The Death of Heroes

It seems that the last few years of my life have been spent lamenting the death of one hero after another.  To be fair, most of these "deaths" are not physical meet your maker type deaths in the true sense of the word but rather moral or ethical failings that bring the person down from their lofty pedestal.  It seems our heroes are not living up to their hero stature and are more and more regularly falling from grace to rejoin us common men.

The first such hero that comes to mind is one of my boyhood favorite sports figures, Roger Clemens.  Clemens has been accused of cheating on baseball by using performance enhancing drugs ("PEDs"), cheating on his wife with a teenage country singer, and cheating on his oath by lying to Congress.  To my knowledge, none of these accusations have been conclusively proven to date, but yet they create doubts in my mind about the integrity and honesty of this man who I so admired.  As a lawyer I am compelled to say in our nation we are innocent until proven guilty and we should withhold judgment until actual proof is put forward and judgment is rendered, but as a mere mortal myself, I can't help but have my doubts.

The list could go on and on, from the Lance Armstrong doping allegations to the most recent scandal to rock the sports world, how Penn State football botched handling the Jerry Sandusky allegations, our heroes are dropping like flies.  Even those heroes who are dead and gone cannot escape the bring down of modern journalism and media.  Just this past year in a new biography of the late Walter Payton, Sweetness as he was known, was turned sour by nasty allegations of extramarital affairs, emotional abuse towards his wife, and addictions to painkillers and laughing gas.

I sometimes think that perhaps we were better off as a society in the days when we didn't know so much.  When Mickey Mantle was famous few people knew of his penchant for late night gallivanting and being a booze-hound.  This may be a ostrich with its head in the sand mentality, but perhaps there is some truth to the adage what you don't know can't hurt you.  I wonder if we didn't know the sordid details of every celebrity's dirty laundry if we would feel better about the country we live in.  Would our sense of the moral and ethical state of our society be different if we didn't see so much scandal?    

As I think of these scandals and others involving the political candidates, movie stars, and musicians who we as a society elevate to hero status I cannot help but think about what a real hero is and who we should really be worshiping.  

The second part of that question is easy; we should worship God the father and Jesus our savior.  As the good book instructs, there shall be no other gods before Me.  Maybe if we placed more of our focus on God and our relationship with Him while attempting to live a just and moral life ourselves we would be less focused on placing our hope and faith in worldly heroes who so often fail us. 

The first part of the question is more complex.  What makes someone a hero?  A true hero is someone who lives a right, decent, and morally just life.  A true here is a person who serves others and leads with strength and compassion.  A true hero is someone who respects others and themselves while being humble and gracious.  A true hero suffers hardship and indignity with grace and nobility.  A true hero not only rises to the occasion when required, but also shows up everyday.  A true hero gets up after being knocked down and takes responsibility for their actions.

When looking at the road ahead I fear that in our society today we have too few people struggling to be the everyday heroes the nation needs to survive.  In today's me first, self-centered, entitlement society we have too few people trying to do what is right and too many people trying to get theirs.  If more of us do not step up to become true everyday heroes, we could witness the death of our heroic American society.

Cool Video

Check out the video posted (HERE) for a humorous take on the governments upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs. 

In case you live under a rock and have not heard about this yet, the government is forcing us to get rid of perfectly good light bulbs because they are "inefficient and use too much energy" only to replace them with bulbs that are toxic and may cause health problems...is this a good idea?  This is the same government that brought you failed solar power projects that went bankrupt, a bridge to nowhere, a nuclear waste disposal facility at Yucca Mountain that the Obama administration nixed "for policy reasons, not for safety or technical reasons" which is costing the tax payer $11 billion by 2020 for failure to perform to contractual requirements, the collapse of the housing market, a postal system that is considering closing down locations and limiting service to fewer days a week because they cannot operate effectively and efficiently, numerous other scandals, inefficiencies, mistakes, and a national debt that as of December 2, 2011 is currently:


and growing.

President Ronald Reagan once said that "Government is not the solution to our problem government IS the problem".  It's too bad President George W. Bush hadn't followed that same course of thinking and vetoed this nonsensical bill, but he didn't and he signed it, and it will be one more example of his big government styled republican socialism. 


Is this light bulb ban just one more example of big government socialism as the problem?  One more example of government interfering with the free market system and how YOU want to organize YOUR own life and home?  A Rasmussen Poll taken in August 2009 showed that 72% of Americans believe the government has no right to dictate which light bulb they may use.  I'll let you answer that question for yourself, as for me, I'll be heading to the nearest Target to get as many real light bulbs as I can before the ban goes into effect starting with 100 watt bulbs in January 2012 and working through a total phase out by 2014.  

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas everyone and please remember to think about and reflect on the true meaning of the season.  We truly have so much to be thankful for.  God gave us the greatest Christmas gift of all time when he sent his son Jesus save us.

God Bless and Keep You All! 

LED Stop Lights Fail in Winter Weather

I just love it when the Greenies think they are saving the planet only to make things worse.  How much time, money, and gasoline do you think was burnt up sending those boom trucks around to clean off these lights one by one by one...the reporter tries to make the lights sound good at the end by saying that they save electricity, but that money went right back out the window in extra expense to keep them snow free...check the link for some laughs...

LED Stop Lights Fail in Winter Weather

Posted using ShareThis

With Meat We Shall Not Inherit The Earth - Andrew Stuttaford

Do you like to eat meat?  Well you're going to have to get over that.  The climate demands it. 

