Maybe I'm a Rino

So I've been worried for some time that I may no longer be a Republican. I know I'm for a limited role for government and I'm for fiscal responsibility. I'm certainly against slavery (as well as other forms of discrimination) and favor keeping the union together. I think on the whole a free market and property rights are good things, though anything can be carried to excess. And, unless the Constitution's changed I believe the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

However, it appears that in order to be a Republican these days you have to be strongly, violently against two things: abortion and legal recognition of marriages between people of the same sex. The current political campaigns in advance of the primaries has brought this to the fore. Our candidates for Senate make a big point of how pro-forcing-women-to-risk-their-lives-to-have-that-baby-hey-that's-what-happens-when-you-have-sex they are and how weak their opponents are on that same topic. Even county officials have this as a point on their campaign literature - though how that topic is likely to come up in the job of Judge Executive is beyond me.

Unfortunately, there's no other party I can believe in so far either.

The power of the purse, only less girlie

A recent letter to the editor in our local paper asked the question, "since when does the President have the authority to tell hospital administrators what their policies should be."

The answer, apparently, is when the hospital accepts funds from the Federal government.

To explain. President Obama has signed an order to the effect that hospitals that accept Medicare funds need to have policies more friendly to non-married people. This means no keeping significant others away from the gravely ill even if they aren't, technically, next of kin. It also means accepting the patient's stated (or apparent) wishes on who should have authority to make medical decisions on his/her/its behalf.

Under other circumstances, the President would have no authority to just order a private institution like a hospital to change its policies. The President could cajole, or advise, or yell at, and this might be cause the institution to reconsider - but couldn't order. But in this case, the institution relies heavily on Federal funds. The government has the right to declare which organizations it will do business with and which it won't. Presumably, the President has the authority to base those decisions on a number of factors, including the institutions policies (though I expect that this will go to the courts for a real determination). So the President - by the power of the purse - is using non-legislative means to achieve an end.

Now, I assume hospitals have their reasons for the policies they've adopted. They may even be good reasons from some point of view. However, I applaud President Obama for this action.

Two things you don't do on airplanes

Many years ago, you used to be able to walk into an airport, go up to the gate, and even board the plane without going through any kind of security check at all. You didn't even need a ticket. People greeted travelers as they were getting off the plane, and they could see people off at the gate. It wasn't unheard of for people without tickets to actually go on the plane to see people off - as long as they left before the door closed. Nobody thought much about danger from passengers in air travel.

Except, of course, for the cigarette smoke. People could actually smoke on airplanes. Eventually planes had designated smoking and non-smoking sections - but if you were within 3 rows of smoking, you were in smoking.

Of course both of these things changed. Security was first. I recall a trip to the airport when they had recently added a security station you had to go through to get to the gate (anyone could go to the gate, though). There was a big sign saying what you couldn't carry, along with a warning that all comments about weapons, hijacking, and the like would be taken very seriously.

One member of our group thought that was funny and (as a joke) said he'd better take his gun back to the car. The security person looked at him real hard and asked if he really wanted to say that. The correct response ("No, sir!") was given - the point was made and I don't recall other jokes being made about airplane safety at airports or on airplanes.

Some years later they gave up the farce that a small sign stuck on a headrest would magically keep the smoke away from the non-smoking section and made all US flights non-smoking. They make announcements about that before every flight, and apparently it's a federal offense to tamper with or disable the smoke detectors in airplane lavatories.

So, two rules that have been in effect for years - don't smoke on planes, and don't make comments (even in jest) that could sound like threats to airline safety.

Apparently not everyone got the memo. According to the news, a Qatari diplomat on a trip to Denver used the airplane restroom for a smoke break. When people became concerned about the amount of time he had spent in the lavatory, he is alleged to have made a reference to lighting his shoes.

Naturally the nice air marshals sat with him the rest of the flight to keep him company, and made sure he had an escort when they landed (along with some shiny steel bracelets). The FBI spent quite some time discussing this matter with both the diplomat and with the other passengers.

The diplomat did not pose an actual threat and is the beneficiary of diplomatic immunity - which means this will never go to trial. While many were inconvenienced, nobody was hurt.

Assuming the news stories are correct, I don't know if he was simply clueless and self-absorbed or an incredible jerk.