The Gun Owners Bill of Goods

When I was in second grade, almost every day after lunch, Miss Sarah Turk would announce it would be reading time and we would all dutifully take out our books and start to read aloud.  We would read and wait.

What we were waiting for was the sound of Miss Turk’s book hitting the floor as she was lulled asleep by a full stomach, the warmth of of the room, and the sound of little voices struggling to sound out words.

I’ve though about Miss Turk a lot since the Parkland massacre and the stunningly stupid suggestion that arming teachers would be a solution to the problem of mass shootings in schools.  If Miss Turk had been packing heat instead of just holding a book she might have blown off one of her sensible shoes as she drifted off into slumber.

That thought always struck me as funny until my former bishop, The Rt. Rev’d Dr. Sherman G.  Hicks posted this question on his Facebook page: “Would you like to be a Black teacher holding a handgun when the cops showed up at a school shooting?”

No teacher should be holding a gun at any time but this argument has been embraced as part of the bill of goods that the National Rifle Association has been selling to its unwitting supporters not the least of which is the current drone occupying the Oval Office.

Even their very own website admits that the NRA was founded to “promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” Their emphasis was on developing highly trained “marksmen” with rifle ranges across America that promoted the "safe and skilled use of weapons." 1

There isn’t much money to be made with this limited mandate. However, there is a lot of money to be made knocking down “straw men.”

That is what the National Rifle Association has been doing for forty years now as they knowingly mislead their followers into believing that all of their rights were at stake at the mere mention of anything that hinted of gun control.

In fact: “The NRA assisted Roosevelt in drafting the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, the first federal gun control laws. These laws placed heavy taxes and regulation requirements on firearms that were associated with crime, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and silencers. Gun sellers and owners were required to register with the federal government and felons were banned from owning weapons.” 2

For the next few decades, guns weren’t much of an issue at the federal level. But that began to change in the ’60s, with multiple assassinations — of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. — and the rapid increase in crime at the time. So the federal government again passed a new series of gun restrictions, particularly the Gun Control Act of 1968.

At this point, gun rights activists began to worry. The leadership at the NRA was complacent with and even publicly supportive of gun control policies, and began to talk about withdrawing from its already limited political lobbying. (Notably, Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated JFK, obtained the gun through an ad in the NRA’s magazine, American Rifleman — so the organization’s leaders likely felt restrained in how far they could go in opposing gun control, given the potential backlash the group could face

But a few hardline members, led by Harlon Carter, subscribed to the argument that if the federal government were given even an inch in regulating guns, it would take a mile, and that would end up with guns banned altogether. So during the organization’s 1977 meeting in Cincinnati, Carter and his supporters rebelled, placing him in charge. It was at this point that the NRA truly became the gun lobby. 3  

It is a lobby that is built a logical fallacy promoted by the NRA from Carter to Wayne LaPierre whose annual salary is estimated by numerous sources to be around $1 million.

Mr. LaPierre is making millions by selling his followers the same “bill of goods” that Mr. Carter discovered.  He said of the government after the Parkland shootings: “Their goal is to eliminate the  Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eliminate all individual freedoms.” 4

That is a fallacy! As a matter of fact, it is such a major fallacy it has even been given a name.  It is called “The Slippery Slope.”

Now I know that the few friends I have who have bought into the NRA’s scheme will probably not buy into what I am about to tell you but you are falling for a hoax.  You are buying into a lie. 

The slippery slope basically argues that you cannot do anything without going too far.  The fallacy introduces the irrelevant material of the consequences of more far reaching action in order to oppose the more limited proposal actually made. 5

 Here, in one simple black-and-white sentence, is what is making Mr. LaPierre $1 million a year. “Ban one type of weapon - this time it is the AR-15 - and before you know it they will all be banned.”
  
That is not what anybody is advocating. Nobody wants to take away anybody’s hunting rifle! 

What 67 percent of the American people would like to do is ban the sale of assault weapons which are the machine guns of our day. 83 percent would like to see a mandatory waiting period for all gun purchases. 6

According to the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, the wildly liberal Antonin Scalia: 

[T]he conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. 7

Therefore, Justice Scalia continues in the District of Columbia-vs-Heller opinion:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” 8

Even the uber-conservative, super-hawk, former FOX contributor, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters, believes there is no constitutional right to own an assault weapon.

I believe, on moral, practial and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects.

These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

The latest school shooter could not have done what he did with a sports rifle or shotgun. The Las Vegas shooter could not have done what he did with hunting arms. No end of school massacres and other slaughters have tallied horrific body counts because of military-grade weapons in the hands of mass murderers.

