By now it will come as no surprise to anyone that I am an enthusiastic and vocal supporter of Bernie Sanders’ candidacy. But rather than putting up yet another pro-Bernie post, I’d like to put a discussion topic out there for everyone’s consideration.
The estimated combined annual cost of Sanders’ single-payer health care plan and his tuition-free college plan is, by any estimation, substantial. Between the two, it’s about one and a half trillion dollars. (!)
But let’s compare that against current expenditures. The 2015 federal budget, between mandatory and discretionary spending, provides for just over a trillion in Medicare and health spending, and a further fifty billion in tertiary education (college-level) spending.
So we’re already spending 70% of what Sanders is proposing.
Sanders further proposes to levy a tax of “a fraction of a percent” on Wall Street speculation, which he believes would bring in revenue of seventy-five billion. A fraction of a percent doesn’t seem unduly onerous to me, and that gets us to 75% of goal.
What he suggests in order to defray the health care costs are a personal income-based tax of 2.2%, which is substantially less than most households currently pay for insurance, deductibles and the like, and a business tax of 6.2% of the employees’ income – again, substantially lower than what most employers are currently paying to their benefits providers. These two tax increases are estimated to generate eight hundred and thirty billion dollars in revenue.
That brings us to 130% of that goal – fully paid for and then some, and saves money for businesses, workers and students alike into the bargain. That seems pretty good to me, and the benefit of a healthier and better-educated populace seems like an obvious choice at that point.
Sooooo… since I will admit that I am by no means an economist, I would like to see a conversation *WITHOUT partisan rhetoric, please*, in which someone explains to me why this scenario is apparently so undesirable to so many.

Filling Scalia’s Seat

So… I’ve seen a lot of this discussion over whether President Obama should be the one to nominate the next Supreme Court justice, some saying that he should let the next President do it, some dusting off Kennedy as an example, etc. etc.
So I went back and looked at my handy-dandy pocket-sized copy of the Constitution, given to me at a semi-creepy hot dog joint in Plattsburgh NY.
It says that the President ‘shall nominate’ new justices. Not ‘shall have the power to nominate, save when the exercise of same should present a political inconvenience’. It says that he ‘shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint’.
The President has the power to make a recess appointment right this minute, filling that seat with anyone he wants for the next ten months. Instead, he is waiting until such a time as he can not only exercise his Constitutional obligation, but also allow the Senate to exercise theirs. But he absolutely should nominate. The Constitution demands that of him.
Quite frankly, I don’t know that I would have given that much power away to that particular group of obstructionist arseholes, many of whom have already explicitly stated that they will simply refuse President Obama’s nominees on principle rather than bothering to consider them on their merits.
One of the most admired minds ever to sit on the Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, was nominated in the final year of a presidential term. The guy had enemies, for sure, as did the President who nominated him. The nomination was bitterly contested, both sides fought tooth and nail for their viewpoint, but it would have been unthinkable to merely refuse the nomination – and so they considered him, and he was ultimately confirmed, and America is better off for his opinions on freedom of speech, the right to privacy and a host of other matters.
One would think that the current crop of Senators would want to uphold their own obligations, and engage in a real debate over a nominee’s merits. But maybe they just don’t have the balls.
After a few weeks in a mystical den somewhere in deepest darkest west central Pennsylvania, a groundhog is imbued with certain magical talents which enable it to see future weather patterns.
Unfortunately, the effect of the sun’s juxtaposition with Pennsylvania interferes with the enchantment, since as we all know, any remotely decent enchantments are most powerful under cover of night. By casting his own shadow, the groundhog can recapture enough of the magic to predict a long winter, but when the spring is set to come early, the enchantment fades, and he doesn’t have to cast a shadow. Which is helpful, since as a general rule, groundhogs don’t like throwing shade any more than humans do, and if the winter is ending soon, the groundhog can switch to his regular job as a woodchuck, and get back to chucking wood at a generally unknown rate and quantity.
Technically, the enchantment could work on any mammal of the family Sciuridae, but squirrels and chipmunks simply don’t have the memory span to remember the spells, and thus it falls to marmot-kind to undertake this noble responsibility.

Hell is getting pretty cold

Those of you who know me well will be aware that I am no fan of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, typically finding him my ideological polar opposite. As such, when he and I agree on anything at all, there is probably some truth in it.

