So if we can't talk about race productively, can we talk about culture?

Before reading this, I must give a disclaimer and ask an indulgence.  The disclaimer is that these thoughts are not fully baked, and already while writing it I ended-up somewhere I didn't quite expect.  The indulgence I ask is to be gentle in your comments, but not uncritical.  Challenge them all you want, offer your own interpretations, point-out mistakes, mischaracterizations, etc.  Don't hesitate criticizing the ideas, but in criticizing the author.  There's no small amount of risk involved for someone without national prominence or celebrity proposing a different approach to our conversation on race relations without being accused of being a racist, bigot, or white supremacist.

There's a lot of talk about talking about race and we hear it on radio and TV--a lot.  But none of it seems productive because it's impossible to have an honest conversation about race, especially without it being recorded, where the participants won't be accused of racism.

So let's instead have a conversation about culture.  I should think we're all more comfortable with being called culturalists.

Let's start with the premise that not all cultures are equal.  Depending on how we measure them, some cultures are more successful than others.  There are some that offend our sense of morality (female circumcision) and our sense of fairness (woman not being allowed to drive or own businesses) or our sense of liberty (caste-based societies or theocracies).

But how do we measure cultures and avoid the subjectivity of morality?  How can we make the conversation more objective?

Before we get to measurements, let's examine the premise we started with: not all cultures are equal.  It's easier to start with what should be obvious, cultures are different.  Cultures have different origins, different evolutions, and have been influenced by their language, geography, natural resources, and clashes with other cultures either through war, or radio, television and the cinema.

Cultures have expectations of their members as much as their members' expectations are shaped by their culture. What a young woman may aspire to in Troy, MI is different from what another may aspire to in Sangalkam, Senegal.  Young men's expectations are similarly different between themselves even as they are different from young women--more so in some cultures than others.

I think it's a fallacy to assume all cultures are equal simply because they co-exist, as some biologists might argue all species are equally evolved simply by their present (as in right-now) existence.  While extinct species might be said to have lost the evolutionary race and are therefor inferior to those that survived to present, we commit the "naturalistic fallacy" in comparing human cultures to nature in this respect and assuming that simply "existing" is sufficient to measuring equality.

It's worth reconsidering, for a moment, the relationship between cultures and their habitat.  For example, the Aborigines of Australia are well-suited to the Australian bush, but less well-suited to the cement jungle (the fictional adventures of Crocodile Dundee excepted).

But there is where we'll begin.  If we begin with the co-dependency of cultures on their environment we can begin to measure the suitability of different cultures in different environments, and observe what happens when cultures get separated from their geography and relocated to another unlike where they came from.

When in the bush, do as the bushmen.

Before considering different cultures (which are complex and difficult to define), let's start with something smaller and easier to imagine.

If you only spoke Dutch and it became necessary to move to France--would you learn French?  Whether you would or not isn't as important as whether you think your prospects would improve if you learned French.  Would they improve faster or slower if all the French learned Dutch?  Which is more productive, your learning French or everyone else learning Dutch?  If your dress was much different than the French, would you be better off dressing in your native costume or dressing as the French do?

Or how about this scenario, if the French found your foreign tongue and style of dress a delightful curiosity and took measures to protect your culture for their own sense of accomplishment of having "preserved" the exotic, would you be anymore free to succeed than a similar exotic curiosity at a museum or zoo  (both of which are not coincidentally the providence of government)?  Or is patronization a mechanism to keep members of the new culture from succeeding in a geography dominated by another?  Even if suppressing the minority's prospects isn't the goal of the majority culture, the majority's paternalism seems to have the same effect for its goals of self-gratification at the preservation (as though they'd discovered a new biological specimen in Loch Ness) or entertainment.  Either motivation leads to the same ends.

Is "culture" worth preserving even at the expense of its members?  If its members have become the near permanent wards of another, what purpose does it service?  If preserving a culture handicaps its members with language, dress, or skills incompatible with its geography, and with its survival dependent on the welfare of more successful cultures (as the Pilgrims may have been rescued by native Americans so many years ago), whose purpose does preserving it serve?

Unless the purpose of a culture is to preserve itself at the expense of its members, a culture must adapt to its environment, or its members must, if they endeavor to their own success over their culture's success.  If it were the case that through adaptation a culture were to change so completely as to be unrecognizable, or be lost to or within the dominant culture, but its members' posterity prosper, what real loss was the loss of that culture?

But those cultures are rarely lost, as their descendants keep them alive at festivals, churches, community centers, and neighborhoods--bringing them out on weekends, holidays, weddings, and other occasions with significance to the community.  In these examples, the members of the community keep their traditions alive as the members deem fit and at their own expense and with their own exertions, than as specimens for "outsiders" to maintain (even when they are invited to Oktoberfest).

So, is America's race problem really a race problem, or is it a culture problem?  Does America have examples of culture clash successes and failures from which it can find ideas for resolving its current clash?  Or is it doomed to an un-ending battle between black and white, between its past and present, because it can't describe the problem in terms it can work with?

When it comes to taxes, treat the internet as its own state

The senate is inching its way closer and closer to an internet sales tax.  The problem is fairly obvious.  Michigan (and other states') residents aren't paying use tax on items they purchase over the internet and many online sellers aren't charging sales tax.

Washington Post

What if the internet was treated as it's own state for sales-tax-purposes?  How easy would it be for a flat 4% to be added to all internet transactions, which sellers would remit either directly to the buyer's state or to the federal government for disbursement to the states?

How hard is it to collect sales tax anyway?  Well, it turns out it's pretty hard.  There are over 10,000 sales tax authorities in the US.  States, counties, cities, and special shopping districts are all authorized to require sellers collect sales taxes.  It's little wonder that only large retailers like Amazon seem able to afford the staff of tax accountants and software necessary to keep it all straight--and they don't even do all 10,000+.

