Random thoughts – And a few questions.

Tell me if I am missing something here.  There is a very seriously ill child in Britain that has a possibility of getting experimental treatment in the United States. The money to move the child has been raised. There are American doctors who would like to give what is admittedly a long-shot option for the parents.  And yet the whole thing is tied up in British courts which have sided with a hospital’s decision that the eleven-month old boy should be taken off life support. The hospital claims that any additional kind of therapy would just prolong the child’s suffering. Right now it looks like they are not going to let the child out of the country for the experimental treatment.  Excuse me. Isn’t this a decision for the parents to make?  How can a court determine a child’s fate without the input of the mother and father?  I don’t get it. Maybe there is someone out there that has an answer to this one.

The dictionary defines the word “collusion” as “A secret agreement between two or more persons for a deceitful or fraudulent purpose.”  Donald Trump Jr. has said that his meeting during the 2016 presidential campaign with a Putin-connected Russian lawyer who supposedly had some dirt on Hillary Clinton, wasn’t collusion. I’m not sure that the meeting was fraudulent or deceitful, and I’m not even sure that it was illegal.  But it does raise some questions about the “Russian connection” that president Trump keeps denying. The fact that Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner was also involved in the meeting shows at the very least poor judgment.  If it isn’t collusion, then what is it? Any way one cuts it, there is an odor to it.

You’ve all seen pictures of jubilant Iraqi soldiers celebrating the taking of the city of Mosul. They do their victory celebrations against a backdrop of the city that looks like Berlin in 1945. It is a reminder of a famous statement made in Vietnam by an Army Colonel who stated that a peasant village had be burned to the ground to save it.  The shattered buildings and ruined infrastructure looks like anything but victory to me. I doubt all the people who lost their homes in the conflagration would disagree with me. It seems hardly anything to cheer about.

Finally, there is a front page story in Today’s Boston Globe about the big insurance company AIG. They cancelled a long term health care policy on an 80 year old woman who had paid premiums for years after she made a mistake in writing out her monthly check to the company. She was about $98 dollars short.  For that, AIG cancelled her coverage due to non-payment of a premium. Attempts to get AIG to let her correct her error were not favorably received by the company. She’s been dumped. According to her children, the woman is in the early stages of dementia and is headed for a nursing home. I wonder who is going to be on the hook for her care?  Apparently the higher ups at AIG have made sure it won’t be them.

 

Defending the rights of all

The American Civil Liberties Union was started almost 100 years ago with the intent of defending the rights and liberties of Americans that are guaranteed under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. In its almost a century of existence it has been condemned and criticized by liberals and conservatives. More recently, liberals were angered when the ACLU backed the National Rifle Association in opposing a national gun registry. In the 1970’s the ACLU supported the rights of a neo-Nazi group to hold a public rally in Illinois. That also didn’t go over well with the left.

Conservatives have never liked the ACLU’s support of such things as affirmative action, and abortion and reproductive rights. The same is true of the rights of prisoners, immigrants, and anti-war activists. The right loves to target the ACLU over its opposition to school-led prayer in public schools. So it is interesting to see that long standing division of opinion about the ACLU’s role in defending civil liberties, playing out in today’s news stories.

The Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU argued yesterday in Suffolk Superior Court that the state’s requirement that requires individuals to register to vote within 20 days of an election is unconstitutional. Claiming that the requirement is “overburdensome,” the ACLU has stated that Massachusetts should provide the least restrictive means of registering voters–i.e. same day registration. The current policy has a chilling effect on potential voters, according to the ACLU. This doesn’t make conservatives who are concerned about voter fraud happy.  In another case that is irking conservatives, the ACLU has backed LGBT efforts to force a Colorado maker of wedding cakes to accommodate gay couples that want one. The cake maker says that doing this violates his religious rights. The ACLU has weighed in against this interpretation of the First Amendment saying that “You can have the freedom to believe and preach your faith, until your actions harm other people.” Opposing discriminatory conduct, at least in the eyes of the ACLU trumps religious freedom.

In Pennsylvania, the ACLU yesterday defended the actions of a retired naval officer who wants to broadcast taps every night from his home. The local government had singled out his 57 second performance as a “nuisance.” Not so, says the ACLU who have argued that the state’s cease and desist order is unconstitutional. It is content-based discrimination in their view. Liberals aren’t applauding the ACLU for this.

When you look at the long history of positions taken by the ACLU it’s pretty clear that its goal continues to be defending our rights and liberties against encroachment by government. And it doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum one supports.  We should be grateful that we’ve got an organization like the ACLU in our corner when and if we ever need it.