Miles's blog

The Republicans are up in arms about religious organizations not being forced to provide health insurance which includes contraception coverage.  They have jumped up on their soapbox hammering on this so-called intrusion into religious freedom.  Some Republicans want to expand this far beyond contraception into “specific items or services” if the coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.”  (Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, according to the New York Times.)

This opens up a pretty wide window.  As several organizations point out, this could lead to denials of coverage for things like childhood immunizations.  The clown Santorum complains that pre-natal testing for Downs syndrome and other conditions support abortions.  I suppose he would desire a law which says employers could opt out of providing coverage for that.  How about Christian Scientists?  Could they simply refuse to provide health coverage at all since they don’t believe in doctors?  How about Orthodox Jews-could they refuse to provide coverage for routine office visits on Saturdays?  Could employers claim their religious or moral beliefs prohibit consumption of alcohol and then refuse to provide coverage for treatment?  How about cirroshis of the liver?  Had their employee not indulged in demon rum he would not need a new liver, so let’s leave that out. Where does this end?  Why stop with health insurance?  Should other laws which conflict with religious beliefs also be exempted?

America has fought this battle since its inception.  Because religion by its very nature is personal and, by definition, deals with beliefs and subjective understanding of the world, people possess widely varying and often extremely unusual beliefs, or at least claim to.  But society as a whole has a right to infringe on some of these beliefs to maintain a greater good.  Polygamy was declared illegal a long time ago, a law upheld by the Supreme Court.  Yet apparently many people today still believe polygamy is a preferable way to live (or at least to watch a tv show about other people living this way).  Others have been forced to have their photo taken for driver’s licenses or undergo vaccinations prior to entry to school.  Parents have been forced to allow medical treatment for their children.  Some have been denied the use of psychoactive substances.  

Merely claiming you hold deep personal or religious beliefs does not grant unlimited rights to engage in any activity you desire.  Certainly reasonable accommodation needs to be made so that no one’s free exercise of religion is prevented or hindered.  But should an ancient Maya show up and demand human sacrifice, a practice they believed was just as important as the ritual of any current religion, I don’t think we would need to accommodate their beliefs.  A famous Supreme Court case allowed a state to ban the ritual slaughter of animals.

The question should not turn on how deeply-held or firmly-established the belief is, but how much infringement is taking place and how important is that infringement to the goal of the government’s law or policy, and then finally how necessary is the rule.  A debate along these lines would be valid on the issue of providing contraception coverage.  Should people like the clown Santorum, who despite his claimed dislike of higher education actually has a college degree, wish to raise issues of exactly how important is the need for contraception coverage and how much infringement does it do to the beliefs of the Catholic church and others, the debate could be lively and informative.  However, in today’s political climate, principled debates are seen as anachronistic, while bombastic attacks and “lines in the sand” are viewed as statesmanship.  

OK, I am going to cut this off short today so I can run to the beach.  It is 77 and sunny. 

I made it St. Augustine, Florida.  A long two-day drive from Connecticut.  I wish I could tell you I passed sweeping vistas and breathtaking scenery, but not so much.  Mostly I saw highway, billboards, speeding cars, and lots of trucks.  Thankfully, I did not see any double trailers. Maybe they don’t do that anymore.

I sidestepped Philadelphia, went through Baltimore, and around Washington, D.C.  I passed through Richmond, Virginia, and spent the night in Fayetteville, North Carolina.  I ate McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and granola bars.  I drank Red Bull.  Gas was around $4.00 a gallon, even in New Jersey where state law requires an attendant to pump the gas.  (Do you believe that?)  I listed mostly to satellite radio and my iPod.  I read lots of billboards for things like restaurants, motels, radio stations, and lottery drawings.  My car ran flawlessly.  I checked out rest stops in seven states.  (I thought Maryland and North Carolina were the best.)  I paid tolls mostly in the northeast.  I saw license plates from lots of states but mostly from the east coast.  I saw no plates further west than Colorado.  Lots of people seem to be going from New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut to Florida.  It is too early from spring break; there were old people driving Lexuses, BMWs, and Toyotas.

 

I delayed my departure for a day to wait for a windstorm to pass and I am glad I did. The gusts on Saturday exceeded 50 miles per hour.  Sunday the weather was much better, still a little breezy but sunny the whole way.  Yesterday I drove through a lot of rain. Sometimes it was hard to see further than a couple of hundred yards, and while this slowed me down, some people must feel immune to the effects of water on pavement.  The interstate in Georgia was excellent. It drained very well, allowing me to keep my speed around 60 most of the time. (The speed limit was 70.)  Florida’s roads do not seem to have that same advantage.

I figured out that most states have welcome centers near the border, so if you can hold it until then you should be ok.  The gas stations and food places on the highway pretty much look the same wherever you go.  There is no local character on the interstate.  I saw no place serving grits, sweet tea, or pig’s knuckles.  Even in North Carolina the hotel did not allow smoking.  Local newscasts are pretty much the same everywhere: lots of smiling people giving their insipid thoughts about major events while highlighting stories about dogs and kids who can play musical instruments with their toes. Weather dominates local news and they always end with sports.  You would think in New York City it would be better, but the only difference is that the people are better looking and there are more crime stories.  Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite must be rolling over in their graves.  (Sorry, I digressed there for a bit.)

