Repetition and repetition

I was reading through my posts and noticed a fair amount of repetition and redundancy in many of them. For what it's worth, there is a reason for this: let me explain. Several years ago I was in an accident and lost my short term memory. One of the strategies I was taught to overcome this disability was rendundancy and repetition. It has become something of a habit, no doubt due to redundancy and repetition. I seldom remember what day it is, let alone what I wrote (or said) a day or two before. This is a trait that some find amusing, and others find irritating. I would hope that those sensitive to my repetition find it amusing rather than irritating, but that is something I have little control over. (As for my spelling and grammar, I wish I could attribute any shortcomings to my injury, but I can't.) I just wanted to mention this lest some suspect me of being an idiot.

Political Passion

As anyone who is familiar with the Federalist Papers should be aware, the Founding Fathers were extremely wary of passion and emotion in politics. This was largely due to their belief that passion is often a more powerful motive in politics than reason. Indeed, as they noted, passion often works against reason. This was a significant reason why the Constitution was written, and why the process of making law was made so cumbersome. The long, and often tedious process of passing a law was to minimize the influence of passion, (or as we would call it, emotion), in the drafting and passage of law. It was thought that because of the time and complexity involved in passing a law, reason would have the opportunity to catch up with passion and so help ensure the objectivity and equanimity necessary to good law. This should be borne in mind amidst the urgency often claimed necessary for the passage of law, viz health care. Congress was designed to be a deliberative body, and deliberation takes time. This is why the urgency claimed by the administration and it's supporters for the passage of health care "reform" should be rebuffed. We should not allow our passion for reform to eclipse our reason.

Love and Marriage

I read an article in the paper this morning about marriage and how frail that insitution has become. I believe this is, in part, due to the redefinition of "love". Love used to be considered an act of will; it was something you had to do. At some point, it became an emotion; something you feel. The problem with the idea of love as an emotion is that emotions are fragile and fleeting; you either feel them or you don't and what you feel today you may not feel tommorow. It is inevitable that your feelings toward another will change with time and circumstance. Will, on the other hand, is not an emotion, it is the product of determination and as such, is less fleeting and fragile than any emotion. The notion of love as an overwhelming emotion, while popular in literature and film, can be dangerous, and even fatal, to marriage. After the emotion of love recedes, if the will is not there to maintain the marriage, it is likely that the marriage will be viewed as a burden rather than a blessing. This is my opinion anyway....

Health Care Reform

One solution to the health care "crisis" would be to make the market more friendly to private insurers. This option, however, would serve to prevent government encroachment upon a heretofore largely government free industry. Because private sector reforms would limit the government's control over the industry, it has little appeal to Congress. Nothing the govt does is free. Like a character from an old fairy tale, someone in distress is offered a benefit with an obligation attached. At first the obligation seems removed and even acceptable given the need. When the need passes, the burdensome nature of the obligation is finally realized-to the great regret of the person who accepted the offer. Like the victim in the fairy tale, in our distress we are tempted by an offer that seems to good to be true; free health care. And, in our distress, we are tempted to accept it without considering the true cost. Unlike a fairy tale however, there would seem to be little hope for a happy ending.

Federal Hegemony

One reason people should be wary of government is the power it possesses. An unruly neighbor, an offensive employer, an insensitive clerk; none of of these can deprive you of your liberty. While some private institutions such as a bank, can deprive you of your property, this is only possible through the law; and law is made by the goverment. No private enterprise that I am aware of can deprive you of your liberty. The government can. The government can take everything you own and put you in prison. Though the government can only do what the law allows it to do, this is of little solace since it makes the law. What it cannot do today, it could do tomorrow. That was why the Constitution was written; to limit what the federal government can do rather than states or municipalities. The further decisions are made from the people affected by the law, the less control people have over it, and the less responsive government is. An oppressive local government is easier to remedy than an oppressive national government. Even taking the horrors of Jim Crow into account, we have less to fear from local goverment than federal government. If all else fails, it is easier to find a new town or state than a new country.

Supreme Court

The primary difference between a "conservative" justice and a "liberal" justice is that a conservative justice is more likely to defer to the will of the people as it is represented in Congress and the various state legislatures. Which is to say, they tend to have a narrower interpretation of the Constitution. Liberal justices are more inclined to overturn laws in deference to the shifting attitudes and temperaments of society. When a "conservative" court rules in favor of a law or legislature, it is upholding the will of the majority of an electorate as it is expressed in the law. If that law is found to be burdensome or onerous, those dissafected by it can petition for its change or removal. If, on the otherhand, a new "right" is discovered, public discourse is shut off and the issue is removed from public debate. Those discomfitted by the ruling have no recourse except by amending the Constitution; which is to say, they have no recourse. Every issue removed from public debate shrinks the horizon of political discourse and by extension, democracy. This is the irony of the liberal desire to expand democracy through the courts. They would destroy liberty in order to expand it.