My schedule is full this week, which has allowed me (blissfully?) to pull back a bit from the news the past couple of days. I hope to get on with blogging some other subjects soon (although civics will always be a main topic here). But I read something today that is worth highlighting.
Apparently, the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) is concerned about the safety of his fellow members of Congress as they go back to their districts. While I certainly condemn any threats of violence, I find it difficult to believe that certain members of Congress are so shocked at the anger of their constituents over the healthcare law. Every elected official can and should be held accountable by the voters of their districts. Already, there are Democrats trying to play the "victim" card.
Roger L. Simon has posted an open letter to Mr. Hoyer. I'm not going to post it in full, so I urge you to go read the whole thing (it's not long). An excerpt (emphasis mine):
And yet, in the grand tradition of totalitarian regimes everywhere, you employed “any means necessary” to make sure your ends were achieved, bribing and threatening your fellow Congressmen and women, etc. It is small wonder that our people are angry. It would be amazing if it were otherwise.
...
Violence is to be condemned, but so is the desecration of a great democracy.
A civil society must be - and act - civil. Call, write, march, visit, even assemble to protest - but be respectful in communicating your viewpoints. But above all, if you want to make a difference with these elected officials - think, learn, and vote.
Well, they've done it. The House approved the Senate bill on healthcare, and once the President signs it, America will have a new $1 trillion entitlement to join soon to be insolvent Social Security and Medicare. Despite what you might hear about "deficit reduction," don't believe it, if for no other reason that government programs never "save" taxpayers money. Spending does not reduce debt.
I will give the House Democrats kudos for one decision - and only one decision - they dumped the idea of "deem-and-pass" which I mentioned the other day. Even they couldn't stomach such an obvious breach of Constitutional process.
I titled this post "Freedom Lost." For despite the spin, which says 32 million Americans will now have health insurance, these benefits will not roll in for another 4-5 years. However, the tax increases required to pay for it start either immediately, or next fiscal year (reports aren't quite clear on this). So there will be more money out of our pockets now, which means less for us. But the real reason I find myself somewhat frightened by the leftward lurch deeper into social entitlements is this: the Government will now MANDATE that every person have health insurance. If you fail to get health insurance, the IRS is now empowered to levy a penalty upon your tax return (to the tune of $600-$700 for an individual).
Never before has the Government issued a mandate for a citizen to purchase a particular product. We pay taxes, because previous Congresses and state legislators approved the 16th Amendment. Imagine if the Government had decided that everyone must go out and buy a GM car. Historically, the federal government has never had such power to direct how a citizen spends his money.
Don't get me wrong. I think it is both wise and responsible to have health insurance. But I think it is quite unconstitutional for the federal government to mandate that I have it. Once the Government begins telling its citizens how and when to spend their money, with penalties for noncompliance, freedoms are lost.
The issue is not going to go away, either. From the sound of things, we are all going to get really sick of this healthcare debate. The question in my mind, will the American people resign themselves to the erosion of their freedoms, or does this "tea party movement" really have legs?
Okay, not really. I've been clearing out some old bookmarks from my browser tonight. I've had this site bookmarked for a while now. It has several fascinating photos, with links to their owners. If you like interesting photos of clouds and weather phenomena, you might like what the proprietor of Dark Roasted Blend has collected.
The photo below (image credit: Greg) is slight altered by software using a curve adjustment feature, which essentially enhances the contrast so that you can see the brightness differential a bit better. Not a photoshopped effort, so it's a real picture, just image enhanced. He has a link to the original.
This is why I hit Instapundit every now and then. It's because he links things like this:
This image was taken by the European Space Agency's Planck Satellite, illuminating interstellar dust. Go to this link from Popular Science to get the details on how to interpret the colors.
A few days ago, I highlighted the news from Capitol Hill that the House of Representatives was considering a procedure, termed the "Slaughter Rule," that would allow the House to "deem-and-pass" the Senate version of the healthcare bill without actually voting on the Senate bill, but rather on a substitute bill. This "deem-and-pass" approach (which some are sardonically calling Demon Pass) seems on the surface unconstitutional.
Well, this just in. The House voted today on a resolution offered by Republicans to block the Slaughter Rule. Passage would essentially force the House to take the proper up-or-down vote required by the Constitution for the bill. The House defeated that resolution, 222-203.
That means, 222 members of Congress voted to approve a procedure that may very well violate the Constitution!
The final "vote" on healthcare is Sunday. If Congress wants to impose universal healthcare, then it should do so honestly. Process does matter.
The erosion of historical and collective memory within a modern society is probably inevitable. Each successive generation in the modern era seems to pull further and further away from its heritage in favor of rewritten narratives, progressivism, and generational detachment. In a mobile society, the transfer of experiences across generational boundaries becomes more and more rare. Family histories, to include the connection and continuation of seminal events and experiences, simply are no longer commonplace. I myself feel at times I have only an inkling of knowledge that extends no further than my grandparents generation, a knowledge which is far too limited to claim any assurance of accuracy and/or possession.
