We've had some very consequential times
in our country lately and I really haven't been able to integrate
them with my perception of our society. Some of it I felt was
inevitable so the integration had already been done in my mind but
the effect on society as a whole still is not evident.
The Supreme Court made a couple of
decisions that will be monumental but not in the ways that people
think. The emotions on these issues are what is foremost on people's
minds but it is the economic effects that will have the longest
duration.
The court decided in a 6-3 decision
that the subsidies that the Affordable Care Act makes available to
people from states that did not set up their own exchanges were legal
according to statute means that the ACA will continue to be available
to the nation's citizens and that health care can be construed as a
right subject to certain conditions. A 6-3 decision is more
meaningful than a 5-4 because it means that there was some consensus
over and above what was absolutely necessary. It means that the risk
of the decision being overturned are minimal. I think the justices
understood that Congress meant the subsidies to work in conjunction
with the state exchanges but when the Supreme Court disallowed the
mandate to set up state exchanges it removed the main enforcement
tool to enforce the mandate. This left the subsidies sort of
hanging. It could be that the ACA opponents saw this as a two
pronged battle to erase the ACA but their ploy was made ineffective
by the court ruling. One is never really sure of what the justices
are thinking but it could have been that the ACA is firmly entrenched
and there would be a very bad time if it were yanked out from under
the American people. Justice Scalia, who is very legalistic as to
wording, just couldn't stand it and made some really snide remarks.
But then in a 5-4 ruling the Court
decided that denying marriage to same sex couples was a violation of
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This
has set off a great brouhaha that goes against the grain of some who
hold the religious position that it is counter to scripture. I think
that legally this was a decision that was inevitable but came a bit
sooner than I expected. Now it is the law and we will go through the
lawsuits to decide exactly who has to perform these rites. I don't
think there is any danger of religious entities being forced to
comply although civil officers may be required to do so. There could
be an exception for personal religiously held belief and this is
probably where the lawsuits will arise. There are many who are
convinced that this act alone will tip the scales and deny the
protection of God from our nation. My thinking is that we passed
that point a long time ago and I don't think this will endanger our
standing in the Divine Personal Protection subsidy. It will,
however, grant legal status for purposes of inheritance and other
fiscal matters.
But prior to these governmental rulings
there were the murders in Charleston. These didn't involve a police
shooting so that element of disagreement was removed and all that was
left was tragedy. No denying it. But, in a much more forthright
way, the President along with many other influential people has held
our respective noses to the grindstone and, once again, questioned
the availability of firearms and the racist impulses that seem to be
so deeply ingrained in our society. First the guns. Many of my
friends disagree with me on this one and that is okay. I own four
guns none of which are loaded. I don't hunt although they are
hunting weapons. Why do I have them? Because I want to.
Now, I'm not sure that is reason enough but there it is. And that is why, I believe, that most other people want them. They may go on about personal protection but, while that may be true in some cases, I just don't buy that. I think it is much more dangerous to have unknown people packing heat given the irrationality of human response. I have a plan. It is not a new plan and I didn't think it up but it has merit. Let's require that gun owners purchase liability insurance for weapons. Insurance companies are very good at assessing risk and should be able to tell the difference in risk between a 30/30 and a Glock or AR15. We did this with automobiles so that those who, through no fault of their own, suffered insult or injury as a result of improper or irrational use of the automobiles would have some recourse to recover compensation for their having been assaulted. The same should work for weapons. No, it won't immediately remove all guns from the hands of criminals but over time it will reduce the availability of those most murderous weapons. Secondly, the symbols of racism. While as a society we need to be aware of those symbols that reinforce negative stereotypes we need to be aware that those symbols are not the real problem. The real problem is us. It is absolutely imperative that we have leaders, visible examples, who will not flinch in the face of calling out racism. It should be the goal of the nation to reach a more fair and equitable society. In the past couple of years we have seen obvious racial discord result in death and injury and this after some proposed that we had entered a post-racial society having elected an African-American President. (Do you ever wonder why we refer to him as African-American when his Mother was from Kansas and was white)? That in itself points to the old rule that even a drop of African-American blood tainted you enough to justify discrimination. We should return to those pieces of legislation that were enacted to make it difficult and illegal to discriminate and resolve, as a nation, to stamp out what the President called “Our Original Sin.” Governmental entities should not give places of honor to those symbols of hatred but they may have a place for exhibition since they are undeniably a part of our history. One should be able to display most symbols as a personal liberty but that is protected speech. We should not shy from decrying it.
Now, I'm not sure that is reason enough but there it is. And that is why, I believe, that most other people want them. They may go on about personal protection but, while that may be true in some cases, I just don't buy that. I think it is much more dangerous to have unknown people packing heat given the irrationality of human response. I have a plan. It is not a new plan and I didn't think it up but it has merit. Let's require that gun owners purchase liability insurance for weapons. Insurance companies are very good at assessing risk and should be able to tell the difference in risk between a 30/30 and a Glock or AR15. We did this with automobiles so that those who, through no fault of their own, suffered insult or injury as a result of improper or irrational use of the automobiles would have some recourse to recover compensation for their having been assaulted. The same should work for weapons. No, it won't immediately remove all guns from the hands of criminals but over time it will reduce the availability of those most murderous weapons. Secondly, the symbols of racism. While as a society we need to be aware of those symbols that reinforce negative stereotypes we need to be aware that those symbols are not the real problem. The real problem is us. It is absolutely imperative that we have leaders, visible examples, who will not flinch in the face of calling out racism. It should be the goal of the nation to reach a more fair and equitable society. In the past couple of years we have seen obvious racial discord result in death and injury and this after some proposed that we had entered a post-racial society having elected an African-American President. (Do you ever wonder why we refer to him as African-American when his Mother was from Kansas and was white)? That in itself points to the old rule that even a drop of African-American blood tainted you enough to justify discrimination. We should return to those pieces of legislation that were enacted to make it difficult and illegal to discriminate and resolve, as a nation, to stamp out what the President called “Our Original Sin.” Governmental entities should not give places of honor to those symbols of hatred but they may have a place for exhibition since they are undeniably a part of our history. One should be able to display most symbols as a personal liberty but that is protected speech. We should not shy from decrying it.
My Take on these issues is this. These
are very consequential things and a window of opportunity has been
opened for us to take action that will make a difference. If we do
not take that opportunity we will see these things again because
hatred and evil always surface when we least expect it. More
importantly, we will miss a chance to make our nation a more perfect
union.