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming. -- Full link the Andrew Stuttaford's article is below.

When will that climate ever be satisfied?  I'm sure air travel is bad for the environment, should we go back to steamships crossing the Atlantic?  Should we turn back the clock to the 1800's and require we all use trains that crisscross the nation?  Why is it that in every other phase of society and culture and life people tell us we can't live in the past, but when it comes to the environment we are constantly told that modernity is wrong? 

Some examples: 
1.  Gay marriage:  traditional marriage is antiquated and discriminatory.  We can't live in the past we have to accept the times and be open to other definitions of love.

2.  Living Constitutionalists:  we cannot allow ourselves to live in the past and be controlled by the dead hand of men who had no concept of what today's modern world would look like.

3.  Civility and Respect:  listen, times have changed.  Concepts of right and wrong are not clear cut today.  I mean no one takes off their hat indoors anymore.  No one holds the door for women just because they are women, come on that wouldn't be respecting their equality or feminism.  This is an evolving and changing world and if you are old fashioned you'll be left behind.

These are just a few of the examples off the top of my head, but the point is in most other places in our lives we are advancing (I refuse to say evolving or progressing, frankly because neither of those ideas in my mind are true).  Nonetheless we are moving forward.  So why is it that those who worship at the idol's alter of climate change and global warming keep asking us to move backward?

Link to the full post:
With Meat We Shall Not Inherit The Earth - Andrew Stuttaford - The Corner on National Review Online

Photos from Recent Travels

These two shots are from last nights AC/DC concert at the Verzion Center in DC.  Blair suprised me with dinner downtown and the show afterwards.  We had floor seats about 20 rows from the stage.  Great Night!

These are from Arizona.  The first is a Diamondbacks game.  The second is a shot of Red Rocks.  I took this before arriving at the start of our jeep tour.

This is the sign outside the Stonewall Kitchen Store at National Harbor. Our friend Katie used to work for Stonewall Kitchen up in Maine. Check their website HERE for some of the greatest jellies and jams you've ever had.

This is a shot from the upper realms of the Washington Nationals Stadium.

What Kind of Conservative Are You?

A short while back one of the blog authors that I follow, David Bahnsen, wrote a post entitled, "What Kind of Conservative Are You?". Read it here.

I read the post and considered it briefly and then moved on with my busy law school driven life not really thinking about my own personal answer to that question. Just yesterday however I was forced to confront this idea again and really give it serious thought as I filled out a job bank questionnaire for the Heritage Foundation. They asked you to select your political ideology from a group of choices, (traditional conservative, social conservative, fiscal conservative, moderate, liberal, libertarian) and then to explain your choice. I thought about the question and did some light wikipedia research so my definitions of each of the ideologies would be correct and then came up with the following answer:

Due to the limited categorical definitions presented I am constrained to choose traditional conservative as my overarching ideology. However, my ideology and belief structure is more of a combination incorporating aspects of fiscal, traditional, and social conservatism with a touch of libertarianism. Overall, I believe the following:

I believe the purpose of the federal government is limited and the Constitution lays out the enumerated purposes and powers and that the federal courts have wrongly broadened those powers through expansive interpretations of the Constitution. Ultimately the states and local governments should be the arbiters of most issues.

I believe the security and prosperity of the nation require a foundation of economic freedom and a sound fiscal policy that includes balanced budgets and paying off the national debt. Fostering this prosperity requires protecting property rights and limiting government regulation.

I believe in the rule of law and the importance of teaching personal responsibility and a responsibility to your fellow man and country. This includes the promotion of patriotism and national service.

I believe there is a need to foster conservation and sound management of our natural resources and treasures while not succumbing to the wing of the environmental movement that values nature over human life and progress.

I believe in cultivating a culture that respects the sanctity of life.

Finally, I believe that traditional American ideals and policies of capitalism and individual liberty are the greatest sources of hope and opportunity in the world.

To quote David directly, "I am a conservative who sees the “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” portion of the Declaration of Independence as non-negotiable."

So now I pose the question to you, what kind of conservative are you?

The Ugly Face of Student Resistance by David French

This is an article by an Alliance Defense Fund litigator I met during my fellowship this past summer. Great piece on this generation of college students and how we ought to be worried. I encourage you to read the article linked below. Additionally, if you want more follow up on this topic, check out the book,

The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future (Or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30), by Mark Bauerlein.

The Ugly Face of Student Resistance by David French on National Review Online

Visual Image of Obamacare

As the blogger who originally posted this said, this is a great depiction of what Obamacare will bring to medicine, a giant government bureaucrat overseer checking on everything you and your doctor do to make sure it comports with their ideas of what good medicine and cost effective treatment are.



Check out the Blog Second Hand Smoke for more:
Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

Remembering 9/11

Great Article on Remembering 9/11 and how as Americans we need to do more. I highly encourage you to click the link and read and contemplate this article it really makes an impact.

Remembering 9/11

A Response to President Obama's Health Care Speech

The beginning of this is my thought by thought process while listening to the speech tonight. My comments are italicized. The end is a 5 step proposal for a free market solution to the health care problems that would not necessitate the installation of a socialist government run health care system.

President Obama: I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink. -- Really? According to what measures and what prognostications are you claiming our economy is back from the brink?

There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. -- Notice the emphasis on citizens? Because Americans should not be paying for illegal aliens.

Individual cases of abuse by insurance companies does not necessitate the establishment of a government run socialist health care system.

President Obama: The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. --HOW?