This iconic photograph has a personal and emotional significance to previous generations. As a Gen-Xer, I can easily identify the image and its origin, but confess that I don't have the emotional attachment to events before my time - at least, not in the way I do for the collapse of the Soviet Union and the World Trade Center. My children, as they come of age, will have even less attachment to these markers of our history.
It is remarkable, really. In the information age, we have access to millions of pages of facts, events and narratives of history - more than we can possibly absorb in a lifetime. Yet we are less and less aware of our own place in that history, more and more detached from our family heritages, and devoid of the experiential context that is necessary to connect ourselves to both our past and our present.
This erosion is unlikely to be reversed, and indeed, may even be a cyclical characteristic of human civilization. The most any of us can do is to be intentional about retaining this knowledge and passing down the generational stories and histories through whatever means are available: oral retelling, the written word, physical artifact, and even modern audio, visual and digital technologies. Perhaps even social networking communities can play a role. But I submit that there may be no greater way to ensure the retention of our historical memory than through the generational sharing of experiences and faith within the family unit. Such a connection is intimate and personal, and binds us to those who remember first hand WWII, Korea, JFK, Elvis, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, the Beatles, the golden age of television, Apollo 11, the Iranian hostage crisis, Challenger, the fall of the Berlin Wall, Desert Storm, the internet boom, 9/11, the fall of Baghdad, Katrina, and the historical election of the first African American president. But these are merely the big events - how much richer would we be to know what it was like to come of age in eras that are at once familiar and alien to our modern sensibilities - to know who our parents and grandparents truly were and are, their joys and fears, their faith and experiences. And for those of us who are parents and grandparents, would our lives not be richer to know who our children are, and who they are coming to be in future history?
The House of Representatives is gearing up this week to push through yet another vote on healthcare reform. Despite numerous national polls showing general opposition to this particular bill, nevertheless, it is quite possible that by week's end, some sort of bill will get passed.
I've tried to be as objective and civil as I possibly can in my dealings on the subject. My position is simply this: Can and should improvements be made to our current system? Yes. Should the government be the decider and provider of healthcare for all Americans? No. That's where I stand.
According to various news reports, the shortest path toward a health care law is for the House to pass the exact bill the Senate approved last fall. However, many House members do not like that version, and prefer the one they passed last summer (which is surprising, since so many have admitted that they haven't even read the 2000+ page bills being considered). So they want to use a process known as reconciliation - intended only for strict budgetary matters, to force through changes without going through the traditional process.
The traditional approach is quite well articulated by that oldie-but-goodie "How a Bill Becomes a Law" from Schoolhouse Rock. So before we continue, let us reminisce:
In short, the House votes on a bill. If it passes, it goes to the Senate, which has the option of voting on the House bill, or crafting one of their own. In the event that the Senate passes a bill that does not match exactly with that of the House, a conference committee is established to iron out the differences. The final agreement then goes back to both the House and the Senate for another vote. If both assemblies pass the compromise bill, it then goes to the President for signature or veto.
But for whatever reason, the House and Senate leaders decided to "skip" the conference committee. I'm still not clear why they feel it is necessary to circumvent normal parliamentary procedures for getting bills passed. I'm even more unnerved, however, to read news accounts like this one from the Washington Examiner, in which it appears that the majority party will say they "passed the Senate bill" without actually voting on it. Here's the money quote from the Examiner (emphasis mine):
Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.
In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
The gist of all this fairly straightforward. Instead of having an actual up or down vote on the Senate bill itself, the House intends simply to say "It passed!" and vote instead on an additional "package" of changes that in turn the Senate would force through reconciliation (which only requires 51 votes, instead of the 60 required to end debate and move to a vote, otherwise known as cloture). Reconciliation wasn't necessary when the Democrat majority had 60 votes, but due to the recent Massachusetts special election, in which voters elected a Republican to the late Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, reconciliation is the only path that potential avoids a filibuster (to prevent cloture and subsequent vote).
Here's the issue that bothers me: What is so urgent about this major reordering of 1/6 of the entire U.S. economy that it has to be rushed through Congress using tactics that go against two centuries of legislative tradition? The Constitution very clearly requires in Article I, Section 7 that every bill must have a vote, and the names of those who vote on record as to how they voted (emphasis mine):
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
It seems arguable to me that the method of stating by presumption that the original Senate bill is "passed" without a separate, distinct vote for the public record is unconstitutional. But I confess, the complexities of the U.S. code and these parliamentary tricks that have become the norm within our big government system may water down that argument, especially if there is precedence.
