House of Representatives:
Democrats 44 years
Republicans 12 years
Senate:
Democrats: 40 years
Republicans 16 years
House of Representatives
1955 - 1995 (40 years) Democrats
1995 - 2007 (12 years) Republicans
2007 - 2010 (3 years) Democrats
2010 - 2011 (1 year) Republicans
Senate
1955 -1981 (26 years) Democrats
1981 -1987 (6 years) Republicans
1987 - 1995 (8 years) Democrats
1995 - 2001 (6 years) Republicans
2001 - 2003 (2 years) Democrats
2003 - 2007 (4 years) Republicans
2007 - 2011 (4 years) Democrats
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
BEER SUMMIT: Is Government Too Big? Part 2.
Former Guam U.S. Congressman, and current President of the University of Guam, Dr. Robert Underwood, debates the question with Tim Rohr on a PBS special program.
Labels:
Government,
Is Government Too Big?
BEER SUMMIT: Is Government Too Big? Part 1.
Former Guam U.S. Congressman and current President of the University of Guam, Dr. Robert Underwood, debates the question with Tim Rohr.
Labels:
Government,
Is Government Too Big?
Monday, July 4, 2011
Gendercide. Women should be appalled
Parental preference for producing sons rather than daughters in a number of societies has led to the aborting of more than 160 million female babies since the late 1970s, an author contends.
Writing about the book “Unnatural Selection” by Mara Hvistendahl, Jonathan V. Last, a senior editor at the Weekly Standard, notes that the natural ratio of 105 boys for every 100 girls is “biologically ironclad.”
But in India today there are 112 boys born for every girl. In China, there are 121 boys for every girl, and in many towns the male figure is over 150. In Armenia, the figure is 120.
What is causing the skewed ratio is abortion.
“If the male number in the sex ratio is above 106, it means that couples are having abortions when they find out the mother is carrying a girl,” Last writes in an article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal.
"By Ms. Hvistendahl’s counting, there have been so many sex-selective abortions in the past three decades that 163 million girls, who by biological averages should have been born, are missing from the world.”
What made the skewed ratio possible is the availability of amniocentesis in the mid-1970s, and later ultrasound, to determine the gender of a child before birth.
Last cites an ad put out by an Indian clinic that states, “Better 500 rupees now than 5,000 later,” referring to the price of a sex-determination test versus the cost of a dowry for a daughter.
Skewed sex ratios have had some unpleasant and often violent repercussions through history, Hvistendahl points out, citing the dearth of women along the frontier in the “wild” American West. In 1870, the sex ratio west of the Mississippi was 120 to 100, and in California it was 166 to 100.
“Today in India,” Last observes, “the best predictor of violence and crime for any given area is not income but sex ratio.”
Last also cites the danger that with prenatal sex determination reducing the number of females, “a small but still significant group of the world’s women will end up being stolen or sold from their homes and forced into prostitution or marriage.”
And he goes on to say that “if ‘choice’ is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against ‘gendercide.’ Choice is choice.”
Reposted from Newsmax.com
Reposted from Newsmax.com
Labels:
Abortion,
Gendercide
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The Adoption Argument for Same-Sex Marriage
Following is a letter to a friend who commonly resorts to the needs of parentless children as a justification for same-sex marriage. It's a common, emotional, and seemingly rational appeal.
Dear XXXXX:
Hope you'll take a minute to consider a few thoughts regarding same-sex marriage. I heard you talking about gay marriage and adoption. As a talk show host, I realize that often times you may be saying things simply to provoke conversation, which of course is your job, so I don't necessarily think that everything you say is what you personally believe. But in case you don't already know....
There is no shortage of heterosexual married couples in the United States, including Guam, who are waiting to adopt a child. Just google the words "waiting to adopt". There are even "waiting to adopt"' support groups. In Guam, since we have no adoption agency or legal entity that keeps track of such things, we have to go to the people who facilitate adoptions to get any kind of data. Kamalin Karidat is the most active organization in local adoptions. I am told that there are at least 20 couples at any one time waiting to adopt and they sometimes have to wait years.
The wait and the complexity is longer in Guam because there is no agency and families are less likely to put a child up for adoption and more likely to farm the kid out to a relative. In addition, the average cost of adopting a child in the U.S. is $33,793 with the attorney getting $31,465 of that. (www.adoptivefamilies.com) The wait and the cost is why many couples go outside the U.S. to adopt children.
The wait and the complexity is longer in Guam because there is no agency and families are less likely to put a child up for adoption and more likely to farm the kid out to a relative. In addition, the average cost of adopting a child in the U.S. is $33,793 with the attorney getting $31,465 of that. (www.adoptivefamilies.com) The wait and the cost is why many couples go outside the U.S. to adopt children.
I think its wonderful that good men and women who happen to be gay want to take care of a child, however, the question must be what's best for the child. If a heterosexual married couple is available to adopt (and the stats show that they are), should a homosexual couple be treated equally as good a choice or even given priority? What's best for the child? Do children really need a mother and a father or will any arrangement suffice? Irresponsible parenting is certainly a blight but does irresponsible parenting negate or change the true needs of the child? Is it okay for little Johnny to grow up seeing daddy and daddy in bed together?
As regards gay marriage in general I have one question that gay marriage advocates can never seem to answer:
"If you would not limit marriage to one man and one woman, what would you limit it to and why?"
This isn't just the "slippery slope" argument. We throw people in jail for marrying more than one person at a time. Why? Polygamy has a far greater historical, cultural, and even biblical pedigree than does gay marriage (which has none) or even permanent heterosexual monogamy for that matter. If marriage can simply be reduced to a matter of accessing benefits, then why not let brother and sister marry, father and daughter, and so on? If I work for the government and my wife gets my pension when I die and I would rather that my daughter get the pension, then why not divorce my wife and marry my daughter?