The old saw runs that “Guns don’t kill people, people do.” But people with rapid-fire weapons kill a lot more folks a whole lot faster.

Having those weapons in civilian hands is madness! 9

Let the hunters hunt.  Let those who like to head out to the shooting range every once and awhile fire away.  Let even those who feel they need to pack a pistol to protect their homes and loved ones carry heat if they would like.  But hiding behind them so that the rest of society can live in fear of a crazy person with a rapid fire weapon is another matter.

The demagogues who grow wealthy by convincing responsible gun owners that some shadowy government agency can’t wait to seize their deer rifles will have a great deal to answer for on Judgment Day. 10

May God have mercy on their souls but not much.



 _____________________

1.  "A Brief History of the NRA." Nra.org. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/.

2.  Coleman, Arica L. "When the NRA Supported Gun Control." Time, July 29, 2016. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://time.com/4431356/nra-gun-control-history/.

3.  Lopez, German. "How the NRA Resurrected the Second Amendment." Vox. March 27, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/12/16418524/us-gun-policy-nra.

4. Tuttle, Brad. "Wayne LaPierre Has Made a Fortune as the Leader of the NRA." Time. February 28, 2018. Accessed April 5, 2018. http://time.com/money/5178193/wayne-lapierre-net-worth-nra-money-salary/. 

5. Pirie, Madsen. How to Win Every Argument. (New York, NY: Bloomsbury, 2015.), p. 189 & 190.

6. "U.S. Support For Gun Control Tops 2-1, Highest Ever, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds." QU Poll. February 20, 2018. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521.

7. Rosenthal, Andrew. "Justice Scalia's Gun-Control Argument." The New York Times. December 11, 2015. Accessed April 06, 2018. https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/.

8. Ropeik, David. "Gun Rights Activists Say Gun Control Is Unconstitutional. Antonin Scalia Disagrees." Big Think. December 08, 2015. Accessed April 06, 2018. http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-reality/gun-rights-activists-claim-any-gun-control-is-unconstitutional-even-antonin-scalia-says-theyre-wrong.

9. Peters, Ralph. "I Am A Military Man and I Think We Should Ban Assault Weapons." The New York Post (New York), February 22, 2018. February 22, 2018. Accessed April 7, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/02/22/automatic-weapons-dont-belong-in-the-hands-of-everyone/.

10. ibid.

Approach/Avoidance

Whenever, while traveling, the topic turns to religion it never ceases to amaze me how many good people I meet who used to go to church but no longer do.  Frankly, I find them more interesting than those who have been unquestioningly plunking their butts down in the pews Sunday after Sunday for years.

What I am hearing is a variation on the same theme: “I used to go but it no longer seemed important or of value to me.”  Sometimes the problem in presented as a “judgmental” attitude on the part of not only clergy but their fellow parishioners.  Sometimes it is hypocrisy (see my earlier post about the church’s decline being tied to the rise and fall of tele-evangelists.)  For former church-goers the church has lost its meaning.

I think this may be linked to an approach/avoidance syndrome not only on the part of the people they were called to serve but of the church.

When I was little there was a large Lutheran church on the corner of my block.  I was taken to Sunday School there by and neighbor and loved the singing.  As they approached Confirmation age they purchased a new pipe organ and I was mesmerized by the sounds that it made.  Huge, impressive, big sounds.

But the church gave out mixed messages.

While I would get a postcard in the mail if I missed a Sunday or two the property seemed off limits during the week.

It had a sidewalk between the parsonage and church building that was perfect for riding bikes.  We saw it as a safe place where, as little people, we could ride around in circles for hours without ever having to go in the street.

But, every time we would ride there, the pastor, who was probably younger then than I am now but seemed to be quite ancient, would be staring out his study window.  Instead of waving a friendly hello and smiling he would scowl and wave a menacing finger as if to say: “Hey!  You!  Get off the property.” 

I could never figure this out.  They wanted me to be there on Sunday so badly that they mailed me postcards if I missed but if I was there on Tuesday they would rather I ride my bicycle on the sidewalk or the street. 

I was stuck in the perfect “Approach/Avoidance” conflict.  I could approach the church only when they said so and only on their terms.

Everyone who has ever served on a church council has experienced the same thing.  At the same meeting you would hear: “How can we get more youth involved in the church?”  And, “Why does the Youth Group always leave the kitchen in such a mess?  They never put things back where they belong!”

As a pastor, and before as a member, I always wondered why they wanted more kids in their building if they weren’t willing to bear the burden of some wear and tear.

Mostly these behaviors are played out in more subtle forms.

