Yesterday, I heard a news clip about the Iroquois national lacrosse team being stranded in New York trying to travel to the World Lacrosse Championship on tribal passports. The Iroquois invented the sport, so their absence would be a pretty big deal. I'm a little confused on the details, though.

According to the news I heard, the Iroquois Confederacy (site currently down) does not recognize the legitimacy of the United States government, and therefore will not travel on US passports. However, the United States is not guaranteeing re-entry into New York on the Iroquois passports. The Iroquois position makes sense to some degree. There's no reason that anyone, especially a nation with the proud history of the Iroquois, should have to accept unwanted citizenship in any other country.

However, by requesting permission from the US to re-enter New York, the team is in that very same act recognizing the legitimacy of the USA's claim on that land. If the USA was not a legitimate government, the Iroquois would have no need to request entry. If the citizens of the Iroquois Confederacy choose to be Iroquois citizens rather than US citizens, then they need green cards in order to live in US territory. The United States should treat the Iroquois passports just like a passport from any other nation and issue (or not) a visa for a temporary visit. When presented with a foreign passport, I see no reason why the United States should treat it as a domestic one.

That said, this whole border control thing is getting quite ridiculous. The Detroit Marathon crosses over into Canada and back into the United States. And, there are Homeland Security agents along the route, demanding to see every runner's credentials as they cross the border and arresting anyone they find suspicious. There are plenty of ways into the country that would be more convenient for potential terrorists than running 26.2 miles with no baggage or practicing lacrosse enough to earn a spot on the world's 4th best team.

Regardless of the applicability of the Iroquois passports, and regardless of potential to run from Canada to the United States without a passport, there are much larger threats to worry about. Plus, generating some international goodwill by relaxing on some of these issues might actually make the rest of the world hate us a little less and reduce the threat of an attack!

Health care. Wow, I've been trying very hard not to post about this. I have very mixed feelings - health care clearly needs reform -- or reconception. The whole premise of "insurance" doesn't really work for health care, except in the case of major catastrophe. Obama's plan makes some improvements but stops short of throwing out the current system. The law itself is full of competing interests, compromises, and deals. Such is the way of our legislative system, by design. That all is what it is, and I have little to say on those issues.

However, I don't like the mandate that citizens must purchase health insurance. Yes, I must purchase car insurance, but only if I want to drive. And then only because I'm putting other citizens' welfare at risk. As long as our health care system is insurance based, my own coverage is a personal issue and should be a personal choice. I should have the opportunity to purchase it if I want, but I should not be required to, if I don't want.

The corollary to that, of course, is that those who choose not to purchase health insurance shouldn't necessarily receive care when they need it, if they can't pay. And that perspective is political suicide, so nobody's going there.

Anyway, as much as I support the health care plan overall, I appreciated the fourteen states that challenged the constitutionality of that particular piece of it. I have, however, discovered a wrinkle in my perspective.

In 1798, President John Adams signed a law (scroll to the bottom of the first page) requiring all mariners to pay for government-managed health insurance.

Was this law constitutional? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it's certainly precedent, direct from the founding fathers, and precedent carries a lot of weight in legal decisions. I may have to change my position from "It's not constitutional" to "It shouldn't be constitutional."

Private Entry

I have been thinking about this article for the past few days now, so I decided to post it here.

Basically, it points out that Detroit is a "food desert," that is, it has no produce-carrying grocery stores, and there is almost no access to food that isn't boxed, wrapped, and processed.

It goes on to say that Detroit might benefit, both socially and economically, from becoming an agricultural center. It talks about how naturally fertile Detroit is, and how it would not only greatly benefit the health of Detroit's citizens, but how it would also breathe a little bit of commerce and sustainability into a town that desperately needs it.

Right now, there are a lot of ideas going around about what's next for Detroit, how it can pull itself up and out of a really dire strait. I thought this was one of the better ones, and certainly (wait for it...yep, I'm going there!) food for thought.

For the past week or so, bishops of the Episcopal Church have been meeting in Anaheim, CA at their annual General Convention. Among the issues they're discussing is the blessing of same-sex partnerships. They have stopped short of calling it "marriage," but yesterday they voted 103-30 to bless same-sex unions in states where legal. This is a great step forward, congratulations to all affected!