Joining

No real news to report.  I've done a little bit of research and I'm interested in the Republican Liberty Caucus.  This seems to be the Goldwater/Paul wing of the Republican party.  I've read through their Statement of Principles and can buy into most of it.

I do, however, have some reservation about becoming a big "R" Republican again.  I've been fairly comfortable the last several years not being a member of any political party.  I'm just not sure I can move forward and be able to affect change without joining.

I'm also a bit concerned about my ability to actually do anything with the RLC here is south Alabama.  The state chapter is in Birmingham and I don't think there is a local group.  I don't know if I'm ready to be a leader at this point and try and start anything here in Mobile.  I'm much more comfortable joining an existing group.  I'll keep looking.

 -JJA

Meet the New Boss - Same as the Old Boss

I'm dusting off my virtual soapbox because I am politically frustrated and I don't know what to do about it. It seems like both major parties are arguing about the degree to which they want to continue bad policies, rather than looking for fresh ideas and leading the country in accepting them.

I didn't vote for either Romney or Obama because when it came right down do it, on civil liberties and foreign policy there was no significant difference in their positions. As for the economy, to the extent that a president has the power to affect it, we would have just been trading one type of crony capitalism for another.

I've thought about formally joining the Libertarian party, but we have to face the fact that third party candidates will rarely be taken seriously and will win politically even less often.  I'm leaning toward finding a liberty oriented group (one focused on less government and more freedoms) and trying to make a difference there.  Maybe it will be within the Republican party or maybe it'll be a non-partisan organization, I'm not really sure what my options are at the moment.  I just know I want to do more than just complain.

If anyone has ideas or suggestions, I'm definitely open to them.

 -JJA

On Healthcare Reform, Atheism and the Nature of Debate

I’ve been thinking about and discussing two important topics lately, atheism and the proposed healthcare system reform.  On the surface there doesn’t seem to be much in common with these two trains of thought and they generally don’t come up at the same time.

However, I’ve been struck and frustrated by a tactic used by proponents of the Democrats’ reform that relates to tactics theists use to justify their irrational beliefs.

Proponents of this healthcare reform package might point to the number of people uninsured (or life expectancy or pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing massive restructuring that must be passed quickly.  All while characterizing opponents as merely obstructionists, in the pocket of evil special interests who hate poor people.

Fundamentalist theists might point to out of wedlock births (or divorce rates or teen violence, etc.), assert there is a problem and that the solution is legislation authorizing prayer in school.  All while characterizing opponents as merely people who don’t love God,  worshipers of the Devil who hate the traditional family.

I may agree that there are problems and pressures affecting the American family.  As an atheist, I clearly don’t love gods, nor do I worship devils and my wife and two kids argue against my hatred of the traditional family (although I have no issue with non-traditional families per se).  And even though I may not have a complete solution to teen violence or kids having kids, I will still fight to keep prayer out of the schools because I think it is wrong.

I’m not going to argue the merits of healthcare reform here.  I just want to comment on the nature of the debate.  The Democrats have asserted that the status quo is unacceptable.  I may or may not agree with that completely, but let’s assume that is true.  As the minority, Republicans have few options in shaping the bills especially if there are stark ideological differences.  The proposed legislation is less a question about what kind of reform there will be and more a question of if it will pass.  And although the Republicans don’t have the power or the votes to pass the kinds of reforms they think might agree with, their fight to stop something they see as wrong is still valid.

My point in all this is not to anger the liberal atheists out there by comparing them to fundamentalists (or worse still, Republicans).  My point is to say that proponents of this healthcare reform, since it is their proposal and since they have the Presidency and both houses of Congress, have the burden arguing their position is right and will work.  While attacking opponents of reform as the “Party of No,” feels good and score points with people that agree with them, it does nothing to help them meet their burden and further their argument.

I’ve been very disappointed with our political discourse lately.  Logic and reason seem to give way all too easily to emotion and demagoguery.  Those of us who embrace reason and rational thought must take a step back, dial down the rhetoric and assume that everyone involved is truly working to make our country a better place.

-Jay

Atheists in Mississippi, WTF!?

Updated August 13, 2009:  I learned that my outrage was somewhat misplaced and addressed the new information in an update below the Original post.

I learned something shocking today.  A provision in Mississippi’s state constitution barring people involved in a duel from holding public office was repealed in 1978.  Prior to that, Article 3, the Bill of Rights, Section 19 read:

“Human life shall not be imperiled by the practice of dueling; and any citizen of this state who shall hereafter fight a duel, or assist in the same as second, or send, accept, or knowingly carry a challenge therefore, whether such an act be done in the state, or out of it, or who shall go out of the state to fight a duel, or to assist in the same as second, or to send, accept, or carry a challenge, shall be disqualified from holding any office under this Constitution, and shall be disfranchised.”

So I guess the dueling community got tired of not being able to be represented in the Mississippi Legislature and worked to get this constitutional hurdle out of the way.  (More likely is that this reference to dueling in the constitution was an embarrassment and the legislature decided they really didn’t need the provision anyhow.)