I remember hearing a eulogy for an 104 member of the same  congregation I grew up in that was given by her son.  He spoke of all the good times they had.  He spoke of the Senior Choir and how his mom and another woman always led the procession.  (I would guess the unwritten rule was “God forbid that anyone should try to take that prized position from them.”) He spoke of Halloween parties.  He spoke of the couple’s club. (The straight couple's club!)  He spoke of bake sales and clean up days but he never spoke of the church as having any kind of mission outside of the congregation. 

I’ll bet that if they described themselves they would say they were a friendly

congregation.  Had there been “consultants” in those days it would have been determined that they were friendly but only to each other.  They approached each other while at the same time avoided everybody else.

They unintentionally revealed this for all to see in the history book that was published at their closing.

Nebo’s congregation entered the fourth quarter-century of its existence in a refurbished building full of optimism ... but ominous changes were underway.  The very nature and character, or more inclusively, the demographics of Nebo’s constituent neighborhood continued to slowly evolve.  In the parlance of the new demographics many of the newer residents would be classified as the “upwardly mobile,” and they left traditional neighborhoods for a new lifestyle offered by areas adjacent to downtown, or more likely, in the suburbs.  Their houses and apartments in Nebo’s neighborhood were in turned filled by people with different ethnic and religious backgrounds, many directly from foreign countries.1

OMG!

This is not an isolated experience.

Upon it’s closing this was said about North Austin Lutheran Church:

As parishioners moved to the suburbs and Austin became a largely African-American neighborhood, what was once one of the nation's largest Lutheran congregations dwindled to just 10 members.

The church offered ministries including a food pantry and after-school program. African-Americans living near the church were invited to attend, but the hymns remained the same ones favored by the old-timers, and few stayed.2 

You think?

Sadly, these Paleozoic attitudes continue to this day.

I once stupidly suggested to a Campus Ministry that was struggling for money and members that since they were located a relatively long way from any other churches they might want to reach out to people in their neighborhood.

I was thinking about real people I knew.  The couple with three children under the age of six who might want to walk to church instead of going through the process of loading them into the car for a ten minute drive.  Or people of any age who can’t or don’t drive and might like to walk to church.  I also thought it would be great for students to learn to worship and work with people who were not like themselves.

The chaplain’s response was (And how I wish I was making this up!)  “As long as they are not weirdos.” 

Can you see that nothing has changed? 

The people who might need us must live up to some arbitrary standard that we are making up on the fly.  They are welcome so long as they don’t ride bikes on the property on Tuesday.  They are welcome as long as they belong to the same racial, economic, or sexual orientation background as we do.  They are welcome so long as they are not “weird.”  A stipulation that would exclude not only me but everybody I know or would choose to be associated with.

I point out that Jesus had a propensity to love the weird and those who were different from him.  I think that Jesus would throw open the doors of the church to everybody and I think that is the ministry the church should model. 

It should be rooted in the vision of former Fourth Presbyterian Church pastor Dr. Elam Davies, who had the radical idea that the church should serve and welcome “the least, the lost, and the lonely” with dignity and respect.

Maybe then the unchurched would see the church as something of value as they are welcomed in their weirdness.

___________

1. Edmonson, Harold. "The History of Nebo." Parish Directory, 1998, March 29, 1998.  p.  27.

2. Brachear, Manya. "Old guard at church moving on." The Chicago Tribune, September 07, 2007. Accessed February 22, 2018. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-09-07/news/0709060868_1_lutheran-churches-historic-church-churches-of-other-denominations.

Colonoscopies & the 25th Amendment

It may be hard for you to believe but the last time the highly discussed Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution was invoked was Saturday, July 21, 2007 when President George W.  Bush voluntarily transferred power to Vice President Richard D. Cheney when the President went through the very light general anesthesia all of us males over fifty have endured for a colonoscopy.

Mr. Cheney was the Acting President for the two hours or so until the sedative wore off and the President was enjoying his cookies and juice.  (At least that is what they served me.)  There is no word on what governmental precautions were taken the night before which I found to be the most problematic.

“Only twice since the amendment was ratified in 1967 has a president done so: in 1985, when Ronald Reagan underwent a colonoscopy and Vice President George H.W. Bush briefly took over, and in 2002" when President Bush had his first colonoscopy.1 (What’s with those two anyway?)