Of course, there's still the problem of remitting it.  Some states require monthly payments, some quarterly.  If the internet were treated separately then perhaps quarterly would do fine for all internet retail sales.

Whatever flat percentage is chosen, it will be lower than it should be for some and higher for others.  The question would be, would states and other taxing districts send the money back if they don't have a sales tax, or would states with higher percentages complain if they start getting revenue they never received before--even if it was lower than they require brick-and-mortar stores to collect?

If nothing is collected today, and if states are understandably reluctant to audit all their citizens for use taxes, then an easily collected and remitted internet flat tax makes sense.  The entire bill would be only a few pages, and not overly favor large retailers at the expense of work-at-homes.

Chernow's "George Washington" on gun control

Ron Chernow's biography on our first president, George Washington : A Life, may not visit the topic of gun control specifically, but in at least two chapters Chernow does (perhaps inadvertently) give readers a glimpse of how Washington thought about the constitution, the bill of rights, and the rights all are "endowed by their creator" with.

In Chapter 45, Mounting the Seat, Chernow writes:

As a stalwart realist, [Washington] thought it dangerous to demand perfection from any human production and questioned the propriety of preventing men from doing good because there is a possibility of their doing evil.

In the author's opinion, Washington might have thought it beyond the scope of government to pass laws restricting a right to carry guns into a church or school by peaceful, law-abiding citizens because of the fear of what one lunatic may do.  In other words, the government has neither the omniscience or the ability to pass laws restricting the freedoms of the many out of paranoia of what the few may do.

Or put in another context, should the state hasten to remove children from their parents merely by circumstance of their births into poverty, or must we restrain ourselves from premature actions based merely on probabilities and deny each family to make of their lives what they will regardless their circumstances?

A common misunderstanding of the Bill of Rights is that it alone protects citizens' rights to bear arms.  Imagine that the first ten amendments didn't exist, would citizens still have a right to free speech, assembly, petition and redress, self defense, due process, etc.?

At the time of the convention and even knowing what the Bill of Rights would contain, Washing still thought the amendments unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

In chapter 49 Chernow writes,

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, Washington deemed a bill of rights superfluous on the grounds that American citizens would retain all rights that they did not expressly renounce in the document.  During the ratifying conventions, he worried that opponents would seek to subvert the new political system by attempting premature amendments.  One surviving fragment of the undelivered [inauguration] speech says: "I will barely suggest whether it would not be the part of prudent men to observe [the Constitution] fully in movement before they undertook to make such alterations as might prevent a fair experiment of its effects."

One of the words in that paragraph that stands out is superfluous.  In Washington's (and the 9th amendment's) opinion, what became known as the Bill of Rights did not grant new rights to citizens because the people already possessed these rights inherently.  Furthermore, delegates to the constitutional convention believed government did not (or should not) have the power to revoke rights given citizens by their creator.

He didn't object to their content or words, but the premise that they were needed at all, or that some may misconstrue them as grants of rights rather than simply redundancies.

Given that background, one can imagine that Washington himself may have had some input on the 9th Amendment, and perhaps he did.  Credit is given, however, to his close political confident James Madison who proposed what later became the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Over 200 years ago, at a time of with fewer luxuries, a higher mortality rate, a frontier beset with conflicts between settlers and Indians, and on the heels of both the French and Indian war and the Revolutionary war, Washington was more prepared to trust in the decency and civility of Americans than we are today.

Has America really become less decent and civil, or have its citizens merely become more timid and fearful?

Does the Second Amendment grant a right to bear arms?

The Second Amendment may be the only place in the U.S. Constitution that uses the words "people" and "arms" in the same sentence, but it may actually be the weakest protection for an individual right to keep and bear arms compared to other Constitutional protections to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Since the Newtown Massacre of 20 children and seven adults in December 2012, gun control has become a popular topic to opine about.  Though most discussions drip with irrational statements by both those that would disarm Americans and others that fear disarmament, most seem to believe the right to bear arms is given by the second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Rather than debate whether that amendment gives or protects the right for individuals to bear arms, or simply own them and keep them in a locker, or whether that right is expressly for the purpose of arming a well regulated militia, let's read another of the original ten--the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

After reading the ninth, does the second have a different meaning, or for the purposes of an individual's right to own or even carry firearms on their person, does the second have less meaning?

But which rights might not have been enumerated?  In addition to those described in Miranda, Gideon, and Roe, they would include natural rights, including those enjoyed by 18th century Americans (that included carrying weapons) and others referenced in the preamble to The Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Some may argue the Declaration isn't law, and they would be both right and wrong.  Though it isn't the letter of the law, as our constitution is, it is included by congress at the beginning of the US Code (of laws) under the heading, "The Organic Laws of the United States of America."

From TheFreeDictionary:

"Despite its secondary authority, many later reform movements have quoted the Declaration in support of their cause, including movements for universal suffrage, Abolition of Slavery, women's rights, and Civil Rights for African Americans. Many have argued that this document influenced the passage and wording of such important developments in U.S. law and government as the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which banned slavery and sought to make African Americans equal citizens."

In the years after the Civil War, former slaves (freedmen) were easy targets by many that still thought blacks inferior and responsible for the South's loss.  In many states, blacks weren't allowed to own guns, which made them easy victims for the Ku Klux Klan and other less-organized gangs.

When the NRA was formed after the civil war by ex-Union officers, the saying used to be, "When guns are outlawed, only Klansman will have guns."

A 2011 article in The Atlantic picks-up the story from there.

