Category Archives: Ranting

Boston Strong and Proud

Posted on by
Reply

A few weeks ago I went to see one of my hospice patients. It was an ordinary visit, and the fact that she had the TV on wasn’t much of an issue: she often mutes the TV when I see her. That day the mute TV caught our attention. I hadn’t paid much attention to the fact that the Boston Marathon and Patriot’s Day was April 15th.

Now I’ll never forget it. On that day, in that place, two men decided to strike a blow. Tamerian and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs that exploded about 3:00 PM at Copley Place, the finish line of the marathon. The bombs were intended to kill as many people as possible and were scheduled when the largest number of runners were crossing the finish line. On one level it worked: the bombs killed Martin Richard, Krystle Campbell, and Lingzi Lu. A few days later Sean Collier died in the line of duty during their capture.

No doubt the brothers thought this would bring Boston to its knees. Clearly they didn’t fully understand Boston. It’s a tough city: it was here that the Sons of Liberty started. They survived the Boston Massacre and the closing of Boston Harbor after the Tea Party.

I lived in Watertown in the early 1980s and I can tell you that no attack can do what they intended to do. The people of Boston are more resilient than anyone can imagine; they are stronger than anyone can imagine; they are more stubborn than anyone can imagine.

Of the two suspects, one is dead and the other is in custody. We are going to understand what happened and why, and we are going to judge the remaining suspect. We are going to move forward.

Boston will go on. Terrorism will not.

America, Stop Listening to the NRA

Posted on by
Reply

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School the National Rifle Association went silent for a few days. Many of us were hoping they would either remain silent or consider a dialogue about gun safety. So much for that hope. NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre responded by saying that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The NRA is now calling on Congress to put an armed guard in every school in America.

That’s right: the answer to gun violence is more guns.

Years ago one of the NRA’s tag lines was “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Clearly gun violence happens only in combination of guns and people; I used to joke that the difference between the NRA and me was that I wanted to eliminate the guns and the NRA wanted to eliminate the people. I didn’t realize how right I was until now. They argue that the world is divided into good people and bad people, that bad people will always have access to guns no matter what we do, and (we) good people have to make sure we’re not outgunned.

Their “reasoning” is silly (and dangerous) on so many levels. First and foremost, we simply can’t divide our nation between good people and bad people: it’s not that simple. The overwhelming majority of us would never dream of turning a gun on anyone and I’ll admit that even nations that have restrictive gun laws haven’t completely eliminated gun violence. But we have way too many murders in this country only because there is easy access to guns, and guns that are too powerful for any other use.

Sandy Hook is a good example. We still don’t know the shooter’s motive but we do know what happened. His mother legally owned a number of powerful weapons. He had access to them and used them to kill 26 people and himself. If assault weapons were illegal there is no indication that he would have had the interest or opportunity to obtain them illegally. Whatever rage, loneliness, or other demon lived in his soul may have found a violent outlet, but it wouldn’t have killed 20 children and 6 adults.

Second, the NRA “solution” likely would not have worked. The shooter shot his way through the front door of the school. Had there been an armed guard in school he would have had to be at the entrance the shooter used (did your elementary school have only one entrance?) and be able to accurately fire the first shot. In my previous post I spoke of Texas Congressman Louie Gohmer’s suggestion that if the principal had been armed she could have prevented this. Yes, but only if she was carrying the gun and was able to outshoot an assault rifle.

And finally, we need to stop listening to the voices who insist that more guns equal more safety. The shooter’s mother was killed by her own weapon, and any gun in a school has the potential to be used accidentally. Lock it up? Sure, but that makes my point: any gun that is secured won’t be instantly available if needed.

We don’t need more guns. We need to get rid of the these “personal weapons of mass destruction.” Yes, I made that up.

And again, we need to tell our representatives that the NRA may target their seats, but they cannot target my vote.

It's Time to Stop the Moment of Silence. It's Time To Do Something

Posted on by
Reply

You would have to live in a cave not to hear about the events on Friday at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. It’s been an awful weekend for anyone with a conscience.