There is a lot being said about invoking this amendment involuntary on our current President because of his mental state.  But before we want to throw ourselves into a constitutional crisis of that magnitude we might want to take a deep breath and read what the pertinent Amendment really says.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

 In explaining the Amendment Professors Brian C. Kalt and David Pozen would write:

The initial deciding group is the Vice President and a majority of either the Cabinet or some other body that Congress may designate (though Congress has never done so). If this group declares a President “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President. If and when the President pronounces himself able, the deciding group has four days to disagree. If it does not, the President retakes his powers. But if it does, the Vice President keeps control while Congress quickly meets and makes a decision. The voting rule in these contested cases favors the President; the Vice President continues acting as President only if two-thirds majorities of both chambers agree that the President is unable to serve. 2

 I cannot imagine what kind of a constitutional crises this would plunge the nation into.

Does anybody think that this cabinet of toadies would declare the President disabled?

Does anybody believe the congress could agree on “some other” yet unformed body to judge the man’s fitness in a bi-partisan fashion?

Does anybody believe that this President, or any President, after being removed wouldn’t be back in two days declaring himself or herself a “stable genius?"

Does anybody really believe that a two-thirds majority of both houses would declare a President emotionally unfit?

And, most important of all, does anybody really believe that this wouldn’t take forever?

What will work is what I have been advocating since the day after the election. 

All those who, before the inauguration, were hoping that the Electoral College would go rogue and refuse to ratify the election were wasting energy.  All those who are hoping to be bailed out by an un-enforceable amendment are suffering from the same “Trump-Derangement Syndrome.”

All those hoping that the President would go quietly into the 25th Amendment night are also delusional.

As Conservative columnist George F.  Will  said, “Mr. Trump,  is an open book who has been reading himself to the country for 30 years.  (These recent revelations about him are) not news.  Now, this excites a lot of people and a lot of chatter about the 25th Amendment and all the rest, but the behaviors and attitudes and the persona that have people talking about him being unfit for the presidency are the behaviors, attitudes, and persona that got about 63 million people to put him in the presidency.”3

There is a short answer to this problem: Back opposition candidates of any party who will actively work to roll back any outlandish notion the President may put forth.

The chances have rarely been better. 

Democrats have to pick up 23 seats to take control of the house.  Thirty-two Republicans have announced that they will not seek reelection.  Democrats have 13 open seats.  With an unpopular President retaking the house is a distinct possibility.

Richard A.  Lowry, editor of the conservative National Review, wrote the prescription for the President’s opponents: “I think they’d be better served to give it all up and just oppose him  the way you oppose any president of an opposing party. You try to stymie his agenda ... in Congress to the extent you can, and then you try to beat him in the midterms and beat him for re-election.”4

To paraphrase Senator Mitch McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for (this) President ... to be a one-term president.”5

Making this our single minded goal and following Mr.  Lowry’s advice we won’t need to endure the impeachment process or invoke the 25th Amendment and the lengthy national colonoscopy these options would entail.
______

1.  Baker, Peter. "Bush Will Temporarily Hand Reins To Cheney." The Washington Post, July 21, 2007. Accessed January 8, 2018. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072001790.html. 

2.  Kalt, Brian C., and David Pozen. "The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." National Constitution Center – The 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Accessed January 08, 2018. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv

3.  "Panel Discussion." Meet the Press Daily, January 4, 2018. Accessed January 14, 2018. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/mtp-daily/2018-01-04.

4.  "Panel Discussion." Meet the Press Daily, January 8, 2018. Accessed January 13 , 2018. http://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/mtp-daily/2018-01-08.

5.  "Top GOP Priority: Make Obama a One-Term President." The National Journal, October 23, 2010.
https://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/top-gop-priority-make-obama-a-one-term-president-20101023 

Mr. Smith Retreats into the Cloture

It was never my intention to venture forth into the current Supreme Court debate because I hold positions that are almost impossible to reconcile.

However, I have read too many Facebook posts in the days since Judge Neil M. Gorsuch’s name has been put forward for the job of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States that are so incorrect they boarder on hysteria. 

The background of the histrionics I believe to be two-fold. 

First, the election of Mr.  Trump as President of the United States.  This was a shock to the system from which one might recover were it not for the Tweets that force us to conclude with the editorial board of The Los Angeles Times:

What is most worrisome about Trump is Trump himself. He is a man so unpredictable, so reckless, so petulant, so full of blind self-regard, so untethered to reality that it is impossible to know where his presidency will lead or how much damage he will do to our nation.1

Gorsuch suffers from guilt by association and is being punished by how unfairly the Republicans treated Judge Merrick B. Garland, a superbly qualified candidate who happened to nominated in the last year of the Obama presidency.

I firmly believe that elections have consequences from the first day to the very last and therefore Judge Garland should have not only been given a hearing but should have been confirmed.  It is not just the presidents  prerogative it is his or her (someday?)  duty to nominate judges taking only the  advice of the Senate into consideration.

