I don’t know about you, but I was in the mood for a laugh. And I got one—or even more than one:
Legal elites and the Obamacare case
Jonathan Adler asks the question: why did legal elites underestimate the case against the mandate?
You might want to give quick and flippant answers—such as, for instance, “because they’re stupid and biased”—but that really doesn’t tell us much. Legal elites may be biased (as is just about everyone), but they’re most definitely not stupid, at least not in the academic sense.
The answers Adler gives are much more interesting. His first point is that legal academics are often too far removed from the realities of actual practice; the ivory tower effect and all that. His second is that legal academics tend to on the left, which creates an unavoidable echo chamber effect that limits them. Related to this is the following, which I think is a brilliant insight:
As I’ve heard Paul Clement (among others) explain, you can’t effectively advocate your own position until you truly understand the other side. This can be difficult to do, particularly when we have strong feelings about a subject.
This not only applies to law but is equally true for almost everything, including how we conduct ourselves in our personal affairs.
Since my “change” experience, I’ve been more and more convinced that many liberals do not try to understand conservatives, or to pay attention to the actual substance and weight of their arguments. Rather, they tend to dismiss them out of hand as biased and/or self-centered and/or cruel, without understanding the reasoning behind them. And although conservatives like to think they’re above doing the same in return, I think many conservatives fail to understand where liberals are coming from. I like to think (rightly or wrongly) that I understand both a bit better than most, because I’ve looked at liberals and conservatives from both sides now.
The differences between the philosophical underpinnings of conservatism and liberalism are things I’ve explored before, many times, as have so many others. But right now it will suffice to say that those differences have to do with big questions like the nature (bad? good? neutral?) and perfectibility of humankind, how best to achieve goals (through government or individual action), and the importance of liberty and what is the price we are willing to pay for it.
Obama flexibility assurance: Krauthammer asks why
Charles Krauthammer wants to know what was behind Obama’s assurance to Medvedev on his increased post-2012-election “flexibility”:
After all, what is Obama doing negotiating on missile defense in the first place? We have no obligation to do so. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a relic of the Cold War, died in 2002.
We have an unmatched technological lead in this area. It’s a priceless strategic advantage that for three decades Russia has been trying to get us to yield. Why give any of it away?
To placate Putin, Obama had already in 2009 abruptly canceled the missile-defense system the Poles and Czechs had agreed to host in defiance of Russian threats. Why give away more?
It’s unfathomable. In trying to clean up the gaffe, Obama emphasized his intent to “reduce nuclear stockpiles” and “reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” In which case, he should want to augment missile defenses, not weaken, dismantle or bargain them away. The fewer nukes you have for deterrence, the more you need nuclear defenses. If your professed goal is nuclear disarmament, as is Obama’s, eliminating defenses is completely illogical.
But maybe this is why; it’s an article on the subject of the nuclear weapons race with the USSR that Obama wrote while a senior at Columbia. Now, I realize that most people’s points of view change between college and many decades later. But still, it’s logical to assume, from the evidence of this paper, that nuclear disarmament was a topic he cared unusually deeply about in early adulthood, since it’s virtually the only sustained piece of his academic writing that’s come down to us.
Here’s the text of Obama’s article. And here’s what the NY Times had to say about it in 2009 [emphasis mine]:
What clearly excited [the younger Obama] was the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which would end the testing and development of new weapons, and thus, in the minds of arms controllers, end the nuclear arms race. The Reagan administration vehemently opposed the treaty. Paraphrasing Mr. Bigelow’s views, Mr. Obama said the United States should initiate the ban “as a powerful first step towards a nuclear free world.” That phrase would reemerge decades later…
Barack Obama’s journalistic voice was edgy with disdain for what he called “the relentless, often silent spread of militarism in the country” amid “the growing threat of war.” The two groups, he wrote, “visualizing the possibilities of destruction and grasping the tendencies of distorted national priorities, are throwing their weight into shifting America off the dead-end track.”
In closing, he decried the “the twisted logic of which we are a part today” and praised student efforts to realize “the possibility of a decent world.”
Even back then, Obama believed (for whatever reason; you can fill in the blanks with any number of theories from benign to malignant) that it was up to the US to go first in disarming, and this was true even before the fall of the Soviet Union.
But back to the present—and the future, on which Krauthammer speculates:
Can you imagine the kind of pressure a reelected Obama will put on Israel, the kind of anxiety he will induce from Georgia to the Persian Gulf, the nervousness among our most loyal East European friends who, having been left out on a limb by Obama once before, are now wondering what new flexibility Obama will show Putin ”” the man who famously proclaimed that the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century was Russia’s loss of its Soviet empire?
