My Testimony in Opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 13 (Proposed Amendment to the Indiana Constitution to Define Marriage and Prohibit Civil Unions)

On January 20, 2009, I testified before the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee was considering Senate Joint Resolution 13 (SJR 13) which would amend the Indiana Constitution to define marriage and to prohibit civil unions. Here is the full text of the proposed amendment which would, if adopted, be added to Indiana’s Bill of Rights:

Only a marriage between one (1) man and one (1) woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Indiana. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

I usually endeavor to keep separate my personal thoughts and opinions from those that I espouse on behalf of organizations with which I am affiliated (in particular the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council for which I currently serve as president). My testimony before the Judiciary Committee was on behalf of the JCRC and in my capacity as president of that organization. Nevertheless, given the importance of the issue (it is, after all, a proposed amendment to Indiana’s Constitution) and the fact that my testimony is not only public record but was also aired on the Senate’s live web feed (and will apparently be available on the Senate’s archived feed at some point in the future), I have decided to reprint my prepared testimony here. I want to take a moment and give due credit to Mark Sniderman, a friend and colleague on the JCRC Board, who testified against SJR 7 (the predecessor to SJR 13) back in 2008. My testimony was based, in part, on his prepared remarks; I deleted some and added some, but he deserves credit for preparing a well thought out and articulated presentation that I was able to use as a framework for my remarks.

I’m sure that my actual words were not identical to my prepared testimony. Furthermore, in order to meet the five minute time limit that I was asked to observe, I selectively edited my prepared testimony as I went; I’ve endeavored to indicate the provisions that I omitted in red. In addition, I contemporaneously added to my testimony to address some of the arguments (or lack thereof) that had been offered by proponents of SJR 13. I’ve also endeavored to provide at least an idea of what that portion of my testimony consisted of in green.

Finally, I want to note that the JRCR has not taken a position on same-sex marriage and I was not testifying in favor of same-sex marriage (though I personally support it). Rather, JCRC’s position, as I tried to articulate in my testimony, is that we oppose efforts to amend the Constitution to restrict, rather than enhance, rights.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Wallack. I am an attorney in private practice and I am privileged to rise on behalf of and in my capacity as the President of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council, in opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 13. The JCRC is comprised of representatives from every synagogue and Jewish membership organization in greater Indianapolis.

Our Jewish community supports the rule of law to assure equal rights, and we oppose constitutional amendments that restrict, rather than enhance, the rights of Hoosiers. Thus, we accordingly oppose SJR 13.

I believe that it is important to understand that we did not arrive at our position without due consideration; in fact, our community engaged in a process of learning, debate, and discussion, that lasted for nearly a year before we adopted our position. Several supporters of SJR 13 (and its predecessor) participated in that process in an open forum that we hosted on the subject. But eventually our community did adopt a position in opposition to the effort to amend our State’s Constitution.

We unconditionally support the core values of religious liberty, the separation of church and state; the safeguarding and advancement of civil rights; and the principle of equal protection under the law.

Jewish tradition teaches that each individual life is sacred and of infinite value. We are commanded to assist the less fortunate; to speak for those who cannot be heard; to stand by those who are unjustly treated; to be animated by the spirit of tikkun olam — the repair and mending of the world.

We Jews have known discrimination merely for being, or appearing to be, different; from the politest snub to unspeakably worse. Discrimination against any group of people is an insult to Jewish values. We are committed to a society that is just, compassionate, and fully democratic. Moreover, we strongly value the notion of a pluralistic, democratic society that, while recognizing the will of the majority, protects the rights of the minority.

What, then, do we owe one another as citizens? At the very least, we cannot decide that some people should be forever barred from possessing the rights and benefits of others, if the voters, through their elected representatives, want benefits and rights to be shared. Federal and state laws now grant over 1,100 rights and benefits to married couples and their families but deny them to unmarried couples. However long they live together, however deep their commitment to one another, by law unmarried couples may not possess the right to joint ownership and transfer of property; the right to participate in pension and social security benefits, health insurance programs, health care decisions, and hospital visitation, among others.

These rights are bedrock. But the proposed amendment would forever deny them to unmarried couples because — and only because — some declare their love to be objectionable.

Current and future legislators, the people’s representatives, would be powerless to assist, however urgent the need, however appropriate the assistance. The Constitution itself would have to be amended, yet again.

Charity, compassion, benevolence, a commitment to equal respect and dignity help determine the quality of life in a country. But the animating principle of the United States is that the rights of the citizens cannot be dependent merely on charity or good will.

Our state, like every other, needs to become more just, not less. Enshrining discrimination into our State’s Constitution runs contrary to that goal.

The JCRC is also dedicated to the separation of church and state. We affirm the right of faith communities to prescribe their own standards for recognizing religious marriage, for it is religious ceremony, not civil law, that sanctifies marriage. Our Jewish community, like most faith communities, will not surrender to the government the power to determine what merits sanctification in our own tradition.

But SJR 13 would nullify a right that religious communities have held since the founding of this country. It would dictate to religious faiths what they can and cannot sanctify in their houses of worship. It would establish a precedent for the state to narrow the realm of religious liberty when it wishes – that is to say, whenever it is popular to do so. What if it become popular to prohibit those of differing faiths to marry, much as it was once popular to prevent those of different skin color to marry? Are those popular values that should be enshrined in a Constitution?

SJR 13 would embed the religious doctrine of some into our state Constitution, to the exclusion of others. It would undermine the principle of separation of church and state – the very principle that ensures religious liberty for people of all faiths and beliefs.

And, let there be no mistake, religious liberty is the principle to which we are committed. The JCRC deeply respects the sincere convictions of religious groups that believe that same-sex marriage is prohibited by passages found in their authoritative religious texts. We do not, however, believe that some religious groups have the right to use the government to impose their religious beliefs upon others. The Indiana Constitution includes numerous provisions that describe the relationship between the church and state, and Article I, Section 4 states it clearly:

No preference shall be given, by law, to any creed, religious society, or mode of worship... .

Ind. Const., Article I, § 4 (Freedom of Religion). The Equal Privileges and Immunities clause trumpets the same principle:

The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.

Ind. Const., Article I, § 23. These constitutional provisions are bold and manifest: our legal rights shall not be dictated by religious beliefs; nor should civil laws restrict the free exercise of religion; and when our government provides benefits, it must do so to all on equal footing

We affirm the rule of law. For laws to work, they must be clear. Their working must be predictable. Their consequences must be measured. But the rhetoric surrounding this Amendment is feverish. Perhaps worse, it is cloudy and obscure. Not one legislator has offered a clear definition of “status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”. The mere existence of so much contention over the meaning and effect of this Amendment is reason enough to stop. Let us all agree to this rule of civil society: before we amend our Constitution, we should understand, broadly and generally, the effects of our actions.

As a result of our commitment to our core values, the Indianapolis JCRC:

1) opposes any constitutional amendment that constricts rather than enhances rights; and we therefore oppose SJR 13; and

2) opposes any effort that would diminish the authority of clergy to practice their own religious requirements regarding marriage.

To those of you who will vote against this proposed amendment, I offer our gratitude.

To those who have no doubts about the merits of the amendment, I say to you: you have a duty to question the wisdom of amending the Constitution itself to impose the religious views of some who seek to restrict the civil rights of others. Laws can be passed, then repealed. Amendments to the Constitution can hardly ever be reversed, and never quickly.

To those who may have doubts and concerns about this amendment, I ask only this: be generous in spirit, defend the principle of religious liberty, and lead us where we know -- in our very best moments -- we ought to go.

[I noted that proponents of SJR 13 not only failed, but actually made no attempt at all, to explain what the “threat” to marriage was. I explained that none of the proponents had explained how their marriages or families would be harmed by same-sex marriage and I posited that they did not even attempt to explain this threat because they recognized that the perception of a threat was patently false.]

It is also worth noting that this Amendment will not create any new jobs in Indiana; it will not solve our State’s deficit; it will not be a cure to tax woes; it will not improve our schools or our roads; it will not reduce crime or find more homes for orphaned children. Given all of these issues, is an amendment to the Constitution solely for the purpose of restricting rights really the best thing for this General Assembly to focus upon?

I have come before you on behalf of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council. But I am not less an American for being a Jew. I ask you, I urge you: do not make government the agent of one religious doctrine. Many serve G-d. It is not for the State to decide that Protestant prevails over Catholic; that Christian prevails over Jew; that Jew prevails over Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or any other faith.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

None of the senators asked me any questions. It is worth noting that several senators, in particular Sen. Greg Taylor (D-Indianapolis) and Sen. Tim Lanane (D-Madison County), asked numerous questions, both of proponents and opponents of SJR 13; moreover, it is also worth noting, as Sen. Taylor did in explaining his vote, that the Republican senators asked very few (if any) questions during the entire hearing.

