by David Trumbull
It looks like Salvatore LaMattina, Boston City Councillor for District One, which covers Charlestown, East Boston, the North End, Downtown, and part of Beacon Hill, will not be the next Suffolk County Register of Probate. Unofficial results show him in second place, with 49 percent of the vote in the Democratic Primary. It was close, but Patricia Campatelli leads by over 600 votes, out of about 30 thousand votes cast for that office, and the official results are unlikely to change that significantly. Turnout was low, with 7.5 percent of the 413,927 registered voters actually voting in this race. Ms. Campatelli, a resident of East Boston, will face no Republican opposition in November. If past experience is a guide, it is safe to assume that Ms. Campatelli will hold that position until she chooses to depart. As we know, Suffolk County voters practically never turn out an incumbent Democrat. Well, that's the voters' prerogative, and Ms. Campatelli won, so I say, Congratulations to her. My analysis that follows is not meant in anyway to take away from her victory, however, I think citizens in Suffolk County should consider this latest, in a continuing trend, of a very small number of citizens deciding who will hold public office.
Voter turnout is a funny thing. One often hears people say that a single vote doesn't matter. Yet voter behavior suggests that many voters don't understand just how their votes count. Just to be clear, every vote matters. Even if you take a ballot and return it blank, that is recorded as a vote -- it is a message to the candidates that you bothered to go to the polling place and vote even though there was no one on the ballot that you approved of, either because you disapproved, or perhaps simply didn't know enough about them to have an opinion. However, it is also true that your vote matters more when it is more likely to determine the outcome. Ironically, the people who say "my vote doesn't matter" are the same ones who skip contests where their votes matter a great deal but participate in contest where their votes matter little, or not at all.
Take the recent primary (please). Overall turnout for the September 6th primaries was 11 percent across Suffolk County, which is made up of the cities of Boston, Chelsea, and Revere, and the town of Winthrop. But turnout varied from race to race. Nine percent of the registered voters cast a ballot for either incumbent U.S. Senator Scott P. Brown, a Republican, or his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth A. Warren. Perhaps they wanted to make an early show of support for a candidate prior to the November final election. Perhaps the organizations of both campaigns used the primary as a "dry-run" of the get-out-the-vote program then plan for November. Who knows? But there is one thing we can say with certainty: none of those votes counted in the slightest in determining the result as, in both cases, there was only one name on the ballot. 36,786 persons voted in the primaries for U.S. Senator, 32,840 in the Democratic Primary alone. Now compare that to the Campatelli/LaMattina race for Register of Probate. 30,919 persons voted in that race, a race where every vote truly mattered, as the winner will be the next Register of Probate and it was a very tight race. Nearly six thousand more people cast "practice" votes for a Senatorial candidate who would have won even if all the voters stayed home than cast votes in a race where their votes would have made a difference.
Along with the Register of Probate contest there were two Clerk of Courts positions filled in this Democratic Primary (because no Republican is running in the November final election). Maura A. Hennigan won for Clerk of Courts (Criminal) and Michael J. Donovan for Clerk of Courts (Civil). In none of these races did the winning candidate win the suffrages of more than 5 percent of the registered voters. Again, I have nothing against these particular politicians. They won and are to be congratulated. However, am I the only one who thinks that is not good for the long-term health of our Democracy when important offices are filled by candidates who enjoy the active support of merely 5 percent of the registered voters?
Friday, September 7, 2012
Friday, August 31, 2012
GOP Platform, "We Believe in America"
Res Publica
GOP Platform, "We Believe in America"
by David Trumbull -- August 31, 2012
Pop culture dominates the landscape of the American mind, so it's no surprise that the title of Republican Party Platform adopted this week in Tampa echoes a well known movie opening line. The Platform is a dense document that, like The Godfather, reveals more upon repeated viewings, and, like many serious works of prose, says as much by what it leaves out as by what it spells out.