IN RESPONSE TO the Black Codes and the mounting atrocities against blacks in the former Confederacy, the North sought to reaffirm the freedmen’s constitutional rights, including their right to possess guns. General Daniel E. Sickles ... ordered in January 1866 that “the constitutional rights of all loyal and well-disposed inhabitants to bear arms will not be infringed.” When South Carolinians ignored Sickles’s order and others like it, Congress passed the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of July 1866, which assured ex-slaves the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty … including the constitutional right to bear arms.” 

One prosecutor in [President Andrew Johnson's] impeachment trial, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, thought that the only way to protect the freedmen’s rights was to amend the Constitution. In December of 1865, Bingham had proposed what would become the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Among its provisions was a guarantee that all citizens would be secure in their fundamental rights: 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Given this background, the impact of the Second Amendment becomes less important regarding the right of American citizens to bear arms than the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.  In fact, after a little bit of reading the decisions in Heller and Moore supporting individual's rights to carry seem more obvious conclusions in retrospect than they were even in argument as both decisions spent more of their time debating the meaning of the Second Amendment than either the Ninth and Fourteenth.

When bigger isn't better

"Wilkinson is right that judges are prone to misreading the values of the broader society.

"But even if judges read those values correctly, judicial restraint can mean giving coercive sweep to the values of contemporary majorities. That a majority considers something desirable is not evidence that it is constitutional. "

George Will, The Washington Post, "The Right to Be Left Alone"

This issue often comes up when discussing Obamacare. Too many people believe that because Obamacare's intentions are good it ought to be constitutional. Put another way, the constitution should put no limits on the virtuous intentions of congress. Or the most vulgar interpretation of them all, "The constitution's general welfare clause ordains and encourages congress to do what is good for us."

Against this position, and in addition to Mssrs Wilkinson and Will, is C.S. Lewis:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Or as PLF attorney, Timothy M. Sandefur, said at the Alternatives to Originalism forum in 2011,

"I think all the concern about democracy is overblown because the constitution lays out very clearly what it’s intended to accomplish and democracy is not among those. Protecting the blessings of liberty is the purpose of the constitution, and so where that clashes with democracy we should reject democracy."

All these people are warning against the tyranny of the majority over the minority, and that the constitution makes it clear, or does to some, that individual rights should be protected from popular fashions.

The redistribution of...

It's worth researching the definition of what an oligarchy is to better understand the article, "Has America Become an Oligarchy?"

If American has, or is becoming, an oligarchy (as OWS protesters believe), the solution is not the redistribution of wealth, it's the redistribution of rule. Or put another way, within the structure of our existing constitution, a return to federalism would simultaneously dilute the power and corrupting excesses (and disappointments) of our federal government and dilute the influence of corporate and private oligarchs.

As a consequence, fewer taxes would accrue to the federal government and more taxes would remain in the states, as the proportion of taxes paid to the federal government over the state government would invert--increasing the 50 states' treasuries.

As an added benefit, federalism increases the representation of "the 99%" by increasing the power of their state-wide and locally elected officials.

All of this is possible within the framework of our existing constitution, but would require a supportive legislature and executive--both of which could be elected by both Tea Party and OWS with a common goal--improving our democracy through a redistribution of rule.

Radio worth watching: WNYC's Occupy Democracy

"America is just not what it used to be."

"America is just not what it used to be."  Or so says Abdullah Pollard, a 58-year old laid-off telecommunications worker as reported by the Associated Press in the Detroit News story, "Protesters want world to know they're just like us."

But are we like them?

One of the problems with the Occupy Wall Street protesters is not knowing what their demands are.  Like the Tea Party, official lists are hard to come by as neither group is centrally controlled (though Nolan Finley thinks OWS is at least centrally financially supported).  The Wall Street Journal reports at least two of demands:

1. Repeal the Bush tax cuts and
2. Prosecute Wall Street Criminals

A few others they plan to vote on next week include forgiving student debt, reforming campaign-finance law and enacting the Buffett tax.

The first one is relatively easy to do, but relatively useless.

In February 2009 the WSJ reported what would happen if we taxed (or confiscated) 100% of all the income of America's top 2%:

"A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion."

Along those same lines, George Will put it into a different perspective:

"In 1916, the richest man in America, John D. Rockefeller, could have written a personal check and retired the national debt. Today, the richest man in America, Bill Gates, could write a personal check for all his worth and not pay two months interest on the national debt."

The second item, "Prosecute Wall Street criminals," is more difficult to endorse until the protesters can be more precise on who they think the culprits are and what they think their crimes were.

I, at least, agree with the protesters that the culprits ought to be dealt with--and not gently.  But I suspect we'll disagree heartily about who the culprits are.

But for the sake of argument, let's start with Freddie and Fannie.  Or to save time and space, let me borrow from Thomas Sowell.  Writing in a recent column about realities over rhetoric, he writes:

"The political crusade for 'affordable housing' and minority home ownership drew many blacks into homes they could not afford. The net result was an especially high rate of foreclosure and, in the end, black home ownership rates lower than they were before the affordable housing crusade began."

In this case, Mr. Sowell's comments are not applicable only to blacks, but to everyone lured or enticed into purchasing homes they may have been able afford the lower down-payment for, but were unable to afford the maintenance, repair, utilities, and taxes.

Returning to Mr. Pollard's comment, "America is just not what it used to be," let's consider The Constitution hasn't changed much since its adoption in 1788, but American's constitutions have changed considerably more.  We may live longer than American's in the 18th century but we're frailer. We've created industries based on blaming others for our misfortunes and exacting our retirements from them.  More Americans are dependent on welfare than ever before.  Our debt to other countries is greater (as a percentage of GDP) than ever before, and we're less self-sufficient than ever before (think energy policy).

On the contrary, Mr. Pollard, America is the same as it ever was.  It's the citizens that have changed.  Immigrants used to come for the opportunity of America, not the steady paycheck.  They came for the rewards that would accrue to those clever and hard-working enough to build something new, not government entitlements.