It will provide insurance to those who don't. -- HOW?

And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. -- HOW?

It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge -- Why am I responsible for taking care of someone else? Health care is not a right, it is a perk for those that work hard and want to pay for it on their own. It's not my responsibility to pay for your health care and it shouldn't be.

President Obama: Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. -- Then why in the bills proposed over the summer did they establish the gradual phasing out of private insurance? The bills stated that no new policy could be written after the first date of the reforms establishment.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- really? while I disagree with this concept in theory I recognize the precedent set by the auto insurance requirements and think that we probably don't have much chance to defeat this particular part of President Obama's plan.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. -- if President Obama is being truthful here then why are there parts of the proposed bills that mandate and will fine hospitals for not having staff trained bilingually?

Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. -- If this is true why are there several amendments that were added by democrats to the proposed bills that eliminate conscience rights and mandate payments to providers such as planned parenthood. Even if the money can't go specifically to abortion, the money can be applied to overhead, and other costs freeing up other sources of money to pay for the abortions.

I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. -- If this were the case then why are there penalties for businesses and individuals that don't play in President Obama's system? Why the increased taxes on sugary foods and beverages?

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. -- what polling data supports that statement President Obama? I haven't seen one poll in the last month that supports that statement. The most recent poll I've seen says 52% of people are against this government option. There is plenty of evidence from the town hall meetings and tea parties that took place throughout the summer that people are in opposition to this reform. However, I could be wrong and I kindly ask you to prove me so if I am.

To my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. -- the problem with this statement is that the democrats don't want to back off of government intervention in health care. The republicans are not willing to allow a socialist government take over of health care and therefore there really is not a common ground unless the democrats can walk away from the public option idea.

First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. -- this is rhetoric that we have heard before and once passed initially Congress can very easily go back and amend this bill or update it to allow for carrying a debt load to run this program.

President Obama goes on about medicare for several minutes... -- Why is it that in 1966, Medicare cost $3 billion. The House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost only about $ 12 billion by 1990 (a figure that included an allowance for inflation).... But in 1990 Medicare actually cost $107 billion. President Obama says the expected cost is 900 billion over 10 years. This is not a good track record for the government being accurate...why should we believe that it will only be 900 billion? Why should we believe that taxes and deficits won't go up?

If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. -- Is that a threat? Is that a call to close down debate and challenges to your authority President Obama?

President Obama rants on for a few minutes about the Republicans, the War spending, tax cuts under Bush, blah blah blah, typical partisan Obama campaign speechifying.

Way to politicize the death of Ted Kennedy...wow, we've sunk to a new low.

An acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. -- Why is it that the democrats always look to government to solve the problems? He talks about us coming together to lend a helping hand, and yes, we do that, individually, through personal choice and charity, not through coercion where the government forces us to take care of others. There is a word for that, socialism.

Somethings I agree with:
1. insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

2. it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

3. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. -- this is a start, but it does not go far enough.

General thoughts: This speech was filled with partisan remarks and was essentially President Obama flipping the American people the bird or thumbing his nose at them, you pick the reference you like best. There was no acknowledgement that people don't want this. It was basically more of the same from President Obama, we need a government option, I'm for a government option, and here are the reasons why you should be too. This is not change we can believe in, this is not a major shift in the health care debate, this was just a President being confrontational, and deepening the lines in the sand between the two sides.


My very brief and very basic 5 Point Plan for Health Care Reform: This is going to be really short and scant on details since the above reaction to the speech is rather lengthy. There will be more details on each of these proposals to come shortly.

1. Real Tort Reform -- eliminating the spectre of lawsuits from the medical arena except in cases of egregious and gross negligence will lower costs in the system.

2. Competition through opening up insurance to be purchased across state lines. There is no logical reason that allows you to purchase car insurance from companies that operate nationally, but limits through legislation the health insurance options you have to only a very select few companies allowed to operate in your state.

3. Similar to car insurance, allow for differentiated pricing for health insurance. If you smoke, you pay more. If you have children, you pay more. If you are obese, you pay more. You practice preventative medicine by getting a yearly check up and staying in shape, you get a discount. You get the picture.

4. Allowing consumers to choose the levels of coverage they carry through selection of plans that cover different procedures, services, and prescriptions, rather than one size fits all plans. This would allow people to opt out of some of the so called Rolls Royce plans that cover elective surgeries and non-essential drugs like Viagra.

5. The use of a Pigovian tax (a tax levied on market activities to correct negative externalities that are inefficient) to change health and health care. These efforts take aim at altering personal choices and preferences with the goal of increasing the public’s general health while lessening the burden on the health care system.

There you have it, five ideas that are free market based and do not suggest a government take over of health care.

Health Care Follow Up

First and foremost my faithful followers, I apologize for the length of this post. I wrote with a preview about a month ago about a piece I was working on. That piece did not end up getting published by the ERLC, but will be a two part expose in the George Mason School of Law Newspaper, also known as The Docket.

I am publishing the full text of the article here first (minus footnotes) for you my loyal followers to get the first crack at it. If you would like the footnotes to get the full text articles of the quoted material, please comment and I will make sure to get them to you. Thanks for reading and hope this helps you make up your mind on health care...