It's too easy to make light of these propositions and call them extreme, but essentially this is the gay marriage proposition. In fact, this is why Bill 212-30 never went anywhere because it proposed such a "reciprocal beneficiary" arrangement analogous to marriage. The boys over at the retirement fund weighed in quickly on that one.
But fiscal minutia aside, perhaps, next time the subject comes up, you can float the question: "If you would not limit marriage to one man and one woman, what would you limit it to and why?" And it wouldn't just be about polygamy, it would be about allowing all sorts of marital arrangements that the law currently forbids, most of which are on the basis of age, consanguinity, and affinity, but in some states, on blood types and sexually transmitted diseases. One state, Alabama, still has a law requiring physical consummation, meaning that impotency would be a legal impediment to marriage.
In short, the gay marriage debate needs to be engaged on the level of facts and not just feelings or personal religious beliefs - where it so often is. While I am informed by my religious beliefs I never attempt to make an argument against gay marriage from them, simply because it is not necessary.
I don't really want to call in every time I hear this topic come up. I've said my piece many times. In fact, I'm probably the local poster boy for the opposition - albeit by my own choosing. However, there has never been a forum where the issue can be intellectually engaged in a sustained way. Perhaps you've tried and I missed it.
Thanks for listening.
Labels:
Same-Sex Marriage
MARRIAGE "EQUALTIY" CREATES NEW INEQUALITIES
New York has become the sixth state to legalize “gay marriage”. Catholic lawmakers provided the key votes and a Catholic governor signed the bill into law. Catholic senator, Mark Grisanti, said that though he was raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman he could not “legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage.”
Grisanti continued: "If I take the Catholic out of me...then absolutely they should have these rights...” Grisanti’s comments invite further comment on: 1) the issue of rights, 2) the legislative imposition of personal beliefs, 3) the legal argument against same-sex marriage.
Rights
New York’s gay marriage bill actually had nothing to do with rights. As Katherine Franke, a partner in a same-sex domestic partnership, wrote in the New York Times the day before the vote, same-sex couples, under New York’s domestic partnership law, already have all the rights of married people. Ms. Franke even bemoaned a possible loss of freedom and flexibility that she now enjoys in a domestic partnership that she would not have within the tighter legal strictures of marriage.
Legislative imposition of personal beliefs
Grisanti’s metaphysical contortion about taking “the Catholic out of me” is another transliteration of the “I’m personally opposed, but...” that lawmakers will resort to when shrinking from a moral stand. Though raised to believe that marriage was between a man and a woman, Grisanti said he could not legally come up with an argument against same-sex marriage. We must then wonder what else Grisanti was raised to believe that he should not be making laws about: lying, cheating, stealing, murder?
All laws have a moral base. Politicians decide what’s right and wrong for the rest of us all the time whether its setting a speed limit or outlawing murder. As of June 23, Guam senators have introduced 243 bills! That means that Guam senators are deciding what is best for the rest of us 1.4 times every day including holidays and weekends! It’s only when it comes to same-sex legislation and abortion that certain lawmakers suddenly wax philosophical. Hmmm.
Legal argument
As for the lack of a legal argument against same-sex marriage, this was a senate chamber, not a court room. Senators engage the process which makes things legal or illegal. As a senator, Grisanti did not need a legal argument, he was in a position to make one. But since he didn’t, I will, or at least I will borrow one from Don Browning, Professor Emeritus at University of Chicago Divinity School.
Browning, along with other legal theorists, wonder if giving marriage benefits to same-sex couples “does injustice to other human arrangements where people care for one another...” Such arrangements could include a man or woman caring for an ailing sibling, an adult child caring for an aging parent, or two elderly persons of the same sex in a non-sexual relationship pooling resources.
Why should they, simply because they are NOT in a sexual relationship, be denied the same rights that New York has now extended to same-sex couples because they ARE in a sexual relationship? In short, if marriage is simply a matter of mutual caring divorced from procreation, then it is an INJUSTICE, as Browning says, “to extend marriage privileges to a particular group of sexual friendships while excluding many other interdependent care givers.”
But beyond the legal argument there is the official teaching of the Catholic Church which these Catholic politicians chose to ignore at their own peril. Every Catholic needs to know exactly what our Church teaches on this matter and where it can be found. It is as follows:
“When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons, June 3, 2003, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect)
Labels:
Marriage,
Same-Sex Marriage
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A comment for the Beer Summit on Abortion
The following is a comment that was too long to leave on You Tube at the following link:
Essentially, the abortion issue concerns the question: under what circumstances is it okay for one human being to kill another. The fact that the unborn child (that's the English definition of fetus - which is a Latin word) is a human being is not a question. The "thing" growing inside the mother is in fact a "being" or it wouldn't be growing, and since a human mother is not capable of gestating an ear of corn or baby elephant, the "thing" can be none other than a "human being". Both science and the law (Unborn Victims of Violence Act) have recognized this fact. That “pro-choicers” elect to use euphemisms such as “termination of pregnancy” and “reproductive health” is evidence that they are quite aware of what is going on here: one human being is electing to kill another.
Of course it’s all quite legal. An unborn child is denied legal personhood under Roe the same as slaves were denied legal personhood by the same Court 150 years earlier under Scott (Dred Scott decision). The Scott decision did not deny that Black people were human beings, it just denied them (if they were “owned”) legal personhood. Thus it was quite okay for a slave owner to saw off the legs of a runaway slave the same as it is quite okay for the abortionist to saw off the legs and arms or an unborn child in a D&E abortion.