We all know that, despite all the distractions thrown up by the mainstream media in their frenzy to re-elect President Obama, the only issue in this campaign is JOBS. Who can get Americans back to work at salaries and wages that make possible the American Dream. Current weak business conditions and unacceptably high unemployment and underemployment have many causes, but everyone -- that is everyone outside of the Washington, D.C., echo-chamber -- knows that one of the main reasons is our failed trade policy.
Let's look at what the GOP Platform and Mr. Romney have to say on trade policy.
The document contrasts Republican policy with the course pursued by President Obama. It praises, "The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies since President Reagan’s trailblazing pact with Israel in 1985," and charges, "That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration’s ... failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations." This is true. The U.S. still maintains tariffs on imports of goods from Western Democracies, such as Italy, however President Obama is aggressively pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam, an authoritarian state ruled by the Communist Party, which his own State Department acknowledges as one of the worst violators of human rights. Mr. Obama is also pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with Brunei, an Islamic state where most criminal activity is defined and punished according to draconian Islamic sharia law. According to the State Department it is illegal in Brunei to teach Christianity and violators can be fined or imprisoned. Education in Islam is required by law in Brunei.
The Platform also condemns the ways some governments unfairly "limit American access to their markets while stealing our designs, patents, brands, know-how, and technology -- the intellectual property that drives innovation," and cites as the chief offender, China. The current Administration’s way of dealing with all these violations of world trade standards the GOP Platform characterizes as "virtual surrender." This is true. Many reputable economists have calculated that China's manipulation of it's currency to maximize exports and minimize imports gives that nation an unfair advantage of at least 35%, yet President Obama has, repeatedly, refused to name China as a currency manipulator or file a complaint with the World Trade Organization that China is illegally distorting trade through her currency policy. This Administration's lack of action of China's theft of American intellectual property is appalling.
This Labor Day weekend, take a few minutes away from the cookout and fun with friends and family to look at the two presidential candidates and their platforms. Ask yourself, Which one offers working men and women of America the best plan to create jobs that allow you to raise a family and be proud of your contribution to society, and which offers bigger government and more dependency on government hand-outs instead of the dignity of a job.
GOP Platform, "We Believe in America"
by David Trumbull -- August 31, 2012
Pop culture dominates the landscape of the American mind, so it's no surprise that the title of Republican Party Platform adopted this week in Tampa echoes a well known movie opening line. The Platform is a dense document that, like The Godfather, reveals more upon repeated viewings, and, like many serious works of prose, says as much by what it leaves out as by what it spells out.
We all know that, despite all the distractions thrown up by the mainstream media in their frenzy to re-elect President Obama, the only issue in this campaign is JOBS. Who can get Americans back to work at salaries and wages that make possible the American Dream. Current weak business conditions and unacceptably high unemployment and underemployment have many causes, but everyone -- that is everyone outside of the Washington, D.C., echo-chamber -- knows that one of the main reasons is our failed trade policy.
Let's look at what the GOP Platform and Mr. Romney have to say on trade policy.
The document contrasts Republican policy with the course pursued by President Obama. It praises, "The Free Trade Agreements negotiated with friendly democracies since President Reagan’s trailblazing pact with Israel in 1985," and charges, "That record makes all the more deplorable the current Administration’s ... failure to pursue any new trade agreements with friendly nations." This is true. The U.S. still maintains tariffs on imports of goods from Western Democracies, such as Italy, however President Obama is aggressively pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with Vietnam, an authoritarian state ruled by the Communist Party, which his own State Department acknowledges as one of the worst violators of human rights. Mr. Obama is also pursuing a Free Trade Agreement with Brunei, an Islamic state where most criminal activity is defined and punished according to draconian Islamic sharia law. According to the State Department it is illegal in Brunei to teach Christianity and violators can be fined or imprisoned. Education in Islam is required by law in Brunei.
