Like it, Hate it, SCOTUS has its mysterious ways.

As I write this, the Supreme Court has just weighed on two topics which divide the Left from the Right in our country - (1) The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. "Obamacare"), and (2) Same Sex Marriage. And the rulings exposed some interesting things about the court - more noteworthy than the rulings themselves. 

- - - - - -

When the court's polarization reflects the nation's polarization as a whole, one is likely to get some interesting verdicts. One of these verdicts was the original one supporting the ACA, where Justice Roberts used the government's right to impose taxes as a rationale to support the ACA. Why such a reason?  The man likely wanted to be on the right side of history, but didn't see another "conservative" way of getting to the majority decision.

Justice Roberts tends to support a Federalist reading of the law - delegating as much power as possible to the States, instead of accumulating that power in the Federal Government. So his votes on both the second round of the ACA and Same Sex Marriage would not be a shock to anyone. However, Justices Scalia and Thomas tend to be highly political, and very easy to predict, as they were chosen to reflect a "hard right" point of view. In fact, Justice Scalia has all but indicated that he believes in a "6 Day Creation" - and his rulings tend to support the political views of the members of his "tribe" - even though Justice Roberts has pointed out the inconsistency of his votes, as he cited Scalia's prior opinions in his position on the ACA.  Of course, the Liberal members of the court have their inconsistencies as well - but they didn't get cited in this week's rulings.

- - - - - -

One of the things about the court that many people overlook is that its members hold their positions for life. When Justice Roberts was originally selected, he was meant only to be on the "right wing" of Justice Rehnquist's court - and then Rehnquist died.  This might have been a blessing for the "left wing" of the court, as he seems to be intellectually honest, in comparison to some other justices. And it is not a bad thing if we have a moderate conservative leading this court, than a political hack from either wing.

The right wing notes that virtually none of the recent advances in civil rights (e.g. Gay Rights) have originated from the elected branches of government. And the Left correctly counters - that's because those who demand their rights have had to fight for them.  No rights are ever recognized for free. So it may just make sense to have a court that leans a little to the right, as to make sure that any rights are recognized by society, that these rights are the type that basic and inalienable, regardless of the dominant culture at the time.

- - - - - -

Justice Rehnquist noted that the Supreme Court should be the weakest branch of government.  And I'm not sure if I can agree with him.  Sometimes, I feel that we need a "sane man" court to check and balance the elected branches of government when they run amok. But then one question always comes to mind....

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

(Who will guard the guards themselves?)

"Southern Heritage" = Racism

Does anyone really believe this?

- - - - - -

The Rebel battle flag means many things to many people. Most of all, it is a symbol of rebellion against a country which was moving towards abolishing slavery,  There were many good men caught up in this battle, brother fighting brother, and a way of life destroyed. But can anyone say with a straight face, that flying this flag is not a slap in the face to any Black person who sees it?

In Germany, the non-museum display of the Nazi flag is highly regulated. In most cases, it is banned. But even the Germans know when the Hackenkreutz can be displayed - when the Swastika's extremely bad taste is used for humor, as in "The Producers" when it played in Germany.

Outside the theater, the Pretzel banner flew - a little bit of humor, spoofing the former symbol of the Reich.  Inside the theater, the Nazi banner flew - where there was no way that it could be taken to honor the values of the Reich.

This was an elegant way to deal with a sensitive issue in Germany - they know that the seeds of hatred are easily sown, and they know that symbols as powerful as the Nazi flag can be easily abused.  Sadly, our 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights gets in the way of dealing with the most important symbol of American treason, racism, and hatred - the CSA battle flag.

If many in the South wanted to celebrate "Southern Heritage", they could just as easily flown one of the other flags of the Confederacy - such as the one below:

Why isn't this one flown?  Because behind all the politically correct and sanitized talk lies a background of racial hatred.   

In two books I've read that included trips across the American South ("The American Home Front: 1941-1942" by Alistair Cooke, and "Travels with Charley - In search of America" by John Steinbeck) the authors both got disgusted with the attitudes of most Southerners they encountered, and couldn't wait to be out of this land. Although things have changed a lot since the 1960's when Steinbeck wrote his book, we still have far to go.

When I was last down South in 2001, I visited a couple of friends from the AOL chat group for Widows and Widowers. While there, I ended up chatting with the woman of the house. She complained that "them N----rs" are getting everything from the state, leaving us poor. (Of course, the 2 of them could have saved a lot of money by kicking their 3 pack a day cigarette habits - but that wasn't going to happen.) This lady loved to blame Black people for the problems that she and her White friends were having. Although this was 14 years ago, it left a very foul taste in my mouth when it comes to the values of our South.