The bottom line is this: if our elected officials are willing to circumvent traditional legislative process and decorum by using possibly unconstitutional methods to achieve particular aims, despite opposition from the public, then what is to prevent future Congresses and Presidents (of either party) from disregarding the Constitution and their constituents whenever it suits them? If our government breaks from the anchor of our founding documents, then it begins to lose its legitimacy. You could even go so far as to infer that our representative government now runs the risk of operating "without consent of the governed." Which itself is the subject for a forthcoming post.
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) is a conservative leaning, non-profit, educational organization that, according to their website, seeks to further a "better understanding of the values and institutions that sustain a free and humane society." They go on to say:
Founded in 1953, ISI works "to educate for liberty" — to identify the best and the brightest college students and to nurture in these future leaders the American ideal of ordered liberty. To accomplish this goal, ISI seeks to enhance the rising generation's knowledge of our nation's founding principles — limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, market economy, and moral norms.
ISI recently completed their 2010 American Civic Literacy Report, in which they analyze the results of a fairly challenging quiz taken by Americans of all ages and professions - including politicians. According to the report, 71% of Americans failed this test, with an average score of just 49%. Even singling out college graduates, the average result was only 57%.
Here is the online quiz that was made available with the report, which are actually questions from the 2008 survey. Multiple choice test, and no Google-ing. And no pressure, of course. Learning is always preferable to the alternative. I will toot my own horn a bit, in the interest of full disclosure: I aced this test - but then again, I am a bit of a geek when it comes to this kind of stuff. This is one of the harder online history/civics quizzes I've taken, though. The multiple choice format helps!
Spring is in the air - and despite the fact that it was snowing only 5 days ago, this weekend has been absolutely beautiful. So of course, it makes perfect sense that I spent much of my time with my arm halfway down the bathtub drain, pulling out enough hair to make myself a new cat. Or a dead rat named Sammy.
Okay, so I'm embellishing a little bit. I did spend 3 hours clearing out the landscaping, trimming back old and dead growth, and dragging it all down to the back line of the property.
But back to the drain. The bathtub had been draining slowing for months, to the point that my children would often end up with a tub full of water by the time they finished their showers. I finally got myself motivated to deal with it once and for all, so I went to ehow.com to learn the cure. And their answer? Baking soda and vinegar. Honestly, aside from WD-40, is there a more universal solution to household problems than baking soda?
I followed the instructions to the letter - half a cup of baking soda, half a cup of vinegar. There was lots of bubbling as the base reacted with the acid, but I somehow ended up with a drain full of baking soda. So I poured in more and more vinegar (one and a half cups total), until the baking soda at last was all gone. And it didn't do one bit of good for the drain - the water still went out too slowly.
At last, I did what I should have done in the first place - I got a screwdriver, loosened the set screw on the drain cap, and with a flashlight took a look at what I was actually dealing with - cat hair - gobs of it. So with a pair of needle-nose pliers, I pulled out a ton of gunk, junk and hair. And voila! The tub drains perfectly now.
So why on earth am I blogging about this? Perhaps because there may very well be an object lesson here. I could have saved myself a considerable amount of time if I had bothered to correctly diagnose the problem before rushing to a solution (ha!) that didn't fit the situation. I simply assumed that this remedy would fix the problem, and that I wouldn't have to deal with the gross stuff. Sometimes, our lives get gunked up with gross stuff (sin) that we try to deal with at a distance, thinking we can mask it or otherwise make it go away with a one-size-fits-all solution. But until we get down on our knees to deal with the truth and clear the gunk, the flow of joy and peace in our lives will be limited.
Alas, this is the way my mind works. I can't clean a drain without turning it into a teachable moment. Well, a teachable moment for me anyway.
So, earlier today I'm perusing the headlines on Drudge, when I see a link he's headlined as "NASA reveals most-detailed images of Earth..." Sucker that I am for NASA imagery, I follow the link to the Daily Mail, a paper out of the UK. Within that article are a couple of stunning pictures of our planet. The key ones are actually composites formed out of several images taken over a period of months, as opposed to a single snapshot. Either way, they are stunning visuals, which I've downsized below.
Neat as the images are, however, I prefer generally to go to the source. This is in part because NASA maintains several versions of the same image at varying resolutions. So I'm searching through the NASA image galleries, and find myself having some trouble finding it - which seems odd, given that the Daily Mail article was just published yesterday. So I searched NASA using a keyword or two from the Daily Mail article - in this case, "blue marble", and discovered somewhat to my surprise that these images actually date back to 2002.
So, despite feeling a bit let down by the fact that the Daily Mail is touting these images as "new" when in fact they are 8 years old, I still find myself taken in by the visuals. Simply stunning, aren't they? To really appreciate it, go here and here to see larger resolution images.
