Too Mini Men

Double Down

2011-02-11T13:29:00.000-08:00

There is theory in blackjack, that most beginning players have considered employing. It's called chasing your losers. The theory is that if you double your bet every time you lose, when you finally win a hand, you get all your money back It works great... in theory. The theory, however, has one fatal flaw. When you run out of money, or hit the table limit, which can happen quickly, you lose... BIG. If you start out with a $10 bet, it take a mere in a row to be down $2,550. Two more, and you are down $10,230.

There is a school of thought that says that we need to continue to spend, invest, stimulate the economy. Whether it is Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman, or President Obama, they are saying that we need to continue our current spending levels, and that the worst thing that we could possibly do is to reduce spending. The problem, though, is that even governments can run out of money. It has happened recently in Greece and Ireland. It has the potential of happening soon in Spain, Portugal and Italy. In theory, it is possible to spend your way out of a recession, but just like chasing losers in blackjack, there is always the possibility that you can hit a losing streak, and when you lose, you lose big.

The Health Care Bill - the Law that Keeps on Being Written

2010-11-23T21:50:00.000-08:00

On November 22, 2010, and we once again find out what happens when we can't know what is in a bill until we pass a bill. This is the date that the Obama Administration announced that it knows better than an entire industry, and placed a requirement on health insurance companies that they spend 80-85% of health insurance premiums on medical related expenses. While this is not technically a limit on profits, it is at least a close cousin.

It sounds good, doesn't it? Even though most of us are insulated from the full price of our health insurance premiums, because they are paid by our employers, we all know that they are expensive - too expensive, even. So the idea that 80% of our premiums going toward medical expenses sounds like we are going to end up getting more bang for our buck. On the face of it, it appears that, if a health insurer is spending more than 20% on costs/profits, that they will have to reduce them in order to comply with the law. Although this not necessarily the case, let us, for the sake of argument, assume that insurers will comply with the law by reducing their non-medical expenses.

Off the top of my head, non-medical expenses include, but are not limited to, administrative costs (people's salaries), infrastructure (computers, office equipment, offices, etc.), fraud investigations, and profits (can't forget those). So, which of these are going to get cut? Profits are the easy answer, but profits for health insurance companies are currently around 3.5%. There isn't much more to cut, there. So, what else is going to get cut? People's salaries? Or should we just reduce the number of people employed in the insurance industry? Maybe we don't need those new-fangled computers (even though they probably make the industry much more cost efficient). Fraud investigations? That wouldn't cause incidents of fraud to rise, would it? When you look at the actual places that cuts would be made, it becomes evident that there might not be all that much fat to cut.

The other way that companies could come into compliance... the easy way for them to comply with this new rule, is to increase the other side of the equation - the amount spend on medical expenses. Rising medical expenses would result in rising premiums, and if the non-medical expenses remained constant, they would become a smaller percentage of premiums. This is certainly not the intent of the new regulation, but it is a likely result of it.

I don't normally make predictions, but if and when this latter scenario plays out, the next move will not be the repeal of this rule, it will be the adoption of even more regulations. If medical expenses increase as a result of an increase in the cost of specific tests and procedures, price controls will be instituted to prohibit their inflation. If insurers start authorizing additional tests in order to cause their medical expenses to rise, regulations will be instituted to limit what tests can be administered for what conditions.

But here is the real travesty. No one voted on this regulation. Not one Congressman. Not one Senator. Every single person that voted for the health care bill in March can honestly say that this is not what they voted for. But they did vote for it. They voted for it because they voted for a bill that said things like "The Secretary shall make such rules..." over and over throughout the legislation. Our legislature, once again, has abrogated their responsibility of creating the law, and handed it over to the executive branch. This is why Nancy Pelosi was correct when she said that we couldn't know what is in the law until they passed the law - because the law wasn't written, even then. In my last post, one of my suggestions to the new Republican majority was to take back the power that they have given over to the executive branch. The more I think about it, the more important I think this is. Congress should pass a law requiring that all executive-enacted regulation must be ratified by the Congress, either within a certain period of time, or, better yet, before it goes into effect. On November 22, 2010, we learned of another piece of the health care bill. It won't be the last, because, eight months after the bill was passed and signed into law, the health care bill continues to be written.

An Open Letter to John Boehner

2010-11-03T22:48:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Boehner,

First of all, congratulations on your historic victory in the just concluded midterm election. I remember 1994, staying up to watch the election returns come in as seat after seat fell to Republicans, and they were able to take control of the House for the first time in 40 years. This was the first election since then that has had me so enthused, and I look forward to your inauguration as the new Speaker of the House. As hard as it is to imagine, the election is the easy part. Governing is the hard part. You've won. Now what? You seem to have made a good start, you struck the right tone in your speech on election night. You seem to realize that this was not a victory for Republicans as much as it was a defeat of Democrats. But now it is time to move forward, and with that in mind, I would like to offer you a little advice.

1. Keep things simple. Write legislation that is easy to understand. Whenever possible, have each piece of legislation should serve a single purpose. A bill should have a preamble, telling what it is supposed to do in plain, clear language. It should then have bullet points to explain how it is going to do that. Only then should the legal-eze appear, and even then, if it starts to near 100 pages, red flags should go up that this is getting much too complicated.

This is much of the problem with grandiose legislative initiatives like the Health Care Bill. By the time it was written, it was over 2,000 pages of legal mumbo jumbo that no one could understand. Republicans have their own ideas for health care reform. Instead of rolling these up into one big health care bill, have a series of bills created. For example: Republicans would like to allow people to buy health insurance form any company, regardless of the state that the policy is underwritten in. Great. Write it up. How long would it take to write a bill that just did that? A second Health Care reform Republicans have proposed is that people should be able to buy their own health insurance policy, and get the same tax breaks that corporations get. There is a second bill, write it up, vote on it, send it on to the Senate. Make the Senate and the President go on the record on these "common sense" reforms, that have been written in such a way that the American people understand precisely what it is that is being voted on.

2. Pass a new rule that, in every two-year session of Congress, every member of Congress has the opportunity to bring one piece of legislation to the floor for a vote. It is my belief that this would go a long way to show that Republicans are interested in working with Democrats. Nancy Pelosi came off as authoritative. Democrats, with their large majorities, were unwilling to even listen to Republican ideas, let alone allow them to be voted on. Show that you are a bigger person, and that the Republicans are the party of grown-ups. Every member can bring one piece of legislation out of committee, without committee approval. It will receive an up or down vote, and the American people will know where both sides stand. Of course, all legislation must pass whatever test is placed it by the first suggestion.

3. Target the deficit. Come up with a number that you want to reduce the deficit by, and try to meet it. Better yet, give a number to the President and let him know that any budget that he proposes that exceeds that number will be considered dead on arrival. This would tell the American people that you are serious about tackling the debt.

4. Quit giving away your authority by creating agencies that have the power to write regulations with the force of law. It is your job to make law. Do it. This was another problem with the Health Care Bill. The legislation didn't create rules as much as it created agencies that had the power to write them. And while you are at it, take back some of the authority that you have given to agencies such as the EPA. How about this. Any new regulation put in place by the EPA is only valid for 60 days, unless both houses of Congress vote on the regulation, and the President signs it into law - just like any other law. This needs to be implemented soon, or the EPA may end up instituting cap and trade without anyone every casting a vote on it.

5. For every new law, and new regulation, that you pass, you will repeal one. Better yet, be bold, and go for a two-fer. Repeal 2 laws for every new one that you pass. Most Americans have come to realize that there are too many regulations placed on them. The problem is, every time a new bill is signed into law, the burden becomes heavier. Laws don't often go away, just like spending programs don't. Make an effort to reduce this burden on the American people.

6. Find a way to show Americans that you are just as opposed to Big Business as you are Big Government. Power corrupts, and absolute power... Well, we all know that. The bigger anything is, the more corrupt it becomes, and this is true just as much for Big Business as it is for Big Government. It is a common misconception to think that Big Business is opposed to the regulatory burden placed on it by Big Government. The fact of the matter is, in many instances , they welcome it, because they can afford to accommodate the regulations, passing the costs on to consumers. Where they benefit is from the reduction of competition from small business. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a good piece of legislation, however, you can't argue that it is much easier for McDonald's to be able to comply with its requirements than it is for Ma's Diner.

It has been said, be careful of what you wish for, you just might get it. Well, Mr. Boehner, you have long wished to be Speaker of the House... to have at least one hand on the reigns of government. You have it now, but only with power that has been loaned to you from the American people. Use it wisely, or you may find that this blessing can quickly turn into a curse. I wish you luck, you may need it.

Sincerely,

Brent W. Tuominen

Sola, sola, sola, sola, sola

2010-10-31T18:08:00.001-07:00

Today is Reformation Sunday. The day that we remember Martin Luther nailing his 95 thesis to the door of the church at Wittenburg. One of the things that came out of the reformation is concept of the "five solas", sola scriptura (scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), sola christo (Christ alone) and sola gloria dei (to the glory of God alone). Five things that stand alone assure us of salvation. But at what point do five things standing alone become five things standing together? Perhaps the answer is that they do not ever stand together because they are all one and the same thing. Scripture alone is faith alone. Faith alone is grace alone. Grace alone is Christ alone. Christ alone is God's glory alone. These five things, which stand alone, stand alone because they are all different descriptions of the same thing.

A Scout is... Trustworthy

2010-09-27T22:35:00.001-07:00

"A scout is trustworthy. A scout tells the truth. He is honest, and he keeps his promises. People can depend on him." This is taken directly from the Boy Scout Handbook. I actually like the original version, from Robert Baden-Powell better. "A scout's honour is to be trusted. If a scout says 'On my honour it is so,' that means it is so, just as if he had taken a most solemn oath. Similarly, if a scout officer says to a scout, 'I trust you on your honor to do this,' the scout is bound to carry out the order to the very best of his ability, and to let nothing interfere with his doing so. If a scout were to break his honour by telling a lie, or by not carrying out an order exactly when trusted to do so, he would cease to be a scout, and must hand over his scout badge and never be allowed to wear it again."

What I really like about that original version is the way that it links trustworthiness with honor. Honor is a concept that we really don't think about anymore, but that doesn't make it any less important. As I see it, your honor is tied up with who you are. You could look at it as the image that you portray to the world, but I like to think of it as your image in the eyes of God. Another way of looking at it is the way people feel about you in a pinch, and this is where we get back to the concept of trustworthiness. In order for people to be able to count on you in a pinch, they have to be able to trust you. Ultimately, that comes down to your character.

Young people today seem awfully concerned about being "disrespected." The problem with this is that they think that respect is one of their inalienable rights. But that is not the case. Respect is the result of honor. Honor comes from trustworthiness. Trustworthiness is earned. This is a key component of scouting, and it starts from an early age. The Cub Scout motto, "Do your best," is chock full of trustworthiness. In order to be trustworthy, people need to know that they can count on you to give it your all at all times. Do you best - no one can ever expect any more than that. Scouts are taught, from an early age, that if they focus on being trustworthy and doing their absolute best at all times, they will, ultimately, earn respect.

I want to briefly go back to the religious element of trustworthiness and honor. In the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, the signatories pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. These guys really got the concept of honor. Their lives and their fortunes were pretty important, but the only thing that they considered to be sacred was their honor. Your trustworthiness, your honor, your character is what defines you. There are few institutions left in this country that teaches young men the concept of honor as being a compact between you and everyone in society (not just your teammates) and between you and God.

BSA 100

2010-09-27T01:33:00.001-07:00

This past weekend, we spent the weekend camping with 5000+ of our closest friends, in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts is one of our country's great institutions, and its 100th birthday is a big deal. In the coming weeks, I plan to blog on the importance of the Boy Scouts' core values, but, for today, I thought that I would give my general impression of the Boy Scouts, and why all for of my children (yes, the girls, too) are part of the BSA.

The Boy Scouts do a remarkable job of taking boys and turning them into men; and when I say men, I mean young men that mothers would be proud of - young men that you would be proud to have date, or even marry your daughters. I remember, years ago, attending a dinner where young men from our area who had achieved the rank of Eagle Scout in the past year were being honored. As each of them were coming forward to receive their award, I noticed that these were not your average 16, 17 and 18 year old boys. I didn't know the young men, but just by three way they carried themselves - their posture, their air of confidence -you can tell that they were a cut above the typical teenage boy. My girls are in high school now, and I can attest to the fact that those young Eagle Scouts were much closer to the type of boy I would like my girls to bring home with them than 90% of the boys I see going into their high school.

I am often asked why it is that I insist that my children are involved in scouting. There are many, many, reasons.there is the fact that the values of the Boy Scouts largely coincide with my own, and are values I want to instill in my children. There is the fact that my children, as is the case with many children in this generation, don't spend nearly enough time outdoors. The number one reason, however, is this: The older our children get, the less influence we, as parents, have on them, and the more influence their friends have. Having my children involved in scouts allows me to help them pick their friends.

A lot has been made, in the last decade or so, of things that the Boy Scouts don't believe - associations that they choose not to make. In fact, it is my belief that far too much has been made of this. If the Boy Scouts were producing young men who were biased on the basis of condition, color or creed, it would be fair to criticize then for the associations that they choose not to make. The fact of the matter is that they do not. Although tolerance is not mentioned in the scout oath, law, motto, slogan or code, it must be being taught somewhere, because scouts, as a rule, are a tolerant bunch. That being the case, would be better served by focusing on the values that the scouts do teach, rather than emphasizing things that they do not.

I'm Taking My Ball...

2010-09-21T22:41:00.001-07:00

What ever happened to being a good loser? Time after time in this election cycle, instead of losing graciously, giving a concession speech, and supporting the victor, the losing candidate has acted like a jilted lover that says, "If I can't have them, no one can."

First there was Charlie Crist. As far as Crist was concerned, the Florida Senate seat was already his. There may not have been a Kennedy seat in Massachusetts, but there was certainly a Crist seat in Florida. As is often the case in life, though, things didn't go according to plan. Along came young, handsome, charismatic, Marco Rubio, who defeated Crist handily in the Republican primary. A real man, at this point, would have shaken hands and wished his opponent luck in the general election. Not Charlie Crist, though. He went home and started doing math. Would it be possible, he wondered, to run as an Independent and pull enough votes to still win? In the end, he decided that he could, and, regardless of the fact that he had been a life-long Republican, what he really was for was himself, and he launched a campaign as an Independent.

Then there it the unusual case of Tom Tancredo. The former congressman from Colorado had not even run for Governor. He just decided that the two top Republican candidates for the post just weren't up to his standards. So, what does Tancredo do? Why the noble thing, of course. He threatened them. If the winner of the Republican primary didn't immediately withdraw from the race, leaving the door open for another, more suitable, Tancredo approved candidate to run, he would run against them as the candidate of the Constitution party. Well, true to his word, when the victor in the Republican primary didn't withdraw, Tancredo announced his candidacy, and with that, the life-long Republican nearly assured that a Democrat would reside in Colorado's governor's mansion for the next for years.

In the first few days after her loss in the Republican primary, it appeared that Lisa Murkowski was going to do the right thing, and concede gracefully. To her credit, she did at least concede, instead of demanding recount after recount, or worse, bringing the election to the courts and challenging the validity of votes. But instead of throwing heer support behind Joe Miller,she has kept her options open, and is considering mounting a write-in campaign. This is REALLY a case of thinking that a Senate seat has a family moniker attached to it. This seat was once held by Murkowski's father. She first obtained it, or should I say inherited it, when her father was elected governor, and appointed her to fill out the remainder of his term. She haas since been reelected, but I guess this just shows how difficult it is to give up one's inheritance.

I suppose, however, that I am being at least somewhat hypocritical, though, because this phenomenon is not restricted to Republicans. In 2006, primary voters, angered at his strong support of the Iraq war, defeated Joseph Lieberman in the Democratic primary. Lieberman proceeded to mount a successful campaign as an Independent in the general election. I, at the time, was thrilled by this. Maybe it is because I have always liked Lieberman, maybe it was because he was sticking it to the extreme elements of his party. Whatever the reason, or rationalization, I myself have not been completely consistent on this issue, and honesty requires that this be noted.

Deem and Redeem

2010-07-27T20:59:00.001-07:00

When the health care bill was finally passed, it was done using a technique called deem and pass. This is because, with the election of Scott Brown, Harry Reid lost his filibuster proof majority in the Senate. The House could not amend the bill, or it would be filibustered by the Senate. The only way to get the bill to President Obama's desk was to pass the Senate version of the bill, which the House was loathe to do. To avoid an embarrassing vote, the House decided to"deem" that the Senate bill had passed, rather than actually passing it.

This has caused me to wonder: If the Republicans do win control of the House in November, would it be possible for them to nullify this vote by "deeming" that the Senate bill had NOT passed. This probably won't happen, not is it likely to be tried, but it would seem to a layman such as me that something that has merely been deemed to have passed should not have the same force of law as it would if an actual vote had taken place.

California's Prop 14 - Good Intentions, Bad Ida

2010-06-01T23:32:00.000-07:00

In one week, Californian's will have a chance to vote on Proposition 14, a proposition that will change the way primary elections are conducted. Essentially, the change would do away with the current practice of Republicans voting for the Republican nominee should be in the general election, and Democrats voting for who they would like the Democratic nominee to be. Instead, there would be one single ballot, with all candidates listed together. Everyone would vote for the candidate they liked best, and the top two vote-getters, no matter who they are, would run against each other in the general election in November. Heck, candidates wouldn't even have to declare their political affiliation.

The idea is that, by allowing us to vote for our favorite candidate, regardless of party, that we will elect more moderate candidates. This would also open the primary to the growing percentage of voters that are registering as Independents.

I am all for getting more people involved in the primaries, but this is not the right way to do it. Political Parties are kind of like clubs, and in the primary, they put forward the person they feel is their best candidate for whatever office is being contended. Why should people that are not members of the club be able to vote for who they think should be the club's leaders? Should Kiwanis be able to vote for the leadership of the Rotary Club? Then why should Democrats be able to vote for who they think the Republican nominee should be, or vice-versa. Besides, if there really was a candidate for another party that you wanted to vote for, you can change your registration any time you want, up to 30 days before the election.