Of course today we abhor slavery and its cruelties. But public opinion did not turn against slavery until the majority of Americans began to see what slavery looked like. Abolitionist artists captured the inhumane treatment of slaves in drawings and over many years finally forced Americans to see what slavery actually looked like. Pro-choicers criticize pro-lifers for doing the same but advocates for abortion should be able to embrace the photos of a dismembered and decapitated fully developed child if they truly believe and support a woman’s right to choose, otherwise, they are tacitly admitting that there is something wrong, terribly wrong, with such a position.
Again, the bottom line is the question: under what circumstances is it okay for one human being to kill another? Tina stalwartly approves the choice of one human being to kill another so long as the human to be killed is within the mother’s body. I’d be curious to know if she would also support partial birth abortion where only the head remains inside the mother’s birth canal while the rest of the body has been delivered. The abortionist then stabs the child in the back of the head, inserts a vacuum tube, sucks the child’s brains out, and delivers the child whole.
I would also wonder if she would support the killing of a child that survives a failed abortion. Would she support Dr. Gosnell’s right to kill living children who survived failed abortions by cutting their spines with a scissors (a current case in Philadelphia - he is being charged with murder). After all, the mother wanted the child dead. It wasn’t her fault that the abortionist botched the job. Why shouldn’t he finish the job....even if the child lies outside the womb squirming and gasping (described by Sycloria Williams in a born alive case in Florida as “hissing sounds only”).
In regard to the pro-life side in this discussion, Ramona is incorrect in her belief that contraception has nothing to do with abortion, and this is not a religious argument. Aside from the fact that the pill in general and the IUD specifically are abortifacient, there is the legal connection. Roe was preceded by Griswold v Connecticut. It was in Griswold that the “right to privacy” which was later used to justify Roe, was first formulated. The Griswold decision made it legal for married couples to use contraceptives. Incredibly (or so it seems to us today) the state forbid contraceptives for married couples back then (1965). Why? Because of the special responsibilities the married couple had to the State to produce the next generation and the special protected status granted marital unions to do so. (More on Griswold here.)
The State (once upon a time) took marriage very seriously. The survival of civilization and society depended on it (as stated in Skinner v Oklahoma and Loving v Virginia). Marriage, in the eyes of the State was never about two people loving each other. The State (and the Court), never says that. For the State, marriage is about the production, socialization, and education of the next generation necessary for the survival of society. In return, the State grants marriages special privileges and protections.
That the State expected married couple to produce is evidenced by the laws which forbid the use of contraceptives in marriage. In Griswold (who was the head of Planned Parenthood by the way) contraception won the day with the aid of a court-concocted "right to privacy" that paved the way for Roe (and eventually Lawrence v. Kansas).
But aside from the legal connection, increased contraception leads to increased abortion simply due to the law of averages. Those who use contraception use it because they do not want a child. All contraception has a failure rate. Because people believe they are protected from pregnancy, they engage in a greater number of sexual acts leading to a greater number of contraceptive failures which gives us a greater number of pregnancies. And then abortion is simply used as the ultimate birth control. Today, with contraception more available than ever before, Americans dismember, mutilate, burn, poison, scrape, and crush an average of 4000 unborn children every day.
The only real "common ground" found in the discussion was the desire to see fewer abortions and to that end education, adoption, and contraception were suggested. We've already dispatched the contraception solution. As regards adoption, there's a reason parents desirous of adopting a child are having to go to Russia, China, and other foreign countries to do so. The U.S. doesn't have the babies. This fact deserves more examination for in short, abortion is not about the young girl or the poor woman who is not able to provide for a child (a cliche). Abortion is primarily about covering one's promiscuous backside which is why adoption will never be a solution or even part of it.
As for education, yes, but the same education that is used to discourage people from smoking. Just as high school health teachers have no problem showing pictures of blackened and diseased lungs and people in their 40's and 50's hacking themselves to death, abortion must be shown for what it scientifically is. Show the procedures. Make sure that the public understands what abortion actually looks like. Watch The Silent Scream. Watch as the child struggles and tries to get away from the abortionist's knife as he slices up his body. Look at the pictures of fully formed children burned and blackened by saline solution. Education? Let's have it.
To stay informed go to www. esperansa.org.
Labels:
Abortion
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Sam Harris - End of Faith
Harris (pg 12): "A glance at history....reveals that ideas which divide one group of human beings from another, only to unite them in slaughter, generally have their roots in religion."
Rohr: Harris seems to have "glanced" over the 20th century where religiously motivated "slaughter" is almost incidental to the mega murders of "death by government". Aside from the usual suspects: Soviet Union, Nationalist China, Communist China, and Nazi Germany, each of which killed 10,000,000 or more helpless and unarmed persons, there are (in the 20th century) 204 other cases of "democide" by state and quasi-state regimes, and non-state groups. (Statistics of Democide)
(Democide = genocide, politicide, massacres, extrajudicial executions, and other forms of mass murder)
The fact that Harris makes this major oversight at the beginning of his argument basically sinks the rest of his thesis. Harris would be correct if he meant by "religion" a system of beliefs (i.e. one could say that Stalin and Mao carried out their purges with a religious fervor). But Harris specifically means a deity driven religion: "it is what we do with words like 'God', 'paradise' and 'sin'. (pg. 12)
Harris: "...most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book."
Rohr: Harris is a rather sloppy atheist. The above sentence references - even acknowledges - a Creator. A good atheist writer would have written: "most of the people in this world believe in a Creator and believe that that Creator has written a book."
But sloppy atheism aside, the only group I know of who believe God has written a book would be fundamentalist Christians. Catholics do not accept the authority of the Bible on its own. They should know since they are the ones who decided what would go into the Bible in the first place. Muslims don't believe Allah wrote the Koran. The Jews know it was their patriarchs and prophets who wrote the "Law and the Prophets". Hindus and Buddhists have sacred texts but there seems to be no belief that the text came directly from a deity.
Of course what Harris really means to say is that there are many people who believe that their sacred texts are divinely inspired and thus carry or embody a unique authority or mandate.