The Platform also condemns the ways some governments unfairly "limit American access to their markets while stealing our designs, patents, brands, know-how, and technology -- the intellectual property that drives innovation," and cites as the chief offender, China. The current Administration’s way of dealing with all these violations of world trade standards the GOP Platform characterizes as "virtual surrender." This is true. Many reputable economists have calculated that China's manipulation of it's currency to maximize exports and minimize imports gives that nation an unfair advantage of at least 35%, yet President Obama has, repeatedly, refused to name China as a currency manipulator or file a complaint with the World Trade Organization that China is illegally distorting trade through her currency policy. This Administration's lack of action of China's theft of American intellectual property is appalling.
This Labor Day weekend, take a few minutes away from the cookout and fun with friends and family to look at the two presidential candidates and their platforms. Ask yourself, Which one offers working men and women of America the best plan to create jobs that allow you to raise a family and be proud of your contribution to society, and which offers bigger government and more dependency on government hand-outs instead of the dignity of a job.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Republican Party, Again, Drives Voters to the Democratic Party on Election Day
Res Publica
Republican Party, Again, Drives Voters to the Democratic Party on Election Day
by David Trumbull -- August 24, 2012
Looking at this fall's elections, not many men and women have stepped up to give the voters of the North End and East Boston -- prime readership of this Post-Gazette column -- a choice. The Democratic Party has someone running for each of the eleven offices to be filled. However, out of the ten where there could be a primary contest, Democratic voters will determine the outcome of but four. The other six have only one name per office on the ballot -- so Democratic primary voters have no choice.
Here's how it breaks down. Democrats Terrence W. Kennedy and Francis Xavier Flaherty, Jr. are vying for Executive Councillor. No Republican is running.
For positions in the Suffolk County Courts, Democrats Michael Joseph Donovan and Michael L. Dash are vying for Clerk of Court (Civil Business). Democrats Maura A. Hennigan and Robert J. Dello Russo, Sr. are running for Clerk of Court (Criminal Business). Democrats Patricia Patty Campatelli and Salvatore LaMattina are facing off for Register of Probate. None of these Democrats will face a Republican on the November ballot. For Clerk of Supreme Court and Register of Deeds there isn't even a contest for the Democratic nomination, so voters are quite irrelevant to the process.
For Representative in the General Court the Democrat faces no contest in either the primary or the general election. So out of eight county or state offices to be filled, four will be decided in the Democratic primary, three are already decided before anyone votes (because only one person is running). That leaves just one race that will be decided by the voters in the November election, that is for Senator in the General Court where Republican Thomas Dooley is challenging Democrat Anthony Petruccelli.
Looking to national races, voters in the North End will have the choice of Democrat Stephen Lynch or whichever of the two Republicans, Joe Selvaggi or Matias Temperly, wins in the Republican primary for Representative in Congress. In East Boston the Democratic candidate for Congressman will have no Republican opposition.
The race for United States Senator will pit Democrat Elizabeth Warren against incumbent Republican Scott Brown. For President we all know that Republican Mitt Romney is challenging Democrat Barack Obama.
My question to the Republicans is: Why would I want to register in your party? Say I am a Republican-leaning voter. If I live in the North End there is but one contested Republican primary election to vote in, out of ten possible. And even then, it's just to pick which Republican will lose to the Democrat in November. If I live in East Boston your primary is utterly pointless to me as a voter as you have no contests to settle that day. Far smarter for me to be an unenrolled voter and vote in the Democratic primary which will decide who will be Executive Councillor, Clerk of Court (Civil Business), Clerk of Court (Criminal Business), and Register of Probate, four offices for which there will not even be token Republican opposition in November.
Having voted in the Democratic primary (in order to have my vote matter) I then go into the voting booth in November to see, below the top couple of races, no Republicans running or some Republican whom I never heard of because, having no primary opponent, he wasn't news-worthy. On top of that, he's running against a Democrat who was on my September ballot, possible even a Democrat I voted for in the primary as the "lesser-of-two-evils." The harm from not having primary contests in the Republican Party doesn't stop there. Parties and candidates can spend huge amounts of money trying to identify voters who may lean their way, here in Massachusetts the Commonwealth does part of that for you. For free! If this independent but Republican-leaning voter had pulled a Republican ballot in September that is information you can get free or at slight cost from the city's Election Department. With that information you would know that I am a strong candidate for your get-out-the-vote effort in November. But, because you didn't have primary contests to interest me, I voted in the more important Democratic primary. I'm still far more likely to vote Republican in November. That is if I remember to vote. But you have no way of knowing that. I might have even been a good target for your fund raising efforts, but for all you know, I'm a Democrat, since you forced me into that party's primary.
