Who Does Glenn Greenwald Thinks He Is?

By , February 5, 2014 3:30 pm

Glenn Greenwald changed his profile photo on Twitter recently:

Glenn Greenwald_Twitter

I immediately recognized the pose because I use the following photo on my Twitter profile:

George-Orwell_typing.3

Now, I use the photo because I admire Orwell. He was a truth teller. I hope I’m one. And Glenn Greenwald? Does he admire Orwell, or does he think he’s a modern-day Orwell? Or maybe Daniel Patrick Moynihan:

daniel-patrick-moynihan-at-typewriter360267s

Speaking of Greenwald, here’s a pretty evenhanded take on the guy by Tom Rogan of National Review.

Hmmm. Maybe Greenwald’s thinks he’s this guy:

jason_bourne

Calvin Coolidge: Showing (Who is Was) Rather than Telling

By , January 31, 2014 3:01 pm

I’ve been listening to Amity Shlaes’s book “Coolidge” as I run. The other day I listened to a story she tells about the recently inaugurated president still living at the Willard Hotel, apparently waiting until the Mrs. Harding moved out of the White House. In the story, Coolidge is asleep and awake in the middle of the night to discover a thief going through his clothes. As Snopes.com the story (remember, I’m listening to, not reading the story):

He watched as the thief first removed a wallet, then unhooked a watch chain. Coolidge calmly spoke
up from the darkness: “About that watch, I wish you wouldn’t take that.”

The startled man, gaining his voice, asked, “Why?”

Coolidge answered, “I don’t mean the watch and chain, only the charm. I’m very fond of that charm. It means a great deal to me. Take it near
the window and read what is engraved on the back of it.”

The burglar read: “Presented to Calvin Coolidge, Speaker of the House, by the Massachusetts General Court.” And now he was more surprised!

“Are you President Coolidge?” he asked. He evidently did not think he’d find the President sleeping in a hotel!

“Yes, I am, and I don’t want you to take that charm,” he said. Then he asked, “Why, Son, are you doing this?”

The young man explained that he and a friend traveled to Washington during their college break. They spent all of their money and had no
money to pay the hotel bill or pay for train passage back to school. “If you don’t mind,” he said, “I’ll just take the wallet.”

Coolidge did mind. He knew he had about $80 in his wallet. So he said, “How much will it take to pay your hotel bill and get you and
your friend back to the campus? Sit down and let’s talk this over.” Coolidge added up the room rate and two rail tickets. It came to $32.
That may not sound like much now, but it was a considerable sum then. “I’ll give you the $32 as a loan,” the President said, “and I expect
you to pay me back.”

The youth thanked him. Coolidge then advised him to leave by the same window he used to enter the room, as secret service agents were sure
to be patrolling the hallway. As the young man climbed out, Coolidge left him with this admonition: “Son, you’re a nice boy. You are better
than you are acting. You are starting down the wrong road. Just remember who you are.”

It wasn’t until after the death of Mrs. Coolidge in 1957 that this story was allowed to come out. It was first published in the “Los
Angeles Times.” And most interesting of all is that the President’s notes show that the young man was indeed better than he was acting.
He repaid the $32 loan in full.

Shlaes could have told me a million times what a good man Coolidge was, but she didn’t have to. The picture she described showed me who he was.

Family, Fathers, Community . . . and Church?

By , December 6, 2013 11:16 am

You don’t have to be a believer to have a good family. And some families manage to get by without a father, whether because of divorce, death, or abandonment. Others seem all right and do okay without the interaction inherent in a vibrant community. But can I tell you how thankful I am for my membership in a church that stresses the importance of all three, not only stresses their importance but fosters their development?

Last night, for example, I sat in the basement of my bishop’s home with 12 or 13 other men and women–leaders of the various organizations in my church or ward–calendaring for the upcoming year. As we discussed in-service training for teachers, next year’s 4th of July breakfast, and a possible international night in the cultural hall of our chapel (food and festivities from a variety of nations and ethnicities), we also discussed the needs of people within our ward’s boundaries* and how we could help them.

