Decision Points

Last night I caught bits and pieces of Matt Lauer's interview with W. on the eve of the release of his memoir, Decision Points. I was not surprised at how relaxed and happy the former president seemed - I think leaving the White House after 8 years would have that effect on anyone. For all the negatives that could be (and have been) said about him, you have to respect the fact that he stubbornly refuses to come out and criticize President Obama, as will be seen again next week on a previously taped interview with Oprah. From last night's interview:

LAUER: Mr. President, you have-- remained mostly silent, largely silent over the last couple of years. Why did you remain silent?

BUSH: Well, for two reasons. One: I just didn't wa nt to get out there anymore. I didn't want to get back into what I call "the swamp." I was trying-- I'm trying to regain a sense of anonymity. And the other reason why is I don't think it's good for the Presidency for a former President to be opining about his successor. President Obama's got plenty of critics and-- and I'm just not gonna be one.

Today on the Daily Beast (a liberal blog), I read an article written by a democrat, Mark McKinnon, who crossed over ideological lines by helping run Bush's PR stuff during his presidential campaigns and who has known W. for 15 years. After reading the memoir, McKinnon makes 2 important and related distinctions between the current and former president; distinctions which, in my opinion, are driving factors behind the accelerating slump in Obama's approval ratings and the rise in W.'s. (although Bush doesn't care about that at all. From the Lauer interview: "Your popularity is way up since you left office . . . "So what? Seriously. I mean, if you chase popularity, you're chasing a moment. You're chasing a poof of air.")

(1) "Readers will be surprised by the number of examples in the book where President Bush takes responsibility for failures and talks about mistakes made—particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and New Orleans." By comparison, the only "mistake" Obama has conceded relates to "communication problems" he's had with the American people. Ever since his party got its clock cleaned in the midterms, his public comments seem to indicate he's in denial that the electorate just didn't want to go as far left as he wanted to take it, and that during a time where jobs should have been the no. 1 priority, we were force-fed pork barrel bailouts, Obamacare, and cap and trade.

(2) McKinnon: "The book does highlight, however, a fundamental difference between George Bush and Barack Obama. Bush never complains. He never blames others. He takes full responsibility for his campaigns, his administration, his life. He accepts the cards he's dealt." He quotes Bush: "I didn't feel sorry for myself, I knew there would be tough days. Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader. It sends demoralizing signals to the team and the country. As well, I was comforted by my conviction that the good Lord wouldn't give a believer a burden he couldn't handle." I honestly feel that many independents who voted for the Hope and Change promised in 08 but voted against Obama last week grew weary of President Obama's repeated and relentless 'woe is me' blaming of his predecessor for all of his problems.

In sum, I think all past, present and future politicians would do well (in general and at the polls) by growing up, maturing and putting more of their energies into solving the problems we face instead of blaming each other for them, especially when there is plenty of blame to go around in both parties.

Deja Me!

Hey! Check out my predictions made in a comment to a post by Devin in June of 2009:
"The pace and breadth and radicalism of Pres. Obama's blitzkrieg on capitalism will ruin the democratic party for years to come. I doubt the republicans will position themselves to take advantage. The independents will grow. We may be seeing the beginnings of pluralism in government. Ruling by coalition seems to be the only way moderation can take hold." Jeff says I was half right. Instead of the creation of a third party, the tea party folks threw in their lot with republicans. So instead of getting a coalition government, we wind up with whiplash in congress.