I have lots of feelings about this, but I have to confess I keep coming back to the issue of gun violence and the Second Amendment. I’m one of the people who believe that the 2nd Amendment mandates only a National Guard. Alas, the Supreme Court found in the case of District of Coumbia vs. Heller that there is an individual right to private gun ownership.

I’m willing to concede the right to own guns for hunting or protecting your home and family. I don’t have any desire to hunt and I worry that a gun for my own protection could be used against me (as it was with the shooter’s mother Nancy Lanza). But this allows for a fairly narrow slice of the guns we own. If you want to hunt you will probably use a rifle or a shotgun. Rifles normally carry 5 rounds before needing to reload. Shotguns need to be reloaded after one or two shots. If you’re hunting game this makes some sense.

If you have a gun for personal protection your needs can be met with a simple revolver. If someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night it’s hard to imagine that 6 shots won’t do what needs to be done.

I’m troubled by the proliferation of assault weapons. The last few decades have shown us rifles and handguns with incredibly high firepower. Adam Lanza showed up at Sandy Hook Elementary School with three guns: a Bushmaster Assault Rifle, a Glock 9mm pistol, and a SIG Sauer 9mm pistol. According to news reports he had hundreds of bullets and could have killed every teacher and child in the school. He shot himself only when he heard the sound of sirens. There are variations but the Bushmaster clip holds 30 rounds and is easy to reload.

Is this what our founders had in mind? I don’t think so. High power guns with huge clips are not designed for hunting or protecting. They are made for mass violence and they are incredibly successful. Had the shooter needed to reload after only 5 or 6 shots someone might have been able to disarm him.

We keep having the massacres, and yet we keep having these weapons. Why? The NRA and other gun lobbies are incredibly successful in convincing a small but powerful number of us that banning these guns won’t solve anything. They are also successful in telling our lawmakers that they will defeat any candidate who opposes them. The Sunday news shows covered the massacre and had no trouble finding people like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Senator Dianne Feinstein talking about the need for sensible gun legislation. The pro gun lobby was largely silent; the exception was Texas Representative Louie Gohmer who said that if the school principal had been armed she could have stopped the massacre.

Talk radio was not silent. Rush Limbaugh said this on his show Monday: “[P]art of the [liberal] agenda that was being advanced was, of course, gun control. And there was glee, there was excitement at the opportunity that was presented here.” Sorry, I can’t bring myself to link to Rush’s page. You can find it on the transcript on his web page.

I’m pretty outraged at being told that my reaction to this massacre was glee. This is not an opportunity to talk about sensible gun control, the massacre is reason we need to have this discussion.

For those of us who favor sensible legislation about guns, it’s time to move. It’s time to write to our representatives and tell them that we will support sensible legislation, no matter how much the NRA tries to block it. We need to tell them that we will not vote for NRA backed candidates, no matter how much money they spend.

We need our legislators to know that our vote is safe.

My prayers are with the victims.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 10: There He Goes Again (Hopefully for the Last time)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s been five days since the election and binders have been written about what happened and why. The day after the election Governor Romney held a conference call with major donors (that CNN and other news organizations joined) about what happened. This was his chance to be magnanimous, thank his supporters, and move on. That’s what he did in his concession speech.

Instead, he stated that President Obama won the election by pandering to the voters. He said (and this comes from multiple sources on a few different phone calls):

  • What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote
  • With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift
  • Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women
  • And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008

The best part of this? I don’t even need to react because other Republicans already have.

Newt Gingrich said this: I just think it’s nuts. I mean, first of all, it’s insulting. The job of a political leader in part is to understand the people. If we can’t offer a better future that is believable to more people, we’re not going to win.

Piyush (Bobby) Jindal: [A winning strategy] does not involve insulting [voters] and saying their votes were bought. I’m proud to have campaigned for him across the country, but I absolutely reject what he said. Look, we as the Republican Party have to campaign for every single vote. If we want people to like us, we have to like them first. And you don’t start to like people by insulting them and saying their votes were bought.

