Environmental Policy IS Foreign Policy

Apparently, even Tom Friedman gets this.

And, Along The Same Lines ...

... don't let anyone tell you that land reform is immoral or impractical.

It's neither.  Here's proof.

Don't Let ANYBODY Tell You That This Is A Conservative Country

Conservatives supposedly love history, but the history of this country shows very clearly why the Left has always been essential to our development.  And always will be.

Is It Efficient To Be Non-Industrial?

That may be the case in agriculture.  It's not politically correct to use Cuba as an example of something good and true, but I'm not politically correct.  Not by conservative standards, anyway.

Michigan Is Currently Proving Something

And it's the fact that modern conservatism depends on marital law to succeed.  Which is why we don't need "bipartisanship."  We need Mother Jones who will pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living.

Does Environmentalism Neglect The Human Race?

Here's one environmentalist who thinks that it does, and thinks that environmentalism needs to change if it is going to have any future viability.  For whatever it's worth, I think he's right.  I think that true environmentalism does not mean turning one's back on progress--if anything, it means stimulating it, through the search for new materials and methods for building the society we want to have.

But They Can't Afford To Create Jobs!

Of course not.  They're too busy making vanity purchases.  These prices have nothing to do with value and everything to do with being in first place on Boardwalk or Park Place.  This is how the rich suck the value out of your work, and put it someplace where it can never benefit you.  And this is what our current tax policy promotes.

Real wealth never trickles down.  It percolates up, when the wealthy are forced to make their money by hiring the rest of us to earn it for ourselves and them.  We, the people, are the real wealth-creators.  Someday, I hope we wake up and act on that fact to make the world better for everyone.  Including making the price of antiques affordable.

Which Is The Greater Threat To Democracy?

A President who criticizes the Supreme Court?  Or a Circuit Court judge who orders the President to explain why he is exercising his First Amendment rights?  Oh, and did I mention that the exercise of those rights is not the issue before the Court?

There are judicial activists in our system, but they're not on the left.  They're on the side that thinks it needs to tell the rest of us to shut up, as Chief Judge Jones of the Fifth Circuit did to one of her colleagues.  That type of behavior is offensive to the Constitution, the legal profession, and anyone in or out of uniform who has ever sacrificed anything for this country.

Those judicial activists can go to hell.  And not a moment too soon.

Where's The Outrage?

Apparently, people who get into hissy-fits over going through a scanner to ensure that they don't get blown up in a plane aren't bothered at all by the prospect of someone being strip-searched for jaywalking, thanks to the "Supreme" Court.  Oh well, it's OK to do it if the person's going into jail.  After all, everybody who goes to jail is certainly guilty, because the police never make mistakes, right?

Good luck with that one.  You may need it.  But, if you're not so lucky, just tell yourself in the middle of your strip-search that you must be on your way to Miami or Hawaii.  That should help.  I guess.

Is Labor Organizing A Civil Right?

Of course it is.  Otherwise, why would Republicans spend so much time attacking it.  Here's someone who thinks Martin Luther King showed us the way to ensure that it is treated as a civil right.  What a wonderful legacy Obama could have if he got behind this.

A Government Penalty Is A Government Penalty

If you're the type of person who thinks that the two political parties are more interested in jockeying for power than they are in advancing substantially different policies, you may want to take a look at this, with regard to health care reform.  Is the ability to forego a financial benefit morally superior than a mandate?  Is it more effective in promoting universal coverage than a mandate.  Is the effectiveness argument outweighed by the moral argument?  Or vice versa?  Ultimately, which side has the high ground?

You're welcome to decide for yourself; you know where I stand.  But the article in this case indirectly raises serious questions about whether we can work together at all.  Which means, ultimately, that it raises serious questions about whether our democracy still functions as one.

I hope that we can come up with the right answers to those questions.

A Natural Fit?

There are those who think investment banking is immoral.  As someone whose relatives includes investment bankers, I respectfully disagree.  On the other hand ... .

On The Other Hand, It's Not A Pretty Process

The right may sometimes be willing to admit that it's wrong but, along the way, that admission gets sabotaged by its own members.  Oh well.  If they can make progress on indefinite detention, maybe they can make progress one day on breaking up the banks.  Or save the electric car, while they're at it.

One Of Many Reasons Why I Believe In Democracy

Sometimes, even the right will admit that it's wrong, thereby vindicating Churchill's view that "You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else."

Well, Better Late Than Never In April ...

... and what better way to belatedly start the month here than by flashing back to last month's oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Obamacare (Hey, if the name is now good enough for him, it's more than good enough for me.  Besides, to quote a favorite bumper-sticker, "Obamacare beats the hell out of I-don't-care"!).

Obviously, there's been a lot of coverage of the various angles of this story.  The possibility that a Court decision in favor of Obamacare would galvanize the right and guarantee a Republican blowout in November.  The possibility that a Court decision in the other direction would inevitably lead to single-payer health coverage.  The missteps by the Solicitor General in defending health care reform--and what he should have said (with which I agree).  The risks to the Court's own reputation if it nullifies reform.

What do I think will happen?  Hard to say.  This is obviously a highly political Court; its tortured decisions in the areas of corporate personhood and the regulation of gun rights couldn't make that any clearer if it tried.  And its subsequent ruling in the area of strip-searches seems to make it clear that it is trying.  I tend to think, however, that the political impact of completely upholding Obamacare or completely striking it down is so uncertain that it is likely to reach a muddled result--upholding much of the Affordable Care Act but somehow limiting its reach or scope.  An all-or-nothing ruling would not be politically palatable to the Court's conservative majority.  Doing so would either ratify "socialized medicine" or create a campaign issue that would make the blowout a Democratic one.

One think, as a lawyer, that I know for certain:  never try to predict what a judge will do by the tenor of oral arguments.  I have all too often seen a judge appear to come down particularly hard on an attorney, yet nevertheless hand that attorney's client a victory on the merits.  (If you want to infer that sometimes, that attorney is me, you can.)  Anyone who tries to predict the fate of Obamacare based on the toughness of the Court's questions for the Solicitor General simply doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

And, if that person is an attorney, shame on him or her.