Thomas Sowell Rocks

Devin gave me a Thomas Sowell book for my birthday which I just finished reading. It is the second work of his I have read, and I really enjoyed it. I am almost finished reading "The Road to Serfdom" by Friedrich Hayek, who is much more methodical in making his arguments, but of course Hayek's writings were not produced with the general public in mind, where Sowell's editorials are definitely geared for wider readership.
One of Sowell's most potent points is that very little critical analysis and debate takes place in politics and higher education does not prepare people for such critical analysis. Once we attach ourselves to a view, we tend to hold it dear and not entertain other viewpoints.
I am pretty set in my conservative (19th century "liberal") ways and everything I have read lately tends to echo my own feelings. It is probably time to consider another viewpoint. Doing so may strengthen my convictions, but is bound to help me understand how others think, and I am always interested to learn about that. I appreciate Hayek's consistent refusal to ascribe bad motives to those of his acquaintances who believed differently. Sowell's impatience may have cooled a little with age, but I think he still has a rough time thinking well of otherwise intelligent people who continue to harbor what he views as destructive ideas.
Any suggestions as to what I should read next?

A Picture (well, a graph) Worth 1,000 Words

Thoughts?

Tax vs. Revenue - Scoring - 2011

I read an editorial this morning by the Robertses (Cokie & Steve). I usually enjoy their commentary despite their center-left orientation. One statement in today's column, though, drove me nuts, given a vast body of emperical experience that contradicts it. they said the "Republicans' . . . 'Pledge to America' . . . promises to to cut taxes and reduce the deficit at the same time - a total impossibility." (my emphasis). Why categorically ("total") advance the notion that simultaneous tax and deficit reduction are mutually incompatible? Because there is nothing besides the statement to support the statement.

This notion has been proven false by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, and by Democratic and Repblican congresses alike. Lowering tax rates increases tax revenue. Increases in revenue decreases the deficit if spending does not increase. Logic and experience show this. When rates are lowered economic activity increases, resulting in more revenue. When projecting budgets and revenue "static scoring" assumes taxpayer behavior will remain unchanged as rates go up or down. "Dynamic scoring" takes into account behavioral changes that accompany tax (rate) increases and decreases. The Robertses would be correct if static scoring is borne out by experience. Experience shows that with every tax decrease, there has been a revenue increase. Kennedy deliberately calculated that behavior would change and revenues would increase when tax rates were lowered at his urging. He was proved right. the Reagan cuts made for a sharp U-turn and lasting recovery in the recession of the early 80s. After 9-11, there was no stimulus to keep the economy from tanking, but there was a 2001 tax cut, followed by another in 2003. These not only avoided disaster (think "jobs saved"), they helped fuel decent growth through mid-2008. And the "rich" (liberal term) or "employers and investors" (conservative terms) respond better to the swings in their rates than those who are employees and not investors. So cutting taxes of the "rich" generates more revenue than cutting taxes of the "middle class," especially since with progressive tax rates the "rich" are soaked (nicked? touched?) much heavier in the first place.

Maybe the Robertses are relying on what I call "extreme logic" to make their point. Of course if, on the one extreme, the government is taxing at a 5% rate and lowers it to zero, revenue will go down. But on the other end, do they really believe people will keep working and investing if their marginal rates are raised to 100%?

The Bush tax cuts are set to expire on January 1, 2011. The Obama administration (and Democrat congressional leadership) are in no hurry to avert that disaster. My question is whether their inaction can be explained by something other than incompetence or cynicism.

Your turn.

Death of Neglect?

Hello. So, we are a little over three weeks away from the mid-term elections, and there has been no activity on this blog since July. Has this blog turned into a vacuum from an echo chamber from a lively blog? Just wanted to know.
My prediction for the upcoming election - both houses of Congress will move to the right. The Democrat survivors will have moved to the right. The replacement Democrats will be to the right of their predecessors. The Republican survivors will have shifted further to the right. And the new Republicans will be futher to the right than their (R or D) predecessors. The only person whose stated or closely held ideology will have remained as far left as before (or perhaps moved further left) is President Obama.
This is a recipe for federal gridlock, a welcome change from what we have seen for the past four years.
Comments?