Needless to say, I am encouraging a NO vote on Proposition 14. Democrats can vote for Democrats, Republicans for Republicans, and Greens for Greens. Sure, Independents are still left out in the proverbial cold, but this is not the right way to accommodate them. There are currently two Independents in the US Senate, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman. Both of them choose to caucus with the Democrats. If you really want to allow Independents to participate in the primary process, but still retain their status as Independent, perhaps we should allow Independents to declare in their voter registration who they wish to "caucus" with, and sallow them to vote in that party's primary. The same rules would still apply, any changes to voter registration would have to take place 30 days prior to the election.

It was two years ago that Rush Limbaugh was encouraging his dittoheads to switch party allegiance so that they could vote in the Democratic Primary in states like Pennsylvania in order to prolong the Democrats' primary fight. I thought at the time it was a despicable move. Proposition 14 would make shenanigans like this both easier and more common. Vote NO on Proposition 14.

Musings on Health Care and the Third Amendment

2010-04-02T21:44:00.000-07:00

Congress has done it. They couldn't go through the gate. They couldn't make it over the fence. They tried to pole vault, but the pole wasn't long enough. They parachuted, but got caught up in the trees. So they dug. They dug deep. They found a way to dig a tunnel through the muck and the mud of Washington politics. And so it has come to pass that the Senate's Health Care has been passed by the House, and it has been amended through the reconciliation process.

I was reading through the Bill of Rights the other day, and came across what may be the Amendment that has the least affect on our daily lives today - the Third Amendment. It reads, "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

We really don't think about this amendment anymore - I mean, come on, the idea of having soldiers quartered in our homes at any time, let alone in a time of peace, seems almost laughable. But why was this so important to the founders? I suspect that it had to do with stuff. Our stuff. And the right to do with our stuff what we please. We didn't want to have to put soldiers up in our homes because, well, they were ours, and it wasn't right for the government to tell us what to do with it. Now, I am not trying to argue that the Third Amendment prohibits the new Health Insurance Mandate, certainly not in a legal sense. But is this really any more of a stretch than finding a right to "privacy" in the amendment, as was done in the famous Griswald case.

I guess that what I am saying is exactly what Justice Louis Brandeis stated in his dissent in Olmstead v. United States back in 1928. We have the "right to be left alone." Well, maybe we used to.

President Obama: Universities Need More Money

2010-01-28T21:28:00.000-08:00

President Barack, in his first State of the Union Address, has announced that he doesn't think that it costs enough to go to college. Apparently, Harvard College's endowment of $36,556,284,000 (which increased by 5.5% from 2007 to 2008) isn't quite sufficient. Yes, you read that right, Harvard's endowment is in excess of $36.5 billion.

What's that? You didn't hear that in the President's speech last night? OK, he didn't phrase it in quite that way. Here is what he did say.

To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants.

That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? The government is going to give everybody up to $2,500/year for four years of college and increase the amount of grants available at the same time. In fourteen months, I will have four teenage children. Three years from now, I will have four children in high school. I expect that all four of them will attend college. I should have been on my feet cheering the fact that so much money was going to be made available to help me put my kids through college.

I wasn't.

The more that government tries to help make higher education more affordable by providing assistance in the form of grants (the tax credit is essentially a $2,500/year grant) and loans, the higher college tuition becomes. It's really fairly simple economics - the number of dollars vying for the same number of seats results in inflation in the form of higher tuition.

If I had $5,000 to spend on college tuition prior to this new tax credit, then I would now have $7,500. That would be great news if it weren't for one small fact; nearly everyone else in the country would also have an extra $2,500 to spend on college tuition. Unless there were an increase in the total number of seats available, each college and university would still have the same sized slice of the higher education pie. It's just that the pie would be bigger.

Most of the "elite" colleges, the ones that parents like to brag about their progeny attending, don't need any more money. Of the schools with the ten largest endowments, only one, Columbia, saw the size of their endowment shrink from 2007 to 2008, and that was less than one-tenth of one percent. Of the top 30, there were thirteen schools who were less well endowed in 2008 than they were in 2007 - almost exactly one-third of the schools on the list.

College tuition as not increased just because it costs that much more to give a student a college education, they have increased because of market forces, higher costs merely being one of many factors involved. Giving families more money to spend on higher education may sound good, but when it results in ever higher tuition, the benefit is significantly diminished. Of course, a President that has never had to balance a ledger might not be expected to realize this. Barack Obama may not have said outright that college tuition should be higher, but he might as well have.

Sharpen the Hatchets

2010-01-27T19:41:00.000-08:00

Unless I missed it, President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address, boasted of $20 billion in cuts that he was able to make in the past year as he went "line by line" through the budget. Elizabeth MacDonald of the Fox Business Channel has done a bit better, identifying as much as $1.5 trillion in cuts that could be made in the federal budget (article here). Granted, much of this is in the form of assets that the federal government owns, but has no use for, but even without that there is upwards of $300 billion in cuts that could be made nearly immediately. Here are some of the highlights:

--Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, or 9.4%. Includes overpayment rates of 7.8% and 15.4% in the Medicare fee for service and Advantage programs, respectively.

--Labor: $12.3 billion, or 9.9%. Almost all of the overpayments were in the unemployment insurance program.

--Treasury: $12.3 billion, or 25.5%. All of it was attributed to overpayments in the earned income tax credit.

--Social Security Administration: $8 billion, or 1.2%, in overpayments.

--Agriculture: $4.3 billion in overpayments, or 5.9% of total department spending. Much of it was in the food stamp, federal crop insurance and school meals programs.

--Transportation: $1.5 billion, or 3%. Much of it was in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.

--Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion, or 2.7%. That included overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.

--Housing and Urban Development: $1 billion, or 3.5%. All attributed to public housing and rental assistance.

--Defense: $849 million, or 0.5%.

--Homeland Security: $644.5 million, or 3.7%. Much of it was in the Homeland Security grant program as well as Disaster Relief Fund Vendor Payments.

--Education: $599 million, or 2.1%.

It is interesting to note that, of the agencies listed that overpayed, the Department of Defense, long lampooned for things such as the $600 toilet seat, was actually, by this metric, the best stewards of our money, both in terms of total dollars ($849 million - behind only Homeland Security and Education) and percent of overpayments (0.5%). The total for all these overpayments is a whopping $98 billion - nearly 5 times the $20 billion the President seemed so proud of.

Another $123.5 billion could be cut from the budget by merely eliminating programs that don't work.

The OMB has something called the Program Assessment Rating Tool. It found 218
government programs that were either inadequate or ineffective virtually
throughout the entire government--programs run by the Departments of
Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, HHS, Homeland Security, HUD,
Interior, Justice, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, the VA, Army Corps of
Engineers, the EPA, the CFTC, EEOC, and the FCC.

Of course, this is the Fox Business channel - FOX for Pet's sake. Of course FOX is going to be able to find programs to cut. According to MacDonald, though, "these are items that government officials say should be cut." The question, then, is why they haven't been cut yet. When government officials say that government should be cut, it goes without saying that it should be cut.

So, that was more than $200 billion in cuts, but it pales in comparison to the $1.2 trillion in unused federal assets. Now, when I first saw that number, I assumed that this was the amount that could be raised if these assets were sold, but apparently this is not the case.

One alarming example of the government’s wasteful holdings is Chicago’s Old Main Post Office, a 2.5 million-square-foot abandoned structure that has been vacant since 1997 and costs $2 million to maintain annually, (the government recently moved to unload it, after spending more than $26 million to maintain it, government sources note).

So, not only do we, the people, own property that we do nothing with, but we pay for the privilege.

Those on the left often pay lip service to the idea of budget cuts, but like to say that what is needed is "a scalpel, not a hatchet." In this case, however, I think it is time for use to break out the hatchets.

Is Image Everything?

2010-01-20T22:26:00.000-08:00

[Obama's] improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.” Mort Zuckerman, US News & World Report

Do we really have a better image in the world if we are: A) not respected; and B) not to be counted on?

With My Eyes Open

2010-01-09T15:24:00.000-08:00

Some time ago, I wrote a post about praying with your eyes open. I continue to do this from time to time, and because of it, I saw somethng today that most people missed. I attended the wedding of a young couple today, and during a prayer, the pastor said something about blessing them with children. As he said this, I saw th groom nod his head (actually,his whole upper body) with such earnestness and enthusiasm that you could tell how much it meant to him to be able to start a family with his new bride. If my eyes were closed, I would have missed this. I'm glad I didn't. I will be remembering this in my own prayers tonight.

We Hold These Truths...

2010-01-06T23:21:00.000-08:00

It is so simple, yet so eloquent - that most important phrase from the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

We take it as a statement of faith, that we are all created equal, and that we have unalienable Rights. Three of these rights are listed for us - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - but these are only some of the rights that we believe that our Creator has endowed us with. The problem is, nowhere, and at no time (to my knowledge) have we attempted to identify any unalienable rights beyond these three.

The United States Constitution guarantees certain rights for American citizens, but today, we have millions of people living within our borders that are not Americans. Some are here legally, some are not. Additionally, we hold individuals as prisoners that have been captured on or near the field of battle. While none of these people may not necessarily enjoy all the rights promised by the Constitution, if the Declaration means anything to us, there remain rights that are unalienable, that every person on the planet has, regardless of gender, race or creed.

So, what are these Rights of Man, and wouldn't it be worth the time to create some sort of document that outlines them, the same way as the Bill of Rights specifically identifies some of the rights protected by the Constitution? It could be a sort of Universal Bill of Rights. We know the first three - Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Beyond that, though, it becomes murky, and so I am asking, what other rights, beyond those mentioned specifically in the Declaration of Independence, should we consider to be unalienable. I would posit that another addition to the list would be a writ of Habeas Corpus, that anyone being held should have the right to petition against illegal imprisonment. Yet another would probably be the right NOT to be tortured, although there are arguments about whether there should be the rare exception to this, as well as what rises to the level of torture. There must be others as well. The question is, what are they.

The Only Thing We Have to Fear...

2010-01-04T18:24:00.000-08:00

I remember that, in the aftermath of 9/11, I was angry. I was angry, of course, at the terrorists who perpetrated this, but I was also angry with Major League Baseball.

Now, I may have been one of only a handful of people in the country that was angry with MLB, but I was. Why? Because they cancelled/suspended games. In my opinion, if we started changing our behavior, and cowering in fear, then the terrorists had won.

As soon as games commenced, I promised that not only would I attend the nearest MLB game, but that I would take my two sons (at the time aged 3 and 4) to the game with me. It was a memorable game. Actually, I don't remember anything about the game itself, but the memory of going to the game will be burned into my brain forever.

It was at Dodger Stadium, but instead of Dodger Blue, we wore red, white and blue. My boys were not old enough to really pay attention to the game, so I had brought rolls of patriotic stickers that were soon plastered over my body like patriotic chain mail. I let the boys wander a little around our section on the field level, and they passed out stickers to everyone. I looked up at my older boy, who gave me a look that said to me, "look what I am about to do." With that, he bolted - straight for the field.

I think this is every young parent's worst nightmare. There I was, one parent with two small boys, heading in opposite directions. I barked at my youngest to stay put, and took off after my son, reaching him just as he reached the fence along the right-field foul line. I don't know if he would have tried to make it over the wall, but that scene had played out in my head, and to this day, I don't know if I would have gone over the wall after him or not.

I was reminded of my anger over the missing games from the 2001 Major League Baseball season, by an article I read this weekend in Salon, by Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald, in turn refers to an article by David Brooks, which postulates that we, as a people, have adapted an adolescent view that government can and should keep us safe. In Greenwald's words, this becomes a "most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation."

Ultimately, both Brooks and Greenwald are correct. In the aftermath of 9/11, did any of us believe that it would be some eight years before we would see another terrorist attack on American soil? I think that, when we saw the smoke rising from those towers, and the Pentagon, we viewed it as an act of war, and we expected there to be other attacks to come. Only years of relative safety and security could have bred that kind of expectation. The federal government may have, as one of its primary directives, national security, but it is both unrealistic and naive to expect perfection it its pursuit thereof.

As a nation, we have come to look to our government to protect us, to keep us safe, to keep us from feeling pain. This is not, by any means, confined to national security. In everything from health care reform to global warming, we are asking to be kept safe and pain-free. We expect it from other areas of life, too. Did your doctor misdiagnose you? See you in court, because that shouldn't be allowed.

To quote the Dread Pirate Roberts from The Princess Bride, "Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." Not only is life full of pain, it is that constant threat of pain, and fear of it, that motivates us. But we have been sold something, indeed, and it comes with a price. Every time we try to buy protection from some of our pain, we pay for it with a bit of our liberty. Greenwald points this out in regard to national security, but it is just as true when it comes to health care and global warming as well.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his First Inaugural Address, said that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." While it may not actually be the only thing we should be afraid of, it should, perhaps be our biggest fear. So many of the things that we have been afraid of have turned out to be unfounded, whether it be Alar in apples, or the threat of heterosexual aids, the coming ice-age predicted in the early 1970s, or the dire threat of second-hand smoke, the cure is often worse than the cause, whether real or merely perceived.

Why did I go to that baseball game with my boys in 2001? Because I wasn't going to let fear win out. We need to accept that "life is pain", because with every bit of pain we try to take away, we are taking a little bit of "living." Fort Hood massacre-ist Nadal Hassan wrote, as the final bullet-point of a presentation, said that "we love death more than you love life." We need to take this as a challenge, to love life, and live it, without fear, more than they love death, and more than we fear death. When we can do that, fear will have lost its hold on us, and we will be truly free.

Mission Statements

2010-01-02T22:38:00.000-08:00

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal (article here), describes the 2000's as a decade of missions forgotten. From the federal government, to Wall Street, to Congress, the priesthood and the classroom, too many of our great institutions have forgotten what their purpose, their mission is.

The new year is a time when many of us take the time to make resolutions, to think about the things in your life that you might want to change. Perhaps, though, we should think not just about making resolutions, but instead, refocusing and redefining what our mission in life should be. Perhaps, we should develop New Year's Mission Statements in conjunction with our New Year's Resolutions. What is it that is your purpose in life, and what can you do to help you to fulfill this mission of yours in the next year? Isn't that worth as much as effort as the decision to lose that next 10 pounds?

The Difference of a Decade

2010-01-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

After reading the article, Six Sources of Liebermania, where Josh Greenman attempts to categorize the left's contempt for Joe Lieberman, I was brought back, for just a moment, to the Presidential race of 10 years ago. More specifically, I was brought back to the Vice-Presidential debate of that year - a sit-down between Lieberman and Dick Cheney. I was mesmerized by that debate, as it was full of substance and civility, two things not always present in our modern system of political discourse. I remember thinking, after that debate, that I would love to have the chance to vote for a Cheney/Lieberman, or even Lieberman/Cheney ticket, and that either one of them would make a better President than either of the stiffs at the top of the ticket.

That is how I thought of both George W. Bush and Al Gore, a couple of stiffs. Both of them struck me as lightweights, but listening to Cheney and Lieberman... those were men, and they had what the pundits would call, gravitas, a seriousness of purpose, that could only come with the experience that they both had accumulated over the years.

Today, looking back, I stand by my assessment. I still have the utmost respect for both these men. It is interesting, though, that those two men, linked for all time by that race, would today find themselves among the most hated men in America by the political left.

What a difference a decade makes.

A Health Care Prescription

2009-12-20T14:54:00.000-08:00

We would all like to see our health care costs decline. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, employer funded health plans have more than doubled in cost since 2000. Keith Hennessey does a good job of explaining how technology is driving the increase in health care costs in Part 3 of a series of posts on Third Party Payments for health care. Please feel free to read Part 1 and Part 2 as well. I recently heard another analogy to explain rising health care costs. Thirty years ago, if you tweaked your knee, you were given a cane. Cost? Maybe $10? Today there are many other options, from physical therapy to arthroscopic surgery to knee replacement. Cost? While not priceless, I would venture to guess that the cost is a bit more than the cane. And let's be honest about this, as I am sure that nearly anyone that has had a knee replacement will tell you, it is well worth the price.

Let me start by stating that I am inclined to support the Republican proposals for health care reform than I am the Democrats. We should give individuals the same tax breaks for purchasing health insurance as we currently give businesses,. If individuals owned their own policies, concerns about pre-existing conditions would become a thing or the past. We should remove any restrictions on purchasing insurance across state lines. States should no more determine what is covered by an insurance policy than should the federal government. and then there is tort reform We have forgotten that doctors are human. They make mistakes. There is a difference, however, between a mistake and negligence, and we, as a society, have forgotten this.

I have long been a big fan of purchasing insurance for catastrophic medical care, and paying for normal medical costs as they come. When you purchase homeowners insurance, does it cover painting? And if it did, don't you think that we would all repaint our homes much more often, increasing demand for house painters, and thus driving up the price? Homeowners insurance, like just about every other type of insurance policy sold, is a catastrophic policy. Health insurance is about the only insurance policy that we expect to cover day-to-day maintenance, similar to a warranty on the purchase of an automobile.

So, if this is indeed a better model for health insurance, how is it that we could properly incentivize it so that more people would choose this option?

One idea that I have had recently, is to give people a tax credit for a percentage of their out-of-pocket, non-premium/co-payment, medical expenses. What would happen if we said that people could get, say, 25% of their out-of-pocket medical expenses returned to them at tax time? One thing that they would be likely to realize is how small a portion of a normal office visit their insurance company pays. From experience, there was a time (not too long ago) when I was uninsured. When I needed to see the doctor, it cost $50 for the visit. Now that I am covered, I have to pay a $35 co-pay. (If you do the math, that isn't too far from my hypothetical 25%.)

The key to making something like this work, of course, is having some sort of health savings account. People need to make sure that they have the money put aside to pay for their day to day medical expenses themselves. The common, day-to-day medical expenses of most people are not overwhelming. What starts to get expensive are extended stays in the hospital, chronic care, and some of the newer drugs. When you go to the doctor and need an antibiotic, that doesn't cost much - I've paid for it myself, as mentioned previously, and it was $50 for the office visit, and another $20 to fill my prescription. It is important to remember that, if we were only too need the same sort of medical treatment that was available 25 years ago, it would cost about the same as it did 25 years ago, or maybe even a little less. If there was a simple solution, such as my suggestion of a tax-credit for a portion of your out-of-pocket medical expenses, that would move more people into this kind of model, I think this would be a move in the right direction.

I welcome any and all comments.