The Democratic senators each gave brief speeches to explain their votes against SJR 13. The Republican senators simply voted “yes”. In the end, SJR 13 was approved by the committee by a vote of 6-4. All four Democrats voted against SJR 13; six of the seven Republicans voted in favor (one was not in the chambers when the vote was taken).

Finally, as long as I’m on the subject, I want to take a few moments to address (briefly; I plan to come back and address some of these points in much more detail at another time) some of the arguments made by proponents of SJR 13:

• James Bopp, Jr., claimed that courts have “seized control” of the issue of gay marriage. While courts have certainly been involved in the issue, to suggest that they’ve “seized control” (his phrase) is misleading, at best. If we are to accept his suggestion, then it must also be true that courts “seized control” of issues like segregation and civil rights (remember Brown v. Board of Education) or, more recently, gun control (Heller and the Chicago gun control cases).
• Bopp also suggested that courts shouldn’t have a role in determining the legality of gay marriage because the “people will have spoken”. Of course that argument completely misses the point of the role of the courts in our system that recognizes a separation of powers. The people can do a lot of things through their legislators or referenda, but that doesn’t make those things right or legal. I suspect that a majority of people could be convinced to outlaw Islam or require schoolchildren to pray to Jesus; it would be up to the courts to recognize that doing so violates the Constitution. When people like Bopp make this argument, what they’re really saying is that we don’t want to give the courts the chance to tell us that legislation that we’ve proposed does not conform to the rights and privileges granted by the Constitution (or, more correctly stated, retained by the people). It is critical to remember that in our constitutional system, the will of the majority cannot trump the rights of the minority. That is precisely why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place.
• Bopp also argued that the possibility of litigation over Indiana’s current prohibition on same-sex marriage is reason enough to amend the Constitution. By that logic, however, any statute passed by the General Assembly that was, in any way, controversial, should I suppose be in the form of an constitutional amendment because virtually all legislation draws litigation of one form or another. But that is not the purpose of a Constitution.
• The best (funniest?) moment (at least to me) of Bopp’s testimony came in response to a question (from either Sen. Lanane or Sen. Taylor). Bopp said that the amendment was necessary to protect marriage from the General Assembly and the Courts; he said that was the role of the Constitution: to protect rights from the General Assembly and the Courts (oddly enough, Tim Tracy, speaking on behalf of the Indiana Family Institute, said almost the exact same thing in response to a question about the separation of powers). I don’t think that Bopp (or Tracy) quite recognized what he really said, though he was precisely right. The Constitution does protect the rights of Hoosiers. Defining marriage in a way that restricts rights is, in actuality, the exact inverse of the what the Bill of Rights does.
• Curt Smith (speaking on behalf of the Indiana Family Institute) argued that the limited definition of marriage should be added to the Constitution because “marriage is a unique, social good”. But if marriage is, indeed, a social good, shouldn’t it be encouraged in various forms, including same-sex marriage? Why is one marriage a social good while another marriage is a “threat”? And how does that impact civil unions? Wouldn’t they be a social good, too?
• A Hispanic pastor (I didn’t hear his name) argued that the Constitution should be amended because the “Bible is the infallible word of G-d”, because “G-d discriminates against right and wrong”, and that homosexuality was a behavior (a choice) that was wrong (thus discrimination against gays is acceptable, a position that none of the other proponents adopted…). He also said that referring to same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue was “offensive” and “disgusting”. I don’t think that I really need to respond to his arguments beyond saying that I found much of his testimony to be both offensive and disgusting. (Thankfully his testimony was offset by the testimony of Rev. Linda McRae of Central Christian Church who talked about what the Bible really says about marriage.)
• Micah Clark (I think) claimed that “if marriage can mean anything, it ultimately means nothing.” I’m not really sure what this means; I suspect that it is his attempt to make the slippery slope argument (oooh, if we allow gays to marry, what will be next? Polygamy? Incest? Pedophilia? Bestiality?). Of course, these same arguments were used to support anti-miscegenation (laws against interracial marriage).
• Glenn Tebbe, Executive Director of the Indiana Catholic Conference, argued that marriage should be protected in the Constitution (again, what is the threat?) because marriage is a “faithful lifelong partnership”. Of course, by that reasoning, divorce should probably be prohibited in the Constitution, too.
• Finally, Eric Miller (of Advance America) claimed that protecting marriage (again, from what?) was “in the best interests of families and children”. Of course, he didn’t get around to explaining how “protecting” marriage was in the best interests of families and children. After all, wouldn’t a married same-sex couple be a “family”? Wouldn’t children be better off in a committed, loving, two-parent relationship than in a single-parent family, let alone in foster care or an orphanage?

Those are the sorts of arguments being advanced by the opponents of same-sex marriage and the proponents of the constitutional amendment. One other point worth making: Not a single one of the people who testified in favor of SJR 13 offered any reason whatsoever as to why civil unions were bad, let alone why the General Assembly should be prohibited from adopting civil union legislation in the future should that be the will of voters expressed at the polls.

Please call your senator (and representative, for that matter) and tell them to oppose SJR 13. You don’t have to support same-sex marriage; but please tell our legislators not to amend Indiana’s Constitutions to restrict, rather than enhance, the rights of Hoosiers.

10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society [humor]

Tomorrow, I have the opportunity to testify to the Indiana Senate in opposition to a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the State of Indiana that would ban gay marriage as well as civil unions. Here is some of what I wish I could say:

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Note that I'm not the author of the foregoing list and, unfortunately, I cannot find the notes that I made when I originally found and copied the list.

Who Is Ready to Help Haiti?

Out of curiosity, I did a quick scan around the Internet this morning to see which countries have offered or begun supplying aid and assistance to Haiti following yesterday's devastating earthquake. To be consistent in my unscientific search, I simply searched for the website of the ministry of foreign affairs of a number of countries and looked to see if there was a statement about Haiti. If not, I searched for "Haiti" (presuming that the site offered a search function). So, as of 1:00pm, the day following the earthquake, here are the nations that have offered aid or begun supplying assistance:

United States
United Kingdom
Canada
Israel (see Israeli search and rescue delegation departs to Haiti)

The United Nations also has a page devoted the Haiti and notes that Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon has called for international assitance.

The websites of the foreign ministries of the following nations do not mention the earthquake or any aid or support:

France
Venezuela
Cuba
Bahamas
Jamaica
Dominical Republic
Russia
Japan
China
India
Egypt
Saudi Arabia
Bahrain
Qatar
Iran

After that, I got bored.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Perhaps nothing; perhaps some countries just don't update their websites that often (though most appear to...). And perhaps these countries have made formal statements that haven't been reflected on their websites. Who knows.

I don't find it particularly interesting that the US has offered aid. I do find it interesting that France, the former colonial power in Haiti, hasn't said anything yet. Also, somewhat surprising is the silence of both Venezuela and Cuba, both of whom always seem to be trying to position themselves as important actors in the region. You'd think that they'd be rushing to get aid to Haiti faster than the US, just to show that they could. Furthermore, note that neither Japan (which has extensive experience with earthquake recovery) or China (which suffered a devastating quake of its own last year) appears to have offered help.

On the the other hand, Israel has already dispatched aid even though it does not have bilateral relations with Haiti. In other words, those "evil" Israelis, living half a world away, have been able to dispatch aid before many of the "great powers" or regional actors. Maybe things that like this should at least be noted when the world tries to throw Israel under the proverbial bus. Ah, but alas, I suspect that most people will view this as some kind of cynical ploy by Israel rather than a sign of true concern. Of course, Israel also offered aid to Iran following in earthquake there (which was rejected) and did provide aid following earthquakes in China, India, and Turkey as well as aid following the Indiana Ocean tsunami. But evidence that Israel is truly concerned with the situation of Haitians (or Iranians or Chinese or any others who are victims of a natural disaster) wouldn't square so well with the narrative of the evil, apartheid, Nazi, organ-stealing Jews propounded by much of the world.

Anti-Semitic Holiday Rant from Garrison Keillor

Garrison Keillor, the host of Public Broadcasting's A Prairie Home Companion (the tales from Lake Wobegon) and The Writer's Almanac also writes a column for the Baltimore Sun. Here is his December 16, 2009, column in its entirety (emphasis added):

Nonbelievers, please leave Christmas alone

I've just come from Cambridge, that beehive of brilliance, where nerds don't feel self-conscious: There's always someone nerdier nearby. If you are the World's Leading Authority on the mating habits of the jabberwock beetle of the Lesser Jujube Archipelago, you can take comfort in knowing that the pinch-faced drone next to you at Starbucks may be the W.L.A. on 17th-century Huguenot hymnody or a niche of quantum physics that is understood by nobody but himself.