The immigrants that came to America and built it were willing to risk everything they had so they might own a piece of the dream.  They settled the wilderness and risked dangerous and months-long trips to seek their fortunes out west.  Many lost their lives in pursuit of their dream.

American's today are risk-averse and want instead to be relieved of all discomfort and responsibility--even that they might stub their toe on uneven sidewalks.

No, Mr. Pollard, America is the same.  It's Americans that are different.

Seniors may have paid, but they haven't paid enough

Ever since Michigan's new governor, Rick Snyder, proposed taxing pensions a parade of protests has been reported in the news media that "seniors have paid enough."  But to assert seniors, or any generation, has paid enough they must also have paid their way.


With a $14 trillion debt there hasn't been a single generation that can be said to have paid its way since before World War II.  Ever since then Congress, elected by the people, have been borrowing money to support a national lifestyle we cannot afford.


If today's seniors, tomorrow's seniors, and the seniors after them, ever want to arrive at a time in their (our) life when they can presume to have "paid enough" we must all start by first electing congressmen, senators, and presidents that can control their spending and welfare appetites.


But the rest of us ordinary citizens can begin balancing the budget by sending back money earmarked for our communities' historic districts, monuments, bridges, and firetrucks and resolving that if these expenditures are that important to us we must pay for them ourselves.  If we can't afford these expenses, or aren't willing to pay for them ourselves, then they must either be not that important or we'll have to live without them--just as earlier generations, much earlier, did.


Or we can continue as we have since the 1950s, just leave it for the future generations to either pay-off, or suffer the consequences of a default.

It's time for an American Reformation

I read recently (sorry I can't remember where) that more people are reading The Constitution, the whole thing, in unprecedented numbers than ever before.  The article attributed it to both the Tea Party and the Obamacare.  It seems people are are reading the commerce and necessary and proper clauses to discover for themselves if the founder's idea of limited government could really be stretched into what 235-years' removal has created from it.

And they're discovering stretch marks.

It reminded me of my first foray into Protestant religions, and the ministers' encouragement to their congregations to read the bible for themselves so they couldn't be tricked into thinking the bible says something it doesn't.

The Reformation hasn't died.

Protestants believed Christians didn't need a church to tell them what the bible says.  They didn't need a hierarchy interpreting sacred scriptures for them, or trying to sell them indulgences for their sins that were little more than fund-raisers for "the church."

Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church did a lot of good with that money, but all that money also corrupted parts of the church because in the end the church is operated by humans, and humans are imperfect.

There are a lot of parallels to our government and its sacred document, The Constitution.

More of us need to read The Constitution.  More of us need to read the Bill of Rights and ponder the power and meaning of those words, and consider their inspiration.

When I read sections of The Constitution my faith in the document increases, my faith in the founders increases, but my faith in the institutions and representatives responsible for protecting and guarding the nation is troubled.

When it comes to what our government should and should not be doing, or what our elected representatives should or should not be doing, and I think our nation is ready, perhaps over-due, for a constitutional reformation.

The entire document is only 4609 words, including signatures.  The Bill of Rights is only 714 words.  Together they're only 5323 words.  Both can be read in a couple hours.

If congress would only limit itself to legislation no longer than 5323 words, I suspect it might be a more limited government, have fewer earmarks, less pork, and be more deserving of sharing space in the archives next to the greatest constitution ever written for the greatest nation ever imagined, and ever born.

So try-on a little reformist thinking, cut-out the middle men, read it for yourself.  Find someone to discuss it with, then consider if we've made of it what we should.  We are all children of The Revolution, and shouldn't squander or take for granted our inheritance.

CPAC is better with GOProud, than DeMint, Christie, Hertiage Foundation, FRC, and others

Republicanism and conservatism are not religious or Christian movements.  The fact religious and political conservatives share many common goals is a good thing, but Republicans are not and should not be subordinate to religious pouting, much less tantrums and dictates.

I would rather CPAC proceed without the take-our-straight-ball-home troglodytes than GOProud be unwelcomed.

The debate for conservative ideas must be had on their logical and political merits, not on religious arguments.  The relationship between Christianity and Republicans is orthogonal, not causal or parallel.

Welcome to the debate, GOProud!

A little information can cause a lot of damage

On January 21, 2011, I received an email from MoveOn.Org urging I contact my senators and congressman to express outrage over the US Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and to support an amendment to the constitution withholding free speech protections from corporations.


I was going to leave the issue alone until I read a letter-to-the-editor in the Ferndale 115.  It is too late to discourage that letter from being written, but I hope this article at least encourages people to pause before following orders sent them by email, Nigerian princes, or voices in their head.


Everyone that watched President Obama's 2010's State of the Union Address may remember the president exercising his free speech displeasure with the supreme court when he said, 

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations (like this?) –- to spend without limit in our elections.

He was referring to a similar issue (and thorn) that MoveOn.org complains about in their email.

MoveOn actually doesn't believe all corporations should be prohibited from free speech.  MoveOn.Org is itself a corporation--though a not-for-profit 501c3, and presumably wants to preserve free speech for itself.  What they must mean, then, is for-profit corporations should be prohibited from free speech, but that would include companies building green-products like wind turbines and solar panels, growing and selling organic foods, and other corporations that are in good standing with MoveOn.


So what we're left with is they must only want to prohibit free speech from corporations whose interests aren't aligned with MoveOn's and concordingly ACORN, Rainbow Push Coalition, and Common Cause--all non-profit corporations that exploit free speech for their own purposes (OK--not so much ACORN since 11/2010's bankruptcy filing).


The hypocrisy of these non-profit corporations claiming free speech should be prohibited to corporations is the subject of James Tarranto's Wall Street Journal article, Everybody Does It?  Really?