Rohr: Harris seems to have "glanced" over the 20th century where religiously motivated "slaughter" is almost incidental to the mega murders of "death by government". Aside from the usual suspects: Soviet Union, Nationalist China, Communist China, and Nazi Germany, each of which killed 10,000,000 or more helpless and unarmed persons, there are (in the 20th century) 204 other cases of "democide" by state and quasi-state regimes, and non-state groups. (Statistics of Democide)
(Democide = genocide, politicide, massacres, extrajudicial executions, and other forms of mass murder)
The fact that Harris makes this major oversight at the beginning of his argument basically sinks the rest of his thesis. Harris would be correct if he meant by "religion" a system of beliefs (i.e. one could say that Stalin and Mao carried out their purges with a religious fervor). But Harris specifically means a deity driven religion: "it is what we do with words like 'God', 'paradise' and 'sin'. (pg. 12)
Harris: "...most of the people in this world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book."
Rohr: Harris is a rather sloppy atheist. The above sentence references - even acknowledges - a Creator. A good atheist writer would have written: "most of the people in this world believe in a Creator and believe that that Creator has written a book."
But sloppy atheism aside, the only group I know of who believe God has written a book would be fundamentalist Christians. Catholics do not accept the authority of the Bible on its own. They should know since they are the ones who decided what would go into the Bible in the first place. Muslims don't believe Allah wrote the Koran. The Jews know it was their patriarchs and prophets who wrote the "Law and the Prophets". Hindus and Buddhists have sacred texts but there seems to be no belief that the text came directly from a deity.
Of course what Harris really means to say is that there are many people who believe that their sacred texts are divinely inspired and thus carry or embody a unique authority or mandate.
Labels:
Sam Harris
Polygamy advocates in the U.S. have cause for hope
(published in the Marianas Variety (August 2010) as "Matrimonial Chaos)
Justice Vaughn Walker, in striking down California’s ban on gay marriage (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), has opened wide the doors for the much persecuted advocates of plural marriage. A little background:
In 1862, in a response to the Mormon practice of a man taking multiple wives, Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. The law was largely unenforced. So 20 years later, Congress passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act (1882), which was enforced, and resulted in more than 1,300 men being sent to prison.
Women were initially seen as victims and were not prosecuted directly, but since the Act also abrogated “spousal privilege”, many were found "in contempt of court" and jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands.
The Edmunds Act not only made polygamy, which it called “unlawful cohabitation”, a felony but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.
Five years later, Edmunds was at it again with the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) which further persecuted the Mormons. The Act disincorporated the Church, allowed the federal government to confiscate its property, disenfranchised women, and removed local control of school textbook choice...and this is only a partial list. (Talk about a persecuted minority!)
In 1892, Congress hammered another nail in the polygamous coffin with a federal anti-bigamy provision which excluded polygamists from immigration into the United States. It remains part of the current U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Code. (Wonder if they are enforcing this on Muslims?)
In 1878, the first challenge to the federal ban on plural marriage reached the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States. Reynolds, a Mormon, simply obeying the statutes of his religion and having two wives, challenged the ban under the First Amendment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
The Court responded by stating that the word “religion” was not defined in the Constitution and “must go elsewhere...to ascertain its meaning”. The “elsewhere” that the Court settled on was a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association wherein Jefferson writes in reference to the Establishment Clause: “...that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions”.
In other words, the federal government cannot tell you what to think about religion (opinion) but they can tell you what you can and cannot do (actions), especially when, as the Court deduced, those actions which are “in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” (This same letter, by the way, is where we find the troublesome reference to “separation of church and state”.)
The Court then baptized Jefferson’s letter (and in effect judicially amended the Constitution) with the following sentence: “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.” (As you can see, the Court’s argument can be reduced to “because Jefferson said so.”)
But the nasty business of defining “subversive of good order” was still left undone. In order to fill in the blanks, the Court resorted to a reasoning that today would be laughable (but still stands): “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Translation: Europe, the U.S., and White People are civilized. Black and Yellow people are heathens. Today, Reynolds remains the law of the land. (Reynolds went to jail for two years.)
But now the Walker decision has produced the first real opportunity in over a hundred years to reverse Reynolds and legalize polygamy. And if I was a polygamy advocate, I would piggy-back on the Perry case all the way to the Supreme Court. For if marriage is only a “union of equals” (Perry pg 113) then not only is gender no longer a limiting factor, but number as well. In other words, “Why only two?” After all, polygamous marriage has a far greater historical pedigree than does homosexual marriage. (Contrary to the Reynolds reference to Asians and Africans, polygamy was an essential feature of the Judaic tradition, a tradition this country claims as part of its foundation.)
The crazy thing is that we already allow a form of polygamy in our country. Quoting the header at Polygamy.com: “A man can have sex with as many women as he likes. But he can’t marry more than one. If we don’t have a good reason to discriminate, then we probably shouldn’t.” And of course men and women can marry as many partners as they want. They just have to do the paperwork.
In addition, while a man is sent to jail for making a legal commitment to the women he has sex with (if more than one), another man is free to disseminate his seed with abandon (with the state often picking up the tab to care for his progeny), so long has he doesn’t legally commit to any more than one.
But aside from polygamy, there are other considerations regarding legal obstacles to marriage the Walker decision has opened up such as: age requirements, consanguinity (blood relations), affinity (kinship by marriage), vaccination requirements, disease testing, physical exams, proof of sufficient mental capacity, waiting periods, impotency, and consummation laws (still valid in some states, e.g. Alabama).
Given Walker’s decision that “same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage...” (Page 113), there simply is no reason to prohibit marriages between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, uncles and nieces (or nephews for that matter) one man and 10 women, 10 men and one woman, etc.
