The great pleasure in life is
doing what people say you cannot do.
Walter Bagehot
Barack Obama's Integrity Issue
I've generally refrained from making the upcoming election on personal issues. In fact, there have been probably a half dozen to a dozen times over the life of the blog I've agreed with Obama on various issues and appeals. I've poked fun at his rather obvious narcissism (e.g., grading his own performance an A or B: perhaps he misunderstood and thought that they were asking him for his blood type).
Now I don't expect politicians to necessarily be direct and candid about things they've said or done in the past; I also expect a certain amount of hype about one's achievements and background, i.e., putting lipstick on a pig. What I take more of a dim view is blatant political exploitation, such as the Linda Burt incident during the early 2008 Democratic campaign (my edits) :
Then there was Sandra Burt, who lost her job on her 65th birthday. She cannot afford her $2,900 monthly prescription drug costs (she tried skipping doses, but ended up in the hospital). Her husband cashed in his life insurance and sold his treasured truck. They live in a 30-year-old double-wide trailer where the thermostat is set at 64 degrees... [Burt tearfully explained her circumstances to Obama, whom responded by tossing her some napkins from across the table and repeating a perfunctory abstract sound bite for healthcare reform.] By an early evening event in Manchester, Burt had become an insert in his speech... Burt has become a bit of a mini-celebrity since August...Asked by a reporter whether any of the candidates had actually tried to help her, Burt did not hesitate: “No one has helped me.”For those who confuse government with charity, nonprofits or philanthropies, staffed in all or part by volunteers, I came upon a relevant discussion involving while doing research for a recent introduction to one of Dr. Ashford's videos on classical liberalism. I did a little research and believe I've located the original story, involving a fire department whom refused to respond to a fire emergency over nonpayment of an optional nominal annual fee (my edits):
South Fulton (TN) has a city fire department which is supported by city taxes in order to serve its residents — with a rural fire subscription service made available outside the city limits to county residents in the city’s designated rural coverage area. South Fulton’s annual rural service fee is $75. The fire that sparked the controversy apparently broke out about 2:30 p.m. Wednesday at Gene Cranick’s property on Buddy Jones Road, located outside the city limits of South Fulton. The property owner was not a paying member of the rural fire subscription service; as per city policy, established by city ordinance, the call was declined. Ironically, the matter began to be discussed seriously [by the county] just over two years ago following a similar situation where South Fulton firefightersA couple of points here: first, as a pro-liberty conservative, I don't need to be reminded about the moral hazard issue here, externalities and the problem of free riders. For example, if the fire had started in the neighbor's house and had been contained by the fire department because the neighbor did take the optional policy, Mr. Cranick's house would have been spared (i.e., a positive externality), although it wouldn't have been otherwise. Personally, if I'm Cranick's neighbor, I would have preferred that the fire would have been contained before it spread across my property line and damaged my house. I don't speak for most libertarians, but this is one of those occasions where public safety is at play: fires can be hard to contain (as California, Texas or other states that have had to struggle with wildfires which are a threat to property owners).could[did] not respond to a rural call. The South Fulton Fire Department did respond to a request to protect the property of the adjacent property owner, who is a member of the rural fire subscription service. [The first house burned to the ground, while the second house suffered some fire damage but not affecting structural integrity.]
This is a problem which should have been negotiated between the city and county (e.g., the county subcontracts to the city fire department for residents and businesses in outlying area and passes the cost along to county taxpayers and/or the fire department will charge a hefty penalty fee for as-needed services (say, $300)). What the SF fire department did was morally reprehensible and totally inexcusable: for all they knew, there could have been a young Cranick daughter trapped in a bedroom, dying a horrific death over a pissing contest on an unpaid $75 invoice. I don't care if they were "just following orders", like Hitler's minions.
I can just hear the progressives now: this is example showing why we need universal fire service here, universal [fill-in-the-blank] service there. No--I think this is more indicative of government/bureaucratic failure and finger-pointing, lack of accountability--because they are not vested in the outcomes. Any REAL firefighter that day should have and would have said, "I am first and foremost a professional: I have an obligation to do the right thing and save people's lives and property when I had the chance to do something about it. Do it now--apologize later. There but the grace of God go I: what if it was my own house and the safety of my own family at stake? Alright, Cranick was wrong; we get it; but is it right to stand by and watch his house and the accumulated, irreplaceable possessions of his lifetime--his wedding album, his grandfather's antique chair, whatever--go up in smoke just to serve as an example to others? I represent firefighters everywhere in what I do--and in what I fail to do." When human rights are subordinated to government policy or union work rules, the firefighter ceases being a professional, little more than a mere puppet serving the morally corrupt bureaucratic puppet master.