"So here we have a corporation (Common Cause) that advertises itself as a "grassroots organization" while exercising its First Amendment rights to advance the position that corporations do not have First Amendment rights, only individuals do. Some individuals, participating in the corporation's "grassroots" rally, exercise their First Amendment rights in ways that harm the corporation's image. The corporation responds by exercising its First Amendment rights to denounce those individuals for having exercised their First Amendment rights. And it does so in its capacity as a faceless corporation, by issuing a statement for which no individual--not even CEO Bob Edgar--takes responsibility."

Unfortunately, too many people don't appreciate the definitions of either "corporation" or "free speech."


Since 1975's Bigelow v. Virginia ruling, free speech includes commercial speech.    According to seven justices, commercial speech is as precious and valuable to protecting liberty as political speech.  Whether you agree with that decision or not, you can thank that court (sans justices Rehnquist and White) not for raising our appreciation of the contributions advertising has brought to humanity, but for lowering the value of Dr. Martin Luther King's "Now is the time!" to Cialis'® "When the time's right."


So does MoveOn, like Obama, want to reverse 41 years of precedent protecting corporate commercial speech, or just corporate political speech--like MoveOn's?

My money is on Madison

In the December 13th Free Press, Mitch Albom wrote Tax Cut Debate is Missing the Point, and it drew several comments in today's (December 19) Letters to the editor.
Naomi from St. Clair shores wrote:

If I was a wealthy American, which I am not, I would be outraged by those who are upset at my inclusion in renewal of the Bush tax cuts. If I was lucky enough to have earned enough to live well, or inherited wealth from family success, then as an American I am entitled to share in the same benefits as other citizens and legal residents.

Her letter brought some criticisms from on-line readers.  One writer, marytee, wrote:

Naomi's .. hypothetical statement professing outrage ... shows a significant amount of ignorance regarding how the rich actually feel about the cuts. Several dozen millionaires, including Warren Buffett, the third richest person in the world, recently urged that the cuts be allowed to expire for the good of the country.

It's far more likely that Ms. Solomons' outrage is selfishly political--she'd rather see the deficit increase--which what happens with these cuts--than see a Democratic president succeed.

I believe Naomi's comments are no more "politically selfish" than maryteee's.  maryteee seems to measure a budget's value by the revenue it collects (and from whom it's collected from in particular) than how much it spends.

Unfortunately for maryteee, being wealthy doesn't make Mr. Buffet's opinions correct--it just means Mr. Buffet is wealthy. Even as the third wealthiest person in America, Mr. Buffet doesn't speak for all America's wealthy.

On a related note, the national budget isn't broken because it doesn't tax “the rich,” it's broken because it overspends.

James Madison wrote, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions."

In the last several congresses, our government has become less limited by its constitution than by foreign governments' willingness to buy our debt.

We should be ashamed of our complicity with federal spending and our greed at accepting federal grants and ear-marks.

Complicity and greed are not the franchise of "the rich."  Gifts from the treasury have corrupted us all.

Round #2 :Federal court upholds Obamacare

According to The Detroit Free Press,

"In a 20-page decision, U.S. District Judge George Steeh refused to issue an injunction to halt preparations for putting federal health reforms into full effect in 2014, a law known as the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in March. Steeh also dismissed the major points of the suit — requiring Americans to buy health insurance and penalizing those who don’t starting in 2014."

Before applauding or berating the opinion, I thought I'd read it first.

I need to confess I haven't read the entire order, but the plaintiffs seemed to clearly miss establishing their standing.  The fact they may have to arrange their financial affairs differently three years from now doesn't excite me either, but I understand where they're coming from.  I'm glad they're planning ahead.  More of us should follow their example.

But it made me wonder: regardless whether Obamacare exceeds constitutional authority, by passing laws that go into affect in the future it is difficult to impede their enactment since until they hurt someone no one has standing to bring a case against the law.

Let me put that in simpler terms for recent college graduates--you're not hurt until you're hurt.

In the court's opinion, if your child is tied to railroad tracks they don't have standing to stop the train.

I think this is brilliant.  Congress should pass all unpopular and potentially unconstitutional laws this way.  No one can stop their passing or implementation because until folks have been victimized there are no victims, no plaintiffs, and no one "with standing." 

Of course, the judge's reasoning would also eliminate criminal conspiracy--since no one was harmed.  It may also prohibit the apprehension of terrorists since until the plane blows up, no one is actually hurt.

As long as the missile is climbing or hasn't entered US airspace there's no eminent threat.

I know, I know.  The judge's order blushed that "standing" is influenced by the immediacy of the threat.  But immediacy is both ambiguous and subjective.  If I'm planning ahead, three years from now is nearly a present danger.  If I don't plan ahead then three years from now is, well, three years from now.

Obama admonishes the faithless

Perhaps the diagnosis is wrong.  What President Obama sees as "Democratic voter apathy" may actually be buyer's remorse.  And as all American's don't fall neatly into Democrat or Republic boxes, assigning apathy to "Democrats" misses the point--it wasn't just Democrats that voted for him in 2008.

It's also wrong to assume his presidential legacy is the responsibility of "Democrats" to rescue and they're being apathetic on the up-take.

When Obamacrats voted for change they put "The Best of Obama" on their iPods and listened to them over and over, memorized the lyrics, and hummed the melodies in local government, facebook, and the pages of the NYTimes.

In many ways, they're feeling a lot like Republicans did after Bush passed NCLB and the huge prescription bill, and their malaise is for THE SAME reason.  Republican melancholy was due to Bush's breaking a promise and Democratic lethargy is because Obama kept his promise.

But ultimately, both Republicans and Democrats were disappointed for the same reason.  In essence, Bush acted liberal and Obama, well, is liberal.