The second reaction seems to be based on the belief that the so-called cloture rule has been around since the days of the Founding Fathers.  It hasn’t.  It is sometimes used interchangeably with the word filibuster - as in - “We are going to filibuster this nomination.”  That is not correct either.

“The term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s, when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent a vote on a bill.  It offers the right to any senator to speak for as long as necessary on any issue.”  Think "Mr.  Smith Goes to Washington."

“Three quarters of a century later, in 1917, senators adopted a rule (Rule 22), at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote, a device known as "cloture." 2

In 1975, imposing cloture was made easier by requiring a vote of three-fifths of the entire Senate, a change the importance that derived from what Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., did in 1970: He created the “two-track” system whereby the Senate, by unanimous consent or the consent of the minority leader, can set aside a filibustered bill and move on to other matters. Hitherto, filibustering senators had to hold the floor, testing their stamina and inconveniencing everyone else to encourage the majority to compromise. In the 52 years after 1917, there were only 58 cloture motions filed; in the 46 years since 1970 there have been 1,700.  3 

To stop the ease of Parliamentary obstruction on both sides I propose we let Mr.  Smith out of the Cloture.

If you want to Filibuster a bill you have to do it the old fashioned way - by speaking at length for hours on end.

Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, recently held forth on the Senate floor for more than 15 hours in protest of the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. 

New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Robert Menendez in June of 2015,   spoke as part of a filibuster on the Senate floor to get the U.S. Senate to address the issue of gun violence.

In 2013 Senator Rand Paul, fueled only by water and Snickers bars, spoke for 14 hours against the National Security Administrations blanket collection of data on American citizens.

And who could forget Senator Ted Cruz’s 21 hour filibuster in 2013 against Obamacare where he read from Dr.  Suess and made references to Star Wars. 

A filibuster can also be ended by nature’s call forcing to Senator Paul to conclude his with these words: ““I would try to go another 12 hours and try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but there are some limits to filibustering and I am going to have to go take care of one of those here.”4

A real filibuster would test not only the metal and bladder control of the opponents but their commitment as well.

Then there is this arcane but helpful rule that “simply requires the Senate to remain in the same legislative day until the filibustering members have exhausted their ability to speak on the nominee in question. This is the point at which those members who are committed to blocking that nominee’s confirmation have given the two floor speeches allotted to them under Rule XIX.” 5

Think of how much time 49 senators who were really committed to a cause could take up.  Think of how much commitment it would take for a senator to stand up and speak instead of hiding behind a procedural vote.  Think about it and forget it.

The filibuster would always be an option on any bill and any nomination at anytime.  But now it would require a courage that congress has rarely shown.  It would require the courage to stand for something.  It would require belief in a cause so great that the believer would have to risk their personal political future by holding up the business of the senate until they ran out of gas.  It would require putting a name on the impasse.   It would require a measure of bravery and, therefore, it won’t happen.

Mr.  Smith, wherever you are, come out of your cloture.

__________

1. "Our Dishonest President," Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2017, accessed April 3, 2017, http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-ed-our-dishonest-president/

2. "Fillabuster and Cloture." United States Senate. Accessed April 3, 2017. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.html

3   George F.  Will. "Busting Up the Fillibuster." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 30, 2017.  Accessed  April 3, 2017. http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2017/03/31/George-F-Will-Busting-up-the-filibuster/stories/201703310169?pgpageversion=pgevoke.

4. Philip Ewing,  "Rand Paul pulls plug on nearly 13-hour filibuster." Politico. June 3, 1913. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rand-paul-filibuster-john-brennan-cia-nominee-088507.

5.   James  Walner and Ed Corrigan. "A Rules-Based Strategy for Overcoming Minority Obstruction of a Supreme Court Nomination." The Heritage Foundation. January 23, 2017. Accessed April 6, 2017. http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/rules-based-strategy-overcoming-minority-obstruction-supreme-court.
 

That Was What We Waited For? An Epic Fail

Every one of us who spent a moment in school knows that assignments are due when assignments are due.  Even in kindergarten we knew that when the teacher told us to put our crayons down we better have something to show for it.  Apparently Republicans never learned this lesson.

For seven years they told us that if they just got control of the House they would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  (aka Obamacare).  They did in the elections of November 2010 and produced nothing.

So the mantra began, “If we just get control of the Senate we will repeal and replace Obamacare.”  In November of 2014 they did and still nothing.

“Now,” said they, “if we just held the Presidency we could repeal and replace Obamacare.”  Mr.  Trump promised that if he was elected President he would do so “on the very first day.”

It appears that the Republican Party was absent on the first day of school.

It was like they didn’t really expect to win the White House in this election (Who thought they would?) and figured they could put off doing their homework for another four years.  To put it directly they were not ready.