People in Cambridge learn to be wary of brilliance, having seen geniuses in the throes of deep thought step into potholes and disappear. Such as the brilliant economist Lawrence Summers, whose presidency brought Harvard to the verge of disaster. He, against the advice of his lessers, invested Harvard's operating funds in the stock market and lost the bet. In the cold light of day, this was dumber than dirt, like putting the kids' lunch money on Valiant's Fancy to win in the 5th. And now the genius is in the White House, two short flights of stairs above the Oval Office. This does not make Cantabrigians feel better about our nation's economic future.

You can blame Ralph Waldo Emerson for the brazen foolishness of the elite. He preached here at the First Church of Cambridge, a Unitarian outfit (where I discovered that "Silent Night" has been cleverly rewritten to make it more about silence and night and not so much about God), and Emerson tossed off little bon mots that have been leading people astray ever since. "To be great is to be misunderstood," for example. This tiny gem of self-pity has given license to a million arrogant and unlovable people to imagine that their unpopularity somehow was proof of their greatness.

And all his hoo-ha about listening to the voice within and don't follow the path, make your own path and leave a trail and so forth, encouraged people who might've been excellent janitors to become bold and innovative economists who run a wealthy university into the ditch.

Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that's their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite "Silent Night." If you don't believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn "Silent Night" and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't.

Christmas is a Christian holiday - if you're not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don't mess with the Messiah.

Christmas does not need any improvements. It is a common, ordinary experience that resists brilliant innovation. Just make some gingerbread persons and light three candles and sing softly in dim light about the poor man gathering winter fu-u-el and the radiant beams and the holly and the ivy, and you've got it. Too many people work too hard to make Christmas perfect, find the perfect gifts, get a turkey that reaches 100 percent of potential. Perfection is a goal of brilliant people, and it is unnecessary where Christmas is concerned.

The most wonderful Christmas of my life was 1997, a quiet day with no gifts and no tree, waiting in a New York apartment for my daughter to be born. And the second most wonderful was one in the Norwegian Arctic, where it rained every day and the sun came up around 11 and set around 1, not that you ever actually saw the sun, and the food was abominable, boiled cod and watery potatoes, and the people were cold and resentful, and there was no brilliance whatsoever. And I had the flu. Why was I there? Good question. But every year it gladdens my heart to know that I will not be going to Norway for Christmas. A terrific investment. Mr. Summers should be so smart. For one week of misery, I get an annual joyfulness dividend of at least 25 percent. Merry Christmas, my dears.

Can you imagine the outcry if a Jew wrote this about Sen. Orrin Hatch's Hannukah song? And how does Keillor's outrage square with the so-called "War on Christmas"? Which war would that be? The one where a bunch of Jews (like Irving Berlin, for example) write Christmas songs that are played and sung year after year after year? We Jews aren't the ones playing those songs in the malls; I suspect that we'd be just as happy if Radio Disney was playing (well, maybe that was a bad example).

But the hostility in Keillor's comments (to Lawrence Summers, to Uniterians, and to Jews) is stunning.

And for the record,  I'd love it if some Christian musicians would write a Rosh Hashanah song or a Hannukah song; my daughter asked why all the good holiday songs were for Christmas. Neil Diamond and Barbra Streisand have recorded Christmas albums. Maybe Bruce Springsteen or Dolly Parton can record a High Holidays album. And maybe if people like Keillor spent a few minutes writing songs for us, they'd have a few minutes less time to think about why they hate those who are different from them. Why does Keillor seem to feel so threatened that others either express different views or want to make the holiday season more joyous?

But I really love the sentiment expressed in the following line: "Christmas is a Christian holiday - if you're not in the club, then buzz off". Of course, when non-Christians object to Christians trying to force Christmas down our throats, then we get the same response: "buzz off". Talk about "cultural elitism"! In Keillor's world, Jews and other non-Christians should neither object to having to endure Christmas this and Christmas that, but should stay away from trying to participate in the festival and holiday season.
 
Well, Mr. Keillor, I'm sure you don't care, but fuck off. I hope Rudolph kicks you right in your anti-Semitic chestnuts. Oh, and have a Happy New Year.

Still Here...

Just a quick post to indicate that I'm still alive and still blogging, but I've been buried in real world stuff the last few weeks and just haven't had the time to blog about any (let alone all) of the things that have interested me.

Apparently I’m Not Eligible to Run for Office as a Republican; How About You?

So the Republican National Committee is considering a “purity test” to determine which candidates will get party support in the 2010 elections. For those who’ve missed this, here is the full text of the resolution (sponsored by Indiana über-conservative James Bopp):

Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed, as a result, that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee desires to implement President Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefit all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Republican National Committee identifies ten (10) key public policy positions for the 2010 election cycle, which the Republican National Committee expects its public officials and candidates to support:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further

RESOLVED, that a candidate who disagrees with three or more of the above stated public policy position of the Republican National Committee, as identified by the voting record, public statements and/or signed questionnaire of the candidate, shall not be eligible for financial support and endorsement by the Republican National Committee; and be further

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN
Sponsors:
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Demetra Demonte NCW IL
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KA
Solomon Yue NCM OR

I don’t want to waste time discussing whether a purity test is a smart idea or a bad idea; hey, it’s their party. But I do want to take on each of the ten themes expressed in the test itself.

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

OK. I get that Republicans were opposed to the stimulus bill. The problem is, I don’t recall hearing many Republican ideas to help prevent the economy from taking a nose dive into a true depression. One thing that Republicans don’t seem to grasp right now is that there is a huge difference between being opposed to something and offering up a viable alternative. Think of it this way: If you suggest eating Chinese for dinner, I could say, “Gee, I don’t feel like Chinese; why don’t we go for Italian, instead.” From there, we could have an open and honest debate about which would be a better meal choice. On the other hand, if I was a Republican, my response would be more like this: “Gee, I don’t feel like Chinese (after all, they’re communists!); so we’ll just skip dinner tonight.”

I also fail to understand the constant mantra about “smaller government” as if by simply making government “smaller” we make it better. I’m less worried about the size of the government than I am with the effectiveness of that government.

As to the national debt and deficits, I seem to recall these going up, not down, under a Republican administration. It seems that Republicans are firmly opposed to debt and deficits except for debt and deficits that they like. Finally, I’d like to be certain what Republicans mean when they say “lower taxes”; lower taxes on whom? The wealthiest Americans who can easily afford to pay a bit more from the money that they’re parking in illegal offshore bank accounts? Why is it that I doubt that “lower taxes” means repeal of regressive taxes like sales tax.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

First, does that mean that Republicans will support an end to the anti-trust exemption for insurance companies? After all, an anti-trust exemption doesn’t really seem consistent with market-based insurance reform. Second, when Republicans talk about “Obama-style government run healthcare” does that mean that they oppose Medicare, Medicaid, the VA, and military healthcare? Those programs are, of course, all government run. What about the insurance provided to members of Congress? Finally, what type of reform do Republicans support? Remember that the plan offered by Senate Republicans didn’t prohibit exclusion based on pre-existing conditions (among a host of other failings). We’ve had a largely “market based” system (with anti-trust exemptions) for years and look where that’s gotten us. And how exactly do Republicans plan to handle the millions of uninsured Americans? Insuring a measly 3 million additional Americans over 10 years (while leaving 30-50 million uninsured) doesn’t really seem to be a solution to the problem. Then again, so long as the “solution” is merely opposition and obstruction…

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

I wonder how many Republicans can actually explain what cap and trade legislation means. And, for that matter, I wonder how many of the Republicans who oppose cap and trade also believe that global warming is a myth. The funniest part of this is that cap and trade is a market-based reform. That is the whole idea; allow the market to put a value on the right to pollute and provide cost incentives for reducing emissions. And again, note that as usual, what Republicans oppose is spelled out clearly (Obama’s stimulus bill, Obama-style government run healthcare, cap and trade) but what Republicans support is much, much more nebulous (smaller and market-based). Again, it is easy to be opposed to a particular, narrowly-defined policy; it is much more difficult to articulate an alternative.

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

In all honesty, I don’t know enough about card check to really get into this discussion. I will note, however, that it seems strange, in the entire universe of issues for Republicans to focus on, that card check makes the top ten.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

This point is one of the most insidious of all of the points on the Republican purity test. Why? Did you note that Republicans don’t just support legal immigration, but also support assimilation? In other words, Republicans are telling immigrants to come in legally, but once here, they had better jettison their cultural (and religious?) heritage and assimilate into American society. And why is that I suspect that the Republican version of “American society” is the same thing as Glenn Beck’s “white culture”?