To quote from his opinion in District Of Columbia v. Heller:

“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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not 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.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”


“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the (government) a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.”

I have written a lot about guns these past few days, for obvious reasons, and have just about exhausted myself on the subject at this point. However, I would like to sign off with the idea that if even Justice Scalia, an arch-conservative constitutional scholar if ever there was one, believes there is room for reasonable limitations on the Second Amendment, there probably is.

Thirty-five years ago today, the world lost a genius to an act of madness.

John Lennon. Not a perfect man, a flawed one. But he was blessed with a creativity and spirit which ring through the decades, continuing to inspire musicians and pacifists today.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of all, however, is that since the day he was shot and killed, over a million others in America have met the same fate.

Surely we can do better.

Stand up, and stand together

If you’re still trying to chip away at women’s rights, still trying to force the closure of facilities which provide much needed care to low income women, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. Consider me a woman, then, for I stand with them.

If you’re still trying to find ways to block gay people from getting married, or to deny them any other rights currently afforded to heterosexuals, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. Consider me gay, then, for I stand with them.

If you are calling for denying Muslims entry to this country, for forcing them to be registered in a database of potential criminals based solely on their religion, YOU DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME. Consider me a Muslim, then, for I stand with them.

I cannot know the fullness of what it means to be a woman, to be gay, to be Muslim. But neither will I stand mutely on the sidelines while they are attacked.

It’s time to stand up, to stand together. Do you truly want to “make America great again”? Then let’s reclaim our national dialogue from the overpaid buffoons. Let’s show that we are greater than the schoolyard bullies.

It’s time to stand up, to stand together, to do our nation proud.

As the United States of America stares down the 240th anniversary of its birth, we are beset by an immense variety of troubles, the fruit of a world growing ever more complex.

It is tempting to say that “if we could just elect Bernie Sanders” or “if we could just elect Donald Trump”, everything could somehow be made right again. But deep inside, we know that no one person, not even a President, has that power. The Oval Office does not come equipped with a magic wand with which to wave away the problems we face both at home and abroad.

We, as a nation, are being divided at every step. We, as a community, are being drawn on one side or the other of a thousand battles, Christians against Muslims, white against black, Democrats against Republicans, pro-life against pro-choice, science against religion, homosexuals against heterosexuals, America against… just about anybody else. We are being told to believe not only that our “side” is 100% right, but that the other “side” is 100% wrong.

We are being polarized by our media and our politicians, torn asunder by our allegiances to one group or another, taught to think of one another as being “other”, and therefore somehow less pure, less human, less American.

It’s not as simple as that. Never has been, never will be.

Too many of us are driven by the preconceived notions which have been shoved into our heads, and too few of us are bringing any kind of critical thinking to bear on those preconceived notions.

Too many of us are stuck in the trap of thinking a certain way, and have been rendered unwilling or even unable to try to think in any other.

It is time for these divisions to end, for these wounds to heal.

I think we are all aware of the Golden Rule, which has existed since time immemorial: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Every religion has some form of this tenet. Evolutionary science has shown its benefit as a means of protecting the group.

Most of us are aware that the Declaration of Independence declares the unalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – and that it specifically says that these rights are not only given to Americans, but to all human beings.

In the face of the ever growing threats faced by America, and by the whole of humankind, it is to these which we should now be turning.

When we deprive one another of life, of liberty or of the pursuit of happiness, we not only fly in the face of that Golden Rule, we threaten the very core of what it means to be human.

The only cure for division is for us to remember once again that there is more which unites us than there is which divides us. There is absolutely no reason a Democrat and a Republican cannot work together for the common good. There is no reason that Christians and Muslims cannot embrace as brothers. There is no reason why science and religion should be opposites, when each is given to the quest for understanding a greater truth.

The cure for division is unity.

Look over at the person nearest you. You have a lot in common with that person, things you can share, things you can enjoy together, and praise in each other. You have a lot of ways in which you are different as well, things which you can learn about each other, things you can use to develop a deeper understanding of the good in each other’s experiences, ideas and way of life.

Let us strive to look at another person in that way each day. Let us become united. We are, after all, the UNITED States of America.

The cure for division is unity.