They don’t know. We don’t know. We didn’t even know this was coming ”” until the mike was left open. Only Putin was to know. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” Medvedev assured Obama.
Added Medvedev: “I stand with you.” A nice endorsement from Putin’s puppet, enough to chill friends and allies, democrats and dissidents, all over the world.
James Bond theme songs
Here’s a PJ article on the 5 worst and 5 best James Bond theme songs.
My question is: why, why, why is there no “Dr. No” there among the best? Is it because there was no conventional “song” (with words, that is) that came out of it? Because IMHO the music in “Dr. No”—the very first Bond movie, the one that established the Bond theme song that intermittently shot through the other Bond movies—was primo in every way.
Have a listen:
I saw the movie “Dr. No” before it came out in movie theaters, and before I knew a thing about it. I was pretty young, taken on a cruise (the only one I’ve ever been on, before or since) at Christmastime with my family on the old, late and great Mauretania. As part of that ship’s festivities (very muted compared to today’s bacchanals), there were showings of about-to-be-released movies that had not yet opened in theaters. Thus, “Dr. No.”
I remember sitting down in the ship’s little theater with my older brother, and as the opening credits and the music came on, we were blown away. It was so cool! So cosmopolitan. Sean Connery—so smooth. And Ursula Andress—well, she was like another sort of being entirely, both Aphrodite and Amazon at the same time. Wow.
Why Romney is …
…uniquely positioned of all the GOP candidates to make the argument against Obamacare, according to Paul Goldman and Mark J. Rozell.
Readers of this blog know I’m a Romney supporter, but I don’t think the article is especially good. It depends to whom the argument about Obamacare is being made.
I think it’s definitely true that Romney is the GOP candidate best positioned to appeal to Independents in general, and not just on the issue of Obamacare. But it’s my impression that Romney’s biggest and most numerous naysayers on the issue of Obamacare are on the conservative side (liberals won’t be voting for him anyway); a lot of conservatives just don’t trust his sincerity or his dedication when he says he wants Obamacare to go (more on that subject in another post, although not today). Of course, if he’s the nominee, how many conservatives will choose to stay home because of that, or write in a third-party candidate? When push comes to shove, will it really be a significant number?
Then again, the whole thing may be moot, if SCOTUS really does strike down the entire HCR bill. But I think that’s a longshot, despite what some prognosticators say.
Castro asks the Pope…
When I first heard that Fidel had asked a question of the Pope, I thought it might be “How many divisions have you got?“
And in other news…
…Santorum seems to be slipping in Pennsylvania.
The plan: from Obamacare to single payer?
I’ve long thought that Obamacare was just a prelude to what Obama and the left really want, which is single payer health insurance. Obamacare was an unwieldy compromise, complex and cobbled together and passed because it could be done, whereas single payer’s time had not come. Yet. But Obamacare had the added plus of being so potentially problematic to the private health insurance industry that it might indeed lead to that entity’s demise, to be replaced by single payer.
In addition, I’ve long admired retired blogger Steven Den Beste’s acumen, and I’m happy to see him writing again about something other than anime. But although I’m in agreement with some of what he says here about Obamacare and single payer, I’ve got some disagreements, too.
Den Beste writes that Obama actually wants the mandate to be declared unconstitutional yet severable, because then:
That makes private health insurance economically unviable, and the insurance companies will all exit the business or they will go out of business. At which point the Democrats will try to implement “single payer”, a total nationalization of the entire health care industry, financed by a huge rise in taxes.
Single Payer is what they always wanted. The bill wasn’t originally written that way, though, because they knew that even with twin Democratic majorities, there was no chance of passing it. So they included the mandate instead.
So far that’s in line with what I think, although I don’t believe that Obama and the others thought in advance that the bill would be challenged in the Supreme Court; my sense is that they thought it would lead to single payer ultimately, without that detour along the way. But once the obstacle was thrown up it wasn’t seen as insurmountable, because it could also wind up leading to the ultimate goal of single payer.
More of Den Beste:
If the mandate is struck down, then Congress will have to act. There won’t be any way to repeal the rest of the law because Obama will veto, and the Senate will sustain the veto. The only thing he will agree to is implementation of single payer.
This is where I disagree, at least sort of. It was always clear that, unless the Supreme Court struck down the entire bill (which I don’t think most people ever considered tremendously likely), Congress would be faced with the question of repeal, now or later. That doesn’t change if the mandate is found unconstitutional but severable; Congress is still faced with the task of what to do.