The fact that such a list of restrictions on marriage exist in law is a testament to the state’s foundational understanding and expectation of marriage: to produce and educate the next generation. If this is no longer the case, then none of the civil impediments to marriage have any foundation and either must be struck down or the civil institution of marriage eliminated altogether.
Justice Vaughn Walker, in striking down California’s ban on gay marriage (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), has opened wide the doors for the much persecuted advocates of plural marriage. A little background:
In 1862, in a response to the Mormon practice of a man taking multiple wives, Congress passed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. The law was largely unenforced. So 20 years later, Congress passed the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act (1882), which was enforced, and resulted in more than 1,300 men being sent to prison.
Women were initially seen as victims and were not prosecuted directly, but since the Act also abrogated “spousal privilege”, many were found "in contempt of court" and jailed for refusing to testify against their husbands.
The Edmunds Act not only made polygamy, which it called “unlawful cohabitation”, a felony but also revoked polygamists' right to vote, made them ineligible for jury service, and prohibited them from holding political office.
Five years later, Edmunds was at it again with the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) which further persecuted the Mormons. The Act disincorporated the Church, allowed the federal government to confiscate its property, disenfranchised women, and removed local control of school textbook choice...and this is only a partial list. (Talk about a persecuted minority!)
In 1892, Congress hammered another nail in the polygamous coffin with a federal anti-bigamy provision which excluded polygamists from immigration into the United States. It remains part of the current U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Code. (Wonder if they are enforcing this on Muslims?)
In 1878, the first challenge to the federal ban on plural marriage reached the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States. Reynolds, a Mormon, simply obeying the statutes of his religion and having two wives, challenged the ban under the First Amendment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
The Court responded by stating that the word “religion” was not defined in the Constitution and “must go elsewhere...to ascertain its meaning”. The “elsewhere” that the Court settled on was a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association wherein Jefferson writes in reference to the Establishment Clause: “...that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions”.
In other words, the federal government cannot tell you what to think about religion (opinion) but they can tell you what you can and cannot do (actions), especially when, as the Court deduced, those actions which are “in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” (This same letter, by the way, is where we find the troublesome reference to “separation of church and state”.)
The Court then baptized Jefferson’s letter (and in effect judicially amended the Constitution) with the following sentence: “Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.” (As you can see, the Court’s argument can be reduced to “because Jefferson said so.”)
But the nasty business of defining “subversive of good order” was still left undone. In order to fill in the blanks, the Court resorted to a reasoning that today would be laughable (but still stands): “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Translation: Europe, the U.S., and White People are civilized. Black and Yellow people are heathens. Today, Reynolds remains the law of the land. (Reynolds went to jail for two years.)
But now the Walker decision has produced the first real opportunity in over a hundred years to reverse Reynolds and legalize polygamy. And if I was a polygamy advocate, I would piggy-back on the Perry case all the way to the Supreme Court. For if marriage is only a “union of equals” (Perry pg 113) then not only is gender no longer a limiting factor, but number as well. In other words, “Why only two?” After all, polygamous marriage has a far greater historical pedigree than does homosexual marriage. (Contrary to the Reynolds reference to Asians and Africans, polygamy was an essential feature of the Judaic tradition, a tradition this country claims as part of its foundation.)
The crazy thing is that we already allow a form of polygamy in our country. Quoting the header at Polygamy.com: “A man can have sex with as many women as he likes. But he can’t marry more than one. If we don’t have a good reason to discriminate, then we probably shouldn’t.” And of course men and women can marry as many partners as they want. They just have to do the paperwork.
In addition, while a man is sent to jail for making a legal commitment to the women he has sex with (if more than one), another man is free to disseminate his seed with abandon (with the state often picking up the tab to care for his progeny), so long has he doesn’t legally commit to any more than one.
But aside from polygamy, there are other considerations regarding legal obstacles to marriage the Walker decision has opened up such as: age requirements, consanguinity (blood relations), affinity (kinship by marriage), vaccination requirements, disease testing, physical exams, proof of sufficient mental capacity, waiting periods, impotency, and consummation laws (still valid in some states, e.g. Alabama).
Given Walker’s decision that “same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage...” (Page 113), there simply is no reason to prohibit marriages between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, uncles and nieces (or nephews for that matter) one man and 10 women, 10 men and one woman, etc.
The fact that such a list of restrictions on marriage exist in law is a testament to the state’s foundational understanding and expectation of marriage: to produce and educate the next generation. If this is no longer the case, then none of the civil impediments to marriage have any foundation and either must be struck down or the civil institution of marriage eliminated altogether.
Labels:
Marriage
The Walker Ruling and the Griswold Connection
(published in the PDN, August 2010)
On August 4, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Compared to the plaintiffs, the defense was ill-prepared and under represented. But perhaps its greatest liability was its principal argument:: “the central purpose of marriage...(is to) promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.”
Under this banner, the defense was doomed, not on August 4, 2010, but on June 7, 1965. On that day the Supreme Court declared a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives within marriage to be unconstitutional (Griswold v. Connecticut). That such a law was still in effect as late as 1965 (several states had similar laws) underscores, not just the government’s understanding of marriage, but it’s expectation of it...at least until 1965.
Allowing contraceptives (at first only within marriage) essentially made procreation optional and no longer the “central purpose of marriage”. By default, the purpose of marriage fell to what was left: two people who want to be legally joined. Since same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equally capable of being legally joined, there remained no basis for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. Thus we have Judge Walker’s ruling: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
Predictably, Christian organizations are protesting the decision. However, most Christians have little moral footing since their acceptance of contraceptives in the marriage bed predates Griswold by 35 years. In 1930, the Anglican Church became the first major denomination to admit contraception. Within a couple decades almost all mainline Christian churches, which had historically condemned contraception, had either reversed their condemnation or simply deleted the issue from their doctrines.