Lindsay Graham: Rhetoric like this keeps digging a hole for the Republican party. We’re in a big hole. We’re not getting out of it by comments like [Romney’s]. When you’re in a hole, stop digging. He keeps digging.

To this I add only this: Justice is not a gift. Providing people what they need is the role of government. I’m grateful Romney lost.

PS: You can still order Romney campaign stuff on his webpage.

It's Still Not Settled But Going In the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday I blogged that Scott Peters is pulling ahead of Brian Bilbray. It’s still too close to call, but every day Scott’s advantage gets bigger. Last Thursday Scott was ahead by only 565 votes. By Monday Scott was ahead by 1899 votes; Tuesday Scott was ahead by 2660 votes, and today he’s ahead by 2948 votes. Every day his lead increases. I have to confess a little satisfaction here. When I moved to San Diego in 1997 Brian Bilbray was my congressman in the 49th district and was reelected in 1998. In 2000 Susan Davis defeated Brian. He then moved to the 50th district and ran for the seat vacated by Randy “Duke” Cunningham who was in prison. It seemed like a safe Republican seat. It was until Randy and Brian ran. To be fair, the district changed after the 2010 census (including my home) and included more Democrats. In any case I’m celebrating the fact that I’ve been able to turn Brian out twice

Ballot Propositions: Sometimes Democracy is Hard to Love

Posted on by
2

I’ve lived in several states in the last few decades and each one brings its own learning curve. When I moved to California in 1988 there were several ballot propositions dedicated to auto insurance reform (as an aside, most of them were drawn up by auto insurance companies to confuse the voters; it didn’t work). I have to admit I was a little taken aback that my ballot contained what looked like ordinary legislation that the state government should have taken care of. I wrongly assumed these propositions were legislation that the legislature didn’t want to act on, and they punted it to us.

I was wrong. I got this information from the state web page. In a special election in 1911 voters approved a way to create legislation (or amend the state constitution) by popular vote, bypassing the governor and state legislature. I’ve boiled down the process:

  1. Write up the legislation you want and submit it to the Attorney General
  2. Determine if it will affect the state budget
  3. Write up the petition and get signatures. You need to obtain signatures equal to 5% of the number who voted for governor in the last election. All signatures must be registered voters.
  4. After the signatures are checked and verified, your initiative is on the ballot. If it gets 50% of the vote (55% in some cases), it becomes law.

We’ve learned over the last 101 years just how easy it is to pass legislation. You need a smart person to write the initiative, and lots of money. Any Californian will tell you that we know it’s election season because everytime we leave a grocery store there is someone there with multiple petitions and a sign that says something like: “Help people get what they need.” The person is being paid, often $1.00 per signature, and usually has no idea what the initiatives actually mean. Once it’s on the ballot you need to spend millions (or least more than your opponent) convincing voters that your initiative is the only thing keeping us from doom and that your opponent wants to destroy all you hold dear.

This process has been taken over by deep pocket special interests. I’ve completely made this up as an illustration, but imagine this:

It’s 1900 and you make buggy whips for carriages. You’ve made a good fortune for yourself and you are touch with others who are equally successful. You hear that there is a guy in your state who is working on an invention called a “horseless carriage.” It sounds crazy, but he’s working on an internal combustion engine that will propel the carriage by burning gasoline instead of being pulled by horses. You recognize that if you remove horses from the equation you also remove buggy whips and your way of life is going to end. You want to ban these horseless carriages but you know you can’t write a ballot initiative that bans them because it’s bad for your business; that won’t pass. In a moment of inspiration you decide that since gasoline is flammable, it must be unsafe. You write an initiative that proposes to ban large containers of gasoline (5 gallons or more) on wheeled vehicles because they are “explosions waiting to happen.” Together with other buggy whip manufacturers you start a campaign called “Citizens for Public Safety” that warns of the dangers of exploding gasoline containers. Ordinary voters, who may not know who you are, vote for your initiative out of fear of firestorms in the street.