Is it any wonder that real conservatives were deserting the party in droves.  Here is how Shepard Smith of FOX News (Yes, FOX News!)  summed up the situation moments after the President and Speaker Ryan had to pull the bill.

Republicans voted to repeal Obamacare more than 50 times when they didn’t have a president in the White House who would ever sign it. And now that they have a president in the White House who will sign it, they can’t get the one thing they’ve been screaming about for seven years done.

This is an obvious indication that it’s much easier to be the ‘no’ vote than it is to govern. 1

For seven years they could have learned and taken notes from the national social experiment that was going on before them.  The Affordable Care Act was too cumbersome to administer but people grew to like it because it gave them the things they wanted.

We like the idea that there would be insurance available to everybody when they needed it.  We like that we couldn’t be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.  Parents and their “children” who could grow to the age of twenty-six liked the idea that the kids could have insurance through their parents policies.  They didn’t like the idea that they were living in their basements but that is another matter.  We just didn’t want to pay for any of it in mandates or higher insurance costs.

And we certainly didn’t want to subject ourselves to a tax that would have been the most lucrative of all.  According to George F. Will:

About 180 million Americans are covered by employer-provided insurance, which is not taxed as what it obviously is - compensation. Republicans have abandoned a measure to treat as taxable income a small portion of the most generous employer-provided insurance plans, and have postponed for a nearly decade - meaning, probably, forever —- the “Cadillac Tax” on such plans.2

No matter what plan is brought forth it will cost money.  The “Area 51" members of the so-called “Freedom Caucus” will just have to understand this.  So, here is my humble proposal.3

First, everybody is enrolled in medicaid - from the President to the pauper at the bottom of the expressway ramp - affording all people the most basic health care coverage. 

There would be no false promises here. If your doctor was willing to work for the medicaid reimbursement rate, great!  If not you would have to find one that would.  Sorry.

Second, employees would be encouraged to either band together with other like-minded individuals to purchase insurance as a group. Or, they could join a labor union (Whose membership has been on the decline.) that could negotiate with employers for better coverage than medicaid offered to be purchased from insurance companies.

For example, I have an option of Silver, Gold or Platinum plans for my insurance coverage with increasing costs as the coverage becomes more comprehensive.  The theory behind this is obvious.  The better the plan the more likely the most talented people will want to work for your company.

However, to Will’s point, any plan offered above basic medicaid would be taxed as compensation.  This should make the brave souls in congress, who have the best health care plans of all, go running for cover like banshees on fire.

And, while this would be cutting off my own nose, premiums would increase along with age.  This idea was proposed by none other than that radical leftist Dr. Charles Krauthammer.

Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times those of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-1 to 5–1.

Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency.4

This insolvency was caused by not having enough healthy people signing up and paying in than older,  people.  Why would they?  There was no upside for them.

The problem was the penalties.  Another crazy idea. They weren’t enough! 

The reason parking tickets work is that the penalty is markedly higher than not feeding the meter.  Nobody wants to risk a $100+ ticket when they could pay $ 8.00 to park. 

In many cases in the ACA it was cheaper to pay the penalty than it was to purchase insurance.  Who would do that?  Especially when if one did get really sick you were guaranteed coverage.  Some likened this to buying fire insurance while the house caught on fire. 

While I am not accomplished in the art of the deal I do have a modest proposal to offer as starting place that would benefit almost everyone.

All would get basic insurance through Medicaid even though they may not get immediate access to state-of-the-art medicine. 

Those who wished to pay more or who, through collective bargaining or their own pockets, wanted concierge medicine would have it available although there would be a tax on the recipient.  The free market would reign.

Even unions and insurance companies would be the beneficiaries. Who better to represent groups of people in an insurance market than a union?  Who would sell those premium policies? Insurance companies!

Everybody has realize that there will never be a perfect plan.  Just like there has never been a free lunch.

__________

1.  Elizabeth Preza, “Shep Smith nails Trumpcare fail: GOP’s been ‘screaming’ about this for 7 years and can’t get it done."  RAWSTORY.com
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/03/shep-smith-nails-trumpcare-fail-gops-been-screaming-about-this-for-7-years-and-cant-get-it-done/ (accessed March 25, 2017)

2.  George F. Will, “Whatever replaces Obamacare will look a lot like Obamacare.”  The Washington Post. March 22, 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whatever-replaces-obamacare-will-look-a-lot-like-obamacare/2017/03/22/d7ae5d6e-0e5c-11e7-9b0d-d27c98455440_story.html?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.b0445ef256a4 (accessed March 26, 2017)

3. This was first proposed in a conversation with Mr. Ted Davis, a member of my Bible Study group.  Unfortunately, I can remember where Mr. Davis’ thoughts ended and mine began.

