‘And while it has not pleased the Almighty…

to bless us with a return of peace, we can but press on, guided by the best light He gives, trusting that in His own good time, and wise way, all will yet be well.”-Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862.

I am truly encouraged by all the people I know who take these words to heart, and press on in advancing God’s kingdom in their own various ways, according to their own calling, according to the best light He has given them. It seems like every week I meet someone else who has found a new way to serve The Lord, and I’m blessed to find out about it.

Obama’s brilliant Medicaid Strategy

So when passing Obamacare, Obama (really the Democratic Party as a whole, but I am using Obama as short-hand for the Dems) had a bit of a dilemma. A large part of the health insurance coverage expansion for the poorest Americans would have to come through Medicaid, a program jointly funded by the feds and the states, but largely administered by the states (with federal regulations to prevent the states from dropping their poorest citizens, etc.). Because 30 of the 50 governors are Republican, who generally are not fond of government funded health care for the young poor (they’re quite fond of it for the elderly, who are much more likely to vote than the young poor), those 30 governors could just turn down the Medicaid funds that were earmarked for expanding health insurance coverage and thus thwart much of the purpose behind Obamacare. The Supreme Court said that Obama couldn’t threaten those governors with cutting off all Medicaid funding to those states, and so Obama had to find a way to lure in the GOP governors into accepting the Medicaid expansion with incentives.

Obama did this by essentially offering to have the feds pay nearly all of the Medicaid expansion costs for the first three years. Free money! Usually, the feds and the states split medicaid costs roughly 50-50, but not here. Of course, after 3 years, the states will pay a bit more of the Medicaid expansion, but still not nearly as much as they do for the current Medicaid funding. Obama predicted, rightly, that this would be seen as a huge bonanza by the medical industry in many otherwise conservative states, and so even conservative Republican governors would cooperate with him in implementing Obamacare. Even stalwart conservatives like Chris Christie and Rick Scott have agreed to accept these Medicaid funds.

Of course, no money is really free-when the money comes from the feds, what that means is the feds tax state citizens, and then return the money to the states themselves. If all 50 states were willing to hold out and refuse the Medicaid funds, then it would be a good deal at least for the richer states (the poorer states have more citizens eligible for Medicaid and less ability to fund those citizens needs). But the states aren’t willing to negotiate together, and instead are each cutting deals individually with the federal government-a classic collective action problem. Obama’s strategy has worked.

Tragic Flaw

I think anyone who’s read even a little bit of literature recognizes the character with the tragic flaw-a person who has one overriding characteristic that in the wrong circumstances has a seriously negative effect on their life (of course, we all know people like this in real life, too, to a less dramatic extent, hopefully).

My instinct has always been to yell at that character “can’t you see that [x characteristic], even if it has served you well in life before, is completely inappropriate in these circumstances? Be self aware and change yourself!” (ok, maybe not quite that articulately)

In related news, I have always been cheap (or “frugal”, to put it a nicer way). In college and law school this served me well, relative to my peers-I was able to come out with substantially less student debt, and pay it off relatively quickly (self-call). However, now that I own a house, have to wear nice clothes to work, etc, I’ve found that my habits of being cheap are often counterproductive-it’s more expensive to not spend the money right away, in many instances. Even realizing this, though, it’s hard for me to change the way that comes naturally to me of avoiding any expenses that don’t appear to be absolutely necessary. Moreover, even when I’m willing to spend money, being cheap for so long means that I don’t have enough practice distinguishing between necessary and non-essential spending-previously I’d only spent money on the “absolutely necessary” category. So I distrust my own judgment oftentimes.

In short, it’s not easy to change, even when self-aware.

Killing US citizens without due process-Once more into the breach

So if you’re not persuaded that killing US citizens without due process of the law is wrong by what I wrote before, then you won’t be persuaded by what I’m going to write in this post. I’m posting more just for selfish reasons-I think the drone policy is wrong, and I want to go on record, as loudly as possible, saying that American citizens should not be killed without due process.

Yes, Obama has admitted that he can kill any US citizen that a senior member of his administration believes is part of al Qaeda or an “associated force.” But anyone who has been following this issue knew that anyway-it’s common knowledge that he’s killed American citizens and a 16 year old son of an American citizen.

Do liberals honestly think that it’s fine for the president to kill US citizens without due process because he believes they’re associated with al Qaeda? You realize the war on terror, and this power, won’t end in our lifetimes, right? It’s not a one-time thing for Obama. The next president will have this power, and the next one after that, and the next one after that. Are you sure you’re willing to trust all presidents of both parties with the power to kill US citizens without due process?

Ideally, liberals would have tried to do away with this power when Obama was still running for re-election and they had political leverage over him. Of course, Romney was just as bad on this issue, and it’s too late for that now anyways. But there’s no more fear that pressuring Obama on this issue could lead to Romney’s election. Obama doesn’t have to worry about re-election, so he’s keeping this policy going because he thinks it’s the right thing to do. Do liberals also think this policy is right? Do they wish Bush had this authority? If not, why not speak out against Obama?

A sad, sick part of me thinks that Obama released this memo because he wants political pressure to force him to do the right thing and reverse our policy of killing US citizens without due process. I know that’s wrong-Obama clearly thinks this policy is in the right. But even if he didn’t, there’s no political backlash forming strong enough to make him feel pressured to change it. And that’s the saddest result of all.

Book Review-Wolf Hall

So the short version of this review is that you should read Wolf Hall, by Hilary Mantel, and then go read her sequel to it, Bring Up the Bodies.*

One of the reasons why I’m such a history dork (beyond the fact that I find it enjoyable) is that I think it helps add perspective to see how societies have been organized differently in the past, and how humans behaved differently in the past in order to see what’s different today.

