangerous situation and I believe it to be a calculated effort by those who seek to build the Mosque in order to provoke us. In effect they are self selecting themselves as enemies or at least as those who would give aid and comfort to our enemies. Our politicians are not helping the situation, stirring up passions by suggesting that we can legally avoid this use of the land without fundamentally changing the nature and extent of our own liberty. Fortunately, in the same Fox News poll finding that 64% think it wrong to build a mosque at Ground Zero, the majority also realize that the Muslims who own the property have a right to build it there. If we can simply accept the pain of “permitting” a mosque to be located at Ground Zero, this too shall pass. Ignore the politicians and the media, the rest of us are grown ups.
This thought occurred to me watching an interchange between David Letterman and Rachel Maddow. What do progessives think the rest of us believe? At the conclusion of his conservative and Fox News bashing interview Dave furrows his brow, compliments Bill O’Reilly’s intelligence (finding him surprisingly capable verbally and logical in his reasoning I suppose) and addresses himself to O’Reilly’s true beliefs. Says Dave,
David Letterman
“I don’t think you can be as smart as he is and really believe what he believed [sic].” [You can find a 5 minute excerpt from the Letterman interview of Rachel Maddow at the end of which David makes that statement at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ujLJBJJ4g.]
What can Letterman mean when he essentially says that O”Reilly must be a liar or a fool but he must be a liar because he’s too smart to be a fool? This suggests that he, David, is so smart that he has evaluated all the thought processes and experiences which support the expressed views of O’Reilly and similar people and concludes that they are simply wrong? Not misguided, informed by experiences he as an exalted talk show comedian has not had or just ill informed but plainly and clearly wrong!!! That’s a whole lot of arrogance in one man it seems to me but let’s examine.
Returning to a favorite theme of this blog the issue is one of a conflict in worldviews. Can a worldview be simply valid or invalid as Letterman believes? Is there a proper worldview held by the super-intelligent and a different, and completely invalid, worldview held by everyone else?
What do we know of worldviews which the highly intelligent deem too foolish to be held by a thinking person? Rather than attempting to investigate O’Reilly’s views directly I think it more enlightening to try to determine what the highly intelligent believe the that not so intelligent believe. Some progressives have publicly addressed themselves to some of the elements of the worldviews held by the less intellectually lofty. These being people they recognize as their political opponents but not as intellectual rivals.
First there is New York Senator Chuck Schumer, an Ivy Leaguer and real smart guy. He’s a lawyer and therefore extremely capable. While being interviewed by the same Rachel Maddow interviewed by Letterman at the time of his O’Reilly comment, Schumer identified some of the ideas of his opponents as ideas which “worked so well for them” politically from the Reagan era until the 2006 elections. Now, of course, with the ascendence of progressives and their agenda, Reagan’s ideas have rightfully been consigned to the dustbin of history. Schumer describes these views to include the desire to “cut off the hands of the federal government” when it moves, to support traditional values, and to project a strong foreign policy (probably meaning maintaining a strong military).
Schumer identifies these leftovers from the Reagan era as the “hard right” implying that they are both out of the mainstream and inflexible so. Given this interview with Maddow, it is fair to say that Schumer believes at the very least, that his “hard right” opponents subscribe to outmoded and therefore invalid ideas. These ideas are simply “over” in Schumer’s words. By assigning no value to these supposedly wornout ideas, Schumer apparently advocates that we head full speed into a brave world of “new ideas.” His countervailing “new ideas” are those which won the day in 2006 and 2008. These ideas, the opposite of the ideas held by his opponents, are the idea of an expansive and activist federal government constrained by no principled limits as well as the idea of freedom from the outworn concepts of strong family bonds, personal responsibility and self reliance. And as a capstone, Schumer would obviously trust our interests to a world of infinite trustworthiness in which trouble is only brought on by the existence of a strong US military. Are his ideas demonstrably better than those of conservatives or the hated Republicans? He, like Letterman, has not addressed why his worldview is intellectually superior but simply and loftily opines that it is so. Is Schumer’s idea of rule from the apex of political power by Washington experts so clearly superior that it doesn’t even have to debate? How has it worked out for other countries who have tried it? How would our country look if everyone fully embraced the central tenets of subsidizing failure, taxing success, anything goes personal behavior, looking to government for moral instruction and international weakness? Wow, he’s got a real imagination as to how this will be a good thing. If his ideas are clearly superior I will give mine up but first let’s agree on some debating propositions to defend and have a debate.