4. Charles Krauthammer, “The Real World of Obamacare Repeal.” The National Review.  March 16, 2017. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/445841/print (accessed March 26, 2017)

The Devil and The Donald

 There is a wonderfully blasphemous program on FOX called “Lucifer.”

It is based on DC Comics character Lucifer Morningstar.  He is, or claims to be, nothing less than the devil of hell who has become bored with his life in the netherworld and has fled to Los Angeles where he runs a nightclub.

In and of itself that would be enough for a dandy of a show but Lucifer somehow becomes involved with a streetwise LA detective named Chloe Decker and he wheedels his way on to the force as a “Civilian Consultant.”  They solve crimes together.

While most of the dialogue makes one wince Lucifer has made some observations that are theologically sound. 

The first is his rebellion when people see him as the tempter who lures the innocent into doing evil deeds. 

Lucifer is a believer in “original sin.” In his mind there are no innocents. He believes that humans are capable of doing greater evil to each other than even the devil could have imagined.  He says, “My job is to punish not to tempt.”  Somehow that makes sense to me.

What makes more sense is a question that Lucifer always asks people from whom he is trying to extract information: “What is it that you really want?”  It is the perfect question for everybody!  What do we really want? Figure that out and things fall into place.

What fascinates me most out in this characterization of Lucifer is his demeanor.

We think of Lucifer as a menacing figure with horns, a red suit, smelling of sulfur with a pitchfork in hand but Lucifer Morningstar is quite the opposite. 

He is suave, debonair, and stunningly handsome. He wears tailor made suits and has a charming smile that he uses on men and women alike to woo them with his charms and ultimately into his bedroom.

Tom Ellis, who plays Lucifer, is from Wales and so has a lovely Welch accent that makes the character even more alluring. 

Lucifer is new to the world of humans and so approaches it with all the gusto and silliness of a ten year old.  He is a child without any inhibitions who says inappropriate things and exhibits socially unacceptable behaviors without seeming to care how others think. His attitude is “devil-may-care.”

Yet his personality is still appealing.  He is the kind of guy people want to be around.  He makes them feel at home, at ease, as if with him in charge everything is going to be all right.  People are sucked in by his charm, his innocence, and the way he makes them feel.

In that sense the current President of the United States is not like Lucifer.  He has none of the qualities I mentioned above.  In fact, he is a quite the opposite.  He is a “schlub.”

This dichotomy struck me on the night he walked down the long corridor in the White House to announce his Supreme Court nomination, The Honorable Neil Gorsuch, who looks like he stepped out of central casting.

While Ellis’ Lucifer is always impeccably dressed Mr. Trump didn’t even have the minimal fashion sense to button his suit jacket. 

“For the love of God!” I thought to myself. “Didn’t your beloved father have enough manners to tell you that when you are sitting down you unbutton your coat but when you stand you button it?” Not our president! 

And his overcoat?  Does he ever take that thing off?  He looks like a flasher!  People around him are wearing just their suits while he is wrapped up like he is about to face a nor’easter! 

And when was the last time you saw Mr. Trump laugh. Not just a little laugh but a big belly laugh that clearly showed he was enjoying the moment.  I can’t remember it, ever. 

I believe that a person’s emotional health can be shown by their ability to laugh at themselves.  If I am right about this it is not just Mr. Trump but every other politician I can think of seems to be joyless.  Our Nation’s Capital must be a dismal place.

Most time he is scowling is such a severe manner that many grandmothers probably want to take him aside a ask, “Donald, why such a face?”

He looks like he is always suffering from a severe case of dyspepsia.  “Quick! Somebody! Get the president some bismuth in a great big spoon”

If Mr. Trump acted in any way like Mr. Morningstar there would be even more to worry about. 

Fortunately Mr. Trump has none of the qualities that would make him somebody we would wish to be around.  His nastiness is right there on the surface for all to see.   He couldn’t mount a “charm offensive” if the security of the nation depended on it.  

Mr. Trump’s despicable nature is not hidden behind anything.  It is hanging out there like one of his too long red ties.

The one thing I have to say about him is that he never pretends to be something he is not.  With him it is all there - the anger, the name-calling, the rudeness, the over-compensation, the braggadocio.

In the end, however, let me ask you: Who would you really want to have dinner or drinks with Lucifer or the President of the United States? 

As for me? Make that a table for two for Messrs. Morningstar and Nelson.

