Category: Politics

First NYC bans transfats in their fast food, an understandable health move but a questionable infringement, at least in some moral and political circles, on individual rights/liberties (and the right to be utterly stupid if you so choose). Now a Democrat from NYC is proposing to force iPod (and other audio device) listening pedestrians to unplug before crossing the street. Seems there have been a couple of death’s in NYC because people have been run over while crossing the street, not paying attention to their surroundings because of their iPods.

…and this is new with the iPod? I realize that the proposed legislation would outlaw all manner of Things in Ears That Could Distract You, including cell phones, but does anyone see that actually flying in NYC? I have a hard time imagine everyone at 56th and Broadway getting off the phone for that quick walk across the street, just to get back on it at the other corner (let alone down on Wall Street!).

The thing is, you can’t legislate people using their brain. I’ve walked the length and width of Manhattan a few times now, and it’s relative common sense to pay attention when crossing the street. Manhattan, streets, cars and pedestrians is a rather interesting game of Human Frogger, and if you’re so tuned out that you’re not aware of the risks and doing your best to mitigate them, no law is going to change that.

Kruger, the Democrat proposing this bill, is right – if someone is so involved in their electronic device that they can’t see or hear a car coming, this is indicative of a larger problem. But it’s a larger problem that’s stemming from an entitlement culture, one that seriously believes “that bus will stop for me” or “no car would actually hit me, because I’d make too much money off the lawsuit”. It’s a problem that isn’t stemming from an audio device that provides some form of distraction, because we’ve had those things since I’ve been a kid (if not for longer – I’m not certain when the portable cassette deck came onto the market).

We do need the state to propose a certain class of laws. This? This is not one of them, and does nothing more than carry us firmly over into a nanny state that so many oppose Democrats for on sheer principle. And this is certainly not the sort of thing Democrats should be doing if they want to retain the control they’ve gained in 2008. Systematic, stupid laws like this will do nothing more than swing the vote back to Republicans, especially if they as a party re-adopt what’s now viewed as a libertarian, individual’s rights view.

Prior to signing books yesterday, Senator Schumer spoke for a bit about the book Positively American and his motivation for writing it. As the primary architect of the 2006 Democratic takeover, he’s already looking ahead to 2008, and what Democrats can do to win the presidency. He said that there were eight words that elected G.W. Bush: war in iraq, lower taxes, no gay marriage. These eight words were political phrases tied to deep moral values that motivated a core constituency to get out and vote. More importantly, they unified people around those core moral values: protecting the country, smaller government, and the sanctity of marriage.

Schumer belives that Democrats need to find their own eight words for the 2008 electionAnd if you have any, definitely go to the website and suggest them – he is presenting it as a chance for the common person to get involved in the political process.; that this is where Gore and Kerry failed. They didn’t have easily compacted political phrases that tied directly to deep moral values. These eight words need to be positive phrases (“no war in Iraq” wouldn’t work), and cannot be vague. The example he gave, one that he felt was positive and tied to a deep moral value, was “universal health care”.

Unfortunately, there’s a problem with this: it presumes a comprehensive moral doctrine that we most assuredly do not have. For many people, health care access is not a right, it is a reward and a privilege of doing well (and not something to reward people who, in their eyes, don’t do the work necessary to receive it). For others, there is not so much a reward principle tied to health care, but the simple and very common belief that individuals are responsible for their own health.

When you hold either of these views, which are closely related although motivated by different reasons, universal health care is not linking down to a shared moral view on health care access. It is instead alienating a large segment of the population by in fact doing exactly what they morally oppose.

While the idea of overhauling our health care system is certainly a growing, vocal concer, until we separate the notion of personal responsibility from access to health care, we will not be able to achieve universal health care. And in fact, this is exactly why universal health care for children is both okay and strongly supported – precisely because we simultaneously believe that children do not have personal responsibility (autonomy) and that children should be cared for to a certain standard. Once these children reach a certain age, however, we presume they achieve autonomy, and with that the personal responsibility to care for themselves.

Until we separate the ideas of responsibility from health care access, we will not have universal health care coverage. A lack of health care must no longer be viewed as a stigma, or seen as a moral judgment highlighting personal failure to succeed and take care of one’s self. When we accomplish this, then we can begin to talk about unifying political phrases grounded in moral doctrine. But until then, the only thing the three words “universal health care” will do is drive away those who see it as a code phrase for turning the country into a welfare state.

Apparently Cheney doesn’t like the fact that his political base is questioning his lesbian daughter having a child – the same thing they do to every other gay or lesbian family out there:

Vice President Cheney blew up yesterday when asked in a TV interview what he thinks of conservatives who are critical of his lesbian daughter Mary having a baby.

In a wide-ranging interview, where he was unusually testy in several instances, Cheney got steamed when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer read him a comment from Focus on the Family, a social-conservative group that believes it’s not best for a child to be raised by single-sex parents, like Mary Cheney and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe.

“I’m delighted I’m about to have a sixth grandchild, Wolf, and obviously think the world of both of my daughters and all of my grandchildren. And I think, frankly, you’re out of line with that question,” Cheney fumed.

Seems like he’s happy enough to get their money and court their vote, so long as they leave his daughter alone. Of course, to his credit, Cheney has long been silent on the issue, so you can’t really call him a hypocrite – directly. But it does seem to me that when you sign a deal with the devil, you have to accept the entire pact. Taking money from the Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and whatever they feel like calling themselves these days does align you with an anti-gay position. Cheney is a savvy enough man to know this.

Of course, the best part of the article is Tony Snow, as usual, who says it’s “a double standard … I think that family members ought to be off-limits.” Too bad the Republicans (and Fox News) didn’t feel that way about Chelsea, eh?

Edited
Alright, editing this to add a more concrete statement of Cheney’s opinion, which only seems fair. In a 2004 CNN interview, prior to the elections, Cheney says,

Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue that our family is very familiar with. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody.

While I can understand being in a position where you have to support something you dislike as an aspect of your job, I think it would be nice if Cheney exerted a little more force on this particular issue.