Truth or Consequences

2009-12-18T23:56:00.000-08:00

December 18^th saw the publication of two articles, Climate E-mails Don't Alter the Evidence, by Michael Mann in the Washington Post, and How to Manufacture Climate Consensus, by Patrick Michaels in the Wall Street Journal. Both of these articles discuss the implications of the hacked/stolen emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit commonly referred to as Climategate.

Mr. Mann contends that, although he doesn't condone many of the actions described in the emails, the emails themselves do not change the evidence of anthropogenic global warming. He further argues that the emails themselves are being "mined" and that excerpts are being taken out of context, and distorted.

Mr. Michaels, on the other hand, makes a case that a more serious problem is evidenced in the East Anglia emails, that of the suppression of contrary viewpoints. It should be pointed out that Michaels, himself, is not a skeptic of anthropogenic global warming, but that he has written articles that question it's magnitude. For this, he says, he has found it increasingly difficult to be published in peer-reviewed journals.

The International Panel on Climate Change, as well as the United States Environmental Protection Agency, has used a compendium of peer-reviewed articles as a basis for its findings on global warming. If this data is compromised, the entire basis of their decisions is undermined.

The basis of Science is the search for Truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, or how it may undermine some of our core beliefs. The reason that scientific discovery has advanced at such a rapid pace over the past several centuries is that it has been based on the free interchange of ideas, which are continually submitted to rigorous examination and scrutiny. Any undermining of this free interchange of ideas, is no different than the Church censoring Galileo for having the temerity to suggest that the Earth travels around the Sun, rather than vice-versa.

An Open Question for Keith Olbermann

2009-12-17T22:32:00.000-08:00

I remember the good old days, back when Keith Olbermann was just a local sportscaster. Back then, we didn't have to endure his nearly constant stream of ad-hominem attacks on those that he differs with. At the end of a twelve minute diatribe on December 17th, 2009, in which he attacked everyone from Max Baucus to Barack Obama, Olbermann let something slip. Watch this clip, and see if you catch it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Did you catch it? Keith Olbermann is self-insured. By choice. Now I ask you, if health insurance is so important, if the future of this country is tied to reform of the entire Health Care Industry, and especially the insurance industry, why doesn't Keith Olbermann, who seems relatively well educated, own it? More importantly, if Mr. Olbermann doesn't own it for himself, why does he think that it is so important that it should be forced on everybody else?

The answer, of course, is that, barring catastrophe, it is cheaper for Olbermann to contract for his own medical care than it is to do so through an insurance policy. I have said this for some time. An insurance company has considerable overhead in addition to paying your medical bills. They have to pay all of their employees, as well as attorneys and investigators. They have infrastructure that has to be bought and maintained. There are court costs. Oh yeah, it would be nice to turn a profit as well. All this is on top of paying medical expenses.

So, Mr. Olbermann, it would seem that you are among the ranks of that blight upon society, the uninsured. But if it is so important not only that everyone has access to health care, but health insurance, why, Mr. Olbermann, do you not own it?

A Modest Trillion Dollar House

2009-12-16T22:47:00.000-08:00

What we're buying here... is not a mansion. We're buying a modest home. But it's got a great foundation. The key to this is that this modest home, we can put additions onto it in the future. But if we don't have the starter home, we're never going to be able to put those additions on. The time is now. I plead with all of my progressive friends, now is the time to get over this hurdle.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA

There really isn't much else to say here. If you are concerned about the costs associated with the Health Care Bills in either the House or the Senate, but are leaning in favor of them because they are better than nothing, do not delude yourself. This is just a starter home. This $1 trillion is merely a down payment. The real cost has not been revealed... yet.

Fuzzy Logic

2009-12-16T22:14:00.000-08:00

Anybody who says that they are concerned about deficit, concerned about debt, concerned about loading up taxes on future generations, you have to be supportive of this health care bill because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget.

President Barak Obama

I have a question, Mr. President. How is it that, in order to keep health care costs from "consum[ing] the entire federal budget," we have to increase federal health care obligations by approximately $1 trillion over the next 10 years? Only in Washington is it possible to say that I am going broke because I am not spending enough money.

Obama Knows Best

2009-11-18T21:30:00.000-08:00

"Those Were the Days"
by Lee Adams and Charles Strouse

Boy the way Glenn Miller played. Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made. Those were the days.
Didn't need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old La Salle ran great. Those were the days.
And you know who you were then, girls were girls and men were men.
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.
People seemed to be content. Fifty dollars paid the rent.
Freaks were in a circus tent. Those were the days.
Take a little Sunday spin, go to watch the Dodgers win.
Have yourself a dandy day that cost you under a fin.
Hair was short and skirts were long. Kate Smith really sold a song.
I don't know just what went wrong. Those were the days.

"Those Were the Days" is the quintessential theme song of conservatives, or at least the charicature of conservatives. Conservatives have long been depicted as yearning for a simpler age of years long past - a time when "girls were girls and men were men." If one were to put a decade to that simpler time, it would probably be the 1950's. It is ironic, then, that the first year of the Obama administration can be summed up with a reference to an iconic television series from the 1950's, "Father Knows Best." Or, in this case, Obama knows best.

Health care is a good example of this. We are being asked to forget the fact that health insurance companies are in the business of providing health care to people, and they are pretty good at it. In order to be successful, a health insurance company has to provide a service (health care) that people want and are willing to pay for, and they have to turn a profit for their shareholders. Charge too much for the service, and people will take their business elsewhere, causing profits to dry up. Charge too little, and you won't cover costs, and again, no profits. Insurance companies have armies of bean counters, armed with actuarial tables, whose sole purpose is to identify what the proper cost of health insurance should be. Enter the Obama Administration, because they know best. They know that the health care industry is broken, and that if only we had a little competition, competition with the full faith and credit of the United States of America behind it, competition that didn't care if it turned a profit or not, then we could get even better health care and pay less for it. Heck, just take a look at Medicare, they can cut 500,000,000 from Medicare right off the bat, so you can only imagine what they could do with the rest of the industry. Trust us. Obama knows best.

Then there is the matter of how we should handle suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield. What have we learned in the past 10 months? Enhanced interrogation, such as waterboarding, is torture, and, contrary to the findings of CIA, does not provide reliable intelligence. Guantanamo Bay's internment facility is a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. And terrorists such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed should be tried in civilian courts, in New York City of all places, rather than military tribunals. We are told, by Attorney General Holder, that this gives us the best chance of a conviction, which is interesting in light of reports from former US Attorney Andrew McCarthy that KSM was ready to confess, plead guilty, and accept execution. Yet again, Obama knows best.

Perhaps the best example, however, is Afghanistan. Afghanistan, remember, is the good war. The war we should have been fighting the entire time, rather than this diversion in Iraq. So, what happens when General McChrystal, whom President Obama appointed to the post, requests a minimum of 40,000 additional troops? We don't know yet, because no decision has been made. Forget the fact that General Patreaus, now in charge of Central Command, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff have backed McChrystal up. President Obama needs more time to evaluate the request. Recently, it was floated that the President would be sending additional troops to Afghanistan, in numbers close to, but not quite at, the minimum levels requested. If this were true, where did these "appropriate" troop increases come from? With whom would the President be consulting, and if they are better able to assess the needs on the ground than Generals McChrystal and Patreaus, why aren't they the ones in command? But no... what am I saying??? Obama knows best.

Remembering the Thrill

2009-06-26T08:47:00.000-07:00

In the past 15-20 years, Michael Jackson had become a caricature of himself. Whenever his name was mentioned on the evening news, you were waiting for the other shoe to drop. It seemed as if there was an endless supply of those other shoes (or should I say, in his case, other gloves?).

On June 25, 2009, all that changed. On June 25, we forgot, or at least pushed aside, all the other stuff that seemed to swirl around him like a whirlwind. We remember only the brilliance of his artistry.

In the pantheon of the "gods of rock" there are three artists/groups that rise above all others. Elvis Presley. The Beatles. Michael Jackson. Can any of us "mere mortals" proclaim that any one of the three was any greater than the rest?

Of course, as friends have pointed out... Michael owned the Beatles Catalog. And he married Elvis' daughter.

From Mohammed to the Streets of Iran

2009-06-25T21:46:00.000-07:00

You can tell a lot about people by what they get angry about.

When a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammad, the "Muslim Street" was unleashed on the world. There were demonstrations throughout the Arab world. There were death threats made.

In the past week, there was an election in Iran. The results were announced before there was time for the paper ballots to be counted. Iranians took to the streets, to the rooftops, to show their discontent, and were brutally beaten down by the regime. The "Muslim Street" is largely silent.

This is not, in any way, intended to be a criticism of Islam itself. There are a great many people who practice Islam in a way that both elevates themselves and the religion. That being said, when people are more upset about cartoons than the butchery of innocent people, well, that says something about something, doesn't it?

Premium Insurance

2009-05-20T20:37:00.000-07:00

I have really been impressed with Keith Hennessey's blog. I just finished reading his three-part series on Third-Party Health Care. In the third installment, Hennessey came close to an argument that I have been making for years. Hennessey's argument: That third-party insurance acts as an incentive for the health care industry to pursue any and all technological advances, regardless of cost. This is because we demand it, and we demand it because out insurance policy covers the increased cost.

Hennessey is right about this, but he doesn't go far enough. Not only are we willing to pay any price for technology, we are willing to pay any price for anything. If your co-payment is $15, do you really care if the actual cost of your doctor visit is $50, $100, $150, or even $1000? And if your employer is paying the vast majority of your premium, do you really even care if your premium goes up? Sure, we all gripe about it when our contributions are increased, but we never see, and are therefore, in the end, accept.

A personal anecdote: Some time ago, my portion of the deductible for my employer paid health plan was over $600/mo. That meant that, had I opted for it, it would have cost me over $7,200/yr. - I opted out. For over two years, I was among the uninsured. During that time, I did need to see a doctor - once. It cost me $50 for the office visit, and another $20 for a prescription. Over the time that I went without insurance, I saved in excess of $14,000. Was I lucky? Perhaps. But I don't feel so much like I beat the odds as I feel that I didn't crap out. In the same situation, I'd do it again.

I'm not an economist, and I've never slept at a Holiday Inn Express, so take this with salt to taste, but let me explain my reasoning. Insurance companies are for-profit corporations. They need to show a profit to their shareholders. A simple (or simplistic, if you prefer) look at their expense sheet would reveal expenses of medical costs, infrastructure, agents, insurance adjusters, investigators, lawyers, and lobbyists (I am sure I am missing something). Against that is their income, your premiums. Their balance sheet needs to balance and still have profits to distribute to their shareholders. If you consider the exorbitant costs associated with major illness/injury, and the relative few of us that suffer from them, and I estimate that 95% of us pay more in premiums over our lifetimes than we receive in benefits.

Questions Before the Court

2009-05-05T00:00:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama will soon be able to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice, thanks to the announced resignation of Justice David Souter. I don't hold out any hope that President Obama's nominee will be someone that would fall on my short list of candidates, but "being qualified" is not synonymous with "agrees with me".

I was listening to Hugh Hewitt's radio show, and he asked John Eastman (Dean of Chapman University School of Law) what kind of questions Republicans should ask of the President's nominee. Eastman responded with a question that Alan Simpson asked a nominee of Jimmy Carter to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals some 30 years ago. His question, which I am sure I am paraphrasing, was, "If there was a conflict between the law and your personal feelings, which would you use as the basis of your decision?" The nominee's response was that he would use his own feelings. In my mind, that would be disqualifying. The job of a judge is to rule on the law, not on their own personal feelings or opinions.

A good example of this is California Supreme Court Justice Carol Corrigan. Justice Corrigan is personally in favor of same-sex marriage. In this column, by Dan Weintraub, she says that, if it were on the ballot, she would probably vote for it. Even though Justice Corrigan is personally in favor of same-sex marriage, she wrote the dissent in the California Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in 2008 that overturned the state's ban on it. I don't know what Justice Corrigan's politics are in general, or what judicial philosophy she adheres to, but when I next get a chance to vote on confirming her for another term on the court, she has my vote.

Here's another question that I would like to hear asked, "In the absence of a ratified treaty, can the decision of a foreign court be used as precedent in U.S. courts?" An answer in the affirmative on this question would again, to me, be disqualifying. Only United States law should be binding in U.S. courts. To make U.S. law subservient to the law of a foreign court would be to weaken our status as a sovereign state. An answer in the negative could prompt additional questions, such as, "under what conditions can the ruling of a foreign court be cited in an opinion?"

Another line of questioning that should be pursued, especially in light of President Obama's stated goal of a justice with "empathy," is, "What role should empathy play in the decisions of the court?" For an excellent explanation of how empathy could undermine the rule of law, please read this article by Thomas Sowell.

Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14^th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.

There is also at least a question as to whether President Obama is in favor of the courts tackling issues of economic redistribution. This being the case, any prospective nominee should be questioned on this topic as well. As the President said in the same 2001 interview where ye discussed economic redistribution, the Constitution is primarily about negative rights, things that the government cannot do. It does not speak at all about what the government must do for you. I would argue that the 10^th amendment anything that must be done is one of the rights that is reserved to the people. But I am not a legal scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so please remember that there is only one thing that is free in life, and that is bad advice. Please note that I don't charge for my legal opinions.

So, these are some of the questions that I would like to see asked of any prospective nominee to the Supreme Court, or to any Federal bench for that matter. Whether the nominee is a Latina woman (yes, I know that is redundant), or a Jewish man, or Asian, or Native American makes no difference to me. After a while, there have been so many "firsts" that even being the first of some group becomes a bit humdrum. I am interested, though, in other lines of questions that others might think are relevant.

Life Flu By

2009-04-30T08:51:00.000-07:00

An elementary school in my children's district was closed today, and will be for a week, due to a possible case of the swine flu. I'm not sure that this is really justified, as we don't do this during flu season (and I haven't seen any indication that this strain is any more virulent than normal). What I'd like to point out, though is this. President Obama has stated that he has been advised that closing the border would be "akin to closing the barn door after the horses are out." Presumably, this is because the flu has already made its way to the United States. If that is the case, wouldn't the same logic apply to school closures? The horses are already out, or perhaps the better colloquialism would be that the barbarians are already inside the gates. If we need to close schools in order to minimize the spread of the H1N1 virus, shouldn't we at least try to close the border? If we don't need to close the border, however, why the heck are we closing schools?

I tend to think that we will find that this is no more or less serious than any other flu, which causes 30,000+ deaths in the Unites States each year - mainly the very young and very old. I could be wrong, but until we see something different about this H1N1 strain, we should treat it like every other flu. If you're sick, stay home - but that's always the case, we just dont' do it enough. This doesn't seem to be enough to disrupt our lives over.

Holy Stimulus, Batman!

2009-03-17T23:53:00.000-07:00

Rep. John Campbell, a Republican representing California's 48th District, is introducing his own stimulus proposal. His idea, or rather, the idea of one of his constituents, is a Capital Gains Tax Holiday for 2009. Under his plan, any assets that are bought in 2009 would be free from capital gains tax when they are sold at some time in the future.

There is much to commend this proposal. First, it specifically targets stimulus, not just by having the government writing a check, but by encouraging the private sector to start making transactions. It also doesn't cost us a dime right now. In fact, as Rep. Campbell points out in this interview on CNBC, it is possible that tax revenues in fiscal 2009 would increase due to this proposal, because those selling assets may end up incurring taxes on their capital gains. Another advantage is that any cost that may be incurred by this would be spread out over an untold number of years. There wouldn't be a large hit to any single fiscal year like the trillion dollars plus that we are borrowing to stimulate the economy now.

It should be pointed out that this is the sort of action that the Congress should be looking to implement. This proposal stands on its own, and doesn't rely on being part of a larger omnibus bill in order to ensure passage. Think about the "stimulus" package that just passed. If it was voted on, line item by line item, how many of the line items would pass? And, of those that would pass, how many of them could demonstrate any amount of stimulus over and above the mere fact that the money supply was being increased?

This proposal by Rep. Campbell may not have legs. I certainly will not be holding my breath for its passage. He should be commended, however, for proposing an innovative idea that has a chance to be stimulative without increasing our current debt obligations.

I've Been Shown

2009-03-17T22:37:00.000-07:00

He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?
Micah 6:8

I shared this verse with my confirmation class this past Sunday, and was then reflecting on it later in the day, and had a sort of epiphany. This single verse is a microcosm of the Trinity. What does the Lord require of us? To do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God.

Justice is the law, as it comes to us through the Old Testament. God the Father - the lawgiver. Being a Christian may free us from the judgement of the law, but it does not free us from following the law. Jesus himself stated that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. It is our responsibility as Christians to act justly, in accordance with God's Law.

Loving mercy is the essence of Christ. The very fact that we sinners have been given the gift of salvation is the ultimate act of mercy. We, too, need to show the same mercy, or kindness, in our lives.

Walk humbly with God. Before Jesus' assention, he promised that he would send them a companion, the Holy Spirit. As two people walking together are companions, so also is God the Holy Spirit our companion as we walk the road of life. The key, though, is to walk humbly. We must guard against being to self-assured, too arrogant, in our walk of life.

There is another way of looking at this. Doing justly - Old Testament. Loving mercy - Gospels. Walking humbly with God - New Testament.

Of Boards and Budgets

2009-02-19T00:49:00.000-08:00

As mentioned in my previous post, last night, February 17^th, I attended the bi-weekly meeting of our School Board and spoke on behalf of our Elementary Band program. The vote to eliminate it from last year’s budget had already been made in the previous meeting. No action was scheduled for this meeting, and none was taken. But it did give me some insight on precisely what precipitated this decision, and others.

We were informed, and reminded on numerous occasions, that the School Board is required by law to provide semi-annual reports that demonstrate the district’s financial solvency for the next three years. As many of you undoubtedly know by now, the State of California is having trouble with its own budget, and because of this, the district has to prepare this report based on what it considers to be the worst-case scenario. To add to this, any certificated employee that is going to be laid off must be given notification of this by March 15^th. That’s right, beware the Ides of March.