The Mysteries of the Health Care Proposal Unveiled
By: Brian J Barnes, August 27, 2009

The American people and members of Congress from both parties are waging a fierce debate over health care reform. Numerous house and senate committees have trotted out proposals on how to address the perceived problems in the health care system and reaction to these proposals has been vocal and adamant. Based on news coverage from varying town hall meetings around the country it does not appear that either side is happy. Since this issue is not going to go away and Congress will be back in session shortly, your humble writer thought perhaps it was time to expose the reality behind the rhetoric on this hot button issue. In the interest of full disclosure I will tell you upfront, I am not a proponent of this brand of health care reform. This analysis will attempt to reveal some of the most disturbing aspects of the bills, but in no way covers them all. I will stake out what I believe to be to be an inevitable conclusion that the proposed health care reform is exceedingly dangerous legislation to the health and well being of most Americans and the country in general.

Rhetoric v. Reality:
The rhetoric – The government plan is more affordable: President Obama continues to claim in interviews and press conferences that health care reform will save money and make health care more affordable than our current system. If this were true, why the need to raise taxes and cut other programs and shift costs onto the states in a massive ponzi scheme?

The reality: In order to help pay for the costs of health care reform President Obama recently said in an ABC news interview, “that he would propose a reduction in the charitable tax deduction for those his administration considers wealthy.” This will drive down the amount of money people donate to charitable organizations which will further burden those relying on charity, those who are least able to help themselves. Other ideas to pay for the plan include a 3 cent tax on sugary sodas. As Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming has said, “With its trillion dollar price tag, this bill is anything but affordable”.

The health care reform bill would mandate that all Americans sign up for insurance or pay a fine. Id. The same requirement would extend to businesses to either insure their employees or pay a government fine. Id.

Furthermore, due to the high cost of the legislation and the $320 million dollar deficit in funding, the bill would charge a surtax on wealthy Americans, beginning with a 1 percent levy for couples earning $350, 000 and rising to 5.4 percent on income above $1 million.

This plan is anything but affordable. It will ensure that the percent of the average American’s budget that goes towards health care actually increases either through direct expenditures on higher premiums or increased taxes or both if you are deemed significantly wealthy. Currently $84.00 out of every $100.00 spend on health care is spent by someone (en employer, insurance company, or government) other than the recipient of the care. Id. That seems like a pretty good deal for the American consumer as it currently stands. What this plan will do is create stagflation and greater unemployment as those in the higher tax brackets either will not invest to create jobs or will do so outside the United States where the tax regimes are not so oppressive.

Lastly, the plan contemplates taxing your current health benefit or removing its tax exempt status. This would mean the money your employer contributes to your insurance plan would now be taxable. It would also mean purchasing supplemental policies for dental, vision, or medical flex spending accounts would have to be done with after tax dollars, effectively making them much more expensive. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the President’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent. Further evidence that this plan is anything but affordable!

The rhetoric – Cutting costs: The Democrats continue to say that the proposed legislation will cut costs in the health care system. They claim that increased competition brought about by a government option, the implementation of information technology in the system, a shift to focusing on preventative care, and other reforms will lower the cost of health care.

The reality: Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] told the Senate Budget Committee that, “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs”. House Republican Leader John Boehner said of the report from the CBO, “The Director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrat’s government run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrat’s chief talking points is pure fiction”. Id.

The rhetoric – The plan is Deficit Neutral: President Obama and the Democrats continue to say this bill will be deficit neutral, meaning it will not increase the national debt. President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag stressed, “The CBO numbers are only so high because the estimates keep current Medicare reimbursements to doctors in place. If you take that off the table in terms of new policy, the House bill is deficit-neutral”. This begs the question, if the payments are off the table, where are they going?

The reality: The Senate Finance Committee members are proposing a giant ponzi scheme with the states where the states would be required to finance the entire cost (states currently pay only 43 percent of Medicaid costs) of the proposed expansion through taking on new debt by issuing bonds that the Federal government is supposed to back. This is an effort to keep the costs off the books of the Federal Government and disguised. Id. If this sounds familiar that is because you are probably remembering the Enron book cooking scandal that bankrupted the company and destroyed the pensions and lives of thousands of workers and investors. Congress is cooking the books on health care and could end up bankrupting the country if we are not watching carefully.

Congressional auditors reported that the legislation would add more than $230 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. CBO Director Elmendorf, while addressing Congress, went further to state that the costs of health care are, “growing faster than inflation, wages, and the overall economy…likely impacting future deficits”.

The rhetoric – Without the government intervention health care costs will bring down the economy: Across the board Democrats and the President tell us that without government intervention the current health care problems will prolong the recession and drag down the economy.

The reality: The statement above may be true. Without changes and improvements the system is facing very significant challenges. Recession and the aging baby boomer generation (who will consume increasing amounts of health care resources) will only compound those challenges. However, the solution the Democrats and President Obama propose is a nuclear option. Their proposal would not be a slow death of the health care system and the economy, but rather a preemptive strike. The US Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the Ways and Means Committee wrote, “The tax increase would be devastating to small businesses, which have led America out of the last seven recessions and create two out of every three jobs during a recovery.” Moreover, they claim that the legislation as proposed would, “override long-standing tax treaties, damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners, and could prompt retaliation by foreign governments against U.S. companies operating abroad, further aggravating already jittery financial markets”. Id. This is a complete repeat of history. As you may recall at the outset of the Great Depression one of the aggravating factors that drove the world economies into a tailspin was retaliatory escalating import and export tariffs and excise taxes.

To increase taxes at a time when the economy is sinking is simply unheard of. The Heritage Foundation has said, “Not a single economic school of thought advocates raising taxes during a recession or threatening to do so in its aftermath. To call for a tax increase during the largest recession in 70 years is downright reckless”.