Wolf Hall is set in England roughly a generation after a traumatic civil war. The Tudors, who are the current dynasty, took over after the two dynasties who fought the vast majority of the civil war against each other (York and Lancaster) were exhausted from the conflict. Because the overthrow of English kings is still alive in recent memory, Henry the VIII, the current king, is especially eager to ensure that he has a male heir to avoid another civil war over the line of succession. As a result,  Henry wants to keep switching wives in an attempt to find one who will give him an heir (this was much more difficult to do legally and politically before the age of no-fault divorce).

Into this scene steps Thomas Cromwell, who is recognizable as a fairly modern figure. He is the right-hand man of the king-for political power (not ideology), imagine him as some combination of chief of staff-congressional majority leader-treasury secretary and attorney general-he fills all those roles at one time or another. He has a genuinely progressive view of England as a country at peace that modernizes and alleviates poverty. But because of the times that he lives in, the only path he sees to that future is one through keeping the Tudor dynasty stable, and the immediate way to keep the Tudor dynasty stable is be ensuring that Henry has a wife that gives him a son to be his heir. Thus, most of his energy is put into the goal of getting rid of Henry’s various wives. Along the way, Cromwell executes the wives, various political supporters of the wives, and quite a few people who were just morally opposed to the divorce (most notably Thomas More).

Mantel tries hard (and partially succeeds) to make Cromwell an attractive  figure-we can see why he kills the people he does (many of them would kill him if given half the chance). He really doesn’t have any other option-if he stepped down, or refused to kill those he does, Henry would attempt the same goal but in a less politically astute way that may lead to civil war again.

And yet, Cromwell’s career illustrates how much our choices are circumscribed by the times that we live in-even politically powerful leaders like Cromwell. Cromwell’s not perfect-he holds grudges and isn’t particularly disturbed by the death of others. But overall, he’s a very effective political leader who works hard for the good of the people. Given his times, however, most of his energies are dedicated towards removing various queens and executing others.

Perhaps a truly great person-an Abraham Lincoln-would’ve solved Cromwell’s political dilemma without the methods that he employed. Such people are rare.

Today, Cromwell would have of course a very different set of options for his career. In many ways, he would have more constructive outlets for his talents. Of course, with the present as his only means of reference, he might feel equally circumscribed as he did during Tudor England.

For myself, I feel more circumscribed by my past choices. Sometimes I dream of leaving everything behind and starting up anew in a different city where no one knows me or remembers my past mistakes. But I would still bring myself with all my flaws to this new city.

*note-I edited this post about 10 times, and I’m still not super happy with it, but I’m blogging for free, so this will have to do.

one thing about adult life that i’ve had some difficulty adjusting to

is the realization that you don’t deserve anything. this is true both on a theological level (i’m a reformed christian, after all) and on a practical level-no one is going to hand you a job, money, a spouse, attention, etc-you will have to go out and get all those things yourself.

as a kid, things that you wanted may often be provided to you whether you merit them or not. but that’s generally not the case as an adult.

2 quick thoughts on the shootings

because it’s never too soon after a tragedy to talk about responses…

1. it’s hard to imagine why you wouldn’t at least consider gun control at this point. i understand that handguns may be used for self-defense, but the only real purpose for long guns-AR15s, AK47s, etc. that are used in nearly all these killings is for hunting (it’s really inconvenient to carry around a gun that big for self-defense-handguns are much easier). The primary argument against most of the regulations of those rifles is that it will inconvenience hunters and target-shooters.

Now, my uncle and cousins are avid hunters and skeet-shooters. I have gone hunting with them, and while I don’t particularly enjoy it myself, I can understand that others do.

For myself, I really enjoy playing ultimate frisbee. When I have a free Saturday, I’ll go play for hours on end. But imagine that people started using frisbees as lethal weapons (work with me here). While of course I would prefer to be able to continue to play ultimate without any restrictions, I would give that up in a heartbeat if it meant that we could decrease the use of lethal frisbees.

Likewise, we are fortunately to live in an advanced industrial democracy, where anyone who has access to firearms to hunt also has the means to survive without hunting-it’s not like the Native Americans, when hunting was a genuinely important source of nourishment to whole tribes.

This is a long-winded way of saying when people complaint that limitations on semi-automatic weapons will inconvenience hunters, I don’t really care. If you need a handgun for self defense in a bad neighborhood, fine, I’m with you. You should have to get a psychological background check before getting one, but sure, you can buy one. But really, does anyone NEED a rifle that fires more than 1 shot every 30 seconds or so? I think not.

2. That being said, gun control as the primary response to these shootings is a sadly limited technological response that essentially admits that our society is unable to integrate and love all of its members. In a way, it’s a deeply pessimistic and conservative response to tragedy-we’ll never be able to help people like Adam Lanza, so let’s just limit the damage that they can do to others.

This may be realistic, given our society as we know it today, but I would like to think that this horrific tragedy can challenge us to go deeper and to really make an effort to love those around us. I’ll be the first to admit that I fall horribly short on this front every single day (I fell particularly short this weekend, but then again, I also fell very short the weekend before that, so it is unfortunately a trend). But I can fall short and still exhort myself and others to improve, to continue to make an effort to go above and beyond reaching out and loving those in your life. It’s unlikely (hopefully) that you’re surrounded by potential shooters, but that doesn’t mean that your love can’t make a difference in their lives.

Perhaps I’m a bit of a utopian.