Ultimately, the Board had to eliminate $5.9 million from the current, 2008-09, budget. They also have $12.6 million to eliminate from next year’s budget. Those are some significant numbers, and I certainly do not envy any of the decisions that they have to make. Fortunately, there is hope that, as soon as the state budget is passed, we will have a better idea of what the actual budget figures are, as well as what additional flexibility there may be in how the district spends money (more on flexibility later). The other thing that gave me hope is that, at the end of the meeting, the School Board President went back to the Elementary Band issue, and asked to be provided with data on the correlation between music and test scores. Although the question wasn’t directed to me, I had provided much of that “testimony”, and had a copy of my remarks with links to the websites that I used to compile my evidence, so I volunteered it. As we all know, test scores are everything to districts, which is why I moved away from anecdotal evidence about the more intangible benefits of a musical education and focused on the correlation between music and academic performance, especially as it related to test scores. With all this considered, I am guardedly optimistic that, in the end, the Elementary Band program will not fall victim to the budgetary axe.

I haven’t made it a habit to attend School Board meetings, but this wasn’t my first, either. One thing that I have heard on more than one occasion is that only a small portion of the district’s budget is discretionary. The problem that I have with that is that the stuff that ends up being discretionary has a tendency to be the stuff that directly affects the classroom, whether it is teacher pay, class size, extra-curricular activities, or specialized programs. Although I have no reason to doubt what portions of the budget are discretionary and which are not, the cynic in me wonders if this isn’t part of the overall plan – that by cutting programs that people are most passionate about it makes it more likely that they will be able to pass tax increases, special levies, or other revenue increases.

Here’s an idea. Why don’t we treat all these regulations that relate to school budgets and spending more like the Code of the Brethren from Pirates of the Caribbean, “the code is more what you’d call guidelines than actual rules.” Maybe we don’t want to go all the way to guidelines, but we should have a simple way of petitioning for waiver. Better yet, the regulations should never be constraints on spending, but guidelines and requirements on the level of service to be provided. At that point, individual districts would be allowed great leeway in how they complied with these regulations.

I would like to thank everyone that sent me their stories, suggestions, sources and support. I can't tell you how much help it was, nor how much it means to me.

My Comments to the School Board in Support of Elementary Band

2009-02-17T01:35:00.000-08:00

Following are my the remarks that I plan to make to the Jurupa Unified School District School Board in support of continued funding of a band program at the elementary school level. I may be spitting in the wind, the decision has probably already been carved into the marble that is next year's budget, but I need to say something. I would like to thank all those that have offered words of encouragement, support, and their suggestions and sources. I am certain that I could not have come up with this research without you.
------------------------------
I would like to begin my remarks this evening by reminding the board of how the No Child Left Behind act defines “core curriculum.” The term ‘core curriculum’ means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. Education in the arts, education in music, is not merely an enrichment program, but instead an integral part of core curriculum. Please know that when you eliminate elementary band, you have eliminated all band for many students, some of whom would have gone on to be musicians in middle and high school. For those who remain, you have diminished the quality of their musical experience.

I asked some of my former “band buddies” what they got out of being in band, and, as expected, they related experiences that went beyond music. They talked of how it taught them that they could be both competitive and cooperative at the same time. It taught them self-reliance, discipline, and focus. Applying themselves to learning a musical instrument taught them techniques that helped them learn in other academic areas as well. Music has helped others with social skills, giving them a sense of belonging and being a part of a group. So many of the same benefits that kids get out of athletics are also garnered from being a part of a band. But whereas there are so many ways for children to experience athletics, band is the only way that many children are going to gain experiences such as these.

“The plural of anecdote is not data,” however, so let me give you some data. We are often told that musical training helps students in mathematics. As a case in point, there was a group of second grade students who were given piano lessons for four months in addition to training with some new math educational software. The students that received training in both piano and the math software scored 27% higher than those that used the math software alone. But music seems to help in all areas of learning. In a study of undergraduates applying to medical school, Lewis Thomas found that 66% of music majors were admitted, compared to only 44% of biochemistry students. Another study of 7,500 college students found that music majors scored higher in reading than any other major. Would you believe that music actually increases a child’s IQ? At least one study indicates that it does. In it, children were given lessons in either keyboard, voice, drama or no lessons at all. The students who received keyboard or voice lessons saw their IQs increase more dramatically than those who received either drama or no lessons – generally across all subtests, indices, and academic subjects. In Rhode Island, first grade classes containing students who had underachieved in kindergarten received ongoing music and visual arts training in addition to their regular curriculum. After seven months, these students had caught up with their piers in reading, and surpassed them by 22% in math. In the second year of the program they increased these gains.

Are you ready for the speed round? Children with musical training have significantly better verbal memory. A Stanford University study in 2004 showed that mastery of an instrument improves how we process spoken language. Schools that have music programs have significantly higher graduation rates (17% higher), as well as lower dropout rates. Students in high-quality music programs score higher on standardized tests – 22% higher in English and 20% higher in Math. According to the College Board, students with experience in musical performance scored 57 points higher on the verbal portion of the SAT, and 43 points higher on the math. Those of us with a memory of Woodstock might find this next part difficult to believe, but, students who participated in band or orchestra reported the lowest lifetime and current use of all substances (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs).

It would seem to me that we should not be looking into cutting any portion of our music program, we should instead be looking to expand it. When I was in elementary school, we had a music teacher visit each class at least once or twice a week. When was the last time that happened? Remember, even No Child Left Behind recognizes that education in the arts is ‘core curriculum,’ and yet we are now eliminating one of the last vestiges of music from the elementary school curriculum. Let me leave you with a thought from someone that I went to high school with – he didn’t recall the source. "You put emphasis on teaching children to read and write but if you take away the arts you leave them very little to read and write about." I don't know how much, in dollars and cents, you will save by eliminating the Elementary Bands, but I have a pretty good idea of what these kids are going to lose.

What Are You Training For?

2009-02-15T17:15:00.000-08:00

Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:25-27

When I heard this passage today, it really took me back. Looking at me now it is probably hard to believe, but my Junior year of High School, I ran cross-country. As much as running up and down hills in the Southern California desert from August through November isn't the most pleasant thing in the world, I enjoyed it. It wasn't my best experience running, however. That would have been the previous summer, when I ran for pleasure in northern Minnesota. There was something special about running through the woods, along the lake shore, or down country roads.

The following spring, having just concluded the cross-country season, it was only natural that I would try out for the track team. I didn't last a month. I may not have lasted much more than a week or so. There was something about running around a track over and over again that drove me absolutely bonkers. I just couldn't take it - I felt like I wasn't getting anywhere. I am convinced that the term "running around in circles" was coined by a frustrated track athlete.

Anyway, this is where my mind went when I heard this passage this morning. For me, running around the track was aimless. There was no purpose in it. At least when I ran cross-country, I felt like I was going somewhere. When I was running in Minnesota, every step was its own mini journey - each step had its own purpose.

This is what I ultimately got out of this passage. We need purpose. Not necessarily just a purpose that we see at the end of the road. We need purpose every step of the way. It is difficult to see the end of the road, the ultimate purpose of our lives. By finding lots of little purposes along the way, we can make the entire journey have purpose, every step of the way.

Rule 157

2009-02-10T20:48:00.000-08:00

One can argue the merits of FASB Rule 157, which institutes fair-value, or mark-to-market, accounting principals to financial institutions. On the one hand, it is probably true that accounting practices have not accurately portrayed the strength/weakness of many financial institutions. It is also possible that this change is largely responsible for the insolvency of the financial markets. What cannot be argued is that, on November 15th, 2007, Rule 157 took effect, and within a matter of 6-12 months our nation was in what President Obama has called the "our greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression."

So what is it that Rule 157 changed? It changed the way that Mortgage Backed Securities are valued on the books of these financial institutions. As of the November 15th, 2007, financial institutions had to report the value of these Mortgage Backed Securities based on their value if they were to be sold right now. Is there anyone out there that is looking to sell their house right now, for any reason other than necessity? No? I didn't think so. Why not? Because home values have gone in the tank. If we were to sell now, we would be locking in our losses, and no one wants to do that.

This is the climate into which Rule 157 was introduced. At regular intervals, quarterly, I believe, Mortgage Backed Securities have to be revalued base on their value if they were to be sold on that date, regardless of whether or not, in reality, they were going to be sold on that date. We all know that there are a lot of properties that have been foreclosed on, and that this is one of the contributing factors to the precipitous decline in home values. There are also a good number of homes that people continue to make their mortgage payments on where the notes are worth more than than the homes' current value. They are "upside-down".

Here's a question for you. As long as the note is ultimately paid in full, do you think that a bank cares if the mortgage is upside-down or not? Of course not. It is only when the note is not repaid, and the collateral is seized, that it makes any difference what the value of the property is. Even then, if the bank decided to hold the property, it is entirely possible that, in time, the value of the property would increase so that it was worth more than the remaining value of the note. Rule 157 doesn't care about any of these things. Under Rule 157, every quarter, these Mortgage Backed Securities are revalued, and the institutions that hold them have to write off any of the losses against their books.

As I stated earlier, you can certainly argue that this is a better method of accounting. The problem is that it is a change in accounting practices. What business, any business, wants more than anything is stability, and this change that was instituted by Rule 157 caused instability in the marketplace. How could it not? These mortgages and Mortgage Backed Securities were issued under one set of rules, with one set of assumptions, and then those rules were changed. The value of their assets was reduced, and the value of their liabilities was increased.

But the damage didn't stop there. With fewer assets and greater liabilities, banks no longer had as much capital to do their business, and the business of a bank is to make loans. Less capital meant that banks no longer had the ability to make as many loans as they used to. The credit market started to contract. As the credit market contracted, businesses could no longer get loans for capital expenditures, which further weakened the economy. Company after company started cutting costs, reducing capital expenditures, laying off employees.

This is where we are today. The crisis has gotten into our national psyche. People that are fortunate enough to remain employed are afraid that they may not be employed tomorrow. They are reducing their spending, which only exacerbates an already weakened economy. The downward spiral continues.

Rule 157 isn't the sole cause of the current financial crisis, and I am certain that someone with more economic background could quibble with my interpretation of the sequence of events. Unfortunately, repealing or modifying Rule 157 probably would not be enough to bring us out of our downward spiral. In retrospect, however, the change in accounting practices was a blow that an already wobbly economy could not take. Whether you think that the rule was an improvement or not, the fact is that, twelve months after its institution, we are in a world of hurt.

IOU Interest

2009-02-06T16:15:00.000-08:00

By now, I have resigned myself to the fact that I will not be receiving the tax refund that I am owed from the State of California any time soon. I will instead be receiving an IOU. It's bad enough that the state gets to borrow money from me without my permission, but to top it off, I don't expect to be paid interest on it. I want interest! And I don't mean T-Bill interest, or State Bond interest or Bank Account interest. I want Credit Card interest! 18.9%! It is one thing to get a lower interest rate when you choose to put your money in that investment, but when someone, in this case the state, is able to borrow money from you without your permission, the lender should be entitled to the maximum interest rate allowed by law.

Money Transfers

2009-02-06T09:51:00.001-08:00

I'm just wondering, how much does it cost for a county to collect taxes, send them to the state, and wait for the state to send money back to the county. I would think that there would be some savings in the county holding back the money that it would normally get from the state, and only sending the state the difference. It may not be a big savings, but a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon we're talking about real money.

Knowledge Puffs

2009-02-03T21:24:00.000-08:00

Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. - 1 Corinthians 8:1

I don't remember hearing this verse before. Maybe it is a different translation (New Revised Standard Version) than I have heard before. Regardless, there is a sort of simple elegance to it. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.

I can really see how it is that knowledge puffs up. Knowledge is something that we can earn on our own. Study, apply yourself, and you can obtain knowledge. Because we earn our knowledge, it gives us a certain sense of self importance. So many of us take great pride in how much we know, but outside of how much it might help us in our careers, what good is it? This is especially true if it leads to pride. Think about it, unless your name is Ken Jennings (the guy that won $1.5 million on Jeopardy), how many of us are going to be remembered for how much we know?

Love is different. I don't know that it is possible to make yourself love more. Where knowledge is all about ourselves, love is all about other people. That's where so much of the building up takes place. When you love, you build up other people, and they in turn build you up.

Both puffing and building will cause something to grow in size. When I think of something being puffed up, I immediately think of a balloon. A balloon inflates, it expands, but it is full of nothing but hot air. All it takes is a pin prick, and it is gone. Building something, on the other hand, takes time and effort. It grows slowly. But it is solid. A structure that is built well, on a firm foundation, can withstand quite a bit of force, and it can last. How long have the pyramids or the Great Wall of China been standing?

This verse was part of one of the readings in church this past Sunday (Feb 1), and, in a case of the Lord working in mysterious ways (OK maybe not really mysterious), I was able to work it into the lesson that I had for my 7^th grade confirmation class. The theme of confirmation for the 7^th graders is church history, and this week we were discussing the Counter Reformation, the 30 Years War, and the Inquisition. Pleasant stuff, huh? Earlier, the kids were so glad when we were through with the persecutions that the early church faced, and I could tell that they were disheartened to see so many of the same things happening again, only this time it was Christians doing it to other Christians. I pointed out to them that what we were talking about may have happened in the 1500s, but we aren't far removed from people writing books explaining what to do if your child married a Catholic. We talked about the difference between something being puffed up and built up, about how love emanates from God, but knowledge emanates from man. And then we talked about how it was knowledge, or at least what people believed to be knowledge, was at the root of much of what we were discussing. Wars were fought because one group thought that the knew better than everybody else. The inquisition was based greatly on the premise of I'm right, you're wrong.

There is one final point that I would like to make. Knowledge stands alone. Love stands with others. Like the old adage says, "United we stand, divided we fall." When we base our lives on knowledge, we are standing alone, and easily toppled. When we base our lives on love, by its nature, we are building up others, and they are in turn building us up. When tough times come, we have others to lean on, and that makes us all stronger. Knowledge puffs up. Love builds up. On which foundation will you base your life?

One Small Step....

2009-01-31T22:31:00.000-08:00

"Soon my Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, will announce a new strategy for reviving our financial system that gets credit flowing to businesses and families. We'll help lower mortgage costs and extend loans to small businesses so they can create jobs. We'll ensure that CEOs are not draining funds that should be advancing our recovery. And we will insist on unprecedented transparency, rigorous oversight, and clear accountability -- so taxpayers know how their money is being spent and whether it is achieving results." - Barack Obama, in his weekly address, January 1, 2009

I have mentioned several times in private conversations in the past week, that we should be looking at increasing the availability of small business loan guarantees as a part of any economic stimulus package. I was therefore encouraged when I heard President Obama mention that, as a part of a (hopefully) soon to be announced strategy, there would be an increase in loans to small businesses.

We are told that small businesses are the biggest job producers in the country so often that it has become something of a mantra. If this is true, then this should certainly be an area of focus for economic stimulus. Not only does it create jobs, but these would be loans and at least have the possibility of being repaid. There was a book that I read in the mid 90s, Unlimited Wealth, by Paul Zane Pilzer, that made an argument that layoffs were, in the long run, good for the economy. His reasoning was that the company laying people off would be at least nearly as productive, but with less overhead, and that a percentage of those that found themselves out of work would not find work, but would instead make work - they would start their own businesses, hire people, and the economy would expand.

I am not trying to make quite the same argument here. I think it is difficult to say that unemployment on the scale that we are currently seeing it is good, even in the long run. What I am saying is that it is not enough to merely pump money into the economy. It is important for us to pump money into the economy in ways that are going to be the most effective, and the key to that effectiveness is the velocity of money.

Money's velocity is essentially a measure of how quickly money changes hands. It is important because it acts something like a multiplier. Let's say that the government gives someone a stimulus check in the amount of $1,000. This individual isn't sure what to do with the money, but they cash the check and keep the money in their wallet until, some months later, he buys a computer for $1,000. The owner of the computer store puts that money in his safe, where it sits for another couple of months, until he remembers it is there, and he deposits it in his bank account. Assuming that this is where the trail ends, and the money only changed hands twice during the year, there are two people that have seen their income increase by $1,000. For their $1,000 investment, the government saw the economy grow by $2,000, and the money's velocity would be 2/yr. If, on the other hand the person that received the money immediately spent it, and the money ended up changing hands 100 times in a year, that investment of $1,000 would result in an increase of $100,000. If we are going to be spending money to try to get ourselves out of our current economic downturn, we need to identify where we can put it where it will work the hardest, and move the fastest. My suspicion is that small business, and especially new small businesses, is one of those places that we can get the most bang out of our buck.

As the saying goes, however, "the devil is in the details." It will be interesting to see the specifics of the Obama plan when they are released. I am hopeful that the administration will not use the stimulus in order to do a little "social engineering," and use it to fund businesses that they deem to be "worthy." If they can resist this temptation, this can be a powerful tool in stabilizing our economy. It can start to expand the economy, which will increase the tax base, and (because these would be loans, or loan guarantees) at least some of this money would be repaid (some businesses, of course, would not be successful, and will default on their loans).

Thoughts on Obama's First Interview

2009-01-28T19:05:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama has given his first interview since becoming President, to Hisham Melham of Al Arabiya TV. Upon reading the transcript, I found that it contained potentially revealing insights into his world view. Of course, this could merely be a case of politician playing to his audience, but if it is not....

"But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace."

Isn't that insightful? I know, it's hard to believe, but there actually may be some Israelis who might want peace. How many times has Israel been to the negotiating table? How many times have they signed cease-fires, or peace accords? How many times have they shown restraint in the face of a constant barrage of missiles and suicide-bombers? How long has Israel been at peace with Egypt, after the Camp David peace accords were signed? In the face of all this evidence, President Obama is somehow able to phrase it like it is some new revelation that there are Israelis that think it is important to achieve peace. The fact that he didn't even use the word most is also telling. Although he didn't quantify it, the impression that this statement leaves is that there are some Israelis that want peace, but that, in reality, their aren't that many. They certainly couldn't be in the majority. The truth is actually the opposite. Sure, there is probably a fringe minority in Israel that doesn't want peace, but the vast majority of Israelis yearn for it. They yearn for it so badly that, in the face of cease-fire after cease-fire that is broken, in the face of treaty after treaty that is circumvented, still they come back to the negotiating table, attempting to make peace with their neighbors.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Here's a question - what has changed in the last 30 years? What events have transpired since the Carter administration that might have jeopardized the "respect and partnership" that used to exist between America and the Muslim world? I can certainly name a few. The Iranian Hostage Crisis. The bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. Two Intifadas. Saddam Hussein's overrunning of Iraq, and the subsequent Gulf War. Two bombings of the World Trade Center in New York (including 9/11). The USS Cole bombing. Nightclub bombings from Germany to Indonesia. Afghanistan. Iraq. If there has been a change in the past 30 years, that change has come, or at least has been initiated by, elements in the Muslim world. President Obama's remarks, while not being explicit, leave the impression that it is America that is somehow responsible for this change. If you go back more than 30 years, you would find that America's role in the region was far from idyllic. The ouster of the Iranian Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953 is certainly not a high point on the American resume. Let's face it, the United States has had a history of supporting authoritarian regimes in the region in order to protect its economic interests. This, if anything, has diminished in the past 30 years.

"Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past – none of these things have been helpful."

It is hard to argue against most of what the President says here. He artfully praises the Iranian people and Persian civilization. He rightly identifies their threats against Israel and the dangers inherent in their nuclear program as not being conducive to peace. He then, however, mentions "their support of terrorist organizations in the past." (Emphasis mine.) Forgive me, but this doesn't pass the laugh test. Is Hezbollah not a terrorist organization, or does Iran no longer support it? I suppose, however, that I am just not properly parsing President Obama's words. The fact that Iran supported terrorist organizations in the past does not negate the possibility that they continue to support those same organizations in the present. The impression left by his words, once again, is different.

If these three statements truly reflect our new President's world view, we could be in for a long 4-8 years. Barack Obama is so many things that George W. Bush is not. He is both eloquent and charismatic. While President Bush's words grated against my ears, I love to listen to President Obama's soaring rhetoric. But this man who comes to the Presidency with a scant four years separating him from the Illinois Assembly may also be naive, and in the tangled web of Middle Eastern politics, that could prove to be a dangerous thing.

A State of Bondage

2009-01-13T22:35:00.000-08:00

California is broke. The largest state in the Union can't pay all of its employees, its vendors, or us, the taxpayers. It's hard to imagine that California, which, if it were a country, would be the 7th largest economy in the world, could get itself into such a mess. Obviously, there are a number of contributing factors to the predicament that California finds itself in - anything from employee contracts, to pension fund liabilities, to required spending thresholds. Another, however, is the state's increasing reliance on bond measures to finance project, especially public works projects.

It wasn't always this way. There was a time when California was forward thinking, looking ahead at projected population growth, and allocating funds to improve the infrastructure necessary to support its burgeoning citizenry. In the 50's and 60's, California's roads and schools were the envy of the country. Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Anyone living in the Golden State today can attest to the fact California has now lost its race to keep the infrastructure ahead of its population growth.

As of December 1, 2008, California has on its books, $56,944,224,000 in existing bond obligations, with the approval from voters to issue nearly the same amount ($56,823,816,000) in additional bond issues. This does not include any of the myriad of bond measures that passed on the November ballot. Fortunately, the ability to issue bonds does not require that they be issued, so there is hope that the state will not use the entirety of its line-of-credit. Since 1960, the state has been authorized by voters to issue $141,362,000,000 in general obligation bonds. Approximately 2/3 of the debt has been issued, with about 60% of that amount still outstanding.

This year, estimates have California running some $42 billion in the red. Between the housing slump and the sagging economy, state revenue is down. In the middle of a national fiscal emergency, California voters approved another $9.95 billion for a high speed train between Northern and Southern California, $990 million for Children's Hospitals, and $900 million for aid to Veterans.

Don't get me wrong, these may all be good things, bond issues are always for good things like schools, roads, libraries, police, fire and the like. Hey, who is against those things - certainly not me. The problem is, money is fungible. Does anyone think that if a school bond is not passed, there will not be any money for school improvements? What happens is, because a new source of funds has been found for improving schools, the money that would have gone for schools can be moved to other projects. This is key. When you vote for a bond measure, you are not just voting on the projects that the bond is used for, you are also voting for all the other projects that will be funded with the money that would normally have been allocated to that project.

There's evidence for this, too. In 2002, we passed the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2002 (K-12) , which authorized $11.4 billion in bonds, with $1.5 billion of this amount yet to be issued. Then, in 2004, we passed the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2004 (K-12) , which authorized another $10 billion in new bonds. We have issued $7 billion of this, with another $3 billion available. One might think that was enough, but, in 2006, we passed the, you've got it, Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006 (K-12) - another $7.3 billion, again with $3 billion unissued. This is not an outlier, either. There were New Prison Construction Bond Acts in 1986, 1990 and 1992; Veterans Bond Acts in 1982, 1984, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994 and 2000; California Safe Drinking Water Bond Laws in 1976, 1984, 1986 and 1988, Clean Water Bond Laws in 1970, 1974 and 1984, a Clean Water and Water Conservation Bond Law in 1978 and a Clean Water and Water Reclamation Bond Law in 1988. I could go on. Why would we need the ability to borrow millions upon billions of dollars, year after year, in consecutive election cycles? Perhaps because the real reason was to free up dollars for other projects.

There's another problem, too - Prop. 13. Prop. 13 isn't going anywhere, nor should it. The problem is in the juxtaposition of the requirements of Prop. 13 and the requirements to pass a bond measure. Because it takes a 2/3 majority to increase taxes, it is much more difficult to increase revenue through a tax increase than it is to increase revenue, through debt, by passing a bond measure. But here's the thing about debt - it reduces your capacity for future expenditures because of the interest you have to pay in addition to the principal. Sure, because of inflation, we pay back our debt in dollars that are worth less than the ones we borrowed, but that merely reduces the cost, it doesn't eliminate it. And if this recession worsens, we could end up in a deflationary period, where we would potentially pay debt in dollars worth more than the ones that we borrowed.

I propose that we pass a new initiative in California, a companion to Prop. 13, that would bring the requirements to pass a bond measure more in line with what it takes to raise taxes. My preference would be to make the requirements the same - a 2/3 majority, but I would settle for 60%. In the case of the three initiatives mentioned above, only one of the three would have passed the 60% threshold. The Veterans Bond Act of 2008 passed with 63% of the vote. The High-Speed Train measure received 52.5% of the vote, while the Children's Hospital Bond Act received 55.1%.

How many of us can go to the store and buy without looking at the opportunity costs inherent in a budget? Within any budget, there are choices to be made, if you purchase one thing, it means that you don't have the funds to purchase something else. When we vote on bond measures, we don't have enough information. We don't see everything that is on the table. All we see are schools and roads and clean water, and we think to ourselves, "yeah, we need that." This is the job that we pay our elected representatives to do for us, and we usurp their responsibility at our own peril.

B(c)S - Part II

2009-01-10T13:42:00.000-08:00

There is a fundamental flaw in the way that we determine the teams that vie for the BCS National Championship. The problem is that, as long as you are limited to choosing only the top two teams. Unless you have two, and only two, teams from the major conferences that go undefeated, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to narrow the field to two teams.

The problem is not just that the top teams rarely play each other, it's that they don't even play many common opponents, unless they happen to be in the same conference. Prior to bowl season, Florida, Texas, USC and Utah played a grand total of two common opponents. Utah and USC both played Oregon State, while Florida and Texas both defeated Arkansas. Not until the bowl games had been played did we see how Texas and USC matched up against Ohio State, Utah and Florida against Alabama, and Florida and Texas against Oklahoma.

Because there is not enough meaningful data to be able to the best team(s), there is a tendency to rank the conferences that belong to, instead. This is how we ended up with Oklahoma v. Florida. By most accounts, the Big XII and the SEC were considered to be the two best conferences in the country. Oklahoma and Florida were the champions of those two conferences. It didn't matter that Utah was undefeated, or that Texas beat Oklahoma, or that USC might have a better loss when compared to Florida. It sounds reasonable, doesn't it? The BCS Championship was ultimately what many people have been asking for, a "plus-1" game. It is just based on the regular season, without taking the bowl games into account.

The problem with this is that, just as we don't have enough information to determine which is the best team, we also don't have enough information to determine which is the best conference. Nine out of the twelve games that a team plays are against teams in their own conference (ten of thirteen for conferences with a championship game). That means that three-quarters of the data by which we evaluate conference strength is based on the conference playing with itself. Going into the bowl season, who would have picked the PAC 10 to go 5-0 in bowl games? Does that make the PAC 10 the best conference in the country? No, but neither are they the weak step-sister to the SEC and the Big XII as they were made out to be.

Many have suggested that the way to solve this is to play one more game after all of the bowl games - a "plus-1" scenario. Yet, this year, a "plus-1" would solve nothing. Any teams that were not invited to play in the plus-1 game would still have a legitimate claim that they should have been. Maybe the "plus-1" scenario would help settle a debate in some years, but in other years it would merely extend it. This year was a great example of a year that the "plus-1" would be insufficient.

The argument against a playoff system is that it would diminish the importance of the bowl games. I would suggest, however, that the bowl games be the starting point of a "plus-2" scenario. This would allow the BCS affiliated bowl games to retain not only their importance, but also their traditional match-ups. Under this scenario, we would return to eight teams that would play in the four BCS affiliated bowl games, all of which would be played no later than January 2. The eight teams would be, first, the winners of the six BCS conferences - the SEC, ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big XII and PAC 10 - followed by two "wild-card" teams. As is currently the case, the top ranked non-BCS conference team would receive an automatic wild-card bid, provided it finished in the top eight of the final BCS standings, otherwise, it should be the top two remaining teams. Winning your conference should mean something. If you can't win your conference, you take your chances - maybe you are in, maybe you're not. This year, Texas might have had a legitimate beef, tying for the Big XII South title, but missing out on the Big XII championship game because of the three-way tiebreaker rules set out by the Big XII. Based on this, the eight playoff teams this year would be Florida (SEC), Oklahoma (Big XII), Virginia Tech (ACC), Cincinnati (Big East), Penn State (Big 10), USC (PAC 10), and wild-cards Texas (Big XII) and Utah (MWC). As mentioned previously, the Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose Bowls could retain their traditional affiliations, which could have resulted in the following match-ups:

Rose Bowl
USC v. Penn State

Fiesta Bowl
Oklahoma v. Utah

Orange Bowl
Virgina Tech v. Texas

Sugar Bowl
Florida v. Cincinnati

Okay, I admit it, I manipulated these match-ups to ensure that the same four teams that are in the national championship discussion could win and move on. Were these the match-ups, who knows what might have happened, but who wouldn't be excited to see match-ups of USC v. Utah and Florida v. Texas next Saturday, with the winners contending for the championship the following week.

Would this system be perfect? Certainly not. Alabama ended the year ranked fourth in the nation, yet would not have a chance to contend for a championship. As noted above, if you don't win your conference, you take your chances. It could just as easily have been Texas ranked fourth and Alabama third, leaving Texas on the outside looking it. Or Oregon State could have won the PAC 10 with a 9-3 overall record, and USC, ranked fifth, would have had to sit on the sidelines. Wouldn't it be better, though, to be arguing over who the seventh and eighth teams should be, rather than the first and second? And enough of this nonsense about "every game being an elimination game." If that were really true, Utah would have gotten their shot, as they didn't lose a game, and therefore should not have been eliminated from contention.

Think, also, about the additional revenue that would be generated by having not one, but three additional games (the two national semi-finals, and the one national championship games). These games could be played at the sites of the existing BCS games. Instead of getting an extra game once every four years, as is currently the case, each site would get an additional game three out of every four games. Add to that the additional revenue generated by the advertising during the games, additional sponsorship, and there would be enough money to make it worthwhile. Two more weeks of college football, a playoff system that embraces the the existing bowl structure, and a Football Bowl Subdivision championship played the week before the Superbowl. That sounds like College Football Nirvana.

B(c)S - Part I

2009-01-09T17:27:00.000-08:00

Last night, the Florida Gators defeated the Oklahoma Sooners, and have been declared the national champions of Division I college football. The final gun signalled the start of the annual debate about which team was really the best in college football this year. Every year, the awarding of the BCS Championship Trophy does more to start this debate than end it, as it was designed to do. This year, there are four teams (Florida, Utah, USC and Texas) that can make legitimate arguments that they should be considered "national champions."
Florida is the team that will go down in the record books as the 2008-09 National Champions. They won the BCS National Championship game. They ended the year on top of both the AP Poll and the ESPN/USA Today Coaches Poll. They were champions of the Southeastern Conference, and beat the champion of the Big XII conference, arguably the two top conferences in the nation this year. But still, there is that one blemish on their resume. One loss, at home, to Ole Miss. And so there are questions.
USC seems to be in this position every year. Every year they put up one bad game, and it haunts them. This year, the stinker occurred in Corvallis, against a pretty good Oregon State team. In the end, they were able to make it close, losing to the team that would end the year as either the 18th (AP) or 19th (USA Today) ranked team in the country. How does that loss compare to Florida's loss to Ole Miss, which ended the year ranked either 14th (AP) or 15th (USA Today) - a loss that occurred on their home field? Yet Florida was invited to the BCS Championship game as the #2 team in the country, while USC was ranked #5 and played Penn State in the Rose Bowl. USC plays in the PAC 10, which is often characterized as USC and the 9 Dwarfs. But the PAC 10 finished with four teams (USC, Oregon, Oregon State and California) ranked in the top 25 of the USA Today poll (Cal was 26th in the AP poll), while the juggernaut known as the SEC finished with... four teams in the top 25 (Florida, Alabama, Georgia and Ole Miss). Maybe, then, it was the strength of schedule that put Florida over the top? Florida played five games against teams that ended the year in the top 25 of the USA Today poll, Ole Miss, Georgia, Florida State, Alabama and Oklahoma, going 4-1 against that competition. USC, on the other hand, played Ohio State, Oregon State, Oregon, California and Penn State - five teams from the end of year poll, and went 4-1 against that competition. Oh, and the PAC 10 went 5-0 in Bowl games (yes, one of those was Oregon State's 3-0 win over Pittsburgh).
Of the 1 loss teams left out of the BCS Championship game, Texas has, perhaps, the best loss on their resume. Their one loss came at the hands of Texas Tech, who ended the year as the 12th ranked team in the country according to both the AP and USA Today. Not only that, but Texas Tech had to pull off one of the most memorable plays in recent memory in order to secure the victory. Texas is also the only team in the end-of-year top 5 that can boast a victory over one of the two teams that played for the National Championship. Rest assured, we will see signs proclaiming the final score of 45-35 when the Red River Rivalry resumes in 2009. But is a Texas team that struggled to beat Ohio State, 24-21, the equal of a USC team that beat Ohio State 35-3?
Utah has a pretty good argument that they are the real National Champions. They were the only team to go undefeated, 13-0. They stood against all comers, and remained unblemished. In their final game, they beat Alabama, a team that spent five weeks atop the polls, a team that took Florida to the limit. After their first 3 possessions, they were ahead, 21-0. Alabama did manage to cut the lead to 21-17, but then Utah scored the final 10 points for a final score of 31-17. Oh, and that Oregon State team that beat USC in Corvallis? Utah beat them, too - 31-28. It isn't like they played a slouch of a schedule, either, as Utah went 4-0 against the end-of-year top 25.
In the end, there should be only one, but we are left not with one, but four teams, each with a legitimate claim to the title. The uncertainty leaves us dissatisfied. Even the most ardent fan feels it, the doubt, the uncertainty, the not knowing what would have been, what could have been. Such things were meant to be decided on the field, not by some sort of computer simulation or popularity contest. Even the Gators, who are speaking with the bravado of those flush with victory, have doubt. What if it had been USC, Utah, or Texas that had stalked the opposing sideline? Would the outcome have been the same? But there is no knowing what might have been, so here we are, at the same crossroads we have faced countless times before. Lost. Confused. Empty. Unsatisfied.

Reporting from the Missionary Position

2007-04-16T23:19:00.000-07:00

Others can and will comment on the senseless killings that took place on April 16th, 2007 at Virginia Tech. Many of them will do so far more eloquently than I can ever hope to. I will leave that to them. I wish, instead, to comment on the equally senseless media storm that is now centered on the university.
I suppose that some of it is to be expected. It is entirely reasonable for the major media outlets to dispatch a reporter or two to the scene of the bloodiest stooting in the country's history. I was disgusted, however, when I saw that Katie Couric and Brian Williams, two of the three anchors for the major networks, were already there at the scene. I would be surprised if Charles Gibson and Anderson Cooper weren't at the campus as well, I just didn't happen to see them.
What purpose was there in having the network news broadcast from the crime scene? Was there any value added by the anchor's presence? Well of course there was - ratings.
The news is an interesting business. As with all broadcast media, it is driven by ratings, and as unfortunate as it may be, bad news sells, and the worse the news, the better it is for the ratings. There is a difference, however, in thoroughly reporting the news, and exploiting the news. The reporting on the Virginia Tech shootings have crossed this line.
This story is certainly important enough to dominate the news. The problem is that there isn't enough information available for it to dominate the news. For students that were involved in the event, the last thing that they need is microphone stuck in their faces. Students not involved, on the other hand, do not have much (if anything) to offer. Telling the story is one thing, but to attempt to cover a story like this from every conceivable angle, not to mention calling in additional talking heads to speculate and postulate on what happened, why it might have happened and/or what could or should be done to prevent it from happening again, it crosses the line to exploitation.

Dueling With Immersion

2007-03-19T01:01:00.001-07:00

Today, I learned a new term, Dual Immersion. My children’s school is supposed to be implementing this program over the next several years. At Sunnyslope Elementary School, Dual Immersion will require a multi-year commitment, beginning in Kindergarten. The two Dual Immersion Kindergarten classes will have 90% of their instruction in Spanish, and 10% in English. As the students progress to 1st Grade, the ratio will change to 80% Spanish and 20% English. 3rd Grade will by 70% Spanish and 30% English and by the 5th Grade, the ratio will be 50/50.

I am all for introducing secondary language in our Elementary Schools. I believe that there is solid evidence that language skills are more easily obtained by children at that age. That being said, I have concerns about this program and the way it will be implemented. On the surface, it appears to me that is likely that Dual Immersion is a way to circumvent Proposition 227, California’s English Only initiative. Perhaps I am wrong, but to prove this to me, there are a few questions that I need to have answered.

Who is this intended to benefit, English Speakers or English Learners? With a 90/10 split in instruction time to begin with, I have a hard time believing that it is both. If it is good for English Speakers to have 90% of instruction in Spanish, wouldn’t it be good for English Learners to have 90% of their instruction in English? If it is good for the English Learners to have 90% of their instruction in their native tongue, isn’t it a disservice to the English Speakers to have only 10% of their instruction in their native tongue?