LeBronomics: Myopic Soak-the-Rich Tax Policy Likely Cost the Knicks a Superstar

What's a post about LeBron James doing on this blog? Well, I love talking sports just as much, if not more than I love talking politics. I couldn't pass up the chance to simultaneously do both! Anyway, I just thought it was interesting to see last week that, despite LeBron's well-documented love affair with the Yankees, his close friendship with rapper Jay-Z (part owner of the soon-to-be relocated New Jersey Nets to Brooklyn, NY), his desire to become the richest athlete in the world (which the NY market would best facilitate), his love for playing in NY's Madison Square Garden (often called the "Mecca" of basketball), and the predictions of many so-called experts, LeBron chose to "take his talents to South Beach," joining forces with Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh of the Miami Heat.

Why?

Of course, according to LeBron and many talking heads on TV, playing alongside Wade and Bosh, two fellow all-stars and U.S. Olympic teammates, gives him the best shot at a championship. Although this is true, there's more to LeBron's decision than meets the eye.

Consistent with his desire to be the richest athlete on the planet, I'm sure LeBron's "crew" advised him that NYC has the highest state and city income taxes in the country at a 12.85 percent for top-earners, on top of what the feds already take for their share. Assuming a 5 year contract worth 96 million, LeBron will save 12.34 million by playing hoop in Miami vs. New York because there is no state income tax in Florida. To be sure, LeBron would still have plenty to put food on the table if he signed with the Knicks and no one, besides LeBron of course, would cry tears over the fact that he'd be out an extra 12.34 million. However, this makes for an interesting case study about the limits of a soak-the-rich tax mentality.

Is it any wonder why we're seeing a sizeable exodus from NY to places like Florida and Texas, 2 states that choose not to soak their successful citizens? Yes, top earners in New York get nailed on their state taxes if they are there, but lawmakers don't have the power to mandate that top-earners stay in NYC or even locate there to begin with. Eventually, as we've seen here, a soak-the-rich mentality can deter ambitious and successful people like LeBron James from coming and will encourage other ambitious and successful individuals to leave. I think it's safe to say that die-hard Knicks fans can at least partly blame their well-meaning, but short-sided lawmakers in Albany for LeBron choosing Miami over New York.

[P.S. - Nic, could you copythis post over to ArmchairPoliticians when you get the chance? Thanks!]

Maxwell on Government

"I fear that, as conditions worsen, many will react to the failures of too much government by calling for even more government. Then there will be more and more lifeboats launched because fewer and fewer citizens know how to swim. Unlike some pendulums, political pendulums do not swing back automatically; they must be pushed. History is full of instances when people have waited in vain for pendulums to swing back."

-Neal A. Maxwell, Insights from my Life, BYU Devotional, 1976-

More on BP, Obama

Sorry Chris, didn't mean to steal your thunder by one-upping your post. Readers, know that there is a post right below this one that is also deserving of comment. Anyway, I just read a piece from Peggy Noonan in the WSJ and wanted to share a few quotes from it that I thought were fair. Although she leans somewhat to the right, Noonan is pretty moderate politically, and she'll tell it like it is. She's not afraid at calling out the right or the left when either are out of line. So when I want to get a glimpse into the mind of the more middle-of-the-political-road folks, it's refreshing to read her stuff.

Anyway, this is kind of a follow-up to Creighton's last post about the BP slick. Obama gave a prime-time speech to address the federal response to the spill, which I consciously decided not to watch, preferring instead to read the transcript online the next day. I'm not the only one who made the switch. Obama's TV audience went from 48 million in the State of the Union (Jan.) to 32 million this week. Here are a couple quotes from Noonan's column that I thought were fair and insightful:

"It isn't Mr. Obama's fault that an oil rig blew in the Gulf and a gusher resulted. He already had two wars and the great recession. But the lack of adequate federal government response appropriately redounds on him. In a Wall Street Journal investigation published Thursday, reporters Jeffrey Ball and Jonathan Weisman wrote the federal government at first moved quickly, but soon "faltered." "The federal government, which under the law is in charge of fighting large spills, had to make things up as it went along." It hadn't anticipated a spill this big. The first weekend in May, when water was rough, contractors hired by BP to lay boom "mostly stayed ashore," according to a local official. "Shrimpers [the "small people"] took matters into their own hands, laying 18,000 feet of boom," compared to about 4,000 feet by BP's contractors."

