opa-opines.net

I just read a fund-raising letter.  It was not for elections in 2010 or 2012, but for policy fights now.

Seems that the republican party has dropped the American custom of accepting election results and becoming the loyal opposition.  Our history is filled with hard fought campaigns, followed by the losing party working with the winning party for the good of the nation.  It was not that the losing party suddenly agreed with the winning party, it was that they cooperated in most matters (especially national security), while keeping the government’s actions in check.

But now, for some reason, politicians are raising money to battle in the media for policy alternatives they failed to sell during the last election.  What are the trying to sell?  I have heard of three areas: economic recovery, the war, and healthcare.  All three of these issues were fought over in the last election campaign.  The election is over, so the fighting should now be in congress not in the media.

Congressional sessions are mostly dull and meaningless.  The democrats  propose a bill, and the republicans say no.  This is not working toward a solution to our problems, but an expensive avoidance.  This is not legislating, but attempted intimidation.  If a politician does not like a proposal, he buys media time for ads that attack the opponents,  instead of researching the issue and presenting either arguments diminishing the problem or alternatives to the offered solution.

Much of what politicians put in the media is flagrant fear mongering.

This must end.  The American people have not trusted congress for many years and with all the mindless bickering, the lack of trust will surely grow.  We the people need to stand up and tell congress to do their job.  We need to tell them to get to work at the people’s business or plan to be fired at the soonest opportunity.

Yesterday I received another Internet file with bad claims. This note attacked the current federal administration rather viciously. The letter was claimed to be written by a very distinguished history professor. Because of several errors in the letter that I judged would be avoided by a Professor associated with Carnegie Mellon, Harvard, and the US Navy War College, I decided to investigate. The results are astounding.

First, when asked, the “source” of the letter claims that he did not write the letter. Second, several months ago the letter was circulated around the Internet with the name of a different distinguished scholar who also denied authorship. Third another version of the letter was circulated last fall attributed to a different authority who denies credit. So, the authorship is at least very questionable.

Second, the letter is full of false data. The letter claims, at the time Hitler rose to power: that “Germany was the most educated, the most cultured country in Europe.” A real historian might compare the cultures of England, France, Austria and Switzerland with Germany, but never make a broad assertion of German superiority. The letter also claims that “Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious (about Hitler) in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker.” The reaction to Churchill did occur but not for the reasons asserted, and not in the House of Lords because he was not a Lord in the 1930s.

Then the letter attacks the President. For example: “Surely you have
heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense
force stronger than our military for use inside our borders?”   This is an obvious distortion for anyone who bothers to keep up with the news (and in my case actually read the documents produced by our government and its leaders).

Anyway, if the President decided to create a civilian defense force, that would be an actual benefit to anyone thinking that we need to protect our borders and ports from terrorists.  Also  that is not a job for our military (unless one wants to build an multimillion person military).

Why do people invent information and spread it through e-mails? Do they believe the American public is gullible or ignorant? Why do people circulate such trash? Is it from a dislike of the democratic administration? If so, this is not the way to fight. Lies are eventually caught and the person spreading the lies discredited. There is much to argue about without inventing falsehoods. Why not try actually discussing the issues? Is it too much trouble to look at actual data and consider it in an unbiased manner? Or do we simply prefer to let the small minded manipulate us? 

Recently I received a Internet file with a bad claim. The note said that the ACLU filed a lawsuit to try to remove crosses from military headstones. I don’t like many actions by the ACLU, so at first I thought that the assertion was true. With ACLU’s reputation for bad law suits the claim was believable. Then I decided I wanted to read more about the lawsuit.

What I found was that the ACLU did file a lawsuit about military headstones but not for the rumored reasons. It seems that the family of a deceased veteran can request that a symbol of the veterans religious belief be engraved upon the headstone supplied by the government. Problem is that there are a limited number of choices: The Christian Cross, the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim Crescent, but not the Wicca Pentacle. The families of several diseased veterans asked the ACLU to file a suit for religious discrimination. The ACLU won.

The note being passed around the Internet suggests that the ACLU is trying to eliminate crosses from headstones and probably outlawing prayer in the military. What could possibly lead someone to make this erroneous claim?

The action of such false rumor mongers dampens my faith in material on the Internet. There are many reputable sites that provide unbiased information. And, of course, there are some sites that contain opinions geared to a certain point of view. Most of the biased sites, in the past, seemed to report true data and then interpret that data to suit their point of view. Advocating a point of view is acceptable to me as long as the site admits their political or religious preference. But to spread false data, I believe, can be damaging to our society.

I do not know who started the false rumor about the ACLU, but I believe they sere misguided. The ACLU does enough on their own, we don’t need lies to criticize them.