Going back to Obama, let us return to his heavy sell promotion of the Spruce Goose of health care bureaucracies, ObamaCare: if Obama could throw his maternal grandmother under the bus during his racial relations speech back in 2008, why not use the poignant memories of his dying mother in the mid-1990's to sell the virtues of a government bureaucracy, which, as all people must readily concede, is "more equal" than any insurance company bureaucracy.
Now here's a problem: this isn't a question of whether Obama got the facts wrong about the dog he ate as a kid (was it Lassie, Rin Tin Tin, Snoopy or Old Yeller?) His mother, Ann Dunham, was diagnosed with ovarian and uterine cancer in Hawaii in 1995, the year before Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature. Obama was well aware of his mother's legal paperwork; he served as his mother's lawyer. So, before going further, let's let Obama describe things in his own words:
I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment. And by the way, this was because the insurance company was arguing that somehow she should have known that she had cancer, when she took her new job, even though it hadn't been diagnosed yet.Janny Scott, a New York Times reporter, wrote a biography of Ann Dunham and had extensive access to Dunham's correspondence and doctors, families, and friends. As a matter of fact, Dunham's medical bills were handled by her health insurance. There was a dispute regarding a disability claim Dunham submitted, i.e., to reimburse any lost income during her treatment. (Dunham had modest income and probably limited savings.) I have no doubt that once an employee has exhausted sick leave and is unable to work; she still has to pay her ordinary bills. I can't speak for the disability claim. If she had been covered consistently by disability coverage since before she became ill in Indonesia the previous year, they shouldn't have balked; I once had an outpatient procedure on a preexisting condition at the time of my recent hiring. But certainly if she couldn't work and she was having to pay medical bills on top of her ordinary expenses, she would have been in a far worse financial position.
Barack Obama clearly had to know the difference between health insurance and disability insurance; he knowingly played a bait-and-switch. Since his mother was, by all accounts including her doctor's, already receiving cancer treatment via her insurance, the preexisting condition worry clearly didn't apply to her health insurance, contrary to Obama's unambiguous implication, and thus Barack Obama has been caught in a lie. (You can argue about Dunham's ongoing ability to maintain her insurance premiums, but that's not a question of treatment coverage under her plan. Scott's research did not document concerns about her health insurance but a dispute with a different insurance company, the disability insurer.)
True enough, like any shyster, Barack Obama often deliberately couches enough ambiguity into almost anything he says to provide some wiggle room. We expect and deserve better than another finger-in-the-wind, vacuous politician arguing what the meaning of 'is' is.
I have cited other examples in previous posts, such as Obama's attempt to argue that the reason as a state senator he opposed the born alive infant protection act was a technical one. When his position became an issue during the 2008 campaign, Obama defended his stonewalling the act (which became law after Obama was elected to the US Senate) by arguing it had deviated from the earlier federal version passed years earlier. However, the record showed that Obama voted for an amendment with federal act language but then subsequently voted against the final bill.
What has been Obama campaign responses? Various excuses for Obama's "faulty memory". As for me, I can remember that the last time I ate lunch with Jane Carey (a former ASU/Phoenix professor) almost 20 years ago, she thought the slice of rhubarb pie I had ordered for dessert sounded good, so she ordered the same.
I'll leave it to the reader, but I have to say that Obama is too high-maintenance. You have to filter out the political spin, you have to flesh out the unspoken assumptions and the logical fallacies (e.g., petitio principii), he'll often explicitly deny exactly what he's trying to say, he'll engage in straw man arguments, he'll co-opt the language of his opponents with throwaway concessions, and he'll try to stake out ownership over value-laden terms like "balanced approach", "investment" (versus spending), etc.
If you've read this blog, you know exactly where I stand; I explain my position: you may not agree with my positions, but I'll give you specific reasons and won't attempt to mislead you. The American people should expect the same from their President. You will NEVER have that with Barack Obama.