Ministry of Walking Around

In the Harry Potter books there is something called the “Ministry of Magic” which is a huge, complicated, and most of all, inefficient bureaucracy designed to keep Muggles (you and me) from discovering the culture of Magical Creatures.

I thought of them today when I made my annual trip to the Secretary of State’s office to renew the licence plates for the hearses and flower car.

I have to go in person because the cars are “commercial vehicles” and I have to prove that they are insured by bringing in my “Certificates of Insurance.”

Why this all can’t be done on-line or even by mail escapes me but it is not only a part of our state’s bureaucracy which makes it an epitome of inefficiency.

All of these really happened on this week's visit.

The first thing one sees that there are countless lines all leading to individuals who have one thing and only one thing to do.

The first people you are greeted by (and I use that world loosely) tell you which department you were you are supposed to go depending on the kind of paperwork you have.  Whatever you present is stared at as if were written in hieroglyphics.

My “greeter” stared at my papers and said, (I am not making this up!) “You need to go back out the entrance and come in the exit.”  I wasn’t even phased because once you have entered the Secretary of State’s office it is important to realize that you have entered a magical place where entrances are exits and exits are entrances.

Out I went and in I came.

Fearing that I was going to be yelled at I sheepishly entered the exit door and was greeted by a Secretary of State security guard in a brown outfit.  I was sure he was going to ask about my relatives in Germany but instead he told me to stand in a line against the wall and wait. 

“Wait for what?” I wondered.  “For the firing squad to load their rifles?”

As I awaited my fate I noticed that there were innumerable people wearing official looking badges just walking around.  All of them had very intent looks upon their faces as if they were heading off to a national security briefing.  The room must have been changed or the meeting cancelled because it wouldn’t be long before I saw the very same people heading in the opposite direction. 

As luck would have it the chief minister in charge of walking around was working in my department but it was hard to tell because when I first lined up he received a phone call.  It was for Delores (Umbridge?) who suddenly became the most important person in the world to this man.

Instead of taking a message he decided to mount a personal search for her. It wasn’t an all out search because it seemed to be limited to a fifteen foot range in front of his door.  It consisted mostly of him looking around and asking others who were walking around if they had seen Delores.  None had.

Finally I was beckoned into the office with a wave of the hand by his colleague.  She was exceedingly friendly.  Her first warm, welcoming words were, “You need to make a copy of your certificate for each vehicle.” 

“Sorry,” I said, “I didn’t know.”

“How could you not know?” she snapped. “I’ll make copies for you this time but never again.  Remember?”  At this she disappeared.

The head of walking around reappeared still searching for Delores.

Finally, an even more angry woman than the usual Secretary of State employee said she had seen her.  Delores and her friends had been on break for almost an hour. 

I looked at the clock. It was nearing 11 A.M. The place opened at 8:30  A.M. It seemed like a good deal - work 90 minutes and take 60 minutes off.

The chief minister who had done nothing but search for Delores for the last 20 minutes seemed enraged.  “How did she think she would get away with this?” he said stupefied.

“She may think I’m a bitch but I told her to get back to work.”  Novel idea!

The man returned to his desk and a stack of papers that were at least 10 inches high.

“These are all forms from last week.  We are so backed up with work...” he said to me with his voice trailing off.

Perhaps, I thought, had you spent any of the time spent working instead of searching for someone who had been on break for the last hour the stack of forms would be considerably smaller.

The man had a very short attention span because (And again, I am not making this up!) he did whatever he was supposed to do on one form and was up again to do some more walking around.  Somebody buy this man a Fitbit®!

He left and the woman who had apparently gone to Roanoke office to make the copies reappeared. 

While talking to herself she highlighted a certain line on each application, copied each licence plate number by hand onto yet another form, and s-l-o-w-l-y but very neatly stapled them together. 
She then sent me to the cashier with the admonition. “Next year remember to make your own copies.”

Two observations:

First, when I entereded through the exit door it was 2017. I could order anything I wanted over the internet but I had to see at least a-half-a-dozen people to renew my licence plates.  Certainly this all could be done by computer but where would state employees get their exercise?

Second, people actually write about complaints about these employees on Yelp.  Do they really think that is going to change anything?  The Secretary of State’s office has been like that forever. The only thing that changes is the portraits of the office holder that are hung almost everywhere you look.  It makes the place look like the Kremlin!

You can Yelp all you want but with government employees there is no incentives to give great service.  Who wants the job?

I can say without fear of contradiction that no six year old in the history of time has ever awakened in the morning and said, “You know what I want to do with my life? I want to work for the Secretary of State’s office in the drivers licence division!”

Then the child runs down to tell his or her parents of their life’s calling and the parents cry their eyes out.