A recent article in Newsweek led me to wonder, when does choice become control? The article concerned a newly developed process whereby a woman can have her eggs harvested and frozen for latter use. What interested me was the rationale for the procedure: it expands a woman’s control over her body. That comment was followed by an explanation that currently women, who previously had to choose between a successful career and a family, now “could have it all”.What I question is when does choice become control, and is having the choice or option of controlling one’s body necessarily a good thing?

 

Where do we draw the line concerning choice? Many unanswered legal and ethical concerns often follow having a choice. If we aren’t careful, science presents options before society has considered either law or ethics. One example is the medical breakthroughs that allow a hospital to keep a human body alive long after the heart and/or brain cease to function independently. Who decides the outcome?

 

So, I present several current dilemma and ask for comment. For each, should we have a choice, and who should have the power to decide?

Right to die -

1. If person is a vegetable with no hope of recovery.

2. If a person is viable but has a terminal disease that cannot be healed but can be treated. The patient can live longer while being treated (blood cancer, for example). Consider the implications if the patient must continually suffer.

3. If s person is old, alone, depressed, and in frequent distress.

Right to life -

1. If the person is a hardened criminal who has killed several people.

2. If the person is disabled and has no means of earning a living.

3. If the person is a single mother without means of financial support.

Right to independence and emancipation

1. If the person is a battered wife with children

2. If the person is a teenager who disagrees with parents beliefs

3. If the person is an underage combat soldier returning from battle

There are numerous such “choices”. Should we, as a society, determine such questions?

 

 

 

 

Recently an article in the NYT explained that a company, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS), had been created to simplify the selling of mortgages between banks. The process was so streamlined that mortgaged property was no longer registered with county clerks. The process was streamlined to avoid tracing the banks who held and sold the mortgages. The process ignored the mortgagee, the poor fool who was required to pay and would be unable to ever renegotiate the loan*.

We have, for most of our history, registered property ownership with the local government. This procedure protected all parties involved, the seller who lost liability based upon the property, the buyer who could be assured ownership of the property, and the local government who could base taxes upon landownership.

MERS violates the rights of everyone except the huge bank trading in mortgages. I disagree with the New York Times. This process maybe controversial, but it only appears “legal”. How can MERS be legal if it is based upon a law or ruling that violates the rights of two thirds of the legal participants in the transaction? The huge banks are attempting to scam the American people.

I believe, along with most Americans, that one should be responsible for their own actions. The banks contrived this plot, so they, and not the homeowner, should suffer the consequences. Our government must stand up and announce that if the legal title has been manipulated by the banks and MERS, they must lose all claim to the property.

* Excerpts from NYT article.   “Although the average person has never heard of it, MERS — short for Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems — holds 60 million mortgages on American homes, through a legal maneuver that has saved banks more than $1 billion over the last decade but made life maddeningly difficult for some troubled homeowners”.

Created by lenders seeking to save millions of dollars on paperwork and public recording fees

every time a loan changes hands, MERS is a confidential

computer registry for trading mortgage loans. From an office in the Washington suburbs, it played an integral, if unsung, role in the proliferation of mortgage-backed securities that fueled the housing boom. But with the collapse of the housing market, the name of MERS has been popping up on foreclosure notices and on court dockets across the country, raising many questions about the way this controversial but legal process obscures the tortuous paths of mortgage ownership.

Isn’t the election of 2008 finished? For what reason are the members of the defeated party still giving speeches against the winning party? Why do the republicans find it necessary to provide their own “budget” before even voting upon the one proposed by the democratic leaders? When will the election cycle be completed? If I remember correctly, we have a tradition in America. We campaign hard for the candidate and/or policies that we prefer, then accept the winner and get on with our lives until the next election cycle. In that vein, although we may have voted for the loser in an election, we give the winner a chance for success. Unlike some countries that regularly stage coup against their “leaders”, our cultural tenets helps us maintain a stable society.

The election of 2008 was a long, rough, and very expensive campaign. The “primaries” lasted a year, and raised many millions of dollars. We were treated to about 25 presidential “debates”. The issues presented showed a very clear difference among the candidates and between the parties. In November 2008 it seemed that an actual mandate had been received as “the people” gave the winning presidential contender a more than 8.5 million vote victory and a clear majority in both houses of the congress. Most Americans breathed a huge sign of relief, no more politics for awhile.

Little did we know.

The campaign is still raging. Republicans regularly release statements defining their “agenda”, and act like they still believe they are in control. When the majority party proposes a bill, the minority tries to vote unanimously against it – often succeeding. For many years, the citizens of the USA have complained about partisan bickering. That bickering seems to be worse after the election than it was before or during the election.

To fuel the partisan fighting, many congressmen and several committees or groups are still trying to raise money. These financial appeals are not directed at removing old campaign debt, but to battle against the other party. And, of course, both parties are frantically raising money.