The rhetoric – The government plan will improve quality of care: President Obama says, “Government will make health care cheaper and better”.

The reality: According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “To reduce costs they will have to ration – deny – care”. Id. Rationing the health care you can receive is certainly not improving the quality of care. Moving to a system of evidence based medicine, which the Senate bill includes, will not improve the care. A system of rationed care or evidence based medicine will actually lead to denial of remedies to the American consumer. The only difference between the current system and the government plan will be who tells the consumer No, that treatment is not covered. This plan replaces the insurance company employee who denies your claim with a government bureaucrat that denies your claim.

The reality is that the current American system which is partly profit driven allows for the reduction of waste and costs in pursuit of profit and provides the world with advances in medicine that ease pain and save lives. Id. The logical end point of the path that Congress is moving us down is rationed care and long waiting lists, essentially Medicaid for everyone. Even if implementation of a public health insurance option does not occur, rationing will be likely under the health care bill. Private insurers will face mandates to provide the essential benefits package and to cut costs. This will create a situation where extreme rationing is inevitable. The government would decide who should live or die. Americans must ask themselves if there is a price tag that can be put on human life. America’s founding document, The Declaration of Independence, says, “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”. When we start rationing off life-saving treatment through the use of evidence based medicine and limiting it to those deemed more valuable to society, we undercut those ideals.

No Rhetoric? There are other parts of the bill that have no rhetoric to accompany them because the proponents of reform are being careful not to bring them up. A sampling of some unnerving topics:

SEC. 2233. PUBLIC HEALTH TRAINING CENTERS
(a) GRANTS.—The Secretary, acting through the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration and in consultation with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall award grants to, or enter into contracts with, eligible entities to provide training to graduate medical residents in preventive medicine specialties.

The Bill empowers government to take over medical education through, building, running, developing, or licensing these Public Health Training Centers.

SEC. 440. HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS FOR FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EXPECTING CHILDREN.
PURPOSE —The purpose of this section is to improve the well-being, health, and development of children by enabling the establishment and expansion of high quality programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.

The House bill gives access for the government to come into your home and inspect it to determine if it is a suitable environment for children and ascertain if you are a fit parent. They do this by establishing the Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expecting kids. If this program becomes non-voluntary, and it very easily could, it would certainly sound very much like George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother would no longer just be a bad summer television show.

Abortion is not explicitly defined as an essential benefit in Sec. 122 of HR 3200. However, the terminology there is vague enough to allow for abortion. For example, abortion could be included under “preventive services.” During a pre-recess hearing, Senator Barbara Mikulski put in an amendment in the Senate bill to cover “preventative services”. At that point, Senator Hatch questioned her to find out what “preventative services” entailed. He further asked her to clarify that they would not include abortion. When pressed further, Mikulski eliminated any uncertainty. Hatch asked her a final question. “Madame Chairman, would you be willing to put some language in that says, ‘Not including abortion services’?” Mikulski concluded saying, “So, no, I would not be willing to do that at this time.”

The Republicans have made four attempts to block the abortion funding with amendments of their own, but Democrat majorities have voted all four measures down.

The Democrats plan seems to be intentionally vague in many respects and grants incredible powers to the Department of Health and Human Services to determine what language means and what plans would be required to cover. An advisory panel appointed by a pro-abortion president is certainly going to come to the conclusion that abortion be included in the benefits package. Even if they did not, courts are likely to interpret this new law in conjunction with Roe v. Wade and mandate abortion funding from the bench. Making abortion an essential benefit in public health care would mean United States taxpayers would fund abortions regardless of their personal convictions on the issue.

The Bottom Line:

The bottom line is that the House Health Care Bill, H.R. 3200, is 1018 pages in length. The magnitude of the bill along with the numerous citations to other legislation makes it nearly impossible to figure out what everything in the bill actually means. The above items are only a smattering of the numerous changes and problems that the currently proposed legislation has to offer the American people. The analysis is what the reform could potentially mean. The simple fact is that if passed, no one can say for certain how badly this will play out in practice. Pragmatically, I can only say that there is an almost absolute certainty that this legislation will lead to diminished health care for most Americans. This bill will lead to less choice in health care for most Americans. This bill will lead to higher taxes and premiums for American business and citizens. And, this bill will lead to unprecedented government intrusion into every level and aspect of society, from business, to education, to homes and families. This bill is a blatant affront to the American ideals of personal choice, capitalism, and to individual liberty.

If health care reform goes through we will see drastic changes to the quality of life for all Americans.

Teen Sexting: Is it a Crime?

By now you may be familiar with the term sexting. If you are not, a brief definition found on wikipedia says that sexting is, "the act of sending sexually explicit messages or photos electronically, primarily between cell phones".

The sexting phenomenon which was reported as early as 2005 has become a problem for teenagers across the country. Some teenagers do not see the consequences that come with sending nude photos and pornographic images of themselves back and forth. However, the consequences are serious, dangerous, and sometimes even deadly. What typically occurs is that one teen sends explicit pictures to another teen who then sends them on to others leaving the original sender embarrassed and humiliated. This is exactly what happened last year with tragic results. Jessica Logan, from Ohio, committed suicide after being harassed by fellow students. Jessica had sent a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend who in turn allegedly sent it to many of his friends. The girls mother blames sexting for her daughters suicide.