The good news is, I still see a lot of Obama bumper stickers.  The bad news I still see Mondale/Ferraro stickers.  Maybe Obama's diagnosis isn't so far off the mark.

It pays to be bland

From "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"

Captain Nemo: I am Captain Nemo, putting myself humbly at your service. I have heard of Mr. Quartermain.

Quartermain: And I've heard of you, Captain. Rumor has it you're a pirate.

Captain Nemo: I would prefer a less provocative title.

Quartermain: I'm sure you would.

Believe it or not, there are only three self-described Democrats on Ferndale's Financial Planning Committee.  There are also five self-described independents, two that didn't identify any affiliation, and two that weren't on the list at all (and were yet still appointed).

There are no self-identified Republicans.  I find that fascinating.  During the Bush administration, Republicans pretty much lost their "quals" as fiscal conservatives, so in that regard Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats.

Another possibility is both are ashamed of their parties, and not without reason.

Quatermain: I may have been overly rude earlier... when I called you a pirate.

Captain Nemo: And I may have been overly charitable... when I said I wasn't.  But I try to live in the now... where the ghosts of old wrongs do not abide.

Nemo, at least, eventually admitted he was being "overly charitable."

Go ahead and boycott BP, your government, and yourself over gulf oil spill

Facebook (as much of a time-suck as it is) can be wonderfully inspirational.

A little while ago I read a ('nother) post encouraging folks to boycott BP by not buying gas at BP stations. This is shortly on the tail of news reports about a picket outside a local BP station.

Before joining the picket lines or demonizing private industry, or the oil industry in particular, it's worth asking, "Why are we drilling in 5000' of water in the first place?"

Charles Krauthammer writes:

"As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

"... why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?"

In addition to environmentalist and bad energy and natural resources policy, we have ourselves to blame.

"We want gasoline to be as reliable as electricity, and we don’t want to give any thought to where it comes from."

In fact, BP is drilling in 5000' of water for the same reason we invaded Iraq, because we want them to.

For a long time law enforcement has known that the best way to stop drug violence is for people to stop using drugs. Our irrational behavior and dual dependence on both oil and spineless public policy is worthy of Lindsay Lohan reality show.

When we're ready to stop oil spills, correct our middle-east policy, and stop sprawl, we'll check-ourselves in to rehab.

Editorial comments, 2009-02-08

From today's Detroit Free Press:

"President Barack Obama's scolding of the Wall Street execs for passing out $18 billion in bonuses last year was long overdue. Wall Street argues that this level of compensation is needed to retain "good" people. Well, these "good" people failed to understand that you do not give mortgages to people who have no hope of making the payments."

Donald Patterson, Troy

Donald, on the top of your "good people" list should be Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, the Community Reinvestment Act, and other defenders of Fredie and Fannie that first required banks make loans to people that couldn't afford them, then insured them which encouraged banks to make more. Greed, like envy, can't be eradicated by law, but government interference can be voted out of office leaving greed to feed on something other than tax payer money.

"Presumably, the board of directors at Merrill Lynch felt John Thain fell into this "best and brightest" category when he was hired. How bright can Thain be to think that it would take $1.22 million to redecorate his office? Not the entire building, not a floor of the building, but one office! How bright could he be to lead Merrill Lynch to a $15-billion fourth-quarter loss?"

Chris Charron, Eastpointe

The free market allows people to pay whatever they think something is worth--whether it's an executive or a piece of toast with the Virgin Mary's image. The difference in both government and boards of directors is the relative lack of having skin in the game. It's easier to spend other people's money (government) or be derelict in your responsibilities because you've so little skin in the game (boards of directors). The first leads to an expanding government financed by debt and the second leads to overpaid executives detached from the success or failure of their enterprises because their wealth is only modestly impacted by the success or failure of the ships they captain.

When voters start insisting their local governments send pork back to the government (like Ferndale voters should have) then we may become more credible in arguing what executives are or are not worth and whether the stimulus build will stimulate the economy or campaign contributions.

"So the average Wall Street bonus fell to $112,000 in 2008, and they're down about that. Have they bothered to look at the rest of the country -- the way that people are being fired and permanently laid off, and having their pay and benefits cut? I would bet that any of them would trade places with them for just half of their bonus."

Leon Suchorski, Canton

Does each of us want our compensation looked at as closely as Wall Streets? Many non-executives receive incentive pay based on performance. Many work for departments unrelated to mortgages. It is both unfair and illogical to paint all bonuses with the same brush. We should also remember that all pay is relative. No matter what we make we're likely making more money than someone else, and their willingness to do our job for less indicates their belief we're making too much money. Be careful the stones we throw.

"Well, now. The Republicans say they have a better stimulus plan than President Obama's. So, my question is: Why didn't they put it up eight years ago?"

Kenneth G. Maluchnik, Lincoln Park

The stimulus plan should be measured on its own merits, not on whether it's a Democratic invention or opposed by Republicans. If its greatest quality is "because we won," then it is no law at all. It's retaliation. If that is how voters wish government be run then we can't complain about partisanship. Well, we can complain, but our complaints have no credibility, stand without principle, and can be easily ignored by those that govern us.

"[Mitch] Albom's general suggestion -- that the government should somehow stop what he implies is a universal "elitist immorality" among CEOs -- sounds like a call for total government management of business. ... it's unfair to the millions of managers who have improved our lives through good stewardship of their shareholders' assets.

"Our (predominantly) free-market system, even with all of its very real agency problems, has created too much wealth for such a cavalier statement, implying that government intervention would be better."

Jon Boguth, Sterling Heights

Such is the danger of generalizations and isms. Free markets and republican government have created the highest standard of living the civilized world has ever known. Let's not pretend their success is the prerequisite to making a success of centrally-planned economies and socialism, or that the latter is a desireable future of the former.