Sound crazy? Maybe, but I’m glad I’m not driving a horse powered carriage.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 9: There He Goes Again

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Romney has proven once again that (1) He still doesn’t get it, and (2) There are no limits on his ability to shop for a moral compass.

A few weeks ago the Governor was interviewed on 60 Minutes and, as you might expect, he was asked about health care. Scott Pelley asked him this question: “Do you think the government has a responsibility to provide health care to the 50 million Americans who don’t have it today?” He responded:

Well, we do provide care for people who don’t have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don’t sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care.

His implication is clear: If you don’t have health insurance you don’t have to worry. Just go to the emergency room and you’ll be taken care of. That’s fine, but it’s just not true. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires that anyone who comes to a hospital emergency room be provided an examination and needed stabilizing treatment. In other words, if you show up in an emergency room with chest pain, they have to make sure you are stable. In that sense Governor Romney is correct that emergency room has to stop your chest pain.

But they don’t need to stop your heart disease. They only need to stop your symptoms. So what if your symptoms aren’t cardiac? Glad you asked. There is an article in the today’s Los Angeles Times about Jode Towe.

On the surface, he is living the Republican dream. He started a business (as truck driver), but he couldn’t afford to buy health insurance on his own. His only option was to hope he didn’t get sick or injured. Things were going well until he noticed increased fatigue and “something” in the back of his throat. He paid out of pocket to see a doctor, and the results were not good. He’s not sure what is in his throat, but there is at least a chance it’s cancer. A biopsy would be the next logical step but that (and a tonsilectomy) would likely cost $4,000; if there is cancer any treatment would cost thousands of dollars, well beyond Mr. Towe’s ability to pay.

So what if he takes Governor Romney’s advice and go to the emergency room? All they are required to do is stabilize his symptoms (essentially a throat lozenge). Mr. Towe would also be responsible for any charges. In many ways that’s the worst part of Mr. Romney’s advice. If someone goes to the emergency room and can’t afford to pay, the hospital ends up eating the cost, but the hospital can still try to collect the money. They are counting on you mortgaging your house, selling your blood, hitting up your family, etc. If that doesn’t work they turn the case over to a collection agency that trashes your credit score. Nobody wins: the hospital doesn’t get their money and your financial future is compromised.

When the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented in 2014, Mr. Towe will be offered affordable health insurance, even with his pre-existing condition. Hopefully he’ll still be around then.

Hopefully Governor Romney won’t have a chance to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Republicans and Rape: Really?

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, they are at it again. The Republican Party, or at least one of their members, has once again shown just how tone deaf you can be when you really try. Richard Mourdock is running for Senate from Indiana. He, like all Republicans, needs to prove his anti abortion credentials while giving the illusion of caring about women.

Most of the time it’s easy, until someone asks about favoring abortion of a pregnancy that results from rape. No woman (or any man worth the air he breathes) wants to think about this possibility, and the idea of carrying a child conceived from this act of hate is horrible beyond words.

So what do you do if you need to pander to the far right while appearing to care about women?

You have a few choices. In August Representative Todd Akin (R-MO) was asked this question and this was his response:

Well you know, people always want to try to make that as one of those things, well how do you, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

All women (and men worth the air they breathe) immediately focused on the most important part of this quotation: legitimate rape. This allows him to respond to a woman impregnated by rape by saying that since this is impossible, you must have consented. It wasn’t a legitimate rape.

To be fair, many Republicans repudiated this, and Mr. Akin lost a great deal of national Republican funding. But it’s worth asking if they did this because they honestly disagree, or if he committed the sin of saying something in public that they all believe in private but dare not say.

OK, fast forward to now. Mr. Mourdock was asked the same question. Here is his answer:

I struggled with it myself for a long time, and I realized that life is a gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen.