Sexting also carries with it legal penalties that are severe. It is illegal under federal law child-porn laws to create explicit images of a minor, posses them or distribute them. These laws were initially crafted to prosecute adult predators and pedophiles, However, they are not drafted in a way that exempts teens from penalties for creating and distributing graphic images, even if the images are of themselves.

So the question is should teen sexting be a crime? What is the appropriate response? Do we really want to label a teenager as a sex offender well into the future?

So far there have been two polar opposite responses to those questions thus far. The one approach is to say, yes it's wrong, but it shouldn't be criminal. The other approach is to say this is wrong, it is criminal and we are going to prosecute it.

The first approach is epitomized by states like Vermont and Utah which amended their laws earlier this year, making sexting by teens a misdemeanor instead of a felony. These states are joined by the ACLU who are bringing a law suit against a Pennsylvania prosecutor who is bringing child pornography charges against three teen girls. The prosecutor first offered the girls and seventeen others the chance to take an educational class and serve six months probation, but the three girls refused to take an educational course resulting in the charges being pursued. One of the girls was only 12 years old when photo of her from the waste up in only a bra was taken.

The other approach is to pursue these cases as criminal matters and prosecute the accused for sex crimes, making them sex offenders if convicted. According to an article in the Sun Sentinel,

"We investigate sexting like any kind of child pornography case, because that's basically what it is," Broward Sheriff's Office Detective Eric Hendel said. "We get calls when a parent finds material in their child's cell phone and they become inflamed. But they want to back off when they find out their child is just as guilty because they are actively participating in it."

Sexting has exploded onto the teen scene, according to prosecutors at the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, so much so that the office is drafting a policy to address it.

"After that Orlando case hitting the papers, I see it coming down the pike," said Lynn Powell, chief of the juvenile division.

That Orlando case involved an 18-year-old boy seeking revenge on his former girlfriend, 16, by e-mailing nude photos of her in 2007 to scores of people, including her parents. Charged with sending child pornography, the teen now finds himself on the state sex-offender registry. Last year, an 18-year-old Ohio girl hanged herself after being taunted by classmates after her ex-boyfriend circulated nude photos she had sent him."

A USA Today article also points out that in cases of online child porn, many of the victims first published the source material themselves,

"This week in Spotsylvania, Va., two boys, ages 15 and 18, were charged with solicitation and possession of child porn with intent to distribute after an investigation found they sought nude pictures from three juveniles — one in elementary school.

"It's absolutely becoming a bigger problem," says Michelle Collins of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

Of the 2,100 children the center has identified as victims of online porn, she says, one-fourth initially sent the images themselves."

The logical end to this method is child felons serving time. Is this the right approach? I would venture to argue that yes in part this is the right approach. I say in part because I believe that we should treat this as a crime, but we should consider the necessity of a sex offender label following these kids around for the rest of their lives. Additionally, we must recognize that this cannot be the only approach. While we must take a stand on this issue and take it seriously as the crime that it is, we must also educate our children. We must teach them about the legal consequences, as well as, the social and moral implications related to sexting.

Without question the negative aspects of sexting can, will, and have ruined lives. For those of you who think this issue is really no big deal, I challenge you to think deeper.

A Tribute to Jim Johnson, RIP

Jim Johnson made a career out of believing that the best defense was one that was offensive minded and attacked the opposition. In his personal life there was one opponent he could not attack enough to stop and that was cancer. Jim Johnson's personal defense finally broke and he passed away at age 68 succumbing to a tumor on his spine that eventually spread throughout his body.

However, throughout his life he was a consummate winner. Johnson was born in 1941 in Maywood, IL. and played quarterback for legendary coach Dan Devine at the University of Missouri. Devine in a 1999 interview said of Johnson, "Jim was one of our best players. After being a defensive halfback his junior year, he was our starting quarterback his senior year."

Following college Jim went on to spend 22 years in NFL as an assistant coach. During his latest stint as the Defensive Coordinator of the Philadelphia Eagles Johnson's defense lead the team to five NFC title game appearances and one Superbowl appearance.

An innovator and a genius when it came to defense crafting some of the most complex schemes in league, Jim's defenses were know for blitzing constantly. His players flew around the line of scrimmage keeping even the most potent offenses off balance and in check. Johnson's style was aggressive. He was intent on forcing the offense into mistakes by coming with pressure from every angle at every level of the defense. Many considered him to be one of the sharpest minds in the NFL.

Players, coaches, fans, and everyone who knew him will remember him as a man of utmost integrity and honesty. Johnson was a straight shooter and paid due respect to everyone. Coach Reid said, "He really represented everything this city is all about, with his toughness and grit,that’s the way he fought this cancer."

Johnson tended to face the worst disappointments with humor and quiet dignity. Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie said on hearing the news, "There has been no finer coach or man than Jim Johnson, it doesn't get much sadder."

Jim Johnson is survived by his mourning wife Vicky, two children, four grand children and a multitude of NFL coaches who owe their jobs to all that Jim taught them. Jim Johnson, we will miss you dearly.

More Metro Madness

Another sampling of annoyances from the daily commute:

1: Why is it that the escalators at the various metro stations are always broken? I mean seriously I know that a massive amount of traffic goes through the metro each day, but why is it that multiple escalators are out at every single station every single day?

2: The person who holds on to two different bars and takes up space that other people could use like the guy in the photo below.

3: The guy who takes up two seats because he feels the need to put his bag down on the seat next to him. Apparently he's too good to share or sit next to someone else.