And now, some speech reaction from Obama's normal cheerleaders:

"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique. Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"

On empty sternness:

"And when speaking of why proper precautions and safety measures were not in place, the president sternly declared, "I want to know why." But two months in he should know. And he should be telling us. Such empty sternness is . . . empty."

Finally, good insight into what has been, for me, perhaps the one aspect of the Obama Presidency that has been most irritating:

"There is still a sense about Mr. Obama that he needs George W. Bush in order to give his presidency full shape and meaning. In this he is like Jimmy Carter, who needed Richard Nixon, or rather the Watergate scandal, which made him president. Mr. Carter needed Richard Nixon standing in the corner looking like he'd spent the night sleeping in his suit as it hangs in the closet. The image is from Joe McGinnis's "The Selling of the President, 1968." Mr. Carter needed to be able to point at Nixon and say, "I'm not him. He dirty, me clean. You hate him, like me." Carter's presidency was given coherence and meaning by Nixon, Watergate, and without it that presidency seemed formless. Mr. Obama, in the same way, needs Mr. Bush standing in the corner like Boo Radley, saying "Let's invade something!" But Mr. Bush is wisely back home in Texas finishing a book, and the president never sounds weaker than when he suggests his predicament is all his predecessor's fault. Mr. Obama needs Mr. Bush in the corner and doesn't have him. That's part of why he looks so alone out there."

My thought is that while Obama undoubtedly inherited a tough situation, no one likes a whiner or a complainer. Noonan's right, the more Obama blames Bush (not that he has done that relating to BP, at least not that I'm aware of), the weaker he looks. I think America would respond much better to a President who at least comes off as someone who rolls up his sleeves and gets down to work, solves the problem first, and asks questions later - even though the slick isn't his fault - instead of pointing fingers, waiting around, figuring out "whose ass to kick" and hoping that BP will handle everything. I think Obama could learn a lesson from the the "small people" shrimp farmers in that regard.

Here's a link to her entire column: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704289504575313181930072638.html

What do you guys think?

The conservative king-of-the-hill game in Utah

On You Tube type in "Cherilyn Eagar supporters prepare for the caucus meetings" and watch a hilarious video that encapsulates the primary race for the Utah Senate seat. Cherilyn Eagar got bumped out before Bob Bennett, but the one-upsmanship on who loves the Constitution more is still alive and well between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. (Eagar AND Bennett, along with Lonsbury endorsed Bridgewater; Shurteff, Bangerter, Hansen and Covey endorsed Lee) Lots of other endorsements. I am not settled on who to vote for. Any thoughts?

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

There's been a case here in Utah I've been following a little bit over the past year. Last July, it was uncovered that a seminary prinicipal in Utah (I think Provo area) at a high-school had been engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with a 16 year old female student (for a synopsis of the story, go to Anyways I'm not sure if this is totally correct, but it says he faces 6 years to life in prison. Now I really doubt this guy is gonna go to prison for life, but even 6 years seems a little steep. I don't want to minimize the severity of what he did, it was pretty horrible. But I don't know that it warrants a multi-year jail sentence. I had a companion who's father had a consensual sexual relationship with the neighbor's 17 year old daughter and he got slapped with a 30 day prison sentence and so many years of probation. Granted he wasn't a teacher, but does being a teacher warrant extending the prison time by 72 times? What do you guys think should happen to this guy?

Obama Administration's reaction to oil spill

New polls out show a huge dissatisfaction with the Obama administration's response to the gulf oil spill. From what I've seen they've largely left it up to BP to fix the spill. I would think this would be more of the "tea party" or conservative response. What more or less should the Obama adminstration be doing to help with the Gulf oil spill?