In addition, I’m not quite sure how supporting legal immigration and assimilation is accomplished “by opposing” amnesty. What does one have to do with the other? More importantly, what precisely is the Republican plan to deal with illegal immigration and the illegal immigrants who are already here? Again, they oppose a particular policy (amnesty) without offering a solution to the existing problem.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

First, who doesn’t support “victory in Iraq and Afghanistan”? Do Republicans really think that either President Obama or Democrats support “defeat”? It seems to me that the real question is the definition of “victory”. More importantly, I find it quite odd that when the Republican purity test finally gets around to specific things that Republicans are supposed to support, the focus is on a particular strategy advocated by the military. The last time I checked, the military was overseen by civilian leadership. It is important to remember that the issues being looked at by military planners are almost exclusively military. We don’t ask or expect military planners to look at diplomatic consequences of a particular policy, the cost to implement that policy (what about that support for a smaller national debt…?), the cost in lives or impact upon military families (I suppose that the military might factor this in to the calculation, but I don’t really know), or the desire of the American electorate to engage in the particular military operation. I suspect that generals recommended attacks on the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but we allowed civilian leadership to decide what was in the best interest of the country. So too should civilian leadership decide what is in the best interests of America when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan. If that means a surge, then so be it; but the decision needs to be made on the basis of all known information and should take into consideration all relevant matters, not just the matters relevant to the battlefield itself. Military strategy options should be developed by military planners but decisions regarding those strategic options should be made on the basis of national interest, not just military necessity.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

This one leaves me a bit puzzled. First, the use of the word “containment” harkens back to the Cold War and fears of Soviet expansion. I suspect that the real issue being “supported” is limits on the ability of North Korea or Iran to export nuclear technology or terrorism. And again, who doesn’t support those ends? Do Republicans really think that President Obama or Democrats oppose “containment” of Iran or North Korea? More problematic is the phrase “effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat”. What precisely does this mean. Again, I doubt that anybody supports ineffective actions. The real question, of course, is what action would be effective? So, for example, are harsh sanctions “effective”? Maybe I’m wrong, but when I read this particular point of the purity test, I take it to really be referring to military action as the “effective action”. Maybe I’m wrong. But if not, I’m troubled by the idea that Republicans are being asked to support a military action without necessarily considering either alternatives or consequences. Forget Iran for the moment; what would be the consequences of the use of force against North Korea? Do we really want to elect leaders who want war on the Korean peninsula?

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

I’m not going to take the time in this particular post to explain why I oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (and why I believe it might be unconstitutional) or to explain why I support same sex marriage (or at least domestic partnerships that have all of the benefits and obligations of marriage). Instead, I’ll simply note that of the items that Republicans apparently view as the litmus test for whether a candidate is worthy, opposition to same sex marriage counts for 10%. I still don’t understand how the issue of whether a loving, committed couple can be allowed to enjoy the benefits of “marriage” can rise to this level of importance. And, for the record, I note that those states that have allowed same sex marriage have neither imploded, been struck by wave after wave of natural disasters, nor sunken into the bowels of the earth; moreover, I note that in those states the institution of heterosexual marriage remains alive and well.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

I’m glad that Republicans oppose health care rationing. I’m curious to know how they plan to stop insurance companies from continuing to ration care or, for that matter, how they intend to stop the effective rationing for those people who can’t afford health insurance. Republicans also oppose the denial of health care. That seems like a pretty clear blanket statement; yet last time that I checked, Republicans were set against health care for illegal immigrants (remember Rep. Joe Wilson’s “you lie” moment?). And recall, once again, that the Republican health care reform proposal did not prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

With regard to the funding of abortions, first I note that it is a blanket opposition. There is no nuance or exception for matters of rape, incest, or life of the mother. “Gee, sorry, that you’re gonna die ma’am, but if you can’t pay for the abortion on your own, we can’t help you!” Talk about compassionate conservatism. I also have a problem with enshrining certain types of moral issues into federal funding policies. Why, for example, are Republicans opposed to funding abortion but not drugs for erectile dysfunction or hair replacement? More importantly, why are Republicans opposed to funding abortion but not opposed to funding the death penalty, wars, torture, and illegal wiretaps? If every issue to which a large group of voters objected on moral grounds were excepted out of government funding, I suspect that very little would be funded (then again, I suppose that Republicans would view that as good, so long as the military was still fully funded). I also have a problem with the exception for abortion given that other religious traditions come to the issue of abortion with a different understanding and mindset. Thus, while the denial of funding may satisfy a conservative Christian worldview, it may also run directly contrary to a Jewish understanding of when abortion is acceptable. If my religious tradition has a different understanding of the issue, why should someone else’s religious understanding determine how federal spending impacts upon my religious beliefs? (For a more in depth discussion of religious views of abortion, see my post Keep Your Religious Doctrine Out of My State’s Laws from January 2008). I get that conservatives don’t want their tax dollars to pay for abortions; I don’t want my tax dollars to pay for torture. Republicans will do almost anything to protect the “unborn”; but once a child is born, don’t look to the Republicans for help or protection, no sir!

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

Like abortion, I’ve written before about my thoughts on gun control and the Second Amendment and I won’t belabor the point here. But I do want to point out the fact that the opposition to “government restrictions on gun ownership” is another blanket statement. There is no exception for children, the mentally ill, or felons (or terrorists for that matter) and there is no exception for assault rifles or armor piercing bullets or rocket-propelled grenades (or nuclear weapons…). So it would seem to me than any Republican who supports even modest gun control legislation would not pass the party’s proposed purity test.

And what happened to honoring the tenets of this recitals from the preamble of the proposed resolution:

President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views

Somehow the notion of welcoming diverse views doesn’t seem to come through in the proposed purity test.

As a counterpoint to the Republican purity test, take a look at this purity test for Democrats proposed by Devilstower on Daily Kos:

(1) We support the rights extended to Americans extended under the Constitution. All the rights. For all Americans.

(2) We support thoughtful, pragmatic solutions that protect American lives, American standards, and American pocketbooks. This includes finding solutions that don't require bombing anyone.

(3) We support an America that has diversity in race, thought, background, and religion not out of some hazy idealism, but because it is our nation's greatest strength.

(4) We oppose torture in any form, in any place, at any time, for any reason.

(5) We support American business, and recognize that an unregulated market is an unfair market, an unstable market, and a market doomed to failure.

(6) We support American workers, and know that when workers are allowed to organize they make their jobs, their companies, and their nation stronger.

(7) We believe that the reputation of our nation is valuable and must be zealously guarded against those who place expediency ahead of law.

(8) We believe in spreading democracy and human rights to the rest of the world by vigorously upholding those ideals here at home.

(9) We believe that access to our government is not for sale. Not in the courthouse, not in the White House, and not in the legislature.

(10) We believe that the health of our planet is not a zero-sum game, not a game of "you go first," and not a game.

What is interesting is that I don’t necessarily completely agree with each and every point in this “purity test” either (for example, I’m very hesitantly willing to consider torture in a true ticking time bomb case). Nevertheless, I think that the ideals espoused by this purity test are certainly worth considering, at least as a comparison to the proposed Republican purity test. Read both sets of positions and then ask yourself in which version of our country would you rather live?

Finally, ask yourself whether a purity test like that proposed by the Republicans makes sense. Which would you prefer: (a) party that has pre-determined how its members must think and how they must vote on certain issues; or (b) a party that tells its members to think for themselves, honor their ideals and values, and represent the voters that elected them, rather than the party to which they belong.

Oh, one more thing, as long as I’m looking at purity tests and lists of values and ideals. Charles Johnson, the founder of the right-leaning blog Little Green Footballs has announced that he is parting ways with the right because of:

1. Support for fascists, both in America (see: Pat Buchanan, Robert Stacy McCain, etc.) and in Europe (see: Vlaams Belang, BNP, SIOE, Pat Buchanan, etc.)

2. Support for bigotry, hatred, and white supremacism (see: Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Robert Stacy McCain, Lew Rockwell, etc.)

3. Support for throwing women back into the Dark Ages, and general religious fanaticism (see: Operation Rescue, anti-abortion groups, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins, the entire religious right, etc.)

4. Support for anti-science bad craziness (see: creationism, climate change denialism, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, James Inhofe, etc.)

5. Support for homophobic bigotry (see: Sarah Palin, Dobson, the entire religious right, etc.)

6. Support for anti-government lunacy (see: tea parties, militias, Fox News, Glenn Beck, etc.)

7. Support for conspiracy theories and hate speech (see: Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Birthers, creationists, climate deniers, etc.)

8. A right-wing blogosphere that is almost universally dominated by raging hate speech (see: Hot Air, Free Republic, Ace of Spades, etc.)

9. Anti-Islamic bigotry that goes far beyond simply criticizing radical Islam, into support for fascism, violence, and genocide (see: Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, etc.)