How will English Speakers in a classroom that has 90% of the instruction in Spanish not fall behind in the core curriculum? The documentation that I have read indicates that by the time students in a Dual Immersion program reach the 6th Grade, they are at or above grade level. The same documentation, however, indicates that there is, either by design or by chance, a higher degree of parental involvement with students enrolled in Dual Immersion. Many studies have shown that higher parental involvement is an excellent indicator of student performance on standardized tests, which begs the question: What would these students test scores have been had they been enrolled in a more conventional program, with the same level of parental involvement? How can we be assured that it is the language skills that have made the difference, and not the additional parental involvement?

Why not just add Spanish to the Elementary School curriculum, at least on an optional basis? This question is actually rhetorical. There isn’t time to add Spanish to the curriculum. We are asking our children to do more and more at a younger and younger age. I see my 4th graders asked to do math that we didn’t see until 8th or 9th grade. I see my 5th and 6th graders expected to exhibit levels of cognitive thought that they aren’t ready for yet. My kids are struggling to keep up as it is, I can’t imagine what it would be like if we were to add a secondary language to the mix?

What assurances do we have that this isn’t merely a way of circumventing Prop 227? As stated above, it is counterintuitive that both English Speakers and English Learners will benefit equally from a disproportionate percentage of instruction being in Spanish. The thing is, it appears that the move away from bilingual education is working. Standardized test scores have improved since the passage of 227. This indicates that the better way to learn a second language is through immersion programs. If we are using programs such as this as a back door around 227, we may be doing a disservice to our English Learning students.

Do we know what the demand is for this program? The current plan is to have two kindergarten classes taught as Dual Immersion classes in the first year of the program. Do we have enough demand for this program within the area serviced by Sunnyslope Elementary? If there isn’t, there is talk of allowing students from elsewhere in the district to transfer to Sunnyslope. Doesn’t this open up the possibility that some kindergarteners in the Sunnyslope area will have their places taken by students from outside the area because they may not want to be involved in the program. From what I understand, these classes are in place of standard kindergarten classes at Sunnyslope, not in addition to them. Will students be forced to attend schools farther away from home because of this program? I hope not. I hope that no parent is told that their child can attend Sunnyslope, but the only slot that is available is in a Dual Immersion class.

All this being said, this is an optional program. I am a firm believer that we need more choice in our schools, not less. As long as this program is voluntary, and as long as it is not meant as a way to get around Prop. 227, I am not opposed to it. If I had a child entering kindergarten, I don’t think that I would sign up for this. Other parents can make their own choices

Steele Equivocating

2005-09-23T22:44:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post ran an editorial on Sept. 23rd that condemned the actions of staffers of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who illegally obtained confidential credit reports on Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. OK, condemned may be a bit strong for what the Post editorialized, but they did say quite firmly that, if they did it again, The DSCC should be prepared to go on time out. I am quite willing to say that I don't know enough about what happened to know if this story has legs enough to make it down the driveway, let alone around the block, but I did find a couple of things quite interesting about this editorial.
First, nearly as much time is spent discussing how Republicans do this sort of thing, too. I can't help but wonder, if the situation were reversed, would the piece have gone on about how both sides pull dirty tricks on the other? Or would the commentary have focused more on the specific dirty trick involved. The Post does its readers a disservice if when one side of the aisle is caught with its hand in the cookie jar, everyone is at fault, while when the other side is caught doing something untoward, the focus is on them alone.
Then, the Post closed with what I think is an absolutely preposterous comparison.

As political dirty tricks go, snooping for financial dirt on Mr. Steele by illegal means strikes us as roughly on a par with eavesdropping on a rival party's private telephone conversations, as Virginia Republican officials did several years ago.

Excuse me, but this doesn't seem like it is even roughly on par with eavesdropping. The correct comparison is that it would be equivalent to illegally tapping a rival party's telephone. I don't know if this is what Virginia Republicans did or not, but that would be roughly the same. The Mainstream Media likes to pretend that they are even-handed, but editorials such as this make that difficult to believe.

Cub Scout Camp - Alex

2005-09-22T21:18:00.000-07:00

Alex - Your Move
Originally uploaded by brent2mnen.

This is Alex in the middle of his first game of chess. He won this game almost by accident. He attempted to make an illegal move with his queen and put his opponent into check. When told that there was a legal move with the queen to put him in check, he took it. I looked for a moment and realized it was checkmate. The two boys running this activity were amazed and came running over to confirm the win. It was the only checkmate of the session.

Alex really impressed me during his second game of chess. As I mentioned earlier, he tried to make a couple of illegal moves in the first game, but by the second he seemed to have all the pieces down. He wasn't able to finish his second game, but if you were to have decided the game on points, he was ahead when time ran out. I am going to have to play chess with both of the boys. I was really pleased that they have both taken a liking to the game. As the grow older, and get better at the game, it will be a wonderful thing for us to do together. I suppose that I will have to learn to play multiple games at the same time, so that no one feels like they are being left out. Hopefully, that will also cut down on the kibitzing.

Alex really loved swimming. He was fearless, too. When the boys first got to camp, they took a swimming test. That wouldn't have been a problem except for one thing - Alex doesn't swim. That little detail didn't phase him in the least, though. He was taken to the deep end of the pool and, over the objections of myself and two other parents that were with us, jumped right in when he was told to. I don't know how much of it was from fear, and how much of it was from the cold water, but when he emerged, he had a look on his face that I had not seen before (and hope never to see again). Even that experience, though did not deter is love of the water, and by the end of the summer he had taken swimming lessons, and earned both his Swimming Beltloop and Pin.

Cub Scout Camp - Ryan

2005-09-22T20:54:00.000-07:00

Ryan - Fishing
Originally uploaded by brent2mnen.

It isn't often that you see Ryan sitting still for this long. This picture was taken while Ryan was at Camp Wiley, a Cub Scout camp in Running Springs, CA. I don't know about you, but this picture reminds me of something from the Andy Griffith Show. Unfortunately, I wasn't around to see him catch his fish. If you were to ask him, he would tell you that he caught a Blue Gill (he says it as if it were two separate words). I can't tell you how good the Cub Scouts has been for Ryan. Just at camp, he was able to go swimming, shoot a BB gun, learn some Archery, whittle (yes, with a real pocketknife). I have to admit, though, that I was worn out after a few days of Cub Scout Camp. I spent much of the time running back and forth between Alex's group, and Ryan's - which is why I missed capturing his fish on film. I think that I went through a couple of liters of water daily. I was very grateful that I had purchased a hydrating backpack to carry around with me.

Ryan was a star meteoroligist, too. The boys that had just graduated to Bear Scouts (going into 3rd grade) were "Weather Bears", and got to announce what the weather was going to be for the day. They also had a class in which they learned a little more about meteorology. Ryan already knew most of the different types of clouds (cumulus, cumulonimbus, stratus, cirrus, etc.).

Did I mention that one of Ryan's activities was whittling? Ryan handling a firearm? I could handle that. Ryan in Archery class? No problem. But Ryan with a knife was almost more than I could bear. This class was the reason that I didn't make it back to see Alex in Archery class. After a quick lecture in knife safety, the boys were each given a knife and a piece of wood to whittle. Fortunately, these knives were very dull, unlike the knife that I purchased for Ryan to use. Ryan then proceeded to wrap his fingers completely around the blade to open and close the knife, and because he was more to the side of the boys conducting the class, it wasn't noticed.

Before the class started, the parents were instructed not to speak to the boys. The older gentleman that ran this activity said that the only injuries he had ever had were due to parents distracting their children. Seeing my son with his fingers around the blade of a knife, however, was more than I could take. As Popeye is wont to say, "That's all I can stands and I can't stands no more." It took some effort, but I finally got the instructors' attention and they went over and supervised Ryan a bit more closely. This actually happened a couple of times before they realized that Ryan needed more supervision than most boys, but by the end of the session, someone was sitting next to Ryan the whole time. I was relieved when this activity was over. Looking at his Bear book, though, I noticed that Ryan is supposed to do a carving. I think that we will have him carve soap... using a plastic knife. As it is, his Cub Scout knife stays in my possession and only comes out when Ryan can be supervised.

Open Houses

2005-09-02T23:50:00.000-07:00

Dennis Prager, who I listen to regularly on the radio, is trying to organize people that will open up their homes to families displaced by Hurricane Katrina. His plan is to limit the stay to 1 month, so that there are fewer complications. If a family needs more than a month, they would move to a different home. If you are interested, you can give your name to Dennis to sign up at his website.

The Best of Times.... The Worst of Times

2005-09-01T20:48:00.000-07:00

It was the best of times....
Never is the character of the American people more evident than in times of crisis. At home or abroad, Americans are among the most compassionate and generous people on the planet. This is again evident in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which looks to become the most devastating hurricane ever to hit the United States. What do Americans do when disaster strikes? They band together. They dig deep. Everywhere you look, there are stories that show the best of what mankind can become.
It starts at a young age. Children across our country are taking hammers to piggy banks - forgoing Barbies and baseballs, because they want to help. They are creating lemonade stands - not so that they can have a little spending money, but because there are people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama that don't have a room, a shirt or a decent meal. They are donating their favorite stuffed animals - because they know that there are children out there that lost their own.
The city of Houston has reached out and is taking in tens of thousands of people that have been trapped in New Orleans. Many Houston hotels have reduced their rates, rather than increase them. The city is allowing cars with Louisiana plates to have free parking. The governor of Texas has offered to take the children of New Orleans that have been relocated into the Texas public schools.
I was listening to the radio today, and I heard a woman from Arizona say that she would like to take a family into her home. She said that she had room for a family of four. Many of us are reaching into our wallets, offering to help in that way, but this woman was offering to let a family of strangers into her life. I know of no more generous offer than to share your home, your life, with a complete stranger.
Who is it that says that Corporate America is heartless? Corporation after corporation is donating Food, Clothing and Water, as well as cash donations to charities in order to help people that have been devastated by Katrina. GM and Nissan are sending vehicles to help with disaster recovery. Budweiser is bottling water, not beer and sending it to the hurricane ravaged Gulf Coast. This article in USA Today documents even more of the efforts that Corporate America is making to help out in this time of disaster.

It was the worst of times....
Just as a disaster can bring out the best in people, it can also bring out the worst. The looters were just the beginning. I don't hold it against people that have taken the food, clothing or medical supplies that they might need to survive, though I believe that they should attempt some form of restitution at some future date. Televisions, however, are not a necessity. It is tragic that, just as the rest of America is being selfless, there is a portion of it that is being completely and entirely selfish. I have heard reports of trucks that are coming into the areas with supplies being hijacked. A medical airlift attempting to get some of the sick and the injured out of the Superdome was at least temporarily suspended after someone apparently fired a shot at a military helicopter. There are reports of police officers turning in their badges. They have lost everything, and don't feel that it is worth it to risk their lives battling thugs and looters.
Who can blame them? I have heard many complain about the lack of relief - that there is too little, too late. At the same time, though, there is a portion of the population that is actively hindering rescue and relief operations. Shots are being fired at police officers. Violence is being threatened against rescue workers, in an attempt to have their family attended to first.
Respect. This is a word that is often bandied about. Respect, though, is something to be earned, and the best way to earn it is to act respectably. Unfortunately, there are so many good people that are suffering because of the actions of these thugs. I don't remember people that were affected by last December's tsunami being this ungrateful, or this demanding, either. It doesn't help to dwell on the things that one doesn't have - it is much better to be grateful for what we do have.

Immigration, the Nanny State and Unintended Consequences

2005-08-03T20:44:00.000-07:00

It was about a week ago that I was driving home from work, listening to talk radio as is my habit, when I overheard a host talking about how the American Welfare State was an incentive to illegal immigration. I don't know that people come to the US to take advantage of our welfare system. I tend to believe that most people come to the United States looking for work. And let's face it, work is here to be had. Employers, especially in the agricultural sector, often contend that the reason they need to hire immigrants is that American workers are unwilling to do the work - of course, they always seem to leave a very important phrase off of this statement, "at the wages they offer." And that is when it dawned on me. The American Welfare State may, indeed, be an incentive to immigrants - not because they come for the benefits, but because it gives American workers an incentive not to work.
Why should a person do the back-breaking work of picking strawberries when they can exist - maybe not well, but exist nonetheless - on the government dole. Even if a worker could make more cleaning hotel toilets, how much more would they need to be compensated before they chose to do that instead of being paid for doing nothing at all? The Welfare State may actually be artificially raising what workers perceive to be a "living wage", while at the same time enticing immigrants and employers to find common ground in the underground economy.
I was unemployed recently, for approximately three months. I was able to make ends meet during that time by selling the small portfolio of stock I had accumulated, spending the minimal severance package I received, my tax refund, and unemployment. I doubt that I could have lasted much longer without starting to skip payments on credit cards, my mortgage, etc. I was picky, though, in my job search. I confined it companies in my immediate area, not desiring to have to make a long commute which would take time away from my family. That being said, as my funds ran short, and I started to experience shortfalls, I would have lowered my expectations, made compromises, and ultimately done whatever I had to do to support my family and pay my bills. I don't think that other people are any different. We will do what it takes to survive, but if we can survive before "going to the mattresses" we are likely to make trade-offs.

The Case For Retirement

2005-07-28T22:28:00.000-07:00

Much has been made about Chief Justice William Rehnquist's decision to remain firmly planted on the bench of the Supreme Court. Many have questioned whether his health is such that he has the strength, both mental and physical, to carry out his duties. The decision recently announced in Kelo v. New London, however, makes a compelling case for the retirements of Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Souter.
These five Justices have essentially said that private property isn't private. Rush Limbaugh claims to have talent on loan from God. The Supremes have now declared that our property is merely on loan from the government, and can be taken for nearly any reason. According to Justice Stevens, the government of New London's "determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvination is entitled to our deference". In other words, whatever the city wants, the city gets. There is no standard by which to determine if a city justly has determined that economic rejuvination is necessary. They just have to find that it is, and the Supreme Court will defer to that determination.
It didn't take long for municipalities to get the message - it was open season on private property. The decision came down on June 23, 2005. John Revelli's family had owned and operated Revelli Tires in Oakland for 56 years. No more. On July 1, the city of Oakland evicted both John Revelli and a neighboring business owner so that apartments could be built on their properties. For the full story, refer to this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. This was not the first, and certainly won't be the last, instance of this kind of gambit.
Rarely is a decision by the Supreme Court as wrong as this - so wrong that both the Left and the Right are up in arms over it. For those that are concerned about the direction that John Roberts will take the Court, this should be some consolation. If Roberts turns out to be the conservative Justice that he is expected to be, he would have come down on the right side of this decision. It should be noted that it was the Court's most liberal members that have ripped the foundations of our homes and businesses out from under us. I pray for the speedy retirements of these five justices, and their replacements by Justices that understand their role, and the laws and principles that they are sworn to uphold.

Here's to Bush's Health

2005-07-25T22:32:00.000-07:00

I was floored today, when I read of legislation that has just made it out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Apparently, John Shadegg (R) of Arizona has introduced legislation that would allow consumer to purchase insurance from any one of the 50 states. This, by no means, ensures that the legislation will become law, but it is a step in the right direction. As it currently stands, each state passes its own legislation that regulates the insurance carriers in that state, which leads to a wide array of pricing structures throughout the country. As the Wall Street Journal points out, this is precisely the sort of thing that the Commerce Clause was written to address. These regulations have the same effect as tariffs, making it impossible for companies that do business from one state to do business in another state. Allowing consumers the flexibility of choosing policies from any state they wish will allow them to pick plans that best suit their needs. President Bush has apparently endorsed the Shadegg proposal, which could result in the best health care legislation we have seen in some time.

They Still Have US to Kick Around

2005-05-11T22:54:00.000-07:00

Thomas Friedman really hit the ball out of the park with his article today in the NY Times. If Iran and North Korea do indeed develop and test nuclear weapons, whose fault will it be? In the eyes of the world, it will be the fault of those Americans, no doubt. But Friedman questions whether Europe and China have the political will or even desire to pressure Iran and North Korea into giving up their radioactive dreams. The US has already severed nearly all ties with both countries, and therefore has little leverage left. Friedman is especially insightful when he makes this statement:

Are the Europeans and Chinese behaving cynically? Of course, these are the very countries constantly complaining about U.S. "hegemony," and calling for a "multipolar world." Yet the only thing they are really interested in being a pole for is to oppose the U.S. - not to actually do something hard themselves to stabilize the global system.

They complain when we act like the world's only superpower and they complain when we don't. It is almost enough to make you want to return to those halcyon days of American isolationism and quit being the world's policeman. But the world needs a policeman, and who else will take that role? The Europeans? The Chinese? Do we really want them to?

Dead Last

2005-05-09T19:39:00.000-07:00

I may not have the quote exactly right, but I heard LA Mayoral candidate Antonio Villaraigosa state today that "of the top 67 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." He may be right, I can't quibble about the number, but I find it hard to believe that the survey took into account only 67 cities. Maybe 50 cities, or 75, or even 100, but not 67. If LA had come in the 44th position, the quote would have read "of the top 44 largest cities in America, Los Angeles' roads rank dead last." The same would be true if they had been 23rd, or even 7th. The key thing is that Villaraigosa was able to say that they were "dead last."
I don't have a horse in the LA Mayors race. I don't live in Los Angeles, and wouldn't care much for either candidate if I did. That being said, the use of statistics in this manner is disingenuous at the very least. As my grandfather often would say, "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Thank God for the UN

2005-05-07T00:48:00.000-07:00

The United Nations has issued an alarm for women's rights groups in Afghanistan "after three young Afghan women were found raped, hanged and dumped on a roadside with a warning not to work for foreign relief organizations."
I'm just trying to remember - did the UN issue any such alarms for women's rights when they were living under the Taliban?

Words, Words, Words.... Wolf!!!