"When President George W. Bush took office, the national debt was about $5.7 trillion, and when he left office about $10 trillion, an increase of $4.3 trillion. Some have estimated that 40% of the increase is due to Bush's tax cuts mostly to the rich, or $1.7 trillion. Now if tax cuts are supposed to have the great stimulus effect that the GOP claims, why are we in the current economic mess?"

Jim Karavite, Royal Oak

Due to President Bush's tax cuts, the treasury enjoyed record-breaking revenues. The tax cuts were unqualified successes. The deficit didn't come about because revenues dropped, but because spending grew disproportionately to revenue. This is why even Conservatives disliked Bush--he abandoned fiscal conservatism and in trying to reach-across-the-aisle he literally stepped across it. Bush was fiscally more liberal than Clinton, which is why some conservatives believe Clinton was a better Republican president than Bush ever was. Theres little doubt no small amount of vicarious fantasies were involved as well.

"Any member of Congress who doesn't pay his or her taxes, hires illegal aliens, drives an import, is convicted of a felony, votes for a personal raise during the 'recession,' or bounces checks regularly should be removed from office. Period. No exceptions."

Dennis R. Green, West Bloomfield

It's hard to believe these are the best 535 candidates. Americans have elected quite a crew of taxs cheats, bad business managers, sex offenders, and other criminals to represent them. Apparently, Detroit doesn't own the franchise.

"With the economic downturn this state is in, am I surprised that there are those who wish that President Barack Obama's policies fail? That, instead, they hope more people lose their jobs and homes? That the bridges and roads continue to fall apart around us? That women have no right to decide their health care?

"I was hoping for bipartisanship in Washington. But again I guess it will be politics as usual."

Pete Kier, Ortonville

It is politics as usual, and Pete's letter is evidence of that. True, some hope Obama fails. Other's hope certain bills fail. Bad policy is bad policy regardless who sponsors it. I hope the stimulus package fails because it is laden with pork. McCain doesn't have to be president to call-out members sponsoring pork, and Obama's message of change seems only to be a message. Nothing will have changed if he doesn't campaign against all the pork. Again, politics as usual.

"How can the GOP rebuild when the entire basis of their philosophy has been proved wrong? Low taxes, less regulation -- look where these have led. Free trade -- ask nearly anyone in Michigan about that. War first, diplomacy second -- didn't work out so well. Telling everyone else to take responsibility while not taking it yourself for your own mistakes while in office -- not appreciated. The GOP will literally have to do a 180 to recover. This may be a while."

Michael Ross, Southfield

Michael, the philosophy is still intact and hasn't been proven wrong. What has been proven wrong is that when Republicans abandon their principles, Republicanism (and conservatism) get an undeserved black eye.

Remember, there were Democrats in congress as well, and congress had to approve Bush's spending plans--and both parties are responsible for that. Stopping partisanship means we stop blaming individuals (except for individual bad choices) and hold all our representatives responsible. In Michigan that begins with Levin and Stabenow--both responsible for passing spending bills.

Republicans will have to make a 180-degreee turn, but that turn is a re-turn to conservatism, not away from it.

"Do you think people like John McCain, who owns eight properties, really care about Joe the plumber? Why can't we the people, who have invested the $700 billion to aid the financial markets, get a little injection into our IRAs and 401(k)s when things turn around? We would like to share in this new American socialism."

Robert E. Burkett, Westland

Technically, we haven't invested $700 billion into anything. I believe most of the money will be borrowed from the likes of China and other buyers of treasury bills. The same is true of the $800 billion stimulus bill, which is more about borrowing than stimulating. Both are IOUs written by our elected representatives our children's children will have to pay, and the interest will create an economic drag and sap more money from our federal budget.

There's no correlation that someone with eight properties doesn't care about the little guy. There's a difference between caring for the little guy out of your own pocket and caring for them out of someone else's. There's no virtue in the latter. For the religious, there's no reward for voting to compell charity from your neighbors' pockets.

It was lack of government oversight that allowed the banks to get us into this mess in the first place.

Lawrence Luty, Livonia

Banks have plenty of oversite, it's the government that's lacking oversite. Bank's don't want to lose money, not do they want to make loans to people without jobs. Regulators changed the rules, regulators required loans to unqualified borrowers, regulators created the institutions that insured sub-prime loans. Yes, they had noble intentions, but noble beurocratic intentions do not make for good banking business. Especially when those intentions are less noble and designed to get votes are appease special interests rather than serve the interest of our country--which should be their first priority.

American Free Enterprise: RIP

It matters little what's taught in college anymore, free enterprise and capitalism haven't existed in the United States for years. Not in the sense that businesses are allowed to compete and survive in the market strictly on their own merits, creativity, and ability to compete for consumer dollars.

You don't need to be a professor or fellow at an ivy league university or institute to appreciate the demise of free enterprise. You can see the effects of government interference right in Ferndale. City Council, at the behest of the DDA, spent valuable time June 23 considering then passing ordinances regulating the size, shape, and fees permitting a potential health risk to civilians: sandwich boards. You know, those little signs shops put on the sidewalk hoping to catch your eye with their lunch menu, specials, promotions and sales.

I'm unsure how Ferndale has survived this long without rigorous standards for sandwich boards. This must be the blight and rejuvenation the state legislature was thinking about when it wrote the laws authorizing DDAs to micro-manage. Between this and other ordinances, millages, expanding the district to tax more business, eventually the DDA will transform Ferndale's character to be as unique and appealing as the inside of Oakland Mall.

Would the car sticking out of the second story at Wetmore's be allowed if the DDA had anything to do with it? I think not. I credit Steffie Loveless, publisher of Ferndale Friends, with the observation that the DDA is slowly removing everything that was once "authentic" Ferndale.