The Catholic Church, alone, held fast to the ancient condemnation of contraception. However, most Catholics ignore this particular teaching...or never hear it, making them even more compromised than their “protestant” counterparts since Catholics at least have the benefit of established doctrine.
With most Christians principally neutered in the same-sex argument and the legal momentum on the side of the advocates, there seems little that can stop same-sex marriage from becoming a constitutional right. However, opponents have one last hope: Barack Obama. Two reasons.
First, the Obama Administration’s flagrant governing against the will of the people has produced a popular backlash the likes of which have not been seen since the American Revolution. And though courts are not supposed to be influenced by popular sentiment, popular sentiment is getting difficult to ignore. The smarter heads at the ACLU (and others) know this and OPPOSED the case against Prop 8 because they felt that “a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good.”
Second, everyone knows that the future of marriage in the U.S. will come down to the decision of one man: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. And in a case like this where emotions and sympathies are in play, Obama, a same-sex advocate, would have done well to curry Kennedy’s good will.
However, in his State of the Union speech in January, Obama took an ill-mannered public swipe at 5 of the justices seated before him. Their sin? Just days before, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. Obama recognized the threat to his political future and publicly impugned the Court’s decision. The author of the decision? Anthony Kennedy.
But regardless of how this plays out in the legal arena, Christians, for whom the words “homosexual” and “abomination” seem to rhyme, should revisit what the same Scriptures say about “coitus interruptus” (Gen. 38:9-10) and sterilization (Deut. 23:1). In short, the Scriptures do not condemn homosexual acts because they are homosexual, but because they are intentionally sterile. The Catholic Church even considers intentionally sterile marital acts a greater “abomination” than homosexual acts, calling homosexual acts only “intrinsically disordered” (CCC2357), while branding contraceptive marital acts as “intrinsically evil” (CCC2370).
The contraception debate aside, marriage minus procreation (intentional) equals a legal contract the same as any other, and thus grounds not only for marriage between two members of the same-sex, but for any arrangement of persons. Perhaps now that both civil and (most) religious authorities have rejected what once was the “central purpose of marriage”, the best solution is to get rid of the troublesome word altogether.
On August 4, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California’s ban on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Compared to the plaintiffs, the defense was ill-prepared and under represented. But perhaps its greatest liability was its principal argument:: “the central purpose of marriage...(is to) promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.”
Under this banner, the defense was doomed, not on August 4, 2010, but on June 7, 1965. On that day the Supreme Court declared a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives within marriage to be unconstitutional (Griswold v. Connecticut). That such a law was still in effect as late as 1965 (several states had similar laws) underscores, not just the government’s understanding of marriage, but it’s expectation of it...at least until 1965.
Allowing contraceptives (at first only within marriage) essentially made procreation optional and no longer the “central purpose of marriage”. By default, the purpose of marriage fell to what was left: two people who want to be legally joined. Since same-sex and opposite-sex couples are equally capable of being legally joined, there remained no basis for limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. Thus we have Judge Walker’s ruling: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
Predictably, Christian organizations are protesting the decision. However, most Christians have little moral footing since their acceptance of contraceptives in the marriage bed predates Griswold by 35 years. In 1930, the Anglican Church became the first major denomination to admit contraception. Within a couple decades almost all mainline Christian churches, which had historically condemned contraception, had either reversed their condemnation or simply deleted the issue from their doctrines.
The Catholic Church, alone, held fast to the ancient condemnation of contraception. However, most Catholics ignore this particular teaching...or never hear it, making them even more compromised than their “protestant” counterparts since Catholics at least have the benefit of established doctrine.
With most Christians principally neutered in the same-sex argument and the legal momentum on the side of the advocates, there seems little that can stop same-sex marriage from becoming a constitutional right. However, opponents have one last hope: Barack Obama. Two reasons.
First, the Obama Administration’s flagrant governing against the will of the people has produced a popular backlash the likes of which have not been seen since the American Revolution. And though courts are not supposed to be influenced by popular sentiment, popular sentiment is getting difficult to ignore. The smarter heads at the ACLU (and others) know this and OPPOSED the case against Prop 8 because they felt that “a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good.”
Second, everyone knows that the future of marriage in the U.S. will come down to the decision of one man: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. And in a case like this where emotions and sympathies are in play, Obama, a same-sex advocate, would have done well to curry Kennedy’s good will.
However, in his State of the Union speech in January, Obama took an ill-mannered public swipe at 5 of the justices seated before him. Their sin? Just days before, the Court, in a 5-4 decision, rolled back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns. Obama recognized the threat to his political future and publicly impugned the Court’s decision. The author of the decision? Anthony Kennedy.
But regardless of how this plays out in the legal arena, Christians, for whom the words “homosexual” and “abomination” seem to rhyme, should revisit what the same Scriptures say about “coitus interruptus” (Gen. 38:9-10) and sterilization (Deut. 23:1). In short, the Scriptures do not condemn homosexual acts because they are homosexual, but because they are intentionally sterile. The Catholic Church even considers intentionally sterile marital acts a greater “abomination” than homosexual acts, calling homosexual acts only “intrinsically disordered” (CCC2357), while branding contraceptive marital acts as “intrinsically evil” (CCC2370).
The contraception debate aside, marriage minus procreation (intentional) equals a legal contract the same as any other, and thus grounds not only for marriage between two members of the same-sex, but for any arrangement of persons. Perhaps now that both civil and (most) religious authorities have rejected what once was the “central purpose of marriage”, the best solution is to get rid of the troublesome word altogether.
Labels:
Marriage
Friday, October 1, 2010
A Little History
Piss poor
They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken & sold to the tannery, if you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor",
Don't have a pot to piss in
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot......they "didn't have a pot to piss in" & were the lowest of the low.