I will miss being in New York for a while, but I am looking forward to nice weather, sand beaches, and spring training baseball.  By the time I return to Stamford, there will be lots of new Broadway shows, major league baseball, and leaves returning to the trees.  New York is much more fun when it is warm.  This summer I should be able to see Meg dance with her new dance company. 

I plan to take a lot of pictures down here. I will post some on Facebook and include others in my blogs.    

I believe it is true that no two democracies have ever gone to war against one another.  Most democracies, aside from ancient Rome, are not very warmongering.  Sure America started some small fracases at the end of the 19^th century, but even then the only way to get popular approval was to whip up incitements.  (“Remember the Maine,” for example.)  Even World War II, the most stark good vs. evil battle in history where our friends were being swallowed up by a racist, fascist megalomaniac, was not something most Americans wanted to get involved in until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.

But I wonder if this tenet will still hold true when the political struggles of the Middle East are sorted out.  America is pushing for democracy around the world, and, of course, most of us think democracy is the most desirable system of government.  People should control their own leaders.  However, the results of democracy in that part of the world could, I fear, lead to governments which are antagonistic to western civilizations, specifically to America.

Hamas, which the United States has classified as a terrorist organization, is now supporting the rebels in Syria.  America is also supporting the rebels in Syria, as is the Arab League, Europe and pretty much every country in the world except Iran, Russia, and China.  Why would a terrorist group, sworn to destroy Israel, throw their support behind a popular uprising and against their longtime ally?  I can only believe it is because they think that should democracy take hold in Syria, a government would be elected favorable to Hamas’s interests.  Based on developments elsewhere in the Arab world, that seems to be a logical assumption. Egypt has elected a parliament comprised 60 percent by Muslim religious parties.  Despite out efforts in Afghanistan, it seems that most of the people there hate us, their leadership, which we installed, fails to support us, and that the Taliban, who we invaded to eliminate, is still able to kill large numbers of people.  What if we instill democracy in Afghanistan and they vote in the Taliban?  What would our efforts and losses have accomplished?

Americans, who revere democracy have never championed it very well in the Middle East.  We support a monarchy in Saudi Arabia, a kingdom in Jordan, and strongmen in the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.  The Iranian revolution prompting the capture of Americans in 1979 deposed the Shah of Iran, whom America and Britain had put on the throne.  

 

So I wonder how this part of the world will ultimately turn out once the current rulers are forced to leave or change.  What would we do if a democratically-elected government becomes the sponsor of al-Qaeda?  What should we do?  Do you truly believe that can’t happen? 

If you have any questions about the position of law enforcement in society, a couple of articles in today’s New York Times might answer them for you.  The mayor of New York had to publicly defend his police department for monitoring public websites of Muslim collegestudent organizations.  College officials have their boxers in a bunch citing some sort of privacy or perhaps religious freedom violation.  They assert the police are unfairly targeting members of a specific religion.  I am not sure where they get this from because the articles did not say they only look at these student organizations.  Maybe they spend just as much time on the Young Democrats, ROTC, and Santorum for President student organizations pages.

While I do not support racial or religious discrimination against any individual or group, law enforcement would be derelict in their duties to not investigate sources of crime, wherever they may be found.  It is obvious to anyone who keeps up with the news that radical Muslims have sworn to destroy America, have already caused great loss of life and continue to plot to cause more.  Just days ago the FBI prevented an attack on the US Capitol by a lone wolf terrorist whose motive seemed to be his perception that America’s war on terrorism is really a war on Muslims.  Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists, but examining public postings by Muslims seems a reasonable way to monitor activities of those in America who are actively plotting violence.  The same can be said of extremists with other beliefs, for example members of “militias” who want to overthrow the government, like Timothy McVeigh.  

If you think perhaps this is an overreaction by law enforcement, take a look at how virulently many Muslims defend their faith.  They are rioting in Afghanistan because some Americans mistakenly destroy some old copies of the Koran.  Not treasured manuscripts, just some books which were being used in a detainee facility, I think supplied by the American government.  The United States apologized profusely but that is not enough. From the New York Times:

So do you think it is outrageous for the police to monitor public information put out by Muslim groups in America?

Meanwhile, candidates for NYC  mayor and others are decrying the increased use of “stop and frisk” by the police as disproportionately targeting racial minorities.  It is important to note that not a single person was claiming these stops violated the constitutional rights of those searched or were not supported by the reasonable suspicion required by law, but merely that the sheer numbers of searches showed some sort of impropriety.

Apparently we have no reached the point where large numbers of people think crime is so low that hobbling the police will not impact public safety.  They choose to criticize legitimate police practices not as illegal, unethical, immoral, wasteful, or even unproductive, but just that they violate some vague sense of the police’s proper role.  They seem to forget that the reason private security companies make millions is not the fear that a police officer will kick in your door in the middle of the night and arrest you, but that each and every one of us lives with a constant vigilance against the evil-doers who we know live in our cities.  I doubt they would complain if the stop and frisk discovered a guy with a crowbar standing outside their garage.