10. Hatred for President Obama that goes far beyond simply criticizing his policies, into racism, hate speech, and bizarre conspiracy theories (see: witch doctor pictures, tea parties, Birthers, Michelle Malkin, Fox News, World Net Daily, Newsmax, and every other right wing source)

And much, much more. The American right wing has gone off the rails, into the bushes, and off the cliff.

I won’t be going over the cliff with them.

I disagree with Charles Johnson on many issues, but I’ve always found him to be reasonable and fair minded. When he takes a position, he almost always backs it up. Ever since I came across Little Green Footballs during the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006, I’ve found his site to be a destination to see what the rational right is thinking. As Johnson has frequently noted over the last several months, too often what the right is thinking isn’t rational at all.

So anyway, it looks like I won’t be eligible to run for office as a Republican in 2010. Shucks.

Are Israeli Settlements Really Such a Problem? A Primer

In discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (or lack thereof), one of the things that has been getting much attention recently is the issue of settlements. I don’t want to go into a lengthy, drawn-out history lesson or argument about whether Israel did this or the Palestinians did that. But I do want to make a few brief (well, at least by my standards…) comments on the whole issue of settlements.

First, I don’t think that construction of settlements in the West Bank is a very good idea. However, note that I say that from the perspective of an American supporter of Israel and not from the perspective of an Israeli. I think that the existence of settlements may make an eventual peace deal harder (though not impossible) to achieve.

That said, I think that it is important to remember several things and to draw several important distinctions. First, there are really about five kinds of “settlements” and two of those don’t bother me at all. I suspect that most Americans, when they hear the term “settlement” are picturing one of the numerous hilltop enclaves, often consisting of nothing more than a few trailers, erected by far-right or orthodox Israelis.The Israeli government has done a decent (though not perfect) job of dismantling and removing these hilltop settlements from time to time. Another type of settlement involves the creation of a Jewish village or neighborhood in or near Arab villages or towns that don’t otherwise have a Jewish population (or which had a Jewish population until massacred or driven out by Palestinians; Hebron, for example). The third type of settlement is the frontier-style farming community. Then there are the much larger “settlements” which are really, in essence, suburbs of Jerusalem. The most well-known of these is Ma’ale Adumim which has a population of over 30,000. Think Noblesville and Indianapolis for a decent comparison. Finally, there are actual neighborhoods of Jerusalem (like Gilo) that are technically settlements.

So, for example, this week the Obama administration criticized Israel for additional construction planned in Gilo. It is important to understand that what is being planned is not a new village in the middle of nowhere but rather expansion of an existing Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem. Furthermore, one thing to note is that this area is often referred to as “Arab East Jerusalem” or “Palestinian Jerusalem” but those terms are meaningless. Jerusalem existed as a single city with a majority Jewish population until 1948. From 1948 to 1967, the city was divided in two with Jordan (not “Palestine”) holding the eastern half of the city (and refusing to permit Jews entry). Finally, in 1967 when Israel captured the eastern part of Jerusalem from Jordan and following Jordan’s decision to enter the Six Day War, the city was again reunited. (Similarly, Gaza, which was supposed to be part of the Arab state in the 1948 partition plan, was captured and occupied by Egypt in 1948.) To call the eastern part of Jerusalem (which includes the Old City) “Arab East Jerusalem” is to pre-determine the outcome of one of the most difficult parts of a final peace treaty.

It is also critical to remember how small Israel really is (8,522 square miles; compare that to Indiana’s 36,418 square miles) and that much of it (nearly 50%) is desert. While some settlements are constructed with political or religious motives, others are built simply because people need a place to live!

Some suggest that the settlements in and around Jerusalem are nothing more than a “land grab” by Israel. However, that argument is belied by the fact that in previous peace negotiations (including the 2000 Camp David and Taba negotiations from which Yasser Arafat walked away), Israel offered to cede portions of Israel outside the West Bank or Gaza to the new Palestinian state in exchange for the areas to be ceded to Israel due to the presence of settlements. (Of course, Israeli Arabs wanted no part of having their citizenship transferred from Israel to the a new Palestinian state…)

Furthermore, ask yourself this question: Why is it that we all seem to expect that a component of any final peace deal will require Jews living in the areas that become part of an independent Palestine to leave their homes and move back to Israel yet we have no expectation at all that Palestinians living in Israel (who make up over 20% of the Israeli population) would be expected, let alone forced, to leave their homes and move to the new Palestinian state?

And don’t be fooled by recent pronouncements from some in the Palestinian Authority that Jews living in the settlements would be welcome to stay in an independent Palestine. First, if the Palestinian Authority was serious about this, then why would a cessation of settlement activity by a pre-condition to peace negotiations? After all, if Israeli settlers would be “welcome” in a Palestinian state, why not encourage the continued growth of settlements and the economic prosperity that they bring. Second, do you think many Jews would feel safe (let alone comfortable) living in a newly independent Palestinian state? Would the rule of law really apply and would Jews really be treated as equal citizens with the right to practice their chosen religion? Finally, don’t forget what happened shortly after Israel forcibly removed settlers from Gaza. Palestinians promptly destroyed $14 million worth of greenhouses that had been erected in Gaza by Israelis and left for the Palestinians to use.

One other thing to think about when you hear someone criticize Israeli settlement practices: Why don’t we hear corresponding criticism of the failure of the Palestinian authority to build settlements. Between the West Bank and Gaza, there are still twenty-seven official refugee camps housing approximately 688,000 “refugees”! Why haven’t Palestinian authorities built their own farming villages, neighborhoods, suburbs, and other living accommodations for these people instead of leaving them to rot in refugee camps? For that matter, why hasn’t the rest of the Arab world -- which is supposedly so concerned with the plight of the Palestinians and so opposed to Israeli “expansion” -- done anything to help build Palestinian infrastructure (whether physical infrastructure or the infrastructure of a functioning government)?

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I don’t think that continued construction of Israeli settlements (and here I really mean true settlements, not the suburbs and neighborhoods in and around Jerusalem) is a good idea and will, in all likelihood, make peace more difficult. But I don’t understand why settlements should be a pre-condition to negotiations; after all, aren’t settlements and settlers precisely one of the issues to be addressed in negotiations?

The Palestinians need to stop finding reasons not to make peace. If they want Peace, all they need to do is show up at the negotiating table and start talking (of course the cessation of terrorist activity and an end to incitement would be nice steps, too).

Update: Shortly after completing this post (but before it went live), I came across the following from Sarah Palin's interview with Barbara Walters:

I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead.

Does Sarah Palin know something that I don't? Or is she just hoping that Jews will flock back to Israel so that end times prophecies she appears to believe in will come true?

Prayer for Obama: When Hate Invokes the Bible

Apparently over the last few weeks, a new slogan has been gaining some momentum among those opposed to President Obama. The slogan has been used as an email signature and on hats, buttons, shirts, and bumper stickers:

On its face, this looks like a pretty nice sentiment. That is until we read what Psalm 109:8 says ("I’m using the King James Bible; I doubt those responsible for the sentiments expressed by this bumper sticker read the Hebrew Bible):

Let his days be few; and let another take his office

Um. OK. Not terribly nice, but I guess it isn’t much different than the bumper stickers that said 1/20/2009 referring to the day that President George W. Bush’s successor would be inaugurated (and, hence, President Bush’s term in office would end). I mean, it looks like this is simply a prayer that President Obama serves a single term; after all, nobody would pray for President Obama to die, right? Well, no (remember the videos of the Arizona pastor praying for President Obama’s death…).

Unfortunately, this prayer is not quite so benign; the quotation from Psalms takes on a much different, and much more dangerous connotation, when read in conjunction with the lines that follow:

⁸Let his days be few; and let another take his office.

⁹Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.

¹⁰Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.

¹¹Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.

¹²Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.

¹³Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.

¹⁴Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.

Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow? Sorry, but that sounds like people are praying for President Obama to die, maybe even praying for his assassination. If you see someone with one of these bumper stickers or hats, ask them how they can in good conscience, no matter whether they agree with President Obama’s policies or not, pray for his death and for his daughters to become fatherless vagabonds. Ask them how they could ever utter such wishes for anyone. Then ask them what could possibly make them hate anybody so much. Heck, while your at it, ask ’em What Would Jesus Do?

Why Competition Across State Lines May Not Really Be Such a Great Idea

One of the oft-repeated ideas in the current healthcare debate is that Americans should have the right to shop for health insurance across state lines. The argument is usually framed in terms of increased competition that will bring prices down and increase the quality of insurance packages available. And after all, who wouldn’t be in favor of increased competition?

Well, this is one of those issues that sounds great in a sound bite, but if you dig just a little bit below the surface, you will recognize some real problems and why this idea may not be so great after all.