In sum, what is the point of a political party that doesn't run people for political office?
Republican Party, Again, Drives Voters to the Democratic Party on Election Day
by David Trumbull -- August 24, 2012
Looking at this fall's elections, not many men and women have stepped up to give the voters of the North End and East Boston -- prime readership of this Post-Gazette column -- a choice. The Democratic Party has someone running for each of the eleven offices to be filled. However, out of the ten where there could be a primary contest, Democratic voters will determine the outcome of but four. The other six have only one name per office on the ballot -- so Democratic primary voters have no choice.
Here's how it breaks down. Democrats Terrence W. Kennedy and Francis Xavier Flaherty, Jr. are vying for Executive Councillor. No Republican is running.
For positions in the Suffolk County Courts, Democrats Michael Joseph Donovan and Michael L. Dash are vying for Clerk of Court (Civil Business). Democrats Maura A. Hennigan and Robert J. Dello Russo, Sr. are running for Clerk of Court (Criminal Business). Democrats Patricia Patty Campatelli and Salvatore LaMattina are facing off for Register of Probate. None of these Democrats will face a Republican on the November ballot. For Clerk of Supreme Court and Register of Deeds there isn't even a contest for the Democratic nomination, so voters are quite irrelevant to the process.
For Representative in the General Court the Democrat faces no contest in either the primary or the general election. So out of eight county or state offices to be filled, four will be decided in the Democratic primary, three are already decided before anyone votes (because only one person is running). That leaves just one race that will be decided by the voters in the November election, that is for Senator in the General Court where Republican Thomas Dooley is challenging Democrat Anthony Petruccelli.
Looking to national races, voters in the North End will have the choice of Democrat Stephen Lynch or whichever of the two Republicans, Joe Selvaggi or Matias Temperly, wins in the Republican primary for Representative in Congress. In East Boston the Democratic candidate for Congressman will have no Republican opposition.
The race for United States Senator will pit Democrat Elizabeth Warren against incumbent Republican Scott Brown. For President we all know that Republican Mitt Romney is challenging Democrat Barack Obama.
My question to the Republicans is: Why would I want to register in your party? Say I am a Republican-leaning voter. If I live in the North End there is but one contested Republican primary election to vote in, out of ten possible. And even then, it's just to pick which Republican will lose to the Democrat in November. If I live in East Boston your primary is utterly pointless to me as a voter as you have no contests to settle that day. Far smarter for me to be an unenrolled voter and vote in the Democratic primary which will decide who will be Executive Councillor, Clerk of Court (Civil Business), Clerk of Court (Criminal Business), and Register of Probate, four offices for which there will not even be token Republican opposition in November.
Having voted in the Democratic primary (in order to have my vote matter) I then go into the voting booth in November to see, below the top couple of races, no Republicans running or some Republican whom I never heard of because, having no primary opponent, he wasn't news-worthy. On top of that, he's running against a Democrat who was on my September ballot, possible even a Democrat I voted for in the primary as the "lesser-of-two-evils." The harm from not having primary contests in the Republican Party doesn't stop there. Parties and candidates can spend huge amounts of money trying to identify voters who may lean their way, here in Massachusetts the Commonwealth does part of that for you. For free! If this independent but Republican-leaning voter had pulled a Republican ballot in September that is information you can get free or at slight cost from the city's Election Department. With that information you would know that I am a strong candidate for your get-out-the-vote effort in November. But, because you didn't have primary contests to interest me, I voted in the more important Democratic primary. I'm still far more likely to vote Republican in November. That is if I remember to vote. But you have no way of knowing that. I might have even been a good target for your fund raising efforts, but for all you know, I'm a Democrat, since you forced me into that party's primary.