When will they realize that we already cast our vote? When will they yield to tradition and simply do their work? Don’t they realize that if this does not stop “the people” may increasingly avoid both political parties?

I don’t know anyone that likes the bickering. Listening to the news, we believe that our nation has many serious problems. Health care is in crisis. The economy is sputtering. We are involved in two wars. The people I know prefer that our representatives just solve the problems.

 

The question of whether the US should torture (enhanced interrogation) any “detainees” keeps bubbling. Some commentators insist there are two issues: Is torture legal, and does torture work to get us vital information.

I strongly disagree! There is only one question: Does the US believe that torture is the “right” thing to do. Do we believe a human – even an enemy – should have the “right” to NOT be tortured. Is there any possible justification for the “beacon of freedom”, the symbol of human rights, to ever stoop to inflicting pain and near death to another human just to make ourselves “safe”?

There is only one principle and it is a moral one. This nation was founded upon human rights. In our Declaration of independence we say “we hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal.” In the Constitution, in our “Bill of Rights”, we insist that each person has freedoms and should be protected from cruel punishments*. We say in the fifth amendment that we cannot lose our rights without “due process of law”.* Due process includes the right to not incriminate ourselves.

Does the Constitution limit these rights to American Citizens? No. The Constitution does not say that the rights are limited to citizens, nor should it. When our founders created this nation they saw it as an exception to the abusive countries of the rest of the world.

Do we want this nation to become like the countries that abuse people? I think not. Liberty such as we have in this country must be carefully protected. It was worth the sacrifices of the Wars we fought to ensure our rights. Those rights must not be surrendered now just to gain a little information.    

* Constitution of the United States

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

So, Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire. Already some politicians are making picking a replacement into a political curcus. Personally I wonder how we can criticize a nominee that doesn’t yet exist.

We can, I believe, provide input to the Obama administration concerning the sort of person we prefer to see appointed to the highest court in our land. I have a few suggestions. First let us look at the Constitution.

The Constitution Article 2 Section2 details Presidential powers on this matter.

The President . . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties . . . and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:

Note that the Constitution simply says that the President “shall appoint” Judges of the Supreme Court , “with the advice and consent of the Senate”, It does not mention any qualifications for that appointee.

Surprisingly to many people, it is not necessary for a nominee to be a judge or even a lawyer. I have researched numerous issues in law books and court decisions. We have had lawyers and judges for many years and I am not sure that they have made the best decisions. Many politicians complain that recent justices have written new law instead of judging matters on the Constitution and laws already on the books. We may avoid that by appointing someone other than a lawyer.

Read the constitution. It is not difficult to understand. For example the Constitution says that the power of the federal government is limited.

The Constitution Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to

the people.

Despite this very clear amendment, Justices of the Supreme Court have decided that their rulings, or a bill passed by Congress, are above the Constitution. How can they make that huge illogical leap? Maybe it is because they are lawyers. Few laymen would suggest that Congress, The President, or the Court have the privilege of changing our Constitution. One example makes the point. Since there is no mention in the Constitution of a right to privacy or a woman’s “right to choose”, how did the Supreme Court decide Roe v Wade? The tenth amendment clearly says that, since those “rights” are not mentioned in the Constitution, the “right to privacy” and a woman’s “right to choose” are reserved to the States or to the people. To a non-lawyer such as myself, the Supreme Court must ask for a Constitutional amendment or leave it alone.

So, who do we want nominated to the Court? We want a non lawyer who can read, and not imagine what is not there. We want a person with common sense. We need a person who cares about we the people. We want a person who knows that the Supreme Court is not a legislature. I think many such people exist, let us recommend some to the President.

It seems that every time I try to listen to a cable news channel I hear argument concerning whether President Obama should prosecute senior Bush Administration officials. During press briefings, news reporters even attempt to push Obama into saying he thinks they are guilty of violating US and international laws concerning torture. This is irritating.

A brief review of history suggests to me that Presidents do not tend to prosecute their predecessor . Historically congress has investigated presidents, for example Andrew Johnson. The Department of Justice has appointed special prosecutors, for example to investigate Nixon and Clinton.

I don’t think it is the President’s job to investigate or prosecute a former President. Further, I don’t want a sitting President to think he has such power. To me that kind of power reminds me too much of a monarchy.

A sitting President must focus upon the needs of the nation, and especially now, we need the President to try to lead concerning the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the looming entitlement mess. I think the President should not be sidetracked by political investigations.

Frankly, if it is necessary to prosecute a prior administration, I believe that congress should appoint an independent special prosecutor. There must be some attorneys who are independent people of principle, driven by the law itself, and not involved in political wars. Hopefully congress will pass a law mandating such an appointment. Then we can concentrate on moving the nation forward.

What do you think?