Really? OK, I’m assuming Mr. Mourdock is a devout Christian and wanted to communicate a belief that God can (and does) create good out of evil. As a Christian I believe this. But as a man worthy of the air I breathe, I can’t believe the callousness of this statement. Does he not get the implications of this statement? Does he not know that if a woman is impregnated by rape (that Todd Akins says can’t happen) she will be told that she has a moral obligation to carry the child to term because God “intended that to happen?”

Vote Republican at your own risk.

The Justice Chronicles Volume 8: Maybe now DOMA is Doomed

Posted on by
Reply

With all the attention given to the Presidential campaign, an important story isn’t getting as much publicity as it should. On October 18, 2012 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a ruling in the case of Windsor v. US that the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA is unconstitutional.

In 1996 the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, DOMA. Among other things DOMA prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from recognizing same sex marriages, even if the couple were legally married.

I’m taking the facts of the case from the opinion itself. Edith (Edie) Windsor and Thea Spyer were legally married in Canada in 2007 (though they had been a couple for 44 years). Thea died in 2009 in New York, and had they been a heterosexual couple, Edie would have been classified as the surviving spouse for tax purposes. Because of DOMA their marriage wasn’t recognized by the IRS and Edie owed $363,053 in taxes to inherit Thea’s estate. Under federal tax law, a spouse who dies can leave assets, including the family home, to the other spouse without incurring estate taxes, but because of DOMA Edie was not considered Thea’s spouse and is responsible for those taxes. Edie sued in federal court to return the $363,053, arguing that she was Thea’s spouse; in 2011 New York began allowing same sex marriages and the state recognized their union.

There are many nuances to this case, but essentially the court found that DOMA is “an unprecedented intrusion into an area of traditional state regulation” as the states grant marriage licenses.

Clearly the issue of gay marriage is going to the Supreme Court in either this session or the next. But I have to confess a chuckle over this case as it’s decided on the basis of federal intrusion while the Republican Party consistently reminds us that they are the party to “get government off our backs.” I’m guessing they don’t want government off our backs on this one.

Personal note: DOMA claims to protect traditional marriage. As a heterosexual married man, can anyone tell me how gay marriage threatens my marriage? If so, I’m happy to support DOMA. In the meantime I’m on the side of opposing homophobia.

A Rare Union Victory; It's Nice to See

Posted on by
Reply

Football has always been an interest of mine. For as long as I can remember the Washington Redskins were a staple on Sunday TV. My memory goes back to the 1968 season when Otto Graham coached the Redskins to a 5-9 season, and was fired for his troubles.

In the last 44 years I’ve seen countless games and while not all my memories are good, I have to say that the referees have done an outstanding job. They don’t get it right 100% of the time, but it’s pretty close.

This year the NFL locked them out over a labor dispute. It was pretty silly and the lockout had more to do with intimidation than money. The NFL decided that they could employ “replacement referees” and none of us would notice. We did. The replacements came from small colleges and high schools and frankly, they couldn’t keep up. On national TV we saw that it’s not as easy to referee a professional NFL game as it looks.

On September 24th the game between the Green Bay Packers and the Seattle Seahawks was marred by a call none of us could defend. Suffice it to say that the Packers’ season could go down on this play. The next day the real referees were back in place.

For those of us who favor labor unions this is a good day. Workers with skills who group together with others with the same skills know that management always think that their skills are not as valuable. In truth I’ve never belonged to a union, but I had a job where my boss told me that “any idiot” could do my job. When I quit he hired any idiot. He lasted almost a year and they had to hire two people to replace me.

Look around you. If you think the person who picks your crops or bathes your grandmother in the nursing home, or washes your dishes in your favorite restaurant is unskilled, think again. They may make less money that you, but their labor is every bit as skilled as yours.

You may not notice until they don’t show up for the job, but when they do show up, you should notice. None of us are going to suffer because the real referees weren’t there for the first few weeks of the season, but it should remind us that union workers improve our lives every day.

Vote union.