Every year, we have a “Ward Salmon Fry” in early September. This year we changed the name to “Neighborhood Salmon Fry,” so people in our neighborhood of other faiths might feel more welcome to that annual gathering. In the early morning of virtually every holiday–Memorial Day, for example–the young men and women of our ward place flags on the lawns of any and all in our neighborhood. That evening, they return to retrieve the flags. And on and on.

In the end, these efforts build community. In the end, such activities strengthen families and let people know they are not alone. And in the end, our little corner of the United States is a little stronger, perhaps a little safer, and possibly a better place to live. The efforts of other churches in our area to do similar things that increase that sense of community and belonging.

Then comes Sunday, and I get to sit in a pew and be reminded of my responsibilities as a husband and father. Once or twice a month, someone at church will ask whether I’ve done my home teaching (Mormon men and woman are assigned to visit members in their homes at least once a month to visit and to simply check up on their well being). Of course, the corollary is that my wife and I receive such visits into our home at least once a month. (One of the beauties of this “Home Teaching” or “Visiting Teaching” program is that we are assigned people to visit or be visited by. We don’t get to choose. Thus, I often spend time with people I might otherwise not associate with. The benefits of that should be obvious.)

I should mention that I live in a middle class and certainly not wealthy neighborhood. I’d be surprised if the average home price exceeded $180,000. It’s about as racially mixed as Utah gets, with a fair number of blacks, Latinos, and Asians, all of whom I know on a first name basis, many of whom have been in my home. I should also mention that I’ve seen and felt the same kind of support in wards in inner-city Lansing, Michigan and in some of the poorest parts of Brazil.

I was reminded of the importance of all this when I read a piece today by Walter Russell Mead, titled Obama Flub’s Inequality Message. The title is unfortunate because I not writing this to take pot shots at President Obama, though I agree with Mead that he and others need to focus more on the following:

. . . there’s plenty of evidence that unwed childbearing, father absence and fraying kinship and community networks exacerbate the problems of low-income people and make it incredibly hard for them to gain a foothold in the middle class. These are thorny problems that aren’t easily solved by the kinds of government measures Obama champions.

I often wish the President of the United States (all of them) would more often use the bully pulpit much like speakers in my church use the church’s pulpit. Use it to speak to the themes of family, fathers, and community; to tell (shame?) absentee fathers into shouldering their responsibilities; to plead with young men and women to marry first, have children later; to encourage young and old to get more involved in their communities. In church, we refer to this as a call to repentance, which is just another word for change. All of this would ultimately strengthen the family (families of all types) and thereby strengthen the community.

Yes, economics are important, but without a firm foundation of family, fathers**, and community, all that economic help is apt to trickle into a sink hole rather than help anybody.

*In the Mormon church, local congregations are called “wards,” each of which have defined boundaries. Approximately 10 wards make up a “stake.” Wards typically have around 250-300 members.

**To the women reading this, I speak of fathers not because they are more important than mothers but because to my knowledge, we don’t have an epidemic of absentee mothers.

Are Angels Watching, or Is the NSA?

By , November 6, 2013 11:51 am

Madison said it best,

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Alex Tabarrok rifs on that theme at Marginal Revolution when he asks Did Obama Spy on Romney? He answers his own question:

No. Some people claim that President Obama didn’t even know about the full extent of NSA spying. Indeed, I imagine that President Obama was almost as surprised as the rest of us when he first discovered that we live in a mass surveillance state in which billions of emails, phone calls, facebook metadata and other data are being collected.

Who knows? As Tabrrok reminds us, the NSA listened in on Angela Merkel’s phone calls. What if Romney called her during his 2012 campaign? In any case, he’s certainly right when he says that “Men are not angels.” Nevertheless, Tabarrok doesn’t think the NSA forwarded any tapes on to the Obama campaign. Still, “Men are not angels,” right?

Did the NSA use the information they gathered on Mitt Romney and other political candidates for political purposes? Probably not. Will the next president or the one after that be so virtuous so as to not use this kind of power? I have grave doubts. Men are not angels.