Right now, insurance companies are regulated in the states in which they provide insurance. Thus, if you are a resident of Indiana, your insurance is provided by an insurer licensed by the Indiana Department of Insurance. Here is how Carol Cutter, the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Insurance describes the Department’s role:

The purpose of the Indiana Department of Insurance is to protect Hoosiers as they purchase and use insurance products to keep their assets and their families from loss or harm. Consumers may need assistance with certain claim situations or just help in understanding how their policies work.  Our other primary obligation is to monitor the financial solvency of the insurance companies domiciled in Indiana so that the legal promises made in insurance policies are honored. To these ends, our Department staff is committed to providing exceptional customer service for both our consumers and our companies, and to maintain a fair and objective viewpoint as we examine each issue and circumstance within our jurisdiction.

I presume that other states have their own insurance departments that (again presumably) see their role in similar terms.

Now think about corporations for a minute. Have you ever noticed how many corporations are domiciled in Delaware? According to the Delaware Division of Corporations “More than 50% of all publicly-traded companies in the United States including 63% of the Fortune 500 have chosen Delaware as their legal home.” Why is that? After all, Delaware doesn’t have any large cities. The reason is simple: Delaware’s legislature made a conscious decision to enact laws that were seen as favorable to corporations (and in particular to corporate management, often at the expense of shareholders). Similarly, Delaware enacted less restrictive interest laws in order to make Delaware an attractive state of domicile for banks. At the end of the 19th Century, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York engaged in a race to attract corporate businesses. But when it comes to the protections given to shareholders, some might think of that race as a race to the bottom.

And that is what interstate insurance competition would lead to: A race to the bottom. States, in particular states with smaller populations or less homegrown industry, would be encouraged (don’t forget the strength of insurance lobbies) to enact laws that would be more favorable to the insurance companies. Those companies could then be domiciled in those states and offer their insurance packages across state lines into states with more rigorous consumer protection standards, greater solvency requirements, or more items that must be covered (mental  health or cancer screening, for example). So suddenly you, an Indiana resident, might be buying insurance from a company that the Indiana Department of Insurance has little or no ability to regulate but which is, instead, regulated by another state that has made the decision to lessen consumer safeguards to “drum up business”.

Let me offer one concrete example of how this might work and how it could impact a consumer. In Indiana, courts have ruled that when interpreting an insurance contract, any ambiguity is to be strictly construed against the insurer. (See, e.g., Cinergy Corp. v. Associated Elec. & Gas, 865 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 2007)). In other words, if there is an ambiguity about what something means in an insurance policy, an Indiana Court will read that policy in a way that favors the insured rather than the insurance company. The basic reason for this presumption goes to unequal bargaining power and the fact that the insurance company drafted the policy and had the best opportunity to craft precise language. Insurance contracts (like most well-drafted contracts) include a “choice of law” provision, in which the parties agree as to which state’s laws will govern interpretation of the contract. Usually the chosen state will be the state that is the home (or principal place of business) one of the parties. So think how appealing it would be for an insurer to choose as its home or principal place of business a state that adopted the opposite presumption; that is, a presumption in favor of the insurer (as opposed to the insured). Or imagine how appealing it would be to an insurer to be domiciled in a state that does not require insurance policies to provide mental health coverage or cancer screenings to be included.

Don’t think for a moment that I’m just making up this worry or that the idea had never crossed the minds of those advocating for interstate insurance competition. The Republican healthcare reform bill [pdf], which does allow for interstate competition (and which also, by the way, does nothing to prevent insurers from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions…) requires that the fine print of an insurance policy include the following language (emphasis added):

THIS POLICY IS ISSUED BY _____ AND IS GOVERNED BY THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF _____, AND IT HAS MET ALL THE LAWS OF THAT STATE AS DETERMINED BY THAT STATE’S DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. THIS POLICY MAY BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN OTHERS BECAUSE IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE NSURANCE LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE STATE OF _____, INCLUDING COVERAGE OF SOME SERVICES OR BENEFITS MANDATED BY THE LAW OF THE STATE OF _____. ADDITIONALLY, THIS POLICY IS NOT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS OR RESTRICTIONS ON RATE CHANGES OF THE STATE OF _____. AS WITH ALL INSURANCE PRODUCTS, BEFORE PURCHASING THIS POLICY, YOU SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW THE POLICY AND DETERMINE WHAT HEALTH CARE SERVICES THE POLICY COVERS AND WHAT BENEFITS IT PROVIDES, INCLUDING ANY EXCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS, OR CONDITIONS FOR SUCH SERVICES OR BENEFITS.

(See page 130.) Have you ever read the fine print of your insurance policy? Did you understand it?

Essentially, those who propose allowing interstate competition for health insurance packages already recognize that states may engage in a regulatory race to the bottom to encourage insurers to become domiciled in their state (think fees and taxes, not to mention the possibility of jobs).

Oh, one more thing about that Republican bill. When it comes to which state an insurance company could choose for “headquarters”, the bill specifically includes Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands (see page 121-122). Just imagine having to travel to Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands to engage in litigation with your insurer! (Most contracts include a choice of jurisdiction and venue as well; so long as one of the parties is domiciled or has a principal place of business in that “state”, most courts will recognize and enforce that choice of jurisdiction and venue.)

I’m sure that there are many, many other issues to consider in the debate about whether it is a good idea to allow for interstate competition in health insurance plans. But be sure to recognize that there is a downside to what, on its face, sounds like a great idea.

How Do We Respond?

Last week, I posted a photo of this banner that was prominently displayed at Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s anti-healthcare reform (and anti-government, anti-Obama, etc.) “press conference” rally at the Capitol:

If you can’t read the words or make out the image, it says, “National Socialist Health Care Dachau, Germany – 1945” above a photo of a pile of naked bodies.

Think for a second about the comparison being drawn: President Obama’s efforts to extend healthcare coverage to millions of uninsured Americans is being directly compared to the genocide committed by Nazi Germany.

Here is another sign that was displayed at the gathering (and remember, unlike the 9/12 rallies with 70,000 participants [or millions as Fox and the right like to suggest], last week’s rally drew a paltry 3,000 or so):

Nope, no anti-Semitism in that poster (and note that the the family’s name is Rothschilds; if you’re going to hate them, you could at least spell the name right…). Oh, and out of curiosity. If President Obama is a secret Muslim, why would he be taking orders from Jewish financiers?

After my previous post was uploaded, I learned that Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) was one of the speakers at the tea party. Why does this matter? Well, Rep. Cantor is the Republican whip (second-highest ranking Republican in the House of Representatives) and he is the only Jewish Republican in Congress (presuming for the sake of argument that Joe Lieberman isn’t really a Republican…). So what did Rep. Cantor have to say about the banner suggesting that the Holocaust is a fair comparison for healthcare reform? Nothing. His spokesperson said simply that the sign was “inappropriate”. And when interviewed and asked specifically about Rush Limbaugh’s comparisons of President Obama to Hitler (the comments were made back in August; Rep. Cantor did not respond to them until now), all that Rep. Cantor could only bring himself to say:

Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics. No, I don’t, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.

Here’s the video:

Note that when asked specifically if Limbaugh’s comment was “inappropriate”, Rep. Cantor is unable to simply say, “yes”, let alone come forth with a strong condemnation of Limbaugh’s hate-filled rhetoric.

And, for the record, other Republican members of Congress at the rally, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), have yet to condemn these signs or the messages that they convey.

So let’s compare Rep. Cantor’s views with those of another Jewish member of Congress, Rep. Steve Israel (D-New York):

Here’s what David Harris, President of the National Jewish Democratic Council had to say:

Today’s G.O.P. “Tea Party” on Capitol Hill opposing health insurance reform invoked disgusting Holocaust imagery and outright anti-Semitism. Top Republican Party leaders including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), and House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-IN) stood before a crowd that included a banner protesting health care reform and displaying corpses from the Holocaust. Yet another sign charged that “Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds” [sic]. Such vile invocations of Nazi and Holocaust rhetoric have been condemned in recent weeks by rabbinic movements, The Interfaith Alliance, and The American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants.

The time has come for Boehner, Cantor, Pence and other G.O.P. leaders—especially those who were present today—to condemn these disgusting comparisons and anti-Semitism. They must tell their base once and for all to cut out this despicable pattern of Holocaust imagery and rhetoric.

Norman Podhoretz recently wrote Why Are Jews Liberals? In his book, Podhoretz asks why Jews have aligned themselves with the Democratic party rather than with Republicans. Perhaps the refusal of Republican leaders, including Jewish Republican leaders, to take a strong stand and condemn the use of Nazi and anti-Semitic rhetoric might have just a little, tiny bit to do with it? Perhaps it might have something to do with the fact that the Republican party is willing not only to accept those who espouse hate, but actually allow them to influence or even dictate policy. And perhaps, just perhaps, it has something to do with a party that views truth and intellectual honesty as mere options.