Recently, 9 people were killed by a lone wolf terrorist inside a church.  One of those people was an elected representative in South Carolina's legislature. And it was amazing how quickly many people in the government realized that they needed to remove the Rebel Battle Flag from the Capitol. Yet, when members of the GOP POTUS candidate "Clown Car" were asked about whether the flag should be taken down, most of them hemmed and hawed - not wanting to alienate the racist lunatic fringe that makes up a goodly number of loyal GOP voters in the South.

In a recent article in Der Spiegel (International), they wonder why it is only now that America is addressing its long history of racism.  Der Spiegel notes that we have a prominent museum dedicated to the memory of the Holocaust in Washington, DC (which I've visited, and discussed in another blog entry), but none to remember the evils of slavery.  They go on to note that Thomas Jefferson has a big monument in our nation's capital, but only when you go to Mount Vernon, his homestead, do you find out about the abuse of slaves that went on in his era. 

I am glad to say that former POTUS candidate Mitt Romney said in unquestionable terms that the flag MUST be taken down - something most of the "Clown Car" won't do.  And I am even more glad to see that Strom Thurmond's son, Paul, has taken an honorable stand and will vote to remove the Confederate flag from South Carolina's Capitol.  Knowing his father's pro-racist stance for most of his political career, it's good to see that the son will do right by history - and help to get the flag removed before the Black legislator killed by the terrorist lies in state in the Capitol building. And this gives me hope for the future....

And now, for your amusement - Jeb Bush!

As David Letterman said before he retired: "Bush presidencies are like Godfather movies - it's best to stop at two."  I don't recycle this Letterman joke because I dislike the fellow. Instead, I recycle it as a reminder that he would be the third member of his family to hold the office of President if elected - something he downplayed very much in his announcement that he was running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

Jeb is the Bush brother who was being groomed for the presidency. It was a surprise to his dad that Jeb lost a gubernatorial election in Florida, while his brother won in Texas. And, as a result, it was "W" who ran for POTUS and won in 2000.  (I can only imagine what might have happened if Jeb had been in office instead of his brother - would he have come off as more competent?  Only god knows - I certainly don't.) But I expect that Jeb will be the likely GOP 2016 nominee - and will run against Hillary Clinton.

Let's contrast the two likely candidates at first glance.  Jeb's web site and other media downplays his membership in the Bush family. Hillary in her announcement made a big deal about her connections to both her husband Bill (former POTUS) and Barack Obama (current POTUS). What does this say about Jeb? Does he fear being tarred by the same brush being used on "W"?  I can't blame him - I think "W" was a terrible president.  (Too bad that he can't distance himself from "W" without also distancing himself from his father - who was a decent president.)

- - - - - -

I am very leery of having another Bush run for POTUS. This family has been extremely well connected for the past 150+ years - and electing one of the entrenched elite from a family who has already supplied 2 POTUS's makes me worry about a static elite in this country. Our founding fathers lived in a world where one could go from poor to rich and back to being poor within a generation or two.  This is no longer the case.  So I pose the question - can we afford to have families who lock themselves permanently into both the economic and political elites?

Even though Jeb may be a decent man, my concerns about him and his family are solely about the establishment of a permanent elite, and whether a democratic republic can afford to have one. As much as I hate to compare the United States and France, sometimes the comparisons can't be avoided. In this case, history gave us a France with a static elite. The rule of law was perverted to keep this elite in power, and social injustice was rampant. Eventually the pot boiled over, and France had its revolution.  The signs are there that America hasn't learned its European history that well - and I am very concerned about what might happen in our lifetimes....

Religion, Ignorance, and Tribal Loyalty - What a recipe for disaster!

For the most part, I don't give a hoot about my neighbor's religion, save a small number of things:

1. What holidays does he/she celebrate, so that I can give them friendly greetings on those days?
2. Does the practice of that neighbor's religion interfere with my life?
3. Is my neighbor's practice of religion causing direct harm to others?

If a neighbor is Jewish, I might wish him/her a happy Chaunnakah.  If a neighbor is Muslim, I might wish him a happy end to fasting after Ramadan. But sometimes people of my own Christian faith can be the most perplexing.

- - - - - -

Recently, there has been a lot of press discussing the alleged sexual abuse by one of the Duggar sons upon several girls - including his sisters.  Normally, this would be a story confined to the back pages of most newspapers, save for one thing - the Duggar family has become extremely visible because of their "reality" TV show.

The Duggars are evangelical fundamentalists who have a very strict code of behavior - boys and girls must not touch each other (kissing, holding hands, etc.) until they are betrothed or married. This implies that there is a lot of sexual repression going on.  In one report that I heard (I can't remember where), the children did not know that the son's sexual touching was inappropriate behavior. And when discussed in their local church, a goodly many people as well didn't realize that this behavior was inappropriate. In short, the way to prevent sin, ignorance, had failed to protect a family from evil....

If we take a step back, and recall the story of Adam and Eve, the one commandment given to the two people was to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge. In short, ignorance was bliss. Gain useful knowledge, and one can see that life was not heavenly, but hellish instead.

