Amazing

From President Obama's eulogy for Clementa Pinckney, one of nine black people killed by a white supremacist in Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on June 17.

None of us can or should expect a transformation in race relations overnight. Every time something like this happens, somebody says we have to have a conversation about race. We talk a lot about race. There’s no shortcut. And we don’t need more talk. None of us should believe that a handful of gun safety measures will prevent every tragedy. It will not. People of goodwill will continue to debate the merits of various policies, as our democracy requires — this is a big, raucous place, America is. And there are good people on both sides of these debates. Whatever solutions we find will necessarily be incomplete.

But it would be a betrayal of everything Reverend Pinckney stood for, I believe, if we allowed ourselves to slip into a comfortable silence again. Once the eulogies have been delivered, once the TV cameras move on, to go back to business as usual — that’s what we so often do to avoid uncomfortable truths about the prejudice that still infects our society. To settle for symbolic gestures without following up with the hard work of more lasting change — that’s how we lose our way again. 

It would be a refutation of the forgiveness expressed by those families if we merely slipped into old habits, whereby those who disagree with us are not merely wrong but bad; where we shout instead of listen; where we barricade ourselves behind preconceived notions or well-practiced cynicism. 

Reverend Pinckney once said, “Across the South, we have a deep appreciation of history — we haven’t always had a deep appreciation of each other’s history.” What is true in the South is true for America. Clem understood that justice grows out of recognition of ourselves in each other. That my liberty depends on you being free, too. That history can’t be a sword to justify injustice, or a shield against progress, but must be a manual for how to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past — how to break the cycle. A roadway toward a better world. He knew that the path of grace involves an open mind — but, more importantly, an open heart. 

That’s what I’ve felt this week — an open heart. That, more than any particular policy or analysis, is what’s called upon right now, I think — what a friend of mine, the writer Marilyn Robinson, calls “that reservoir of goodness, beyond, and of another kind, that we are able to do each other in the ordinary cause of things.” 

That reservoir of goodness. If we can find that grace, anything is possible. If we can tap that grace, everything can change.

Update:  The arc bends.

Update (July 4):  How do we even have a discussion about race if a number of white people don't even understand what slavery was?

Update (July 5):  Denise Oliver Velez reflects on the President's message.

Update (July 31):  When someone puts Confederate flags around the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, it's pretty clear that flag is equivalent to a burning cross. That's your "Southern heritage".

Equality

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges:

It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. ... They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Update:  How the hell do we end up with such small-minded men in prominent positions? On a day like today, they pale in comparison to President Obama.

Update (June 30):  Andrew Koppelman thinks Kennedy's argument could have been stronger.

Update (July 6):  Losing in the marketplace of ideas is not the same a persecution.

Update (June 4, 2018):  A Supreme Court ruling seems to favor an anti-gay baker, but David Badash points out a key passage in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion.

[T]hese disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman explains part of Justice Ginsburg's dissent.

[T]here [is] an important difference between a bakery that refused to make a cake for anyone with anti-LGBTQ language on it and a bakery that refused to make a cake for someone in particular ― which they would have made for others ― because that someone was a member of the LGBTQ community. While the former was not discrimination, the latter was.

Update (December 13, 2022):  President Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act which requires the federal government and states to recognize same-sex and interracial marriages from other states. The Act offsets a possible future ruling from the Supreme Court overturning Obergefell v. Hodges.

ACA Subsidies Preserved

The Supreme Court comes through again in a case that really shouldn't have even gotten this far.

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.

Update (June 26):  Regarding the virulent opposition to ACA, Paul Krugman reminds us that

what conservatives have always feared about health reform is the possibility that it might succeed, and in so doing remind voters that sometimes government action can improve ordinary Americans’ lives.

Update (June 29):  Stories of people who benefit from the ACA. Even some republicans are happy about the decision.

Atlanta resident Ted Souris, 62, describes himself as an “arch-conservative” who initially opposed the health law. He said he had mixed feelings about the ruling. He receives what he calls “a pretty hefty subsidy” to buy insurance — he gets $460 and pays $115 a month for insurance. 

“I’m so against Obama, and I hate that he has any kind of victory,” Souris said, “but it’s nice that I don’t have to worry” about affording health coverage. 

He said that he doesn’t like getting what he calls “a government handout” but that the law — and the subsidy — allowed him to retire early and still have coverage. “I am glad I have the Affordable Care Act, and I appreciate that I got the subsidy.”