But back to the Big Three, the bailouts requested from GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the UAW is a small part of the expense to government for interfering with the markets in the first place. In addition to CAFE standards, where the government tried to force manufacturers to build cars the public doesn't want to buy, there are numerous safety standards that perhaps the public ought to have voted for with their purchases rather than legislated.

Every large corporation is also a welfare agency of its own--employing people that if they weren't for fear of discrimination lawsuits would have been let-go a long time go. The same goes for minority suppliers--for fear of more government intervention and bad press from Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, the big three could have spent less time propping-up weak suppliers with preferential price and payment terms than with established suppliers. As part of the bailout, the big three should hold a Survivor-like tribunal to vote some of its staff off the island--including management.

When I worked at Comerica there were people we all knew were unproductive by virtue of laziness or incompetence that wouldn't make it to the second episode. The reality is such a thing isn't possible because public opinon wouldn't allow it. The only time such a move might be tolerated would be during bankruptcy--which might be one of the opportunities the big three may exploit--along with the elimination of suppliers that require too much hand-holding. The result would be a stronger staff and a stronger supply-chain.

Wonder if government interference influences the price of things or free enterprise? Ethanol is cheaper to produce from sugar cane than corn, but those quantities of sugar cane are more likely to come from Brazil than midwest corn farmers. So to make corn-based ethanol more attractive (and not just to congressmen and senators) the government subsidizes it. And because the government doesn't think consumers are willing to pay for electronic cars at prices that reflect the cost to make them, they're offering a $7800 tax incentive to new owners.

I've already gone on record as believing embryonic stem cell (ESC) research shouldn't be illegal, but I strongly oppose any public funding for it. If ESC therapies are really as promising as its supporters claim it to be, then some entreprenurial capitalist should be funding their own development of the technology so they may profit from their patents, treatments, and medicines. Adult stem cell therapies have already proven successful without hype. Where ESC is all promise, hope, lobbying, grants, government funding and sympathetic advertisements, adult stem cells are helping people today.

One last example while I'm thinking about it. If Ferndale residents had to pay the whole cost of the totem pole at Woodward and Cambourne, would we have paid the $100,000 cost? No, but since government grants picked-up much of the cost not only did we get fragile monument for only $30,000 but we contributed to earmarks, pork, and wasteful government spending.

So, as citizens, if we think government intervention and social engineering is a good thing in commercial markets, that minimum wage should be set by law and not the market, that the government should manipulate credit-worthiness through Fredie and Fannie whether borrowers have a job or income, then we should applaud the bailouts and be anxious for more of them--because bailouts are the price we're willing to pay for feel-good public policy in commerce than free-enterprise.

Rights, entitlements and privileges--oh, my!

This past Sunday, Free Press editorial writer, Ron Dzwonkowski, wrote in Health care debate must go on:

"We have not in this country come to grips with the core question of whether health care is a right or a privilege — something to which every American is entitled or something to which your entitlement and the extent of your care depend on whether you are working and where."

Whatever health care may be, it is certainly not a right.

A "right" should be anything I can assert without the existence of a government to protect or provide them. Even without government assistance I will defend my life, my family's, and my property. I have a right to live freely and not as another man's property--not even the government's.

I do not have the right to force another to do something for me. In the case of health care, I do not have the right to force a doctor to treat me, nor force them to accept whatever I offer for payment--whether it be cash or chickens.

Nationalized medicine might force doctors to work for a single employer--the government. That comes treacherously close to being forced to work for another

It's unfortunate that humans are frail. It doesn't seem "fair" that some can afford better health care than others. But some can also afford better diets, better housing, better educations, better athletic equipment and club memberships, leisure time, vacations, swimming pools, air conditioners, humidifiers, purifiers, and live in areas with less pollution and lower crime rates.

As all these things can improve health. Are they rights as well and is the government prepared to provide them equally to all Americans?

It's easier to change yourself than vote for change

Psychologists tell their patients, and any feel-good daytime talk-show host that will listen, that it's easier to change ourselves than to change others. Relationship problems are more often caused by our trying to change others when it's much easier to change ourselves or our reactions to them.

Candidates often claim to be the agents of change, as Obama does, but the real agents of change are the voters.

There's nothing in either candidate's proposals different from any previous year. In fact, both senators John McCain and Barak Obama offer more of the same. More programs, more spending, more giveaways, more favors from the treasury in exchange for votes. All their proposals for increased services will require more taxes or more borrowing, or both.

Nationalized health care isn't something new, it's more welfare. It's an entitlement program designed to make more Americans dependent on government than the millions already unable or demotivated to kick the habit.

Mortgage bailouts are a lottery for both lenders and borrowers who assumed more debt and risk than they could afford.

Persecution of oil companies provides great theater for the electorate, giving congressman and senators top billing and spot lights for hand wringing and arm waving, but is merely a distraction from our government's unwillingness to exploit our nation's own natural resources.

Do voters really want change or do they merely want credit for the emperor's new priorities? Is increased government spending OK when it's money spent on you or only when spent on others? Are increased taxes OK as long as they aren't yours? Are your votes for locally-elected politicians consistent with a desire for change or are they for more of the same?

Our politicians--both Republican and Democrat--are exactly as we want them to be. Detroit's mayor and city council are exactly as Detroit voters want them to be. In short, our politicians give us exactly what we vote for because it's easier to blame politicians, spouses and relatives than it is to blame ourselves.

No single candidate can bring change. No single party can bring change. Change requires more than one vote every four years. It requires votes for change in the spring for schools, votes for change in the summer primaries, and votes for change every November for national, state, county, and local leadership.

Change what you want from your representatives, change what you vote for, vote that way at every election, and your government will change--eventually. It can't all happen in November, and anyone that tells you otherwise is, well, a candidate-as-usual.