The Nixon administration plumbers broke into the offices of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist in order to gather information to discredit him. They busted into a single file cabinet (pictured). What a bunch of amateurs.
The NSA has broken into millions of file cabinets around the world.

Nixon resigned in disgrace. Who will pay for the NSA break-ins? (Emphasis added)

Well, This was Inevitable

By , November 1, 2013 4:01 pm

The New Yorker has its say on the Affordable Care rollout.

Obama Cover_TNY_11_11_13_580

And Now for Something Completely Different

By , November 1, 2013 10:37 am

If you’ve ever wondered what happens in the Supreme Court, you’re living at the right time. The Internet generally and Oyez.org particularly open the door to the court so that as early as the day of an oral argument, you can actually listen to the argument as you read the transcript of the argument. Obviously, if you can do that, you can also listen to older oral arguments, even arguments as old as Roe v. Wade, the abortion decision, or New York Times v. Sullivan, the decision that established the actual malice standard in defamation cases, or New York Times v. Nixon, the so-called Pentagon Papers case. It’s fascinating–at least to me.

Sometimes the arguments can be dry, but often some humor sneaks in and other times, you might hear a justice ask a question or an attorney tell a story that suddenly casts a decision into an entirely new light. That happened to me with the Boumediene v. Bush case, a case involving a detainee in Guantanamo and the Military Commissions Act. At the close of his rebuttal argument, Boumediene’s attorney, Seth Waxman, relates what he calls a “truly kafka-esque” story of a Mr. Bilgen, who had also been a detainee, accused of being a terrorist. The story is too long and complicated to repeat here, but you can listen to it here–beginning at the 80:11 mark of the argument. (Before you listen, you should know the meaning of the acronym CSRT.)

The technology the Court uses has improved over the years, so the recordings of oral arguments today are much better than they were, say, in the time of Roe v. Wade. In any case, take a look at Oyez.org (and even a tour) and take time to listen to some of these arguments.

The Futility of Attempting to Reap What You Failed to Sow – Part II

By , October 31, 2013 2:48 pm

So a friend asked me to check Moynihan’s thesis against vote tallies for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, another piece of landmark legislation. I don’t know about my friend, but the vote(s) on that bill stunned me. A greater number of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats. There were a number of votes (parliamentary procedure is beyond my ken, so I won’t go into them) but basically on both sides of Congress, 80% of Republicans voted for the bill and between 61% and 69% of Democrats went for it, depending on the vote.*

And the Moynihan thesis? It holds here as well. A bi-partisan majority of 73% passed the bill in the Senate. A bi-partisan majority of 70% voted “yea” in the House (on the the Senate version of the bill).

*Of course, Democrat numbers would have been better had it not been for their Southern siblings who voted 8 – yea, 107 – nay on the bill.

Truck, Meet Hole Part II

By , October 31, 2013 1:17 pm

In a previous post, I discussed the regulations HHS promulgated in June 2010 to implement the Affordable Care Act. I failed to mention that buried in the issue of the Federal Register that contains those regulations, you’ll find the following chart:

ACA_Lose Coverage

You can find the chart and relevant discussion of both group and individual plans on pages 35,552 to 34,553 of this document. Interim-Final-Regulations_HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001_3

Forbes magazine claims that in these pages and with this chart, “Obama Officials [said] In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare.” I’m not sure if Forbes’s analysis is accurate, but there’s no doubt that Obama officials knew that lots of people with group and individual health insurance were going to lose their grandfathered status, and thus the health insurance that they presumably liked, by the end of 2013.

The Futility of Attempting to Reap What You Failed to Sow

By , October 31, 2013 9:52 am

In a previous post, I told the following story about the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s advice to the Clintons:

Twenty years ago, when he was trying to persuade Bill and Hillary Clinton that universal health care was a politically unrealistic goal, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeated one insistent warning: Sweeping, historic laws don’t pass barely.’They pass 70-to-30,’ he said, ‘or they fail.’ [Rahm Emanuel gave President Obama similar advice.]