In sum, what is the point of a political party that doesn't run people for political office?
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?
POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?
by David Trumbull -- July 13, 2012
I don’t agree with the A.C.L.U. on a lot of things, but in this case they happen to be right.” -- New York Mayor Michael R. BloombergTo the embarrassment of Bostonians, Mayor Menino made national news when he wrote to Dan Cathy, President of the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain, warning, "I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." His comments in the Boston Herald were more menacing: "If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult." One Facebook friend, after reading Mr. Menino's threat, posted, "Did he also add, 'That's a nice restaurant you have up there at the Burlington Mall. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it.'?" Chicago Mayor and former Chief of Staff to President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, made similar threats against Chick-fil-A in that city.
Why this vendetta against a business, which according to accounts (I've never eaten there myself) serves up some mighty tasty chicken? Well, as you may know by now, Mr. Cathy, citing his deeply held religious convictions, has stated that he does not support same sex marriage. To the best of my knowledge, there is no allegation that Chick-fil-A has engaged in discrimination against gays and lesbians. To the contrary, the company has a policy against discrimination based on sexual orientation. So this is not in the slightest about discrimination on the part of Mr. Cathy or Chick-fil-A. What it is is blatant, officially sanctioned intolerance of Mr. Cathy's religious beliefs. Shame on you Mayor Menino!
Mr. Cathy's views are certainly not out of the mainstream. Mr. Cathy is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, the second largest religious body in the United States (over 16 million members). Many millions of Americans, for religious or other reasons, do not support same sex marriage. Why, up until a few weeks ago President Obama was against same sex marriage! Mr. Emanuel, who campaigned and worked for the President, expressed no outrage about Obama's opposition to same sex marriage. Mayor Menino's Catholic Church (largest religious body in America) holds the same position on the subject as Mr. Cathy's Southern Baptist Convention. Why single out Mr. Cathy? Simply this, he doesn't keep his views to himself, he has stated them openly and has donated money to like-minded organizations. In sum, Mr. Cathy has engaged in political speech to say something liberal politicians don't like to hear, so they seek to shut him up by threatening to make it impossible for him to do business in their cities.
"It’s clearly unconstitutional," said University of California at Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh in response to Menino's threat to deny permits based on a person’s opinions. And, as Mayor Bloomberg pointed out, even the American Civil Liberties Union, which supports same sex marriage, warned Chicago politicians against infringing First Amendment rights. “What the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the ACLU of Illinois.
I think it's about time I find out for myself whether Chick-fil-A tastes as good as they say. To do so I'll have to cross the road -- several roads -- and go up to Burlington.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
What Part of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Don't You Understand, Mr. President?
POST-GAZETTE, Res Publica
What Part of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Don't You Understand, Mr. President?
by David Trumbull - July 20, 2012
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R., Wisconsin) has introduced legislation, H.R.6097, the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act, to stop the Obama Administration from taxing religious institutions and employers for choosing to follow core tenets of their faith rather than bow to the HHS mandate that violates their conscience rights.
As you know, on January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") reaffirmed a rule forcing health care plans to cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Many religiously-affiliated school, hospitals, and social service agencies cannot comply with this mandate. Obama's response is to tax them out of existence.
“Obamacare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence," said Representative Sensenbrenner, who pointed out that the fine for following your conscience is $100 per employee per day. As Sensenbrenner explained, "A religious institution that, say, has a church and an elementary school beside it that employs fifty employees total, which include the administrative and maintenance personnel, ends up being taxed $36,500 per employee per year." For that church and school with 50 employees the tax on the right to follow church teaching would be nearly $2 million per year, every year.
Boston has Catholic schools that would be forced to close if the Obama Administration war on religious freedom is allowed to go forward. Sensenbrenner, who is an Anglican, pointed out that in his state of Wisconsin there are many Lutheran schools as well as Catholic schools that will be forced to close if Obama has his way.