Bride's Bouquet
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June. However, since they were starting to smell. Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor: hence, the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Dont' throw the baby out with the bath water
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the
house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the came the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"
Raining cats and dogs
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood
underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
Canopy beds
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
Dirt Poor
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt;
hence the saying, "Dirt poor."
Thresh hold
The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way; hence: a thresh hold.
Peas Porridge
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire.. Everyday they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme: Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold,peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Bring home the bacon, Chew the Fat
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around
and "chew the fat".
Poisonous tomatoes
Those with money had plates made of pewter.Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Upper Crust
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the "upper crust".
The Wake
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. he combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up; hence the custom of holding a wake.
Graveyard Shift, Dead Ringer
England is old and not much land so the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a dead ringer.
They used to use urine to tan animal skins, so families used to all pee in a pot & then once a day it was taken & sold to the tannery, if you had to do this to survive you were "Piss Poor",
Don't have a pot to piss in
But worse than that were the really poor folk who couldn't even afford to buy a pot......they "didn't have a pot to piss in" & were the lowest of the low.
Bride's Bouquet
Most people got married in June because they took their yearly bath in May, and they still smelled pretty good by June. However, since they were starting to smell. Brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor: hence, the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
Dont' throw the baby out with the bath water
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the
house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children. Last of all the came the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the Bath water!"
Raining cats and dogs
Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood
underneath. It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
Canopy beds
There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
Dirt Poor
The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt;
hence the saying, "Dirt poor."
Thresh hold
The wealthy had slate floors that would get slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on floor to help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh until, when you opened the door, it would all start slipping outside. A piece of wood was placed in the entrance-way; hence: a thresh hold.
Peas Porridge
In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that always hung over the fire.. Everyday they lit the fire and added things to the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme: Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold,peas porridge in the pot nine days old.
Bring home the bacon, Chew the Fat
Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a sign of wealth that a man could, "bring home the bacon." They would cut off a little to share with guests and would all sit around
and "chew the fat".
Poisonous tomatoes
Those with money had plates made of pewter.Food with high acid content caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
Upper Crust
Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or the "upper crust".
The Wake
Lead cups were used to drink ale or whiskey. he combination would sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake up; hence the custom of holding a wake.
Graveyard Shift, Dead Ringer
England is old and not much land so the local folks started running out of places to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a bone-house, and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the graveyard all night (the graveyard shift.) to listen for the bell; thus, someone could be, saved by the bell or was considered a dead ringer.
Labels:
History
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Guam: A good laboratory rat cage for the rest of the nation
My friends in the states would do well to keep an eye on Guam in these changing times. Guam is a microcosm of the U.S., a tiny incubator you might say, or perhaps a laboratory rat cage, where U.S. policies, primarily intended for a stateside population of 300 million, are inserted by force of law into a community .0005 times the size.
Whereas in the states, it may take awhile for the implementation of a massive federal policy such as the new healthcare law, otherwise known as "Obamacare", to be felt at the local level, the impact of such a policy on a community our size is nothing less than an immediate shock.
As expected, insurance rates are going up. You can't expect insurance companies to absorb all the new mandates of Obamacare (children up to 26, pre-existing conditions, etc.) and not raise their rates. Rates go up each year anyway, but the increases aren't much different than the cost of other services we pay for such as power and water, etc. But this year they are going up as much as 92%, and co-pays for government workers are going up as much as 300%.
Since salaries and wages are not increasing at a pace anywhere near that rate, and with more and more people are losing income, not gaining, people are incentivized to drop their insurance and go to self-pay. But what that really means is that more people will be showing up at the emergency room of our only public hospital, which translates into greater costs to the government of Guam, not to mention that real emergencies may have to wait in a much longer line.
This isn't a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention which is why at the height of the debate last March, most Americans opposed the health care bill and it's why Obama had to buy some Democrat hold outs in order to squeak it through. This is also when the Tea Party phenomenon exploded onto the scene. The Tea Party is nothing more than the silent majority that was shocked awake by both the reality of what was in the health care bill and the incredible intrigue needed to pass it.
But all of this is by design. Some say Obama doesn't know what he's doing. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. Type the words "single payer" and "Obama" into your search engine and there are endless references to Obama swearing that he is completely committed to a single payer health system and that he realizes that it make 10 or more years to get there.
First, let's define "single payer". It simply means that there are no other players besides the federal government. Bureaucrats will decide what gets treated, who gets treated, and what they get treated with. Insurance companies do that now, but in a free market, one can go elsewhere, however difficult that may be. But in a single payer system, there is no "elsewhere" to go, which is why wealthier people from nations that have this system often come to the U.S. for treatment.
Second, why does Obama say this will take 10 years or more, especially if it's such a great idea? He knows that the average U.S. citizen is not quite yet ready for a complete government take over of matters of health, life, and death. Citizens have to be eased into it. They have to want the government to take over that part of their lives or there will be revolution. It's called soft-despotism and it has been creeping into the American psyche and practice for the better part of a century.
This is why Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste". He knew that the American people are more amenable to government intrusion when they feel insecure. The financial crisis created the moment. One would think that the first actions of the administration would have been to address the crisis, but instead Obama headed straight for health care, justifying this strange direction with the claim that no financial recovery was possible with out an overhaul of health care. It was a weak tie in. And America knew it, which is why the legislation was greeted with such upheaval and hostility.
The steps toward a single payer are quite simple:
1. Force insurance companies to provide coverage they can't afford.
2. Insurance companies are forced to raise their rates to cover the new mandates.
3. Force people to either have insurance or pay a fine to the government.
4. Make the fine less than the insurance rates.
5. People drop their insurance and pay the fine.
6. Insurance companies lose their customer base and stop providing health coverage.
7. The government then becomes the "last man standing".
8. All power over health, life, and death now is in the hands of the federal government.
It's a simple design, which is why so many people can see it. But beyond that we have the issue of the health care providers themselves. Under a single payer system, doctors have only one employer, the federal government, and they already know how that's going to turn out given 40 years of dealing with the government under Medicare and Medicaid. Some will still want to practice medicine, but you can be sure that many of the best and the brightest will look elsewhere and we will have an increasing shortage of doctors, especially the very good ones.
On Guam, the crisis will be immediately felt on October 1 which is when the current health care contract with the Government of Guam expires and the new one with the higher rates kick in. It is expected that many will just drop the coverage and opt for self-pay or just not go to the doctor. Since most will avail themselves of the public hospital for services, the cost to the Government of Guam will skyrocket.
As mentioned, this is no surprise, but I'm wondering, where are all the senators and the congresswoman, who were all singing the praises of Obamacare a few month ago? I have an email record of several conversations with Congresswoman Bordallo over the legislation in general and the abortion funding in particular. However, as a good party person, Bordallo swore that this was good for Guam. Anybody with a brain knew that it wasn't.
So now what do we have? As expected, the politicians are scrambling to blame the insurance companies. But by the sound of the public response, more and more people aren't buying it. Too late Guam. No one is even challenging Bordallo in the upcoming election. So she'll have another four years to bring us more such gifts.
Whereas in the states, it may take awhile for the implementation of a massive federal policy such as the new healthcare law, otherwise known as "Obamacare", to be felt at the local level, the impact of such a policy on a community our size is nothing less than an immediate shock.
As expected, insurance rates are going up. You can't expect insurance companies to absorb all the new mandates of Obamacare (children up to 26, pre-existing conditions, etc.) and not raise their rates. Rates go up each year anyway, but the increases aren't much different than the cost of other services we pay for such as power and water, etc. But this year they are going up as much as 92%, and co-pays for government workers are going up as much as 300%.
Since salaries and wages are not increasing at a pace anywhere near that rate, and with more and more people are losing income, not gaining, people are incentivized to drop their insurance and go to self-pay. But what that really means is that more people will be showing up at the emergency room of our only public hospital, which translates into greater costs to the government of Guam, not to mention that real emergencies may have to wait in a much longer line.
This isn't a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention which is why at the height of the debate last March, most Americans opposed the health care bill and it's why Obama had to buy some Democrat hold outs in order to squeak it through. This is also when the Tea Party phenomenon exploded onto the scene. The Tea Party is nothing more than the silent majority that was shocked awake by both the reality of what was in the health care bill and the incredible intrigue needed to pass it.
But all of this is by design. Some say Obama doesn't know what he's doing. Obama knows exactly what he's doing. Type the words "single payer" and "Obama" into your search engine and there are endless references to Obama swearing that he is completely committed to a single payer health system and that he realizes that it make 10 or more years to get there.
First, let's define "single payer". It simply means that there are no other players besides the federal government. Bureaucrats will decide what gets treated, who gets treated, and what they get treated with. Insurance companies do that now, but in a free market, one can go elsewhere, however difficult that may be. But in a single payer system, there is no "elsewhere" to go, which is why wealthier people from nations that have this system often come to the U.S. for treatment.
Second, why does Obama say this will take 10 years or more, especially if it's such a great idea? He knows that the average U.S. citizen is not quite yet ready for a complete government take over of matters of health, life, and death. Citizens have to be eased into it. They have to want the government to take over that part of their lives or there will be revolution. It's called soft-despotism and it has been creeping into the American psyche and practice for the better part of a century.
This is why Rahm Emanuel famously said: "Never let a good crisis go to waste". He knew that the American people are more amenable to government intrusion when they feel insecure. The financial crisis created the moment. One would think that the first actions of the administration would have been to address the crisis, but instead Obama headed straight for health care, justifying this strange direction with the claim that no financial recovery was possible with out an overhaul of health care. It was a weak tie in. And America knew it, which is why the legislation was greeted with such upheaval and hostility.
The steps toward a single payer are quite simple:
1. Force insurance companies to provide coverage they can't afford.
2. Insurance companies are forced to raise their rates to cover the new mandates.
3. Force people to either have insurance or pay a fine to the government.
4. Make the fine less than the insurance rates.
5. People drop their insurance and pay the fine.
6. Insurance companies lose their customer base and stop providing health coverage.
7. The government then becomes the "last man standing".
8. All power over health, life, and death now is in the hands of the federal government.
It's a simple design, which is why so many people can see it. But beyond that we have the issue of the health care providers themselves. Under a single payer system, doctors have only one employer, the federal government, and they already know how that's going to turn out given 40 years of dealing with the government under Medicare and Medicaid. Some will still want to practice medicine, but you can be sure that many of the best and the brightest will look elsewhere and we will have an increasing shortage of doctors, especially the very good ones.
On Guam, the crisis will be immediately felt on October 1 which is when the current health care contract with the Government of Guam expires and the new one with the higher rates kick in. It is expected that many will just drop the coverage and opt for self-pay or just not go to the doctor. Since most will avail themselves of the public hospital for services, the cost to the Government of Guam will skyrocket.
As mentioned, this is no surprise, but I'm wondering, where are all the senators and the congresswoman, who were all singing the praises of Obamacare a few month ago? I have an email record of several conversations with Congresswoman Bordallo over the legislation in general and the abortion funding in particular. However, as a good party person, Bordallo swore that this was good for Guam. Anybody with a brain knew that it wasn't.
So now what do we have? As expected, the politicians are scrambling to blame the insurance companies. But by the sound of the public response, more and more people aren't buying it. Too late Guam. No one is even challenging Bordallo in the upcoming election. So she'll have another four years to bring us more such gifts.
Labels:
Health Care Issue
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)