New Developments in the Trayvon Martin Case
When I heard the Trayvon Martin autopsy report, first I had to do a search for my original sources and found this account from the funeral director (my edits):
According to funeral director Richard Kurtz given charge of Martin’s dead body, the body showed no signs of any kind of struggle: "In dressing the body we could see no physical signs like there had been a scuffle.I didn‘t see any knuckles’ bruises and what have you, and that is something we would cover up if it would have been there." It‘s worth noting that Zimmerman’s account claims Martin did the hitting. It’s not clear if Zimmerman hit him back. The funeral director specifically mentions that there was no bruising on Martin’s body.We now have evidence from the autopsy itself and Zimmerman's doctor:
The medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: the fatal gunshot wound on his chest and broken skin on his knuckles, according to WFTV. Zimmerman’s family physician said he had a pair of lacerations to the back of his head, two black eyes, a minor back injury and a “closed fracture” of his nose, according to the report obtained by ABC News.Obviously there's a discrepancy over Trayvon's knuckles, and you have to go with the autopsy. What bothers me is that the special prosecutor had to know this information and went ahead with the trial.
Now here's what we know: there's no evidence of trauma (beyond the fatal gunshot wound) on Trayvon Martin. ABC News has a report that [according to family sources] Trayvon was 6'3" and 150 pounds and Zimmerman 5'9" and over 200 lbs. [The heights and weights have varied by reports: I've seen estimates of Trayvon between 6'0" and 6'3" with weight from 140-160 (or above) lbs. Zimmerman has been estimated between 5'2 to 5'9" and 170-220 lbs.]
The report also had this to say:
At the same time, Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend and complained that someone was following him. The girlfriend has said that she heard Martin ask someone, "Why are you following me?"If I'm the defense, I note this: Martin's own girlfriend says she heard Martin taking exception to being followed by Zimmerman; Martin is significantly shorter and overweight; there is no evidence of physical trauma to Martin's body beyond the fatal wound and bruised knuckles. Bruised knuckles could be defensive in theory, but demanding to know why Zimmerman was following him and being much taller and in better shape, suggests that Martin was the aggressor in the confrontation; Zimmerman's extensive injuries in contrast also imply the same.
I'm not denying Trayvon Martin's death was tragic, but I don't see the special prosecutor getting a conviction here.
You Cannot Be Serious
Okay, I needed a gimmick to rival fellow libertarian John Stossel's "Give Me a Break", so I decided to borrow John McEnroe's trademark "You Cannot Be Serious".
Whatever your position on so-called "gay marriage", I think the Washington Post/ABC poll giving Barack Obama's bewildering, evolving odyssey on the topic credit for an alleged shift in African-American thinking on the issue is laughably absurd:
President Barack Obama’s endorsement of gay marriage may have caused a shift in opinion on the issue among African-Americans. In November, a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll found 58 percent of African-Americans called same-sex marriage “unacceptable,” while just 35 percent said it was “acceptable.” a new Washington Post-ABC News poll showed that 54 percent of African-Americans have a favorable impression of the president’s endorsement of gay marriage, while 37 percent had an unfavorable view.Approval of the President's endorsement is different than asking where African-Americans stand on the issue of marriage. Remember, the strong African-American vote in 2008 carried Proposition 8 in California (which reinstated the traditional definition of marriage in the California constitution). Obama opposed Proposition 8. If anything, I think part of the reason Obama has waited as long as he has to endorse gay marriage has to do with a strong belief in traditional marriage in the African American community.
I think there's something of what we refer to in the applied psychology literature as a halo effect; for instance, African Americans may sense that the poll really reflects on Obama himself, not so much gay marriage. And so they're supporting Obama, even when they disagree on the issue. I don't think anyone was fooled by Obama's "evolution" on gay marriage: the emperor is wearing no clothes; he opposed DOMA and Proposition 8. Is there some movement in the African-American community on the issue? Probably, in the context of the general population under pervasive propaganda of popular culture, there is some general stealth acceptance, particularly among younger people.
[The issue has been disingenuously phrased as "banning gay marriage" versus "expanding marriage". This is like referring to age criteria for Little League as "banning teenage baseball". There are other types of baseball available to teenagers, like high school baseball or Pony League. Similarly, there are other ways societies can recognize gay relationships without expanding traditional marriage, thousands of years old.]
Eye in the Sky
I Can Read Your Mind
I Am the Maker of Rules
I'll Be Watching You....
There is little doubt that the federal government is on a fishing expedition following American citizens in ways that would shock the Founding Fathers. The government can track you, even without a warrant, in your back yards, cars, emails and cell calls. The issue here for me is a crying need for due process.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
The Rolling Stones, "Fool to Cry"