Update (July 19):  Paul Rosenberg explains the importance of advocating for Medicare-for-all.

Our Common Home

So far, this year is far warmer than record-breaking 2014 with possibly even worse to come.  It seems timely for Pope Francis to release his encyclical about the environment.

[A] number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity.

Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades.

We all know that it is not possible to sustain the present level of consumption in developed countries and wealthier sectors of society, where the habit of wasting and discarding has reached unprecedented levels. The exploitation of the planet has already exceeded acceptable limits and we still have not solved the problem of poverty.

The Pope seems to be making a moral argument for how we should live and makes connections between environmental and social problems.  Of course, it's causing the climate deniers to have a fit.

Update (June 20):  Bob Cesca points out that the Pope directly counters the conservative notion of "dominion":

The Pope, here, is completely undermining the religious cornerstone for the entire GOP position on the climate, as well as pollution, animals and nature in general. Simply put: Sorry, no, the Bible doesn’t give us the power to ruin the planet for humans or other forms of life.

Update (June 24):  Other religious leaders support the Pope's message.

Aquifer Depletion

Data from the GRACE satellites over the period 2003 to 2013 show that 13 of the world's 37 major aquifers are being rapidly depleted.

Update (June 18):  The California Central Valley isn't among the overstressed aquifers, but it could be depleted within decades.

Update (July 25):  Lindsay Wise reports on the Ogallala Aquifer in the Great Plains.

Update (July 27, 2019):  A freshwater aquifer has been discovered under the Atlantic Ocean.

Intelligence Failure

On May 27 Edward Birge published a letter in our local newspaper:

There seems to be a tendency toward a mistrust or misunderstanding of science by many conservatives. Even though a scientific consensus may have been achieved with respect to climate change or other hot-button issues, they focus on the dissenters rather than the overwhelming majority of scientists.

A similar situation occurred in the late 1980s after HIV was identified as the causative agent of AIDS. Peter Duesberg, a member of the University of California-Berkeley faculty and the National Academy of Sciences, argued very strongly that no such association had been proven. Unfortunately, the Republic of South Africa’s president believed Duesberg and rejected antiretroviral therapy for AIDS patients, and recommended treating the disease with diet and herbal remedies.

The upshot was that, within about 10 years, South Africa had the world’s highest rate of AIDS infection. In some areas 30 percent or more of pregnant women had contracted the disease. In 2012, UNAIDS reported that roughly 70 percent of all 
AIDS cases worldwide still occurred in 
 sub-Saharan Africa.

Let us hope, for all our sake, that we do not suffer a similar fate due to politicians rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Today John Harris published a response:

A letter in this newspaper on May 28 said conservatives misunderstand the scientific “consensus” on climate change.

The writer advocated giving more money and power to the politicians.

Conservatives know there hasn’t been any global warming for 18 years and six months. None of the alarmists’ computer models — their sole means of prediction — predicted the pause. Hero Al Gore, who never debates, said in 2007 there would be no polar ice by 2013. NASA’s James Hanson said, “From 2000 to 2010 the temperature will rise 2 to 4 degrees.” Doomsday warnings have an expiration date.

What about the statements of environmentalist leader, German economist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, official Ottmar Edenhofer. In 2010 he said, “One must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

The article the interview appeared in summarized his views: “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. ... The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

In short, as economist Walter E. Williams said, “Climate-change propaganda is simply a ruse for a socialist agenda.”

I can't be bothered to make a detailed reply right now.  Suffice it to say that our fate suffers from a combination of brains evolved to respond best to immediate threats and ideologically-driven confirmation bias.

Economic Well-Being

Among the findings of an annual survey by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System:

To determine individuals’ preparedness for a smaller scale financial disruption, respondents are also asked how they would pay for a hypothetical emergency expense that would cost $400. Just over half (53 percent) report that they could fairly easily handle such an expense, paying for it entirely using cash, money currently in their checking/savings account, or on a credit card that they would pay in full at their next statement (referred to here as “cash or its functional equivalent”). The remaining 47 percent indicate that such an expense would be more challenging to handle. Specifically, respondents indicate that they simply could not cover the expense (14 percent); would sell something (10 percent); or would rely on one or more means of borrowing to pay for at least part of the expense, including paying with a credit card that they pay off over time (18 percent), borrowing from friends or family (13 percent), or using a payday loan (2 percent).