Sensenbrenner is joined by 56 cosponsors of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act. All the sponsors are Republicans. Not a single Democrat in Congress has been willing to oppose the President and stand up in support of our First Amendment freedom to practice religion.
The HHS mandate is just the latest Obama Administration attack on religion. Back in January the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Lutheran school (Hosanna-Tabor) had a First Amendment religious freedom to choose its own ministers and that the Obama Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's attempt to meddle in the church's employment practices was unconstitutional.
The HHS mandate must, and will, be overturned!
What Part of " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Don't You Understand, Mr. President?
by David Trumbull - July 20, 2012
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R., Wisconsin) has introduced legislation, H.R.6097, the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act, to stop the Obama Administration from taxing religious institutions and employers for choosing to follow core tenets of their faith rather than bow to the HHS mandate that violates their conscience rights.
As you know, on January 20, 2012, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") reaffirmed a rule forcing health care plans to cover sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Many religiously-affiliated school, hospitals, and social service agencies cannot comply with this mandate. Obama's response is to tax them out of existence.
“Obamacare gives the federal government the tools to tax religiously-affiliated schools, hospitals, universities and soup kitchens right out of existence," said Representative Sensenbrenner, who pointed out that the fine for following your conscience is $100 per employee per day. As Sensenbrenner explained, "A religious institution that, say, has a church and an elementary school beside it that employs fifty employees total, which include the administrative and maintenance personnel, ends up being taxed $36,500 per employee per year." For that church and school with 50 employees the tax on the right to follow church teaching would be nearly $2 million per year, every year.
Boston has Catholic schools that would be forced to close if the Obama Administration war on religious freedom is allowed to go forward. Sensenbrenner, who is an Anglican, pointed out that in his state of Wisconsin there are many Lutheran schools as well as Catholic schools that will be forced to close if Obama has his way.
Sensenbrenner is joined by 56 cosponsors of the Religious Freedom Tax Repeal Act. All the sponsors are Republicans. Not a single Democrat in Congress has been willing to oppose the President and stand up in support of our First Amendment freedom to practice religion.
The HHS mandate is just the latest Obama Administration attack on religion. Back in January the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Lutheran school (Hosanna-Tabor) had a First Amendment religious freedom to choose its own ministers and that the Obama Administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's attempt to meddle in the church's employment practices was unconstitutional.
The HHS mandate must, and will, be overturned!
Friday, July 13, 2012
First, Do No Harm
POST-GAZETTE - Res Publica
First, Do No Harm
by David Trumbull -- July 13, 2012
According to its promoters, the proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts has been certified to appear on our November ballots. The Archdiocese of Boston has launched a website, http://suicideisalwaysatragedy.org/ to educate voters about this ill-considered proposal, warning of doctor-prescribed death:
Ancient Roman statesman Cicero, writing in the first century before Christ, disparaged self-murder, likening the suicide to a soldier who deserts his post. In the Sixth Book of his De Re Publica, Cicero has us imagine the hero Publius Scipio Africanus the Younger (185–129 B.C.) visited, in a dream, by his dead father and grandfather. In the dream the elder Scipio (236-183 B.C.) tells his grandson that the dead are, in truth, more alive than the living, for they "have soared away from the bonds of the body, as from a prison-house; but your life, as it is called, is really death."
The younger Scipio responds to the ghost, "Why do I linger on earth? Why don't I hurry up and come to you there?" The answer is given: "Unless that God, to whom all this region that you can see belongs, has released you from the keeping of your body, the entrance to this place cannot be open to you... So, my Publius, you and all good men must allow the soul to remain in the keeping of the body, nor without His command, by whom it was given to you."