Whether or not Mississippi needs to keep duelists out of office is not the point.  I use it as a counter point to: Article 14, entitled General Provisions, Section 265 states, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”  It’s not ambiguous.  It isn’t buried in legalize.  That is the entire section!

Are you telling me that not once, since 1890, has an atheist even tried to hold office in Mississippi and challenged this provision?  Is there really a constitutional argument that allows the state have this religious test that flies directly in the face of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?  That article states in part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I can’t think of a more basic religious test than the one that asks if you’re religious.  I’m tempted to move to Mississippi, run for dog catcher or something, just so I can publicly fail this test and bring this abomination out into the light of day (that and they have casinos).

I’m not typically an activist.  But this is something that really seems to need some activist activity devoted to it.  Bus campaigns and Out Campaigns are all well and good, but seeking elected office is fundamental participation in civic life that in which atheists should be allowed to engage.

I said in a previous post that atheists are not a suppressed minority and laws don’t need to be enacted or changed to protect my point of view.  I’m officially amending that.  I still don’t consider myself suppressed or oppressed, but obviously laws do need to be changed.

-Jay

August 13, 2009

Commenter Brian Westly pointed out that this question has been specifically addressed by the US Supreme Court in the 1961 decision Torasco v. Watkins.  I won’t go into the details of the case (follow the link to the Wikipedia entry) but the crux of the unanimous decision written by Hugo Black is this:

There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us - it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland. ... We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

So the Mississippi Constitution’s provision is moot.  It still begs the question of why it hasn’t been removed, but I’m guessing that has more to do with politics than with equal protection and the law of the land.

-Jay

Is Obama Creating an Enemies List?

This disturbing directive comes from the official White House blog:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

This didn’t come from a political activist group or a fact checking organization.  The White House, the President, the people with the ability to use the full force of the IRS and the FBI want to know what “disinformation” is being spread about a policy they support and, I can only assume, who is doing the spreading of that “disinformation.”  What President Obama’s administration plans to do with this is unclear from the blog post.  Maybe they just want to be able to answer people’s concerns and shoot down wild, untrue rumors.  Or maybe they intend to punish the originators of the rumors. 

The scariest part about this request is the Big Brother aspect of it.  Now if you forward an email that someone on your list thinks might be full of rumor and speculation, that email as well as your email address, the email addresses of who else it was sent to as well as the email addresses of who sent it all go into a database.  And who sent them that information?  Your neighbor or co-worker or activist aunt.  If you thought domestic spying was bad when the government engaged in it, wait until the spies are literally everywhere.

-Jay

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Last night President Obama made a little news.  No, not in that 55 min filibuster about healthcare reform.  That was a muddled mess that really didn’t add anything new to the conversation. 

No he said very clearly, when talking about his friend Henry Louis Gates, who was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct, “The Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”   That seems like a very specific and completely defensible position to take even though there is some question as to facts of the case.  Regardless, it was a direct and bold thing to say.

Or was it?

Today on Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs clarified Obama’s remarks like this, “He was not calling the officer stupid. The situation got out of hand.”

So the only clear and direct statement from the President last night doesn’t mean what it sounded like it meant.  I guess with that logic it will be easy for Mr. Gibbs to talk about the comprehensive reform plan detailed in the news conference.

No matter what the illness...

...we can count on the same prescription.

At least when Dr. Obama is trying to cure the economy. Steve Chapman over at reason.com writes in his post today:

Students of the Obama economic policy will also note a curious consistency in its approach to economic issues. Some problems, like the near-collapse of General Motors and Chrysler, came about because competition worked very well at serving consumers and punishing poorly run companies. Some problems, such as high health insurance premiums, came about because competition allegedly didn't work so well. In both cases, the administration proposes the same solution: more federal spending and a bigger federal role.

And there are other examples of this "solution" as well. Executives in the financial industry making too much money? That's easy, we'll create a government entity to control their pay. Banks buying loans without knowing the risk of default? People mortgaging homes without being able to make the payments? No sweat, how many billions do you need?

Too be fair, government expansion is not a new phenomena. But the scale of this expansion is unprecedented. And insidious. I was listening to Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi this morning on NPR. He said that the federal stimulus money that his state received was laden with "strings."

For example, in this economy, with tax revenue falling, because Mississippi got stimulus money specifically for education, the education budget is 7.2% higher than its ever been while the public safety budgets are taking a 6% cut. Sounds OK, right? I mean do you really need that many State Troopers on the highway? But beyond the disparity between priorities, what happens when tax revenues stop their slide and level off. No need for new stimulus, but now the bar has been set for the education budget in Mississippi by the Feds. Imagine the political fight that is going to ensue once that funding has to be reduced or more likely replaced by higher taxes? Obama doesn't have to deal with the consequences of funding his national priorities year after year, he only has to do it once. From that point forward, if a state government wants or needs to return to a budget that can be paid for without federal largess, special interests can easily cry foul and accuse responsible public official of "cutting" spending and "hurting the children." If I were a conspiracy nut I might think that was a plan to get Democrats elected all along.