Update September 17, 2010: Tried to fix a broken image link.

We Live in a Truly Sick Society (update)

As I mentioned when I updated my earlier post about the comments on the website of The Indianapolis Star regarding the attack on Rep. Ed Delaney, I decided to see what kinds of comments were left on the websites of the local TV stations. Here is a delightful sampling of the opinions of some of the members of our community (I’ve reformatted the posts into single paragraphs):

First from WISH-TV (CBS affiliate):

space1999: I don't want to sound negative, but in a peaceful country, its tough to get abused everyday by the lawmakers who do nothing except shop and spend money, so you might see more of this, in a revolution, you see a lot of this action as we go to football games and talk stocks in dockers while overseas our kids get murdered fighting for this. Its one thing to fight for land and food, but its another to fight for a football game and a stock.

Ready: That's right, .... We...... you ... me ... and everyone else has let this once great country go to hell . We're all just sitting around looking at each other, doing NOTHING . Think it's time for a civil war ? Can't wait much longer or we'll have no chance of recovering .

Guest: Dems cleaning up the mess again, funny how short our memories really are. Ever since Mr. Clinton, a Democrat I do believe, passed a bill that said, every american should have the right to own their own house. Well, as we can all tell by the high foreclosure rates they shouldn't be allowed. Takes about a good 4-5 years at least to default on a home which just happen to be during a Republican term. Good thing Obama is promising "change" all he has brought is another messed up blackman's checkbook.

revolutionisnear: If your a serviceman you should be ashamed you walked the democratic line. Dems have never supported our troops they have always condemed them. This country is on its way to a 2nd revolution because politicians on both sides are stealing from americans and americans are tired of it so you might want to start accepting that. From one serviceman to another

dude: i'd say this is just one of many such attacks in the mos to come. americans of all parties are feedup with politicans. liberalism is a cancer in america that must be stopped. the 2.3 million protestors who went to DC to protest obama recently shows americans have joined hands to fight this adminstrations war against american values. every poll out there says its going to be the end of liberals up for reelection reguardly of why party their in. time to stand up and fight for america, its worth saving from these dem liberals we got in their now. and if its a repub liberal which there are a few, throw them out too. CONSERVATIVES ROCK !!!!!! Palin 2012 [Comment: I like how Dude manages to inflate the inflated estimates of the size of the 9/12 tea parties up to 2.3 million; right-wingers inflated the number to 1-1.7 million; the actual number appears to be about 70,000.]

dave: Delaney is a punk who deserved a beating. Dont all politicians?

dave: ALL politicians need their ***es beat! Mendenhall did a good job on this one. Multiple fractures of the orbital socket - NICE! Mr. Delaney will be fine and eventually go back to his nice big house and rubbing elbows with the hoity toiters during a nice big expensive lunch. If i got jacked up somewhere like out on the Monon Trail and was in the hospital for days - id lose my job.

lisa: Well, let's hear the whole story about the lawsuit. Is it ok for someone with clout and $ to bankrupt a family and force a woman to work 15 hours a day to feed 2 little ones. That is worse than a couple broken bones and bruises. Those will heal, this family will never heal. Is he proud as a person and senator to say what he did to this family and put it on his record that is the kind of person he is?? What goes around comes around, he should have waited til life caught up with the senator - he would eventually suffer. Now this poor family has to suffer even more because of this senator who claims he is for helping people. WHy didn't he consider this family as humans instead of going after them/destroying them? Obviously he has no conscous just a goat with no face. All for lining his greedy pockets like the majority of politicians

Whack-a-mole: great comment. There is saying, "Never mess with a man's family or money". I do not feel bad for the senator because he went after both. I am also dissapointed in the self righteous comments from the upperclass individuals. Wait till you are in desperate times and we will see how high up in the air your nose sticks

SUPER VILLAIN!!!: LOOKS LIKE HE GOT WHAT THE HECK HE DESERVED!!!! PEOPLE WAS JUST TRYING TO OPEN A STORE & MAKE A LIVING. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE STORE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHOP THERE. JUST LIKE YOU RACIST PEOPLE SAY BLKS DON'T HAVE TO HANG OUT AT LANDSHARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now let’s see what people had to say on the website for WRTV (ABC affiliate):

Obvious: I am just saying that an older man in the front seat of a car, parked in a secluded place, with a younger man (wearing a wig) sitting in the passenger seat?  Sounds like more was going on than real estate advice.

Obvious: I'm not arguing that the "vendetta" is behind the beating, but maybe, just maybe the initial reason for the "hook-up" was less than honorable.

Heyyyy: A red wig... a PT Cruiser... a secluded area? One of two words come to mind. "Weird" is one of them. You guess what the other one is.

Guest: The property was locked and sealed and sold at auction and the state kept the money....... ......hellllllllllo...........that would be enough to make me want to hurt the guy after 26 years. Just another story of the politicians in this town doing wrong to people and getting away with it.

Union Buster: maybe this slim bag lawyer had whats coming to him

Mr Conservative: Lawyers killing lawyers... there is a god...

rocko: Just another scumbag attorney getting what he deserves!

Craig: I can't wait to hear how this turns out. Another politician caught!

Guest: This was an indecent act of sex in the park that went wrong

Next there is WTHR (NBC affiliate) which has far fewer comments (the comment feature appears to be more difficult to use):

Guest: Now get the guy a good lawyer and show that representative/lawyer what it feels like to have some slime attorney drag him through the legal process.

Finally, WXIN (the Fox affiliate) has far fewer articles on the attack and those articles don’t appear to have a comment feature enabled.

One final note: Apparently, the attacker’s family has set up a website where they are soliciting money for a legal defense fund. I’m not going to link to the site because I don’t think they deserve the publicity. It is interesting to note, however, that on the legal defense fund page, there is absolutely no reference to Rep. Delaney. The page thanks people for their prayers and best wishes for the attacker but apparently his friends and family couldn’t be bothered to extend their own prayers and best wishes to Rep. Delaney. Classy.

Anyway, take another moment to remember that the posts that I’ve copied reflect a viewpoint within our community. Hopefully, that viewpoint is simply a loud, obnoxious minority. But I think that we need to be alert that their may be more people who have such venom and that the current political rhetoric (witness the tea parties) may be emboldening them to action and not just words.

Tea Party Idiots Are Back ... and Just as Vile

I don't have time for a full discussion of today's tea party protest (or is that a "press conference" as Republican staffers were apparently told to day) organized by none other than Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota). But I did want to take a brief moment to post photos of a sign being prominently displayed in front of the Capitol today:

And a close-up:

The misguided or hate-filled mind that would create and carry that sign is what rational Americans have to fight against.

Oh, and did you hear the joke about the Republican healthcare reform proposal? You know, the bill that doesn’t stop insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and that would, by 2019, only reduce the number of people without health insurance by 3 million. Oops. Sorry. That wasn’t a joke. But it sure sounds like one.

[Update: I tried to correct a typo on this post and now, for some reason, the date of the post has changed from November 5, 2009, to March 16, 2010. I'll try to fix that.]

IN Touch: Mean-Spirited Comments or We Live in a Truly Sick Society

My twelfth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online. As I've said previously, I'm going to keep re-posting those entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

In the past, I've complained about editing when posts have made it into the print edition of The Indianapolis Star and even some of the online versions. However, this time, the editing problems are much worse than usual: The last several paragraphs, including my conclusion, have all been deleted without explanation. I don't know if it was intentional or an error. I've written to the editorial staff to ask that this be corrected, but so far I haven't heard anything (and the edited version is still online). I'm going to reprint my entire post in the format that I wrote it. I'll indicate where the post on the the IN Touch blog stops.

Before diving into the post, I thought that it was worth giving those of my readers not from the Indianapolis area a brief bit of background about the incident at the heart of this post. On Saturday morning, Ed Delaney, an attorney and first term Democratic Representative in the Indiana General Assembly (his wife is a major player in Indiana Democratic politics), went to an Indianapolis suburb, apparently to meet a potential new client who wanted Delaney to look at some property the "client" was interested in acquiring. It turns out that the potential client was another attorney, Augustus Mendenhall, who has apparently been harboring a grudge against Delaney since approximately 1983 (yes, you read that right, 1983) when Delaney was peripherally involved in litigation against Mendenhall's father. Back then, Indianapolis' prosecutor (and future mayor) Stephen Goldsmith, was going after porn shops in the city. Delaney represented a major developer that was apparently upset about a porn shop near its shopping mall. Goldsmith sued Mendenhall's father who owned the property where the porn shop was located and eventually succeeded in closing the porn shop (and seizing Mendenhall's property), but the prosecution was overzealous and was partially overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court (the seizure of property was the issue). Mendenhall sued Goldsmith, but lost. That is obviously a very abridged version of the story (and is taken from bits and pieces that I've read; I haven't done any real research into the back story).