Arizona Immigration

I think the passing of Arizona's new, staunch law on immigration represents a fantastic point our Founding Fathers wanted to happen: the distinction between state and federal governments. People are all up in arms over this new legislation- people outside of Arizona, that is. The people inside of Arizona like the legislation (for the most part). They passed it because they wanted it. No one else outside of Arizona has follow the Arizonian laws and they don't have to worry about the laws there. It's not a federal law, it's a state law. Don't complain about what other states are doing unless it's your own state is what I say. It's wonderful to live in a country where different states with different problems can handle their problems in the way that best meets their needs, without messing everyone else up.
P.S. If you are registered to vote in Utah, vote for Bob Bennett! The Convention is May 8th!

Which way would you rule?

This doesn't have a lot to do with politics, well in a way it does. I was reading around on the site recommended by Nic, Redit. Well while cruising around I found a really interesting legal case that I wanted to get your opinion on.

Two guys get in a fight at a bar, one pulls out a knife and stabs the other in the stomach. The man stabbed loses a lot of blood before he gets to the hospital. At the hospital the doctors tell him he needs a blood transfusion. Turns out this guy is a J-dub (Jehovah's Witness) and refuses the blood transfer. The doctors tell him if he refused the transfusion, he will die. If he has it however, he will live. This dude refuses it to his death. The guy that stabbed him was then charged with murder. If you were on the jury, would you find the stabber guilty of murder?

The Means and the Ends of Liberty

For those not familiar with Reddit, I can't recommend it enough. It is a social news website where users can post links to items on the web. All of the other users can vote the item up or down and comment on it. The discussions and content can become offensive at times, but for the most part, Redditors are very funny, very intellectual people.

There are many "subreddits" or sections where items are posted on only a certain topic. Naturally, I subscribe to the Libertarian subreddit (reddit.com/r/Libertarian) where I get my daily affirmation of my political beliefs. After following this subreddit for about a year, I have noticed a trend. A large percentage of the posts have this format: "How would x work in a libertarian society?"

I suppose it's only natural. In a society that has an almost infantile reliance on government, people simply cannot imagine how we could possibly get by without it. Who would provide the roads, the utilities, the common defense? Who would regulate food and drugs? Who would protect us from Wall Street and credit card companies and predatory lenders? Who would provide welfare and health care and retirement funds?

People in general aren't going to argue that freedom is bad. People know freedom is a good thing. As a libertarian, I never have to argue from a deontological standpoint. That's not the problem. The problem is that people just don't know how freedom would work. Without government, chaos would ensue, right? So, I always get this statement from opponents: "Liberty is all well and good, but...." Suddenly they become consequentialists!

I always think of Nineteen Eighty-Four when encountering such statements. In George Orwell's dystopian future, "doublethink" is defined as "[t]he power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...." You ask people if they agree with the statement "the ends justify the means" and most people will not. In fact, most people feel a sort of moral repugnance for such a notion; however, in the very next breath, you can get them to admit that they think it's okay to infringe someone's liberty as long as some benefit is derived from it. Doublethink.

So, I have found myself scouring world history for successful examples of freedom working pragmatically. I discovered the "golden age" of American liberty in the 1800s, the successful anarchy of Iceland from the 10th to the 13th centuries, the stateless "Free Territory" of Ukraine in the early 1900s--I've actually compiled quite a list. And you know what? None of it convinced anyone. It was as if an atheist demanded to see God, so God showed up and said, "Here I am." Will the atheist suddenly believe? No, he will demand magic tricks to prove that this person is indeed God. And if God successfully completes the magic tricks, the atheist will explain them as mere illusions that any magician could perform. You just can't win.

Never mind that economic freedom has been proven to reduce poverty and promote wage equality. Never mind that drug legalization has been proven to reduce drug use and violent crime. Never mind that eliminating speed limits actually decreases the number of fatal accidents. Never mind that free societies are historically responsible for incredible economic and technological advancement while communist countries inevitably crumble to pieces.

But let's say that liberty didn't work, that allowing the individual to be free was found to result mostly in negative results. Would I abandon it then? No! As noted philosopher Karl Popper said, "It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it."

Will