Even earlier, around the 5th century before Christ, physician-assisted suicide was rejected as incompatible with the healing profession. "First, do no harm," is a commonly voiced summary of the eponymous oath crafted by the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.). For centuries, physicians of all, and no, religious belief have recited:
First, Do No Harm
by David Trumbull -- July 13, 2012
According to its promoters, the proposal to legalize physician-assisted suicide in Massachusetts has been certified to appear on our November ballots. The Archdiocese of Boston has launched a website, http://suicideisalwaysatragedy.org/ to educate voters about this ill-considered proposal, warning of doctor-prescribed death:
- It facilitates the deliberate and morally unacceptable killing of a human person.
- It promotes a most insidious form of discrimination, especially against the disabled.
- Certain people claim for themselves the power to decide who ought to live and who ought to die.
- It harms the integrity of the physician/patient relationship.
Ancient Roman statesman Cicero, writing in the first century before Christ, disparaged self-murder, likening the suicide to a soldier who deserts his post. In the Sixth Book of his De Re Publica, Cicero has us imagine the hero Publius Scipio Africanus the Younger (185–129 B.C.) visited, in a dream, by his dead father and grandfather. In the dream the elder Scipio (236-183 B.C.) tells his grandson that the dead are, in truth, more alive than the living, for they "have soared away from the bonds of the body, as from a prison-house; but your life, as it is called, is really death."
The younger Scipio responds to the ghost, "Why do I linger on earth? Why don't I hurry up and come to you there?" The answer is given: "Unless that God, to whom all this region that you can see belongs, has released you from the keeping of your body, the entrance to this place cannot be open to you... So, my Publius, you and all good men must allow the soul to remain in the keeping of the body, nor without His command, by whom it was given to you."
Even earlier, around the 5th century before Christ, physician-assisted suicide was rejected as incompatible with the healing profession. "First, do no harm," is a commonly voiced summary of the eponymous oath crafted by the ancient Greek physician, Hippocrates (460-370 B.C.). For centuries, physicians of all, and no, religious belief have recited:
"I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that...I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect."
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
American Freedom and Equality Continued
POST-GAZETTE, Res Publica
American Freedom and Equality Continued
by David Trumbull - July 6, 2012
The drama of liberty, which we celebrated on the Fourth of July, continues. Four years after the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts framed this Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants:
Under this political theory, which now enjoys support among the elite in our Commonwealth, persons are not equal before the law based on nothing more than shared humanity. Rather, they assert that rights arise out of membership is some particular class. There is no end to the new protected classes than politicians can pander to, to the detriment of the common good and equality of persons. And no end to the spurious new rights, which are no rights at all but merely political patronage directed at preferred classes who vote for these politicians.
American Freedom and Equality Continued
by David Trumbull - July 6, 2012
The drama of liberty, which we celebrated on the Fourth of July, continues. Four years after the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts framed this Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants:
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.Those words were invoked three years later by Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice William Cushing, stating:
[the words of the Constitution] declare that all men are born free and equal; and that every subject is entitled to liberty... In short slavery is in my judgment as effectively abolished as it can be by the granting of rights and privileges wholly incompatible and repugnant to its existence.It would take decades, and America's bloodiest war, to bring freedom to all Americans. Abraham Lincoln's words in 1863 at Gettysburg mark another scene in the drama:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal" Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure.However, in the political and civic realm the genius for enlargement of liberties has, in recent decades, severely atrophied. On November 2, 1976, the voters of the Commonwealth adopted Amendment 106 to the Massachusetts Constitution, which added to the phrase, All people are born free and equal, the following enumeration: Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. It is a catalog of protected classes, which, far from expanding freedom, suggests that while "all people are born free and equal" the law need only concern itself with persons so far as they are representatives of their sex, race, etc. In sum it is a denial of individual freedom in favor of group identity.
Under this political theory, which now enjoys support among the elite in our Commonwealth, persons are not equal before the law based on nothing more than shared humanity. Rather, they assert that rights arise out of membership is some particular class. There is no end to the new protected classes than politicians can pander to, to the detriment of the common good and equality of persons. And no end to the spurious new rights, which are no rights at all but merely political patronage directed at preferred classes who vote for these politicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