Later I began to wonder, what was the vote on the original Social Security bill? Medicare and Medicaid?

Social Security:

The Ways & Means Committee Report on the Social Security Act was introduced in the House on April 4, 1935 and debate began on April 11th. After several days of debate, the bill was passed in the House on April 19, 1935 by a vote of 372 yeas [including 81 of 102 Republicans], 33 nays, 2 present, and 25 not voting. . . .

The bill was reported out by the Senate Finance Committee on May 13, 1935 and introduced in the Senate on June 12th. The debate lasted until June 19th, when the Social Security Act was passed by a vote of 77 yeas [including 16 of 25 Republicans], 6 nays, and 12 not voting. (Emphasis added)

Medicare and Medicaid:

H.R. 6675, The Social Security Admendments of 1965, began life in the House Ways & Means Committee where it passed the Committee on March 23, 1965 (President Johnson issued a statement in support of the bill after the favorable Committee vote) and a Final Report was sent to the House on March 29, 1965. The House took up consideration of the bill on April 7th, and passed the bill the next day by a vote of 313-115 [including 70 out of 140 Republicans] (with 5 not voting).

The Senate Finance Committee reported the bill out on June 30th and debate began on the Senate floor that same day, concluding with passage on July 9, 1965 by a vote of 68-21 [including 13 out of 32 Republicans] (with 11 not voting). (Emphasis added)

For those without a calculator, Social Security passed with 86% of the vote in the House and 81% in the Senate. Medicare passed with 71% of the vote in the House and 70% in the Senate. Both bills had strong, bi-partisan support. In contrast, the Affordable Care Act garnered just 50.57% of the vote in the House and 60% in the Senate–without a single Republican vote.

I repeat, it was hubris that killed the beast.

Truck, Meet Hole

By , October 30, 2013 11:44 am

Here’s the relevant provision in the Affordable Care Act, a provision that President Obama touted again and again and again and again:

(a) No changes to existing coverage
(1) In general Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on March 23, 2010.[42 USC Sec. 18011 (a)(1)] (Emphasis supplied)

Nope, the Affordable Care Act doesn’t require you–the individual–to terminate that health insurance plan you like. Nope, you don’t even have to get up from the couch. Your friendly federal government, in the form of regulations promulgated by Health and Human Services, will terminate it for you, if your insurance provider or group plan:

-eliminat[es] of all or substantially all benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition,

-increase[s] . . . a percentage cost-sharing requirement (such as . . . [your] coinsurance . . .),

-increase[s] . . . a fixed-amount cost-sharing requirement other than a copayment (for example,deductible or out-of-pocket limit). . . if the total percentage increase in the cost-sharing requirement . . . exceeds the maximum percentage increase (as defined in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of . . . [S]ection 54.9815–1251T),

-increase[s] . . . a fixed-amount copayment [by greater than essentially the medical inflation plus $5.00],

-impose[s] . . . [or] decrease[s] an overall annual limit on the dollar value of benefits, [or]

-[if an employer] decreases its contribution rate [essentially, by more than 5%].

(Some emphasis and incidental formatting/punctuation supplied)

Those who are gluttons for punishment can read HHS’s summary of the sordid details here. If you want to read the fine print, click on the link at the very end of the summary. (Oddly, the other links, or at least the ones I tried, don’t work.)

Or you can read my copy here (scroll down until you find the yellow highlights). Have fun: Interim Final Regulations_HHS-OS-2010-0015-0001

A final comment. The HHS regulation makes sense. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to deliver better healthcare–supposed to. And the regulation is an attempt to deliver on that promise to those with existing plans that they like and want to keep. Each of the reasons for terminating your coverage makes sense if you accept the premise that the requirements represent a safety net, a blockade to prevent your health insurance company from reducing your benefits. But that’s not how President Obama sold the Act. As the videos linked to above demonstrate, he promised unequivocally that you could keep your health insurance, no if, ands, or buts, and knowing full well that you probably would not be able to.

Would the Act have passed if he had been up front about this? I don’t think so.

Panorama Theme by Themocracy