2005-05-04T22:25:00.000-07:00

Words mean something, or at least they used to. Today, however, it seems that even our language is suffering from egalitarianism.
The degradation of the meaning of words takes many forms. In some cases, we degrade our speech by resorting to the use of obscenities. It isn't merely that obscenities are dirty, foul, or degrading, but that they don't have the same power of language. When we are angry, we often say that we are 'pissed'. But what, exactly, does that mean? There are many words for angry: upset, agitated, perturbed, annoyed, mad, furious, irate, livid.... Where, precisely, does 'pissed' belong in a continuum of such words? Instead of finding a place in the continuum, it covers the whole spectrum, and we lose the nuances of the other words that could have been used. How about insults? Calling someone a #(&*@ (coward - female genitalia) just doesn't carry the same weight as saying that they "have the backbone of a chocolate eclair". Even Archie Bunker calling his son-in-law 'meathead' had more meaning than an obscenity would have.
Another way that words lose their meaning is when we use them improperly, especially in improper comparisons. When we use the word 'rape' to describe a woman that wakes up and regrets having sex with the man she met the night before, we degrade the meaning of the word rape, and therefore the act of rape itself. When people use the word 'jihad' to describe the religious right in this country, we aren't just making the religious right out to be worse, we are saying that actual 'jihad' isn't so bad. John McCandlish Phillips references a number of major columnists in this article in the Washington Post.
All this makes me think of the boy who cried wolf. If we continually degrade our language by trying to make dissimilar things out to be similar, soon we won't be able to tell the wolves from the sheep. A serial rapist? Isn't that just another word for a Casanova?

Who's Running This Circus?

2005-04-28T22:33:00.000-07:00

What struck me even more about the Gene Healy article in Reason was the following excerpt:

McCain-Feingold clocked in at a mere 36 pages, yet in February 2003 The New York Times reported that the Democratic and Republican party organizations had to hire high-priced lawyers and consultants to run seminars teaching senators and congressmen about the requirements of the law they had just passed. "I didn't realize what all was in it," Rep. Robert Matsui (D-Calif.) said.

They didn't understand the requirements of the law they had just passed. Unbelievable. And this was legislation that directly affected them and the way that they raised money.
McCain-Feingold is extraordinarily bad law. It may have been based on good intentions, but the ramifications of the law have been disastrous. First, it has made it all but impossible for anyone but the very rich to run for office. For some reason, the courts have ruled that spending your money on advertising, etc. to promote your own political ideas or to support your own political campaign is a free speech issue, protected by the 1st amendment, while spending your money on someone else's campaign is not. Therefore, under McCain-Feingold, you cannot give more than $2,000 to any single candidate in any single election. It takes a lot of $2,000 contributions to run a successful campaign these days, especially difficult if you aren't an incumbent.
The loophole that McCain-Feingold left open gave rise to the 527 organizations in the last election. These organizations can accept unlimited amounts of money, but cannot be officially tied in anyway to a candidate. Politician's must love these. 527's can put out the most outrageous and scandalous allegations, and the candidate can say that he had nothing to do with them. Plausible deniability.
So, Congress passed this law, a mere 36 pages of text, and didn't understand it. The Intelligence Reform Bill of 2004 is 200 pages longer. How many Senators actually understand that little piece of legislation? If you want some real reform in government, maybe we should adopt a five sentence rule for legislation. No law can be longer than five sentences long. Of course, maybe we should also make sure that they use single syllable words so that the whole of Congress can understand them, too.

Bring On Mr. Smith

2005-04-28T22:08:00.000-07:00

Gene Healy makes some compelling arguments in this article in Reason today. I don't know that I agree with him about the likelihood of the disallowing of filibusters on judicial appointments leading to the end of all filibusters, but he is right that the Republicans would be better off forcing their colleagues on the other side of the aisle to mount a real filibuster. As best I understand it, the current process of acquiescing when the other side announces that they plan to filibuster is nothing more than a gentleman's agreement. In reading the text of the Senate Rule, there is only the requirement of an affirmative vote "in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" to close debate, except to change the rules, in which case "the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting". The filibuster is meant to be used on issues that are so important as to put aside all other work of the Senate. The Democrats want to call on the memory of Mr. Jefferson Smith? Let them emulate him. Bring on the debate, and the cots.

You Can't Win Them All

2005-04-27T22:11:00.000-07:00

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has consistently been right on the importance and necessity of the war in Iraq, but he has weighed in a couple of pounds light on the nomination of John Bolton to be our Ambassador to the UN (column). I don't know that Bolton is necessarily the right man for the job, although anyone with the chutzpah to say that we could do without 10 floors of the UN building and no one would notice has risen several pegs in my book. I do know, however, that it would be far worse to heed Friedman's advice and nominate George H. W. Bush to fill the role.
The foreign policy goals of the two Bush administrations could hardly be more diametrically opposed. George Bush 41 viewed foreign policy as the need for stability, the theory being that it was better to bear those ills we have than flee to others we know not of. George Bush 43, on the other hand, has instituted a foreign policy based on change and the primacy of freedom. He has a vision of a better world, based on democracy and freedom.
Friedman is also wrong when it comes to the costs of the current Mid-East campaign. Having more allies would not reduce, in any significant measure, the cost in blood nor dollars that America is expending in Iraq. A more Grand Alliance would be merely symbolic. In Operation Desert Storm, the United States provided the vast majority of troops and equipment, and an even more disproportionate percentage of casualties. The same is true in Operation Iraqi Freedom. It doesn't matter. What does matter is doing the right thing. As King Arthur says in the Broadway Musical Camelot, what we believe in is not that might makes right, but that we should use might for right.

Change Everything?

2005-04-21T00:02:00.000-07:00

That is the prescription that James Carville and Paul Begala have given the Democratic Party. I am reminded of something I once heard. If two people agree on everything, one of them isn't thinking. I think that the same can be said when two people disagree on everything - one of them isn't thinking either. Their article does, however, get at least one thing right. The biggest problem that the Democrats face is not that they stand for things that the American public doesn't like, but that they stand for nothing. As it stands, it is still the Rupublican Party that is the party of ideas, the party of change and the party of reform. It is not and will not be enough for the Democrats just to stand up and say "No!" (which, by the way, seems to be what they are doing). They must instead formulate an alternative plan from which to govern. Carville and Begala have outlined five issues that they believe can be exploited. Doing so, however, may be more difficult than they imagine.
The Economy. The Democrats solution: Tax the rich, encourage corporations to keep jobs in the US, reform and simplify the Tax Code by making it more progressive (again, tax the rich). There is a plan in place that accomplishes everything in that list save the last, making it more progressive, the National Sales Tax. It is proposed by a Republican congressman from Georgia.
Health Care. The Democrats solution: Some sort of mandated health insurance for every American. Their preference would be a single-payer (government funded) plan, but they would settle for requiring employers to insure their workers, with an additional tax to cover those that fell through the cracks. The Republicans here aren't much better, preferring to let people make their own health decisions - whether it is an employee benefit (in lieu of salary), privately purchased health insurance, or (in the only innovative policy set forth on this issue) private, tax-deductible, individual health insurance accounts. The problem with all but the private accounts is that it hides the cost from the consumer. Do you know that your insurance carrier may be paying more for your doctor visits and prescriptions than you would pay yourself in a "pay-as-you-go" system. And you are probably paying a co-payment for that priveledge.
Foreign Policy. If you haven't been watching, it would seem that the current administration's firm, decisive foreign policy has been having effects far beyond the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. Although too early to call the campaign for freedom a resounding success, there are now fledgling democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and a general move toward democracy in Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There is even hope for a democratic movement in Iran and Syria. American foreign policy shouldn't be reached as a consensus with other nations. It should be based on doing the right thing, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. If they come along for the ride, great. If they don't, we can go it alone just fine.
Political Reform. This issue is like the chimney sweep telling the coal miner that he is dirty. There is plenty of political corruption on both sides of the aisle. It is easy to point a finger at Tom Delay now, but now the Democratic House Leader, Nancy please, is having similar allegations flung her way. Political reform as a campaign issue will often take down friend and foe alike. If Carville and Begala don't see this, it is because they see Democrats not as being right, but good, and Republicans not as wrong, but bad.

Time to Ban Assault Rocks

2005-04-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

Rocks can be dangerous things, just ask Goliath. In the interest of the public safety, then, it is high time that we look at the danger that Assault Rocks are in our society. In my unscientific estimate, there are in excess of 8 million rocks for every man woman and child in the United States. That is enough of these potentially lethal weapons for every citizen to wipe out an entire major city, yet we allow these objects to fall into the hands of criminals on a daily basis. Not only that, but large-capacity Assault Rock Magazines are made available at no cost at every major grocery store, in two convenient styles, paper and plastic. These magazines can hold hundreds of Assault Rocks at a time, and pose an even greater risk to society. This is a worldwide problem, with incidents in South Africa, Israel, Honduras, Haiti, and Ireland, to name a few.
Here, finally, is an issue where we can get out in front of the curve. Legislation is needed immediately to protect us from this danger that surrounds us seemingly on all sides. I can't believe that there are still people out there that claim "rocks don't kill people - people kill people." We need to make sure that there is a 2 month waiting period before people are allowed to take possession of rocks, and complete FBI background checks performed in the interim. Smooth stones should be completely prohibited, as they are more aerodynamic, and there is no reason for them other than to hurt or kill people and other living things. No rocks should be allowed within 100 yards of a school or government building. The penalty for carrying rocks onto school property by students should be immediate expulsion, and applied to rocks of any size and shape, from grains of sand (which can insidiously be hidden in childrens' shoes) to boulders (which can cause catastrophic damage). It is important, as part of our necessary zero tolerance policy that all rocks and rock-like substances be included in this ban, lest we set a bad example and promote the idea that some rocks are safe and others are not.
Thanks to Jason Adams for the concept and link to the Aran Islands (Ireland) rock-throwing incident.

The Derby

2005-04-03T10:40:00.000-07:00

I would be remiss if I didn't at least post something about my sons' Pinewood Derby (Cub Scouts) experience yesterday (April 2nd). Both of them were just so proud of their cars, and both of them did admirably. Ryan placed 4th in his group (Wolves or 2nd graders), and Alex placed 1st in his (Tigers or 1st graders). You should have seen the look of pride on his face as he stood up there waiting to compete against the other division winners.
I was surprised one thing, however. Everything that I had read had indicated that putting more weight in the back would make the car run faster. The cars that I saw do the best, though, had the weight more evenly distributed. In fact, the car that won for the entire Pack was barely more than the original block of wood.
Regardless, though, a good time was had by all, and congratulations to all participants, and especially the winners.

A Dignified Death

2005-04-02T23:00:00.000-08:00

Today, the gates of Heaven were opened for Pope John Paul II. His was a remarkable life, and an equally remarkable death. When we speak of 'death with dignity', this is the example that we should look to. John Paul did not hurry toward his death, rushing to embrace it, nor did he shirk or cower from it. The Pope instead accepted death when it came, walking with it, embracing it, while still savoring every last ounce of life while he had breath.
The Holy Father has walked with death for some time. He met it in passing in his youth, losing his Mother just one month before his 9th birthday, his elder brother at the age of 12, and his Father at 21. He lived under both Nazi and Communist rule and no doubt came to know death as at least a passing acquaintance. Death also came calling in 1981, by way of an assassin's bullet. By this time, the Pope was probably on a first name basis with death, but this time it was just a visit, and the Pontiff endured.
With the onset of Parkinson's Disease, death started to become a more constant companion, trailing far behind at first, but coming closer with each step. These past few years, John Paul and death could be seen walking, side by side, in constant conversation with each other. But the Pope had other responsibilities, and the presence of death by his side would not keep him from them. His travel may be curtailed, he may have found it difficult to walk, or, at times, even to speak, but still, he walked on. I am reminded of a line from The Princess Bride, "Life is pain. Anyone that tries to tell you differently is selling you something." The pope, however, was not buying. There was pain, certainly, and suffering, but this man bore his cross with dignity.
This year, however, John Paul's health took a turn for the worse. He contracted the flu, which caused him to have difficulty breathing. Rather than succumb, he allowed a tracheotomy to be performed, so that his lungs could take in enough air. Then his illness caused him to to have trouble eating, so he had a feeding tube inserted into his nose so that he received enough nourishment. He did not feel that these things were undignified. They were necessary to allow him to go on with his mission. As long as his lungs had breath, and his heart had strength, his life had purpose and meaning, and it was that he would embrace, not death, which was now his constant companion.
As ill as he was, Ester Sunday, he appeared at his window, and again on Wednesday, when he traditionally greeted the masses in St. Peter's Square. This is one of those pictures of him that I will remember, embracing life with what little strength he had left. In the end, though, there was no treatment for him. A urinary tract infection put him into septic shock. Antibiotics were prescribed, but they proved unequal to the task. In the hours before his death, though, he continued to receive visitors, living his life as best he could. In the end, though, death took him by the arm, and took him the few short steps to Heaven's Gate. Thus, Pope John Paul II passed from this world to the next, straight and erect and, yes, dignified.
The next time that you hear someone say that they wish to 'die with dignity', remember the way that this Pope carried himself in the face of death, and see if it measures up.
Good-night, Karol Wojtyla. Godspeed.

Crimes Are Misdemeanors

2005-04-01T23:42:00.000-08:00

National Security just isn't what it used to be. I thought that government secrets were supposed to be just that, government secrets, and that violation of the public trust in such instances would have severe consequences. I was wrong. It is merely a misdemeanor. A drunk driving conviction would carry more weight in many states.
Last summer, Sandy Berger called it an "honest mistake" when he unintentionally removed 5 classified documents from the national archives. Apparently, this "honest mistake" is neither. Nor did he misplace, or mistakenly discard of, 3 of the 5 documents. Instead, he shredded them with a pair of scissors in his office. The question that we do not have an answer to is "Why?" Why would a man that once held the highest National Security post in the land deliberately remove and destroy documents? I will not speculate on this, but I cannot think of any legitimate reason.
So, what are the consequences of this betrayal of the national trust? A $10,000 fine and the suspension of his security clearance for 3 years. That's right, THREE YEARS. As Jim Geraghty rightly points out, this is farcical. Three years just happens to to fall within the second term of President George W. Bush. Do you think that the Bush administration was planning on granting Berger any access to sensitive documents? Once that second Clinton administration comes rumbling down the tracks, he will be eligible to once again be privy to the most sensitive of our nation's secrets.
To me, this sounds like another "honest mistake."

A Show of Hands

2005-03-31T23:50:00.000-08:00

I remember hearing this story once, in a sermon, and it has stuck with me ever since. Apparently, there was a village in Germany, that have a large statue of Christ, arms outstretched, in the town plaza. During WWII, the village was bombed, and I suppose that many, if not most, of the people fled. Upon returning, they found that the statue still stood, but that its hands had been destroyed by the bombardments. At the conclusion of the war, the people were determined to repair the statue, and formed committees with the purpose of raising the funds to do so, but then a local priest stood and made the following argument: Christ taught us that we, the church, are his body - that we are to do his work here on earth, because he is not here to do so himself. In this light, I propose that we leave the statue of our Lord as it is, without its hands, as I constant reminder that we are the hands of Christ, and that it is our duty to do his work here on earth.
Terri Schiavo, even in her diminished capacity, had meaning to her life. She provided those around her, her parents, her husband, her siblings, the opportunity to be the hands of Christ. She also touched a nation, stirring it to look deeply into its soul, and inspiring many others to act as they perceive that Christ would want them to - doing the work of Christ here on earth. Terri is gone now, but she can still inspire us.
Good Night, Terri. Godspeed.

A Taxing Conversion

2005-03-31T22:28:00.000-08:00

I have always been a flat tax guy. When I was young and liberal, it was Jerry Brown that inspired me. Then, older (and wiser, I would say), it was Steve Forbes. Sure he had the charisma of a cardboard box, but he was a flat tax guy, too. A National Sales Tax never appealed to me. It was regressive. The poor would have to pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes. The flat tax, however, was imminently fair. Everyone pays the same rate. No loopholes (except, in some plans, for home mortgages). It was especially appealing when the tax would only apply to income above the poverty rate. The poor would pay nothing, everyone else would pay the same rate. Nothing could ever be fairer.
I don't know if it is necessarily fairer, but I am now convinced that a National Sales Tax is better. It was an article by George Will that finally pushed me over the edge. Under the current proposal by Rep. John Linder of Georgia, no one under the poverty level would pay any tax, as each month, the Sales Tax that would have been collected is returned in the form of a rebate check. But there are so many other reasons that it would be preferable to the current system.

It would encourage savings, as savings of any kind would not be taxed. To say that the savings rate in this country is pitiful is to be kind. An increase in the savings rate would mean that more capital was available for investment, which could even drive interest rates down again. More capital available for investment would result in more entrepreneurship, which would in turn grow the economy.
The underground labor market would dry up. Paying an employee under the table would not decrease tax liability. Oh, and then there are all those people out there who think that they can declare themselves 'Sovereign Citizens of the United States' and not pay any income tax would suddenly become obsolete. Fine, you won't pay any income tax - but just try and avoid the tax register. And, since nearly all states have a sales tax already in place, the infrastructure is already there to collect it - it is just that a portion of it would go to the Federal Government instead of the state.
The Trade Deficit would shrink. This is something that I hadn't thought of before, but, since the goods produced in the United States would be taxed only if they were purchased in the United States, our goods would have a competitive advantage in foreign markets. Conversely, foreign goods would now be taxed when they were sold in the US, evening the playing field. In fact, this would again give our goods a competitive advantage over the current system, because many of the foreign goods would be taxed twice - once at home, such as the European Value Added Tax, and once again in our domestic market, while ours would only be taxed once.
In the same way as the underground labor market would now be taxed, the illegal.. er.. undocumented workers that come across the border would also be taxed on anything that they spent here, and they would have to spend something.
Oh, lets not forget the money that would be transferred from preparing and filing taxes to actual consumption.
As Will points out, how about all the lobbying that goes on that is directly related to the tax code and its manipulation?
And who among us would miss the IRS?
Another good point is that Corporations don't really pay taxes, anyway. They include them in increased prices and we, the consumers, ultimately pay those, too. Why not at least make those taxes visible?

Anyway, I have finally found these to be pretty convincing arguments for a National Sales Tax. The initial suggested rate is 23% (of that over the poverty rate, remember), but I have heard that it might be possible to ultimately get the rate down to 18% (ok, this is admittedly a pipe dream - who ever heard of taxes being decreased).

So here I am, a flat tax guy who now feels that maybe his belief in the flat tax was as realistic as the flat earth, now a convert to a National Sales Tax. Sure, there are things that need to be hammered out, and I wouldn't want to see it without a corresponding repeal of the 16th amendment that authorized the income tax (otherwise we would end up with both), but for now, color me converted.