But why would Congress have to act in the few months left before the 2012 election? What’s the big rush? Repeal could be used as a huge issue in the election, both for members (and prospective members) of the House and Senate and for the presidential candidates.
Obama would be forced to take a stand on a bill that’s become increasingly unpopular, and his opponent (yes, even if it’s Romney) would run on the idea of repeal, and indicate that Obama, if re-elected, would be likely to veto any repeal. My prediction is that then, just as in the 2010 election, candidates who would run against Obamacare would be likely to be elected, and Republicans would do quite well in Congress. That would set the stage for a repeal under a Republican president who would not veto it—or at the very least, a defunding.
Federalism and Obamacare
An excellent article by Rick Lowry on federalism and how it relates to Obamacare.
“He picked the wrong plane”
I’m surprised that this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often. But I’m awfully glad it doesn’t:
A JetBlue flight captain went berserk mid-flight today and had to be restrained by passengers as the plane made an emergency landing.
Clayton Frederick Osbon, 49, reportedly screamed ‘say your prayers, say your prayers’ at horrified passengers after running up and down the aisle shouting ‘Iraq, al-Qaeda, terrorism, we’re all going down.’
The captain of flight 191 from JFK to Las Vegas went ‘crazy’ passengers said after he went to the toilet and returned to find that he had been locked out of the cockpit by his co-pilot who had concerns about his behavior.
Why was it “the wrong plane”?:
The flight had been packed with heavily built men heading to the 2012 International Security Conference in Las Vegas held for professionals working in ”˜law enforcement, border protection and campus security’.
It has media sponsors including The Counter Terrorist magazine, Homeland Security Newswire and Government Security News.
One witness told CBS: ‘He picked the wrong plane. Huge guys just tackled him. The response was Olympics kind of stuff.’
Actually, Osbon’s lucky he didn’t get killed.
I wrote that this sort of incident doesn’t happen very often. But this isn’t the first time it’s ever happened, either:
In 2008, an Air Canada co-pilot had a mental breakdown on a flight from Toronto to London and was forcibly removed from the cockpit, restrained and sedated.
Most of us have (at least, I do) an image of pilots as unflappable, stalwart, calm, hyper-rational; ice water in their veins in a good way. Captain Sullenberger comes to mind as the quintessential pilot you’d like to have on board in case of any untoward event. Who expects the pilot himself to cause the ruckus?
[NOTE: At least it wasn’t anything like what happened on EgyptAir 990.]
New evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was world-wide
Interesting. Now let’s see how this gets integrated into the narrative:
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ”˜consensus’, the ”˜Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.
In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica ”“ which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.
My guess is that AGW supporters will say it still doesn’t mean that the warming back then was global in scope. But it certainly means it will be harder to argue that it wasn’t.
Here’s more about that Medieval Warm Period, which I remember learning about—and being fascinated by—long ago, when I was in school. You probably did, too:
The Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland and other outlying lands of the far north. Around 1000AD the climate was sufficiently warm for the north of Newfoundland to support a Viking colony and led to the descriptor “Vinland”. The MWP was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century, and the Viking settlements eventually died out.
This guy’s got sense: on the Trayvon Martin case
You may notice that I haven’t written about the Trayvon Martin case yet. This is for the simple reason that I’ve been waiting for the facts to come out. At the beginning, the MSM was reporting only one side, and now the other is emerging.
But I/we still don’t know what the truth is. It could be a case of the racist, wanton killing of a young and innocent black man. Or it could be a tragic error. It could even be a case of reasonable self-defense. I don’t know. Do you?
But it seems to me that former NAACP leader C. L. Bryant is making a great deal of sense:
Former NAACP leader C.L. Bryant is accusing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton of “exploiting” the Trayvon Martin tragedy to “racially divide this country.”
“His family should be outraged at the fact that they’re using this child as the bait to inflame racial passions,” Rev. C.L. Bryant said in a Monday interview with The Daily Caller.
The conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garland, Texas NAACP called Jackson and Sharpton “race hustlers” and said they are “acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy.”…
…Bryant…said people like Jackson and Sharpton are being misleading to suggest there is an epidemic of “white men killing black young men.”
“The epidemic is truly black on black crime,” Bryant said. “The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”
Bryant said he wishes civil rights leaders were protesting those problems.
“Why not be angry about the wholesale murder that goes on in the streets of Newark and Chicago?” he asked. “Why isn’t somebody angry about that six-year-old girl who was killed on her steps last weekend in a cross fire when two gang members in Chicago start shooting at each other? Why is there no outrage about that?”
The answer is clear: because it doesn’t sell newspapers, and it doesn’t get the kind of publicity Sharpton et.al. are seeking.