Talk show host and one time controversial Sunday morning commentator Bill Maher (originator of the conclusion that Brazil “got off oil in the 70’s”) believes that his opponents are stupid and must be brought into line one way or the other. In a conversation about the “overuse” of the Senate fillibuster rule he once said that the rule must be discarded because 60% of Americans don’t agree on anything, “even evolution.” A telling comment about his opponents and their worldviews. By evolution I imagine he has in mind the idea that all life emerged from “non life” by a process of undirected natural selection. I know, I’m taking liberties by characterizing his belief in evolution but I doubt he would dispute my characterization. This is an important element of his worldview, I’m sure and it is a touchstone in his mind between the worthy and the unworthy. I wonder whether he thinks that O’Reilly shares his views on evolution or does he disagree with Letterman about how smart Bill is? As for the rest of us I think he’s pretty much convinced we’re all dumb. What dummies we must be, though, to think that just because there is no conclusive evidence for how life and DNA came into being in the first place that one theory is so much better than the other that the dumb one just needs to be ignored. No evidence to conclusively prove his understanding of the theory of evolution is necessary. Yeah, that sort of thing is common in the history of science isn’t it? Has a theory about the unknown past ever really been permanently and conclusively proven to be correct? What’s important, I think he would tell you, is a good and powerful theory!!! Clearly, Maher and his smart ilk just need to get over their squeamishness about allowing people a say in their own lives. People taking responsibility for themselves is so last year’s news. They’re just too stupid to live, properly. Let’s go ahead and drag these Cretans kicking and screaming into the new national health care plan which will be so wonderful that they’ll wonder why they ever opposed it although if it’s opponents are “proven” right and it turns out that politically rationing healthcare is a terrible idea, it will be too late to change back. As an interesting contrast to his views about government dragging people kicking and screaming into more government control of their lives, he also believes that conservatives favor using “government power” against anyone but white people. Are all conservatives racists then? While he claims to believe that not all Republicans are racists, given his view of conservative racism favoring the use of government power against non-whites he must certainly believe that most of them are in fact racist. This opinion is further demonstrated by his view that “if you’re a racist you’re probably a Republican.” Perhaps he finds that not all Republicans are conservative. I guess in Maher’s view we can safely disregard the conservative point of view because they are so ignorant and racist that their worldview is invalid.
Finally there is President Obama himself. At least the President concedes that there are experiences and ideas which support worldviews, even if there are worldviews held by those who oppose him. In 2008 candidate Obama spoke about a betrayal by government causing some of his perceived opponents to “cling” to their religion, their guns and their antipathy against those who aren’t like them. Is he conceding by this observation the potential validity to his opponent’s worldviews. I doubt it but maybe. Let’s analyze what he had to say. First how can a betrayal by government cause people to “hold on” to their religion? I first observe that widespread, deep and heartfelt belief in a personally redemptive religion long predates even the existence of a strong government presence on this continent. Therefore, it seems to me that the failures of government can not really be the cause of the worldview held by observant believers. How about guns. Guns, in Obama’s worldview, are tools of oppression even when held by people who have never been convicted of a crime and who are unlikely to commit crimes with them. I agree with President Obama that it is possible for people to feel threatened by “strangers” and this may have an effect on their worldview regarding guns. But what governmental betrayal would cause this? Is it possible that this interest in guns and gun rights is at least partially caused by the federal government policy of nearly uncontrolled illegal immigration? Perhaps it has to do with it’s poor enforcement of the criminal laws regarding drugs and gangs. Is Mr. Obama now taking responsibility on behalf of the government for these betrayals and seeking to accommodate and protect the folks seeking to protect themselves? Is he conceding that this betrayal by government has caused more legitimate interest in the right of citizens to own guns to protect themselves? That would be news, wouldn’t it? Do you think that this is what the president means, though? Isn’t he really talking about his view that the racist tendency of conservatives, as described by Bill Maher, is causing people to arm themselves in an irrational backlash against a non-existent racial threat. Finally, how about the government betrayal causing small town folks to feel antipathy towards others who don’t look like them? What can this be caused by? How could the government be involved? Perhaps this one is about governmentally enforced policies perceived as “reverse racism” by political opponents. Could this be the betrayal noted by the President as a cause of antipathy to the “other?” What other government policy could he be talking about? Isn’t it also possible that there are some people who are afraid of “others” just because they have never had a chance to spend time with them or even people like them. This, however, is a matter of human nature so it would apply naturally to all humans, even Bill Maher. Government is not involved in this though, so it can’t be that. The President may be right that a perceived betrayal by government has brought about portions of the worldviews of his ideological opponents, but I don’t think that he would agree with me that uncontrolled immigration or “reverse racism” or others of the policies he still advocates are the policies responsible for creating or hardening those views. He won’t agree with this idea because this concept would not agree with his own worldview.
I think we’d get a lot farther in this country if we would all just concede to each other that there are valid views on many sides of the issues. Accepting this fact we can then make an effort to try to reach understanding of the views of all, their sources and how accommodation can be reached. I know one thing, if we continue to seek to impose our will on other people through use of government force, we’re simply going to harden our opponents into enemies who will not rest until the ones they perceive as enemy are vanquished. A very wise President once said that, “A nation divided against itself cannot stand.” Let’s hope we can change.
The future of Obamacare looms large in the upcoming off year elections. Should it be repealed? Can it be repealed or otherwise stopped with a majority but not a two thirds majority in each house prepared to override vetoes? If the Democrats retain both houses will a public option be included, as was proposed this month by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D – Cal.) head of the house Progressive Caucus? With premiums still rising in the wake of Obamacare’s passage who will get the blame? Will the blame have any political effects?