4: The guy talking so loudly on the cell phone that everyone on the train knows about his tryst from the night before. Really bro, no one on the train cares how hot the drunk girl you took home was, well except maybe the cop sitting two seats back.

5: The luggage people. I know the metro goes to the airport and the Amtrak station, but seriously people if you have multiple suitcases, take a cab. You are slow and in the way and a nuisance to all those other people trying to get to their destination.

6: The herky jerky. What is it about the train drivers that they can't figure out the gas from the break? You are more likely to get whiplash from the metro ride in this town than from getting rear ended in a car accident. When the train comes to a stop at the station and people are queuing up at the door to exit the guy hits the gas again and everyone goes sprawling on top of one another. Or on the take off from the station they hit the gas to go and then immediately hits the brakes jerking everyone around.

So there you finally have the full dozen. Six last time and six this time. The top 12 daily annoyances from the DC Metro commute.

Bobby Leaves ERLC

One last look at Bobby as he leaves the ERLC for the last time. Sorry you've got to go back to North Carolina buddy, we're going to miss you.

Random Shot from the Metro Ride

Check out the advertisement I snapped a photo of in the metro station...is this the message we want to be sending?

The Health Care Fiasco Continued

This is a sample of a five page piece I am working on for the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. The footnotes have been omitted from the blog article, but when the full article is posted on the ERLC web page I will link to it so you have all the sources.

Rhetoric v. Reality:

The rhetoric – The government plan is more affordable: President Obama continues to claim in interviews and press conferences that health care reform will save money and make health care more affordable than our current system. If this were true, why the need to raise taxes and cut other programs and shift costs onto the states in a massive ponzi scheme?

The reality: In order to help pay for the costs of health care reform President Obama recently said in an ABC news interview, “that he would propose a reduction in the charitable tax deduction for those his administration considers wealthy.” This will drive down the amount of money people donate to charitable organizations which will further burden those relying on charity, those who are least able to help themselves. Other ideas to pay for the plan include a 3 cent tax on sugary sodas. As Senator Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming has said, “With its trillion dollar price tag, this bill is anything but affordable”.

The health care reform bill would mandate that all Americans sign up for insurance or pay a fine. Id. The same requirement would extend to businesses to either insure their employees or pay a government fine. Id.

Furthermore, due to the high cost of the legislation and the $320 million dollar deficit in funding, the bill would charge a surtax on wealthy Americans, beginning with a 1 percent levy for couples earning $350, 000 and rising to 5.4 percent on income above $1 million.

This plan is anything but affordable. It will ensure that the percent of the average American’s budget that goes towards health care actually increases either through direct expenditures on higher premiums or increased taxes or both if you are deemed significantly wealthy. Currently $84.00 out of every $100.00 spend on health care is spent by someone (en employer, insurance company, or government) other than the recipient of the care. Id. That seems like a pretty good deal for the American consumer as it currently stands. What this plan will do is create stagflation and greater unemployment as those in the higher tax brackets either will not invest in jobs or will do so outside the United States where the tax regimes are not so oppressive.

Lastly, the plan contemplates taxing your current health benefit or removing its tax exempt status. This would mean the money your employer contributes to your insurance plan would now be taxable. It would also mean purchasing supplemental policies for dental, vision, or medical flex spending accounts would have to be done with after tax dollars, effectively making them much more expensive. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the President’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent. Further evidence that this plan is anything but affordable!

The rhetoric – Cutting costs: The Democrats continue to say that the proposed legislation will cut costs in the health care system. They claim that increased competition brought about by a government option, the implementation of information technology in the system, a shift to focusing on preventative care, and other reforms will lower the cost of health care.

The reality: Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] told the Senate Budget Committee that, “On the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs”. House Republican Leader John Boehner said of the report from the CBO, “The Director of the Congressional Budget Office today confirmed that the Democrat’s government run plan will make health care more costly than ever, making clear that one of the Democrat’s chief talking points is pure fiction”. Id.

The rhetoric – The plan is Deficit Neutral: President Obama and the Democrats continue to say this bill will be deficit neutral, meaning it will not increase the national debt. President Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag stressed, “The CBO numbers are only so high because the estimates keep current Medicare reimbursements to doctors in place. If you take that off the table in terms of new policy, the House bill is deficit-neutral”. This begs the question, if the payments are off the table, where are they going?

The reality: The Senate Finance Committee members are proposing a giant ponzi scheme with the states where the states would be required to finance the entire cost (states currently pay only 43 percent of Medicaid costs) of the proposed expansion through taking on new debt by issuing bonds that the Federal government is supposed to back. This is an effort to keep the costs off the books of the Federal Government and disguised. Id. If this sounds familiar that is because you are probably remembering the Enron book cooking scandal that bankrupted the company and destroyed the pensions and lives of thousands of workers and investors. Congress is cooking the books on health care and we all will end up paying in the end.

Congressional auditors reported that the legislation would add more than $230 billion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years. CBO Director Elmendorf, while addressing Congress, went further to state that the costs of health care are, “growing faster than inflation, wages, and the overall economy…likely impacting future deficits”.

The rhetoric – The government plan will improve quality of care: President Obama says, “Government will make health care cheaper and better”.