In the case of the Duggars, the only way to prevent disaster was to promote ignorance. Any break in the pattern of their lives, and people would find out something was seriously wrong. To distract others from seeing this family for what it is, the Matriarch slandered the transgender community - saying that transgenders are out to molest young girls.  Do they not see the motes in their own family's eyes?  

- - - - - -

If the Duggars were a small group of crackpots, like the people from the Westboro Baptist Church, this would not be a problem. But we're seeing this this kind of transphobia, hatred of gays, and hypocrisy runs deep in the bible belt. In a recent interview on Fox News, one pastor was ranting that it was no one's affair about what the Duggars did - even when molestation took place. Dr. Drew stated that anyone with children (especially 19 of them) should supervise their kids well - and the evangelical pastor went nuts!  The pastor was defending a member of his tribe, no matter how much evil had to be covered up. Can you imagine what is going on in other evangelical households where ignorance is preached and sexuality is repressed instead of being dealt with in a healthy way?

- - - - - -

Right now, the GOP is beholden to a large number of crack pots like this family - who get the vote out, and keep the Red States glowing a bright red.  But how long can this last?  The mainstream party bosses know this is a problem, but don't know how to solve it. They are afraid of losing to a demographically superior Democratic party.  So they won't risk anything that would lose the Red States, in order to flip more "middle of the road" states from Blue to Red.

This wouldn't be so bad if the damage these people cause were limited to their own states. But they have taken an "opposition for the sake of opposition" approach to politics - they refuse to make trade offs with people on the other side of the political aisle.  (I'm not sure if I can say that the Democrats are much better. What I can say is that the GOP is inconsistent in their areas of hypocrisy, while the Democrats are consistent in their areas of hypocrisy.)

Although I am a registered Republican, I haven't voted their way in ages - there is a consistency in bills they'd enact if voted into power, and I don't want to see that happen. (I prefer the devil I know, to the one I don't.). Now that the public sees income and wealth distribution as a problem, the GOP is jumping on this cause - something the Democrats have talked about for ages. Both sides are BSing the public. But only one flip flops as quickly as the GOP.

- - - - - -

I fear what will happen if crackpots like the Duggars gain political power.  We already have one member of the Supreme Court who has hinted that he believes in short term creation. What would this do to Science and Mathematics education in this country?  We've already seen Texas consider the prophet Moses to be one of our "founding fathers".  What's next? How ignorant can we become?  How much further can we fall behind our global competition?  

Although I don't like the idea of a Republican Party who openly supports a Plutocracy, I am even more against a party who combines that with religious litmus testing. There were valid economic points being made by many in the GOP in their political discussions, and they were being lost because of this unholy arrangement with religious fundamentalists. To me, the one thing that has helped make this country great is the separation of church and state - allowing everyone to be free to practice their faith as they please - even the Duggars.  Take away that separation, and watch America relearn the lessons Europe learned hundreds of years ago. Do we want to go through that process ...again?  

I never thought that Pataki would try again....

This is a picture of the former governor of New York state, George Pataki. Officially (at the time I wrote this entry), he's now the second "major" candidate from New York to be running for the presidency. And in certain ways, he is the most qualified candidate (at this time) of those who have formally announced that they are running for POTUS, having served as governor of New York for 3 terms.  Executive branch experience (in either state or federal government) counts for a lot when one is the president, and this man (in any other era) would be a shoo-in for the nomination. Sadly, we live in a very strange era - where one party has too many candidates running for POTUS, and the other has too few candidates running for POTUS.

- - - - - -

I am familiar with Pataki since his days in Peekskill.  His family had a farm just off of the Bear Mountain Parkway, as it loops around the city proper. The property was worth much more developed into housing than it ever would have been worth as a small farm in Westchester county - and I only wonder how conservationists let that property slip through their grasps.  (Please note: Westchester county already had a working farm (Muscoot Farm) which it used to preserve part of its heritage - one could argue that we didn't need another within a half hour's drive.) 

When serving in public capacity, Pataki had a local office in the heart of Peekskill - and it had one of the better storefronts on the block. I wonder how much he was responsible for the gradual long term revival of Peekskill as a small city. At least I haven't yet heard a lot of negative scuttlebutt from my friends in Peekskill regarding this man.  If he is able to avoid drinking too much of the GOP Kool Aid, he may just be the candidate they need to defeat Hillary.

- - - - - -

We will find  out a lot about Pataki over the next few months. For example, his position on abortion and guns did not reflect that of the GOP base.  Will he flip positions to gain votes? I'm not sure. But he is front loading a lot of effort into the early primary states to get momentum as early as possible.  One problem - Chris Christie is doing the same thing. If I were Pataki, I'd remember one thing - Christie will cross that bridge when he comes to it!