UNcivilized, UNsecurity, UNconvincing

2005-03-30T22:24:00.000-08:00

There is something strangely appropriate about referring to the United Nations as the UN. Use it as a prefix, and you know what I mean. Un- means the opposite of, and that is precisely what the United Nations has become, consisting of such bodies as the UN-Security Council and the UN-Human Rights Commission. It has become downright UN-settling. Today, as the Newsday is reporting that the death toll in Darfur is nearing 300,000, we find the UN-Security Council involved in a grand debate over whether African courts, or the International Criminal Court should have jurisdiction over war crimes committed in the region. In another stirring show of resolve, the UN-Security Council voted to strengthen its arms embargo, now prohibiting the sale of arms to the government of Sudan.
Hurray for the United Nations. Buoyed by the obvious success of an embargo of Iraq, it rushes in and places an embargo of arms to Sudan. I am certain that, upon hearing the news, the millions of Sudanese displaced by this genocide burst into spontaneous celebration. I just know that the 300,001 and 300,002 victims of the massacres in Sudan will be comforted to know that the weapons that killed them were purchased illegally. I am expecting that, in the immediate future, I will see the results of this latest UN-action, and that, now that it is illegal to buy/sell/transport arms in the Sudan, everyone will lay down their arms and strive to turn the region into a Thomas Kincade painting.
Of course, the United Nations has more important business to attend to, such as managing the Oil-for-Food scandal. The lives of Africans in Darfur are far less important than the posteriors of the Secretariat of the UN. The latest on that continuing fiasco finds that Kofi Annan's former chief of staff, Iqbal Riza, ordered the shredding of documents that may have been pertinent to the investigation. If that isn't enough, let us remember who was in charge of UN-peacekeeping during another genocide, Rwanda. That is correct, Riza was also an aide to Annan when he was in charge of UN-peacekeeping. A transcript of a PBS interview with Riza regarding this earlier genocide can be found here.
The performance of the United Nations in the world, when it comes to the big issues can be summed up in a word. UN-satisfactory.
Note: To learn more about Darfur, or to find things that you can do to help, click here.

He Shoots - He Scores!!

2005-03-30T22:07:00.000-08:00

Bill Bradley, former Senator, NBA Hall of Famer, has an insightful article in the New York Times today. In it, he basically admits that the Republican Party has taken the mantle as the party of ideas. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as that, but that was the gist of it. He also made the point that the Democrats have, since JFK, relied on charismatic leaders. Because of this, Bradley contends, the Republicans have been consistently more successful, because they have a base core of ideas. They merely have to replace the candidate(s) that espouse them. He then suggests that Democrats, and specifically their largest contributors, follow the Republican model, creating an infrastructure that will define them and their ideas.

Starting to Sound Like an MO

2005-03-29T23:00:00.000-08:00

As fond as those on the left are of saying that there isn't any black and white, only shades of grey, it would seem that this is only true when it suits their purposes. A case in point is this article in the LA Times, DeLay's Own Tragic Crossroads. How convenient it is that one of the most vocal opponents of removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube once had to face a somewhat similar situation himself. This is one of the favorite ploys of the left. To find a member of the opposition that may have acted in a way that can be construed as hypocritical. In this case, the victim of the attack is Tom DeLay. According to the article, Charles DeLay, the Majority Whip's father, suffered a massive head injury in an accident at the family's home. Ultimately, the family decided to remove him from his respirator. They pulled the plug. By this reasoning, Tom DeLay is the worst of all sinners, a hypocrite. How dare he oppose the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube when he, himself, condoned the same thing in the case of his father. You either are for allowing someone to "die with dignity", or you are against it, black and white, or, worse, you are a hypocrite.
The problem with this logic, however, is that it is a straw man. No one is arguing that it is never acceptable to "pull the plug." They are just arguing that it is immoral to do so in this case. In the case of Charles DeLay, his condition was worsening, his organs were failing, he was on a dialysis machine. This seems to me to be completely different from the Schiavo case, where Terri was stable, until her feeding tube was removed. But that, it seems, doesn't matter. Things aren't always shades of grey, sometimes they are black and white.
The writers also found another topic they could cry "hypocrite" on - tort reform. Apparently, after the death of Charles Delay, the family sued the maker of a coupling that the family felt was defective. But Tom DeLay is an advocate of tort reform. He wants to make it more difficult for people to file "frivolous, parasitic lawsuits." I wonder if it might have possible occurred to the authors that Tom DeLay did not consider this to be a "frivolous, parasitic lawsuit." Again, no one is advocating that all product liability lawsuits be eliminated, just the "frivolous, parasitic" ones.

I'm Getting Better

2005-03-29T22:41:00.000-08:00

Speaking of Monty Python, I have heard that there is a new musical set to hit Broadway - Spamalot. Apparently, this is an adaptation of the afore-referenced film, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Ah, to see knights that actually gallop along to the sound of coconuts, to hear, once again, live and onstage, The Ballad of Brave Sir Robin, or to recount the debate on the Airspeed Velocity of an Unladen Swallow, which, by the way, appears to be answered here. It also seems that the production is generally getting some pretty good reviews, too

I'm Not Dead Yet

2005-03-29T22:22:00.001-08:00

Thank you Powerline for linking to this excellent article by Harvard student John Ford. Anything with a reference to Monty Python earns bonus points in my book, so I will also link Not Dead Yet. This appears to be their mission statement, which I have copied from their website:

Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not.

This is how people that can most relate to Terri Schiavo feel, and it appears that they feel threatened. I think that we should listen carefully to them, because, as Mr. Ford says in his article, we that are without disability cannot know what disabilities we might be willing to live with until we are thrust into such a situation.

What Is Extraordinary Care?

2005-03-29T22:22:00.000-08:00

Everyone just assumes that, had Terri Schiavo made a clear statement of her wishes, it would be perfectly ethical and moral to do so. I am not sure that it wouldn't be, but I am starting to question that basic premise. A person certainly has the right to refuse any medical treatment, especially surgery. That being the case, the original insertion of a feeding tube, a surgical procedure, could certainly be refused. Once it is inserted, however, can they demand a surgical procedure (removing the feeding tube) that would result in their death? Is this any different than requesting an injection that would result in their death? I think that a strong argument could be made that a doctor could, and perhaps should, refuse such a request.
One could argue, however, that removing someone from a respirator would also be the same. Here, however, I think that a distinction can, and should, be made. Breathing, like the function of most organs, is an autonomic reflex. You do not have to think about doing it, and can be completely unconscious and continue to do it. Eating, however, requires an active effort. You have to tell yourself to eat. It seems to me that this is a significant distinction. If someone can no longer physically do something that doesn't happen automatically, and we have it in our power to assist them, isn't there an obligation to do it?
Update: I have since learned that in some cases, food injested through a feeding tube can end up coming up the esophogus, then back into the lungs, causing pneumonia. In any case that a feeding tube would cause harm to the patient, its removal would certainly be ethical.

There Are Leaks, and Then There Are Leaks

2005-03-29T21:33:00.000-08:00

The Weekly Standard has a couple of good articles regarding the 'Talking Point Memo' that was distributed to Republicans in the Senate. I refer, here, to Fred Barnes, and Powerlineblog's John Hinderaker. I am no expert in such things, but I find the questions they raise about the authenticity of the documents to be interesting. What I find even more interesting, however, is to compare this leaked memo to the Democratic Party memo that was leaked nearly a year ago, regarding the filibustering of judges. In that case, the Democrats cried foul, and asked who could be so nefarious as to leak such a document. It's amazing, isn't it? No matter what happens, it always seems to be the fault of the big bad Republicans.

But is it Murder?

2005-03-29T21:16:00.000-08:00

Several times in the last several days, I have heard people saying that, no matter how immoral or unethical removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube is, we can't really call it murder. Two people that I respect greatly, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt have both made the same point. Murder is murder, regardless of the desire of the murder victim. I have to admit, it makes sense. If I were to ask ten people to shoot me, and someone did, it would still be murder. That being said, I think most people would agree that if Terri Schiavo asked to have her feeding tube removed, it should be, and that it wouldn't be murder. If it isn't murder then, it isn't murder now. It makes sense, doesn't it? Except, perhaps, to someone like Scott Peterson, who was convicted of a double-murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. Many states have laws on the books that consider causing the death of a fetus to be murder, except for in the case of an abortion. To my mind, this is clearly a case of the desire of the victim's proxy making a murder not a murder.

Who's Suffering is Being Relieved?

2005-03-26T23:36:00.000-08:00

I just can't tell if Terri Schiavo is really there. I watch the video that we have all seen so many times, I listen to both sides ad nauseum (emphasis on the nauseum), and I just don't know. I am not sure, however, if it is necessary to know. There are three possibilites that I can see.

Terri isn't there, all that is there is the empty husk of her body running on autopilot.
Terri really is in there, self-aware, but is just incapable of expressing it for one reason or another.
Terri isn't really there. She isn't self-aware, but her soul is trapped inside her body because it hasn't died yet.

In saying that, though, I noticed that in none of the three instances does the word suffering appear. In looking at the video footage that is constantly being replayed, not once did I think that it appeared that Terri, herself, was suffering. I think that is important - Terri does not seem to be suffering.

If Terri isn't there, and all that is left is an empty, soul-less body that happens to still have a heartbeat and lungs pumping, then Terri really isn't living anymore. She is already dead. If that is the case, then killing her body isn't doing a darned thing to, or for, Terri. It is doing it to, and for, the people that love her. If this is indeed the case, it is Michael Schiavo, not Terri, that is being released. Terri's parents and siblings, however, are not being released at all. The act of forcing Terri's death will bring them nothing but pain and heartache. Even if she isn't there, taking away their hope is like taking Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny from a toddler. I suspect that they will never be able to look back at her passing and see it as a welcome release from her burdens, or their burdens, but instead as a constant reminder of the pain of losing her too soon. Their pain will be far more massive than the release that Michael receives.

If Terri is there, and aware of her surroundings, even minimally, then it would appear that there is a certain peaceful contentedness that she has found. If may be frustrating for her not to be able to communicate, but it certainly does not seem that she is suffering. There is no pain. Other than her lack of brain activity and muscle atrophy, she appears to be in good health. She appears to, at least at times, respond and perhaps even enjoy the company of loved ones. At least three nurses that have cared for Terri have reported that she could communicate with them, and did show emotion. You can read their affidavits for yourself here and here. These reports indicate nothing of a desire to end a life of suffering.

The third alternative is difficult to quantify, and starts to delve into the realm of metaphysics. If Terri is not self-aware, but has a soul that is trapped within her body, can that soul perceive and discern its surroundings? If not, then there is little difference between this, and the first instance, in which case, the relative pain and suffering of those close to the patient should be considered. If, however, it can perceive its surroundings, what then? It would see Terri surrounded by people that love her, and want to care for her. I find it hard to argue that this would be a state from which there would need to be 'release'.

As I have noted in a previous post, this case has made me think deeply about end of life matters, and I have found myself surprised at the conclusions that I come to. I do not fear my own death, whenever it may come. I plan to be able to face my God with a clear conscience, or at least as clear as a human conscience can expect to be. My greater fear is the effect that my death may have on others, just as I am concerned about the effect my life has on others. Though I do not fear death, I also will not rush to embrace it. Although I have no real desire myself to find myself in the state Terri Schiavo is, I cannot say that death is preferable. I believe that God does not put before us a cross too heavy to bear. Even if I were suffering, I am certain that I could find the strength to bear it. Again, I would be more concerned by the suffering that I caused others.

Why does God allow suffering? I do not believe that He causes it, but, as there is so much suffering in the world, He most certainly allows it. The answer that I have reached is that, by allowing suffering, others can become better. The tsunami in Indonesia was a great trajedy, but, by our response, we have become better people for it. In the same way, the trajedy that befalls a single individual, such as Terri Schiavo, can stir love and compassion that improves the character, even the soul, of those that desire to care for her. Who are we, who am I, to prevent this?

So, were I ever to find myself in a similar, or even worse state than Terri, my one great desire would be to never become a burden. As long as someone was willing and desired to love and care for me; as long as there is someone that takes solace in the fact that I am alive, and not dead; as long as my life resulted in more joy, happiness, love, etc. than pain in seeing me incapacitated, I will embrace life. If, however, my life results in more pain than joy in those around me, I shall not retreat from death, nor cling to life. In this instance, "pulling the plug" should cause no one to feel guilt nor remorse. There should only be joy in the fact that I am going to my eternal home, and a celebration of a life well lived. I also believe that vesting a single person with sole authority and responsibility over decisions of life and death is a great burden. Instead, I would prefer that my family and friends jointly come to a concensus about what is best for them, collectively.

All this has brought another thought to my mind. I do not believe that Terri Schiavo's wishes in this case are knowable, let alone known. Not being a lawyer myself, I don't know if there are other standards of proof, but I do know that in a criminal case, there is a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", and in a civil case, the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence", the former being a much higher standard of proof. In a case such as this, when a patient's wishes regarding life and death are not known, isn't it reasonable to use the higher standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." I cannot for a moment believe that there is not enough evidence that Terri would not want this that a reasonable person would have no doubt.

I have a suspicion, as well. Poll after poll has shown that the American public believes that Terri's feeding tube should not be re-inserted. My suspicion is that most of us are finding ourselves, even subconsciously, projecting our own beliefs about what we would want were we in her position. I am certainly willing to admit that it is a possibility in my case. It may be true in the case of Judge Greer as well. I think that this is a natural thing, and something that none of us can get away from. This is an issue that has touched our nation deeply. We all have that voice in the back of our heads that whispers, "there, but for the grace of God....." What is important, though, is what Terri would want, and that, ultimately, is unknowable. It now looks as if she will be passing soon, and I hope an pray that this debate does not end at the same time her life does. There are many questions that remain unanswered, from who has teh right to make medical decisions when the patient is unable to do so themselves, to what it is that constitutes 'life support' or what is the difference between basic care and extraordinary care. If we do not address these questions now, there will someday be another Terri Schiavo, and we will have to go through this ordeal again. Nobody, I am sure, wants that.

Solomon Revisited - A Modern Parable

2005-03-25T01:01:00.000-08:00

There was once a young woman - beautiful, vivacious and full of life. Like many young women, she met a man, fell in love, and married. By all accounts, or perhaps nearly all accounts, this man and this women were happy and in love. But then the young women got sick, and nearly died. In fact, she did die, but by the work of skillful doctors, her heart was able to beat again, her lungs could breath, and all of her bodily functions worked as they did before. Except her brain. Her brain had been starved of oxygen for too long, and was damaged. The young woman could no longer speak. She could not run, or even walk. She could not write or communicate in any meaningful way. At first, everyone hoped that, given time, she would get better. She didn't.
Many years passed, and eventually, there was a dispute as to who should care for the young woman, and what the best care was. Because the young woman could not speak or communicate her own wishes, someone else was going to have to make decisions for her. The young woman's parents had come to believe that they could best love and care for their daughter, while the young woman's husband believed that he was the best to care for her. As so often happens in such disputes, they ended up before the great judge, Solomon. Both sides brought forth witnesses, doctors, nurses and family members. Some said that the parents would give their daugher the best care. Others said that the husband was the best man for the job.
After everyone had said everything there was to be said, Solomon made his ruling. "Remove the tube that feeds her," he said, "and do not allow her to eat or drink anything." Solomon knew that this would result in the young woman's death. Upon hearing the decision, the young woman's husband said, "Yes, there is wisdom in this, remove the tube. Let my wife die." The woman's parents, however, were aghast. "Anything but that!" They cried. "Please, just do not let our daughter die."
Now at this point some of you are waiting for Solomon to proclaim that the parents that wanted their child to live were the true caregivers, but here the story takes an unexpected turn. You see, under the laws of the land, once a judge has made a ruling, that ruling must stand, unless there is "substantial likelihood of success" of their appeal. And so, Solomon's ruling of death to the young woman stood the test of appeal after appeal. Every day the young woman grew weaker. But ultimately, the law is the law, the judge's ruling is the judge's ruling, and one day soon, even if we do find that there really was a "substantial likelihood of success", it won't matter, because the young woman will be dead.
How could this have happened? To be fair, I did skip a part of the story. You see, at first, the young woman's husband said that he did not want his wife to die. In fact, he said that he wanted to love her and care for her, and make sure that she got the best possible care, and that he would make every effort to rehabilitate her. He even went so far as to say that he would go to school and become a nurse so that he could care for her himself and not have to rely on other people to give his wife the care that she needed. And when he made this proclamation of love and commitment to his wife, the court was so moved by it, that they not only said that he would be the best caregiver to his wife, but also gave him over a million dollars, of which $750,000 was specifically to be used on care and rehabilitation for his wife. And so, when this husband said that his wife would have wanted to die, and a judge said "remove the tube", it seems that the husband, having already been declared the rightful caregiver, was given a presumption of having the young woman's best interests at heart. And the ruling, which will certainly result in the death of the young woman, still sands.

In fairness, I did not come up with the idea of comparing the Terri Schiavo case with the story of Solomon decreeing that the baby must be split in two in order to determine who the mother of the child really was. It was actually suggested to me in listening to Mark Taylor sit in on Dennis Prager's syndicated radio show a couple of days ago. A guest on that show mentioned it, and that got me thinking. That thought has been lingering with me ever since, and finally found it's way into this, my first blog. Had Solomon proclaimed "cut the child in two" in the United States today, we would have had a funeral on our hands.
I would like to make it clear that I do not doubt that Michael Schiavo believes that he has his wife's best interests at heart. I also do not doubt that Terri Schiavo's parents also believe that they have her best interests at heart. This is actually one of those rare times in American public life where everyone is acting from the purest of motives. No one is playing politics. No one is consciously trying to obfuscate the truth. Even those of us that are discussing the case around the water cooler are speaking from our deepest core beliefs about what is right and what is wrong - not what is best or expedient for 'our team'.
Before I get a slew of comments that this fact or another is different from the Terri Schiavo case, let me say that I know that. I admittedly have taken some liberties with the narrative in order to get it to more closely fit with the Biblical account of Solomon. This was done in order to better make a comparison between to the two stories, and I stand by that comparison.
This is an amazing moment in America. A time when we are all forced to look into our hearts and decide what we would really want, were we to ever find ourselves in such a state. Terri Schiavo, a woman I will never know, has changed my life and taught me things about myself that I never imagined were true. I suspect that I am not the only one. For that I am grateful, and for that, if she does indeed pass from this world into the next, there is some small good, at least, that has come from her ordeal.
Thank you, Terri, for that.