The reality: According to Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute, “To reduce costs they will have to ration – deny – care”. Id. Rationing the health care you can receive is certainly not improving the quality of care. Moving to a system of evidence based medicine, which the Senate bill includes, will not improve the care. (More on evidence based medicine on page 3) Moving to a system of rationed care or evidence based medicine will lead to denial of remedies to the American consumer. The only difference between the current system and the government plan will be who tells the consumer No, that treatment is not covered. The reality is that the current American system which is partly profit driven allows for the reduction of waste and costs in pursuit of profit and provides the world with advances in medicine that ease pain and save live. Id. The logical end point of the path that Congress is moving us down is rationed care and long waiting lists, essentially Medicaid for everyone.

The rhetoric – The government plan will make sure everyone is covered: The Democrats and Republicans continue to justify these changes by promising access to health care and insurance for everyone.

The reality: The reality is quite different. Estimates vary on how many people will be swept up under the new plan. The most quoted number says there are approximately 50 million people currently without health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at the end of a decade under the new plan, 15 to 20 million would remain uninsured. Id. Other reports split the difference and estimate that even after paying a trillion dollars, 1,000,000,000,000, (twelve zeros); we still will have about 17 million uninsured. This plan no matter what anyone tells you will not get us to the lofty goal of universal coverage.

The rhetoric – Without the government intervention health care costs will bring down the economy: Across the board Democrats and the President tell us that without government intervention the current health care problems will prolong the recession and drag down the economy.

The reality: The statement above may be true. Without changes and improvements the system is facing very significant challenges. Recession and the retiring baby boomer generation needing significantly more health care resources compound these challenges. However, the solution the Democrats and President Obama propose is a nuclear option. Their proposal would not be a slow death of the health care system and the economy, but rather a preemptive strike. The US Chamber of Commerce in a letter to the Ways and Means Committee wrote, “The tax increase would be devastating to small businesses, which have led America out of the last seven recessions and create two out of every three jobs during a recovery.” Moreover, they claim that the legislation as proposed would, “override long-standing tax treaties, damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners, and could prompt retaliation by foreign governments against U.S. companies operating abroad, further aggravating already jittery financial markets”. Id. This is a complete repeat of history in another form. As you may recall at the outset of the Great Depression one of the aggravating factors that drove the world economies into a tailspin was retaliatory escalating import and export tariffs and excise taxes.

To increase taxes at a time when the economy is sinking is simply unheard of. The Heritage Foundation has said, “Not a single economic school of thought advocates raising taxes during a recession or threatening to do so in its aftermath. To call for a tax increase during the largest recession in 70 years is downright reckless”.

The Bottom Line:

The bottom line is that the above items are only a smattering of the numerous changes and problems that the currently proposed legislation has to offer the American people. If these bills go through we would see drastic changes to the quality of life for all Americans. This legislation opens the door or outright proposes fundamental changes that would position our health care system to be a larger version of those offered in places like Canada and the United Kingdom. If you have seen the 20/20 expose on those systems then you should ask yourself, do we really want that kind of system here? Do you want to wait for months at a time to get treatment? Do you want the government to cost benefit analysis the cost of treatment against your life expectancy or your expected contribution to society post care to determine if you receive the treatment? Do you want to pay more for less? Do you want to see the national debt become up to 80% of Gross Domestic Product by 2019? If you answered NO to all those questions, then the time to act is now. Contact your Senator and Congressman by both phone and email. Tell your friends and family to do the same. Only if the outcry becomes loud enough will this legislation be stopped.

For more information and a good read check out this article.

Random Musings From the Morning Metro Ride

Ok, so this post will be less on substance and more on ranting, so please accept my apologies in advance.

Things that annoyed me on today's ride to work:

1: Tourists trying to teach their young (say 5 years old maybe) children how to work the ticket in the metro line to get into and out of the station and holding up a whole line of commuters trying to get to work. Seriously people there is a time and place for that and it's when your kids are older and not during rush hour.

2: Tourists who don't know if you are on the left side of the escalator you are supposed to be walking. There are unwritten common courtesy rules to the metro system and one of them is you don't stand on the left. People are in a hurry and have places to be, move or get out the way as the rapper Ludacris would say.

3: The people on the metro who sit in their seats when there is clearly an elderly person standing. This one shouldn't even be metro specific, have some common decency and respect for your elders.

4: Women in so called suits with shorts as the bottom. I'm calling BS on this fashion trend, there is no way this should be deemed professional. If I have to get suited up in a monkey suit, then there is no way women should get away with wearing shorts because they have a jacket up top. This is not Bermuda or the tropics. If and when I ever get to management level again, this will be a strict no no in my office.

5: The guy with huge backpack on that is basically taking up two standing spots on the metro because he can't take his bag off and hold it like everyone else. Seriously dude, that thing is bumping into people and taking up space that another commuter could be standing in. I guess you don't care about anyone else but yourself and your precious backpack. By the way: no one in a suit should ever be wearing a backpack that an 8th grader would take to school. See # 4 above, not allowed, get yourself a real grownup professional bag.

6: The guy who is jamming his Ipod so loud that everyone on the train can hear what he's listening to. First of all, you are going to go deaf, believe me, I know of what I speak. Second, no one cares what you are listening to and frankly your death metal music is an intrusion on my morning ride. Please turn the volume down.

So there you have it, an easy half dozen things that bugged me this morning on the way to work. Now, time to choose my attitude, get geared up for the day, and be productive. Look for more substantive posts to come later tonight perhaps.

Health Care Fiasco

Check out the visual break down of what the proposed health care bill will do to our health care system here.

It is far removed from logic and clearly a matrix of confusion and government confiscation of control over your medical and thus life and death decisions.

More to come on the health care fiasco later this week.