While I do not support racial profiling, and condemn the targeting anyone because of his or her race, I fail to see how telling the police they should not make a legal and constitutional stop of a suspect advances public safety or the protection of constitutional rights.  If the police are engaging in racial profiling that sounds like they do not possess the requisite reasonable suspicion to make a stop.  This practice should be eliminated.  However, if the police do have sufficient grounds to stop and search someone, regardless of their race, allowing them to do so can only enhance public safety.

These articles reminded me of the statute passed in Colorado a few years ago requiring the police to give an advisement to people when asking for consent to search.  Somehow the message has gotten across that police overreaching is a bigger problem than the crimes which they uncover.  The end product of such a trend is a return to the era of high crime.

February 20, 2012

Today is the 50^th anniversary of John Glenn’s flight as the first American astronaut to orbit the Earth.  Glenn is now 90 years old.  He is vigorous in his old age, while the space program he was such an integral part of is moribund.  Both, I suppose, are signs of the times.

According to the United States Census Bureau there are almost 2 million Americans aged 90 or older.  Over the next 40 years this population is expected to quadruple.  That means that they have been collecting Social Security and been using Medicare for 25 years.  Because over $1 trillion of the federalbudget goes to these programs, more than 30 percent, the aging of America’s population is putting a huge strain on the budget.  (Of course, you can describe this any way you want. You can say foreign wars are, or other welfare programs, or even the debt itself from interest payments.  How you describe the “burden” on the budget depends on your perspective on the importance of certain aspects of federal spending. No matter how you slice it, though, spending on old people costs a lot.)

The huge national debt has forced severe reductions in federal spending for programs other than entitlements and security.  One of the casualties of those reductions is the manned space program.  Right now America, the only country which has sent men to another celestial body and the country which pioneered virtually every significant aspect of space travel beyond merely putting a person into orbit, cannot send anyone into space.  We have to pay our former rival, Russia, to boost our astronauts to the International Space Station.  Even the lame Space Shuttle program, little more than FedEx for near-earth-orbit missions, has been eliminated.

That John Glenn has lived to see this decline is somewhat ironic.  He left the space program not long after his mission and spent several years as a U.S. Senator.  His successors on Capitol Hill have not seen fit to honor his legacy by funding manned spaceflight.  Even today’s anniversary has not been given a great deal of attention.  

NASA is not completely disbanded.  There is an active unmanned program and some people are working on futuristic plans to again send people into space for the purpose of exploration.  But I doubt I will live to see it.  Even NASA’s own website says the future includes partnering with commercial interests.  There is no talk of sending people to the moon, apparently because we have already been there.  Mars is discussed, and has been for 40 years, but there is no concrete plan, nor even any real good theory of how we can accomplish such an ambitious feat.  With the current feeling about taxes and government spending I doubt there ever will be.

One can always say we have too many problems here to waste money sending people to Mars.  I suppose if you look at everything as merely a bottom line analysis that is hard to argue with.  No one can state with certainty the tangible benefits of a space program.  Many technological advancements resulted from the space program, and a great deal of scientific information was gained, but there is no guarantee a trip to Mars would achieve anything other than the pride of having done so.  This is where the decision to reduce the manned space program is such a loss I believe.

I have blogged before about the excitement and pride of watching Americans explore space in the 1960s.  Nothing else in my lifetime has come close.  The thrills of watching men orbit the Earth, walk in space, and then land on the moon were inexplicable to those born too late to experience it.  Unfortunately, a majority of Americans fall into that category.  (If you want to get a sense of it watch the terrific HBO presentation of “From the Earth to the Moon.”) Too many of us demand the government either solve all their problems or go out of business. That leave spending for nonessestials like space exploration completely off the table.  (Did you see Santorum said he will cut $5 trillion.  Here is his list of how. There are almost no specifics, just things like “freeze wages” and “eliminate waste” and “prioritize defense spending.”  I will maybe blog about this moron in the future.  Maybe he wants to increase funding for dead baby transportation.)

America has lost its sense of wonder, its sense of adventure, its desire to do great things just for the sake of doing them.  I don’t know why President Kennedy imposed his timetable of getting a man to the moon, but that he did so speaks volumes about his, and his country’s, views of what a great country can achieve. Whatever you think of Kennedy, if nothing else admire his optimism.  When he said we will send a man to the moon before the end of the decade America had only spent 15 minutes in manned space travel.  No one knew for sure if people could survive extended periods in space, or exactly how to get to the moon and back.  And yet America devoted significant resources to doing so, and then did it.  Yes, people in America were hungry, were sick, were discriminated against, and were sent off to war.  But the vision of achieving this incredible goal did not waver.  Unfortunately, shortly after it was achieved, people lost interest, ultimately leading us to the sad state of where we are now.

So drink a toast tonight to John Glenn and what he did.  Savor for a moment the space program.  Then move on, for you have just appreciated something lost to history.