So, with that as background, here is my IN Touch post:

By now, I’m sure that most of us have heard about the attack on Rep. Ed Delaney. Others who know Ed better than I do have and will continue to write about the kind of person he is, the service that he has provided to the community, and the senselessness of the attack. Instead, I want to focus attention on some of the comments posted on the website of The Indianapolis Star in response to the attack on Rep. Delaney. Take a moment and read these comments and then ponder what those comments say about the state of our society.

no2bama666: a liberal anti american politican, and being an attorney, hmmm, sounds like a double header beating this one's tush haha. well you live a life of hurting other ppl, an one day its your turn to be hurt, his day finally came.

acyl72: It is unfortunate that this moron could not even maintain his gun properly. Otherwise we'd be rid of one more crooked politician. If they won't go for term limits maybe we could use a more permanent form of term limit.

taytertott: What is the problem? One crook fighting another crook. Looks as if this may be an eye opener to some of these rude lawyers, and politicians. Your not safe even from your own. Now think about that when you treat some one from the street like crap. Sorry this man is hurt but Karma has a way of rearing it's head. Once again politicians interfering where they don't belong.

scooterbug300: [Delaney] was the slime ball attorney for a greedy developer who used his money to buy Goldsmith to drive out a business he did not want near his mall.

MB451645: So, if you shoot a police officer in the head, some scumbag lawyer uses the intent to kill defense. If you punch out a scumbag liberal Democrat piece of dung, it's attempted murder? We're in big trouble.

[this is where the post ends on the Star's website]

no2bama666: seems pretty obivious de laney was dirty and did something crooked. de laney didn't get charged with anything, but he doesn't have a good history behind him. he may have gotten off very light for what he did to this man's father. there are times a good beating is the only way to balance things out even if it is illegal. lots of things are illegal and we all break laws everyday.

cabinetguy: I can think of several politicians that need the same treatment, the entire system needs an attitude adjustment to say the least.

katldy73: Politicians think they are untouchable. Well they aren't. Your actions always have consequences.

Jennevieve67: I hope he hires the most savvy attorney he can find and I hope this attorney beats this political power hungry man at his own game. Sometimes you can push to hard and then someone pushes back. I think the wrong man is in jail....

CombatSoldie: Nice thing about this story is that everyone involved is an over educated democrat. Mendenhall is a law school grad who is a practicing lawyer. He is upset over DeLaney (D, husband of Ann) was the attorney (working for the Simon Mall, btw they are democrats, very rich ones) would not allow a porn shop. Too bad more democrats will not do the same type of attacks. It would clean up Indiana.

I worry that these sorts of comments are, in part, the result of the general nature of uncivil discourse that we’ve been watching in the political arena; or perhaps, the uncivil discourse is the product of a society that tolerates comments like these. But we, as responsible citizens, need to stand up and say enough is enough. Thankfully, for each of these horrible comments posted on the Star’s website, a number of other comments critical of these viewpoints were also posted. So perhaps all hope for civility is not lost.

I think that losing those last few comments, not to mention my conclusion, really lessens the impact of the post.

Since submitting my post to the Star yesterday, I've continued to follow some of the comment threads. Here are two more that caught my attention:

rebts: masses too stupid so we take their porn away because we know what is good for them, dems think masses are too stupid and therefore violence will happen to them... maybe since he was a dem he thought he should be able to do anything and it would be OK because he was a dem..but the other dem thought the same thing and then violence happened, yeah,...correlation..

combatsoldie: The masses will use violence when speech is silenced. These days the elite dems believe that the masses are too stupid and have to ruled.

Do these comments represent just a small, fringe element of society or are they indicative of a much wider problem?

Update (Nov. 6, 2009)

Here are a few more comments posted on the website for The Indianapolis Star:

icecis: Politician's lie WAYYY more than lawyers do......While politicians are not Kissing babies in their momma's arms, the minute mom turns their back, their stealing the kid's Lollipop. I believed every word Aug said in the Partly shown video of his statement after arrest. I sympathize with the pain of the Victim at his Age, and how terrifying it must have been for him and family...Delaney was in the hospital less than 48 hours though. Still not excused....Aug is going to do time, but if he gets Attempted Murder and 110 years in prison....im seriously moving out of the U.S. IM done with corruption in this country and good people and families getting screwed because people cant tell the truth and do the RIGHT thing. If that had happened 20 years ago, this would have never happened. Delaney, Id be at church this weekend praying Dateline doesnt get hold of this story and doing some footwork and be thankful that newscasters in this City dont have alot of Gusto for "intriguing" stories.

icecis: There's corruption in the governement. This story is alot more than the news. Ever think some of the news might be a little corrupted too and obviously ....the news for all purposes are going to take the victims side, as they should.......but Delaney sureeeeee likes that camera right now............Still not excusing the act of weakness mendenhall had and the terrible beating.....but Delaney aint a saint here, he's lying and exxagerrating thru his teeth and eating it up for the camera. I sound cruel?? Yah. maybe. Corruption is everywhere. Corruption is in the news too, to sell votes and papers. WE aint hearing it all folks. Aug, Id trust you with my kids any day of the week. My boy's middle name is yours and you've always been my hero, .......and his too. Hang in there.

lastrep: Democrats are lauding the jamming as a life saving event while on the way to escort unborn babies to their death.

LifeLongIndyMan: I wonder how many of these tea-bagging bible belters are saying to themselves "Man.. the one time God has to jam a gun it's a democrat and a lawyer.. dagnabit.."

These comments got me curious, so I decided to see what kind of comments were left on the websites for the local TV stations. If possible, those comments are even worse. I'll post a follow-up with some of that vile insanity soon.

Why Do Colts Fans Boo Injured Players?

In recent years fans of the Indianapolis Colts have developed a bit of a reputation for being "low class" (or other less charitable phrases). The reputation is undeserved and is the product of a crowd that knows and understands the game reacting in a way that to those who don't know and understand the game -- and in particular, don't know and understand the way the Colts play the game -- seems wrong. Do Colts fans boo injured players? Yes, but only some of the time. And it is an understanding of the when and why Colts fans boo an injury that explains why Colts fans aren't really being "low class" at all.

The first thing that must be understood is how the Colts offense plays the game. Unlike almost all other teams, the Colts don't go into a huddle between plays. When one play ends, the offense walks right up to the line of scrimmage and gets ready for the next play. The Colts are able to do this effectively because their quarterback, Peyton Manning, is so good at what he does. Using the "no huddle" offense provides the Colts with several advantages. First, it allows the team to get into a rhythm from play to play to play. That is part of the reason that the Colts are so successful in marching straight down the field so often. In addition, by using the no huddle offense the Colts are able to keep the defense from making player substitutions that might be appropriate given the down and distance situation in the game. If the defense has to rely upon the "wrong" player being in the game in a particular situation, then that is an advantage for the Colts. Furthermore, the no huddle offense can be physically exhausting on a defense and, if the defense is exhausted, it should be easier for the offense to have success. Finally, the Colts have become quite adept at being ready to run the next play very, very quickly and catching the other team with too many players on the field (while making substitutions) or being out of position. Sometimes, the defense get penalized; sometimes the defense will call a timeout; and sometimes the defense will fake an injury. And that is when Colts fans boo.

If you watch a Colts game carefully, you will note that Colts fans don't boo when member of the opposing team's offense or special teams is injured. And Colts fans don't boo when there is an obvious real  injury. For that matter, Colts fans almost never boo when a defensive player stays down immediately after a play. But when a defensive player gets up after a play, walks back into his team's huddle, looks over to the sidelines, and then takes a knee or "falls" to the ground, we know what we're seeing. The strategy of faking an injury was perfected by the New England Patriots (and Willie McGinest in particular in a December 2003 game when New England was out of timeouts).

The next time that you watch a Colts game, here a few things to notice about "injuries" that the other team may incur:

• The "injury" rarely affects one of the defense's top players;
• The "injury" usually happens just before a 3rd down play;
• The "injury" usually happens right after a big play or right before a critical play;
• The "injury" is almost always described as a cramp;
• The "injured" player usually sits out one or two plays and then returns;
• Frequently the coach or defensive coordinator of the other team will be seen smiling or laughing on the sidelines while the "injury" is being attended to; and
• Sometimes two players are "injured" at the same time, but remarkably one of them is able to continue while the other has to come out of the game for a play or two.

True fans of football never want to see a player injured. But fans of the game also don't want a team to take advantage of the care that is taken to prevent injuries to be used as a tool. In reality, what is going on is that Colts fans are booing the coach of the other team for having so little respect for the game. Colts fans aren't booing the injured player or the injury; we are booing the other team for resorting to a lie in order to try to stop our offense.