Rep. Lynn Woolsey
I’d like to talk about what happens if Obamacare is not stopped and we are all left to feel its effects in the middle of the next decade and beyond. In fact, it seems inescapable to me that if Obamacare survives the next round of elections that the public option will inevitably come to pass. This must happen because Obamacare mandates that all are covered and that there be no limitations on that coverage for those who have only recently become insured. This must drive up premiums with the effect of pushing most private employers out of the health insurance market.
This being the case, it is important to examine what happens when a governmentally dictated program controls prices. When prices are controlled how are total costs affected? Is the Medicare program a model for how Obamacare will work or are there going to have to be fundamental changes?
Why did the government so vastly miscalculate the projected total cost of Medicare even while it had control of the prices which it paid to providers? Well, in the first place the life expectancy for people aged 65 and older grew significantly subsequent to the enactment of Medicare. There are therefore lots more patients than was actuarially anticipated. Was this increase in longjevity a coincidence? It appears to me that this outcome resulted from the fact that an enormous market of retired people created who could now pay for all of the medical services which could be defined as being medically necessary. In other words the existence of Medicare fundamentally changed medical outcomes for the elderly which in turn fundamentally affected the financial aspects of the program. This occurred because the medical industry, knowing it had a large and well financed group of customers, developed lots of ways to extend the useful and comfortable lives of those customers. These new treatments then became, nearly by definition, medically necessary and therefore were paid for by Medicare. In this way the Medicare entitlement spurred medical innovation and progress and led to generally better health outcomes for the elderly. This improvement in overall health care included the rest of us who benefitted through a trickle down process from this medical innovation.
Was this a bad thing since it ballooned costs tremendously? This analysis depends, of course, upon one’s point of view. Clearly, extending and adding comfort to the retired leisure years of people who, by and large, were no longer economic producers, was a very good idea from the standpoint of those benefitting. As the politicians constantly remind us, Medicare was and is wildly popular with the public nearly all of whom are on it or hope to be on it someday. Duh!!!
As a result, the elderly, became very politically active in defense of this entitlement as well as in defense of Social Security, understandably fighting every attempt to limit them. They became a politically powerful voting block. Whether good or bad, however, Medicare’s success and its creation of a voting block with older citizens clearly sewed the seeds of its own financial difficulties.
How will Obamacare work it’s magic? Will it subsidize medical innovation and better health outcomes like Medicare did? Will these medical innovations, which will be available to all, reduce prices because of economies of scale? Will Obamacare force enough ‘efficiencies’ in the system so that it can remain viable without substantial amounts of financial pain? Can Obamacare or, for that matter, the entire country financially survive if Obamacare follows the Medicare model of ever expanding innovation and better outcomes?
The government, using the tools provided by Obamacare, promises a reduction or at least a freeze on the overall cost of health services and an actual increase in availability of those services. Is 16% of the economy enough? Can we afford more? How can we get more for less? Can we get more for less by capping overall costs or reducing prices as was done with Medicare even though the mix of beneficiaries of Obamacare are annually becoming actuarially older and therefore sicker? Can we logically expect to get the same quantity of high quality services for less money? Perhaps if you believe in the tooth fairy you will believe that you can have more for less but didn’t you grow out of that idea by the time you were ten? Am I being overly pessimistic? Do economies of scale work effectively in a business which is delivered on the basis of a one on one (doctor-patient) business model? For the unbelievers amongst us how will overall costs and costs per beneficiary be lowered absent fundamental changes in that doctor-patient relationship?
If the law of supply and demand tells us anything about the relationship between prices and supply there is no doubt what is going to happen. When you artificially cap prices, over a period of time you will get less supply, it’s that simple and it’s also absolutely immutable. Therefore demand will have to be reduced in order that demand and supply stay in equilibrium at the capped price. How can the government reduce demand for medical services, oh let’s think? Obamacare must, of course, become a giant rationing system in order to reduce real demand or shift the demand to other goods and services than those which have been available to date. Despite indignant denials, the government, hard pressed on all economic fronts, could even decide to reduce costs by reducing the availability of life saving treatment for older people. Remember that Obama himself said that he is in favor of trading off expensive life extending pacemakers in favor of palliative pain medication for older Medicare recipients. Oh and wait, reducing the life spans of seniors would have the double benefit of supporting the solvency of Social Security. Of course, this association would never occur to the government would it?
How can Obamacare not become a political rationing scheme? When something is politically rationed it is, by definition, taken from the politically less powerful and given to those more powerful. That, in my opinion, is a simple and immutable result of politics. Political rationing will prefer some demographic groups to others and even some “popular” diseases to other less “popular” ones. You may remember the competition in the 1980’s and 1990’s for government research dollars between cancer and AIDS research groups and, not surprisingly, therefore between the sufferers of those two diseases. Who will be on the winning and losing side of that equation? Congress spoke about the political power relationship when it exempted its current and retired members from Obamacare. Members of Congress were clearly winners. Who will be the losers?
Short and Sweet Blog 