And that is what is so dangerous about government expansion. Once a dollar has been spent or an agency created, it is nearly impossible to remove it from future budgets. We need to be aware and concerned about these "emergency" actions Congress and the Obama administration are taking. We may never be able to undo them.

-Jay

Now where did I put that sickle...

Okay, when I started this blog I didn't really think I'd be writing about weighty matters all the time and especially not on a Friday. But this is too fresh in my mind and too outrageous to let go without comment.

Yesterday, in Wisconsin, President Obama gave a speech about health care reform and uttered this, "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down."

Are you kidding me?! Set aside the wonderful care our veterans get through the VA and the stellar financial shape of Medicare , the administration is going to, yet again, pick winners and losers in Corporate America.

Just to recap in the last two weeks we have:

• the New GM and Chrysler backed by tax dollars competing with Ford (and Honda and Toyota, etc.)
• a new Czar that is going to start with limiting the compensation of executives working in the bailout funded section of the financial industry (he'll get to the rest of the financial industry soon and then see if you are making too much money after that)
• and now a proposal to use the backing of law and the largess of the US Treasury to compete against the health insurance industry

This isn't tinkering around the edges of economy. This is evidence of supreme mistrust of our capitalist system. Obama even explicitly says he doesn't trust the market. "If the private insurance companies have to compete with a public option, it will keep them honest and help keep prices down." Do you really think this desire to keep private companies honest through competition with a "public option" is limited to the health insurance industry? Why not all insurance companies? Or health care providers for that matter? Government doctors wouldn't have any incentive to order unnecessary tests. Maybe credit card companies? Reasonable rates, the Treasury makes a bit of a profit and if you don't pay up, Uncle Sam just takes it out of your tax refund...

All its going to cost you is some liberty. Don't get me wrong. I'm not some kook that thinks Obama is trying to take over and become a dictator. But capitalism is the manifestation of our freedom and independence from the government. It's vital that we protect it and reject the steps toward central planning and socialism.

We don't have to go ask our lords and masters to give us anything. We make it. We buy it. We sell it. We trade it. We make a profit and use that profit to enrich our lives. We make mistakes and we fail. We innovate and improve. This is what has made our country the richest and most free in all the world.

-Jay

You can't spell crazy without C, Z, A & R

According to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the federal government is concerned about what companies pay their top executives.

"We need to help encourage substantial reforms and compensation structures, particularly in the financial industry," he said.

Of course you're thinking, "But Jay, these companies are getting tax payer money in the form of bailouts from TARP." True, and I don't have much heartburn with telling the CEO's of AIG, GM, Chrysler and the dozens of banks that took bailout money that they deserve a pittance of pay until the money is all paid back to the Treasury. But we're not just talking about that. According to this story from the not particularly right wing Marketplace radio program (distributed by Public Radio International) we have this to look forward to:

But the government's push to limit compensation may not end with companies receiving taxpayer help. Members of the administration are also talking about reining in pay in the financial industry as a whole. They'd like to replace the current bonus-heavy system with one that pays people for long-term performance.

President Obama is set to appoint a "Pay Czar" to carry out the administrations reform of compensation. Beside the fact that this is an extra-constitutional position accountable to no one except the President. I am deeply troubled by ease of this power grab. Are we just going to stand by and allow the federal government to decide not just how much to tax the highly paid, but how high that pay should be? The argument for this "reform" is that the bonus structure encourages high risk for short term gain and is therefore poses a "systemic danger" to the stability of our financial system.

Suppose the next issue the government wants to tackle is the potential for housing price bubbles. Having solved Wall Street's problems with a new, fair compensation plan for the financial institutions, the Pay Czar asks, "Is it reasonable to cap amount a realtor can make by commission selling a home so they don't have an incentive to 'artificially' inflate the price?" It almost sounds reasonable doesn't it? That's why its so dangerous.

The United States is not like France. We won't have massive strikes that shut down cities with people demanding social safety programs from the government. It isn't that obvious. But what we are experiencing right now is a well intentioned administration doing things that seem reasonable leading us down a path to socialism.

If we are going to walk this path, let's at least do it being led by people who are accountable to us and must get elected on a socialist plan, not these "czars" that are appointed without review of the Senate and answer to no one but the President.

-Jay

That Didn't Take Long...

It didn't take very long to have a somewhat controversial topic to write a post about.  The California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only.  While I disagree with the substance of the California constitutional amendment, I think their Supreme Court made the right decision.  It is not their place to decide if something right or wrong, it is their place to decide if it is constitutional.  It's pretty hard to argue that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure, but I believe the argument made by opponents of Prop. 8 was that the process of amending the constitution was flawed.  Again, I don't think the judicial branch has the authority to change that.

The real target of those who want gay marriage in California needs to be the people of California.  Hopefully the 18,000 married gay couples living and working in California will dispel some of the ludicrous notions that gay marriage is a "threat" to traditional families.

So the short of it is: Kudos to the California Supreme Court for following the law.  And to those who want equal rights for all the citizens, you've got more work to do.  Put a smile on your face and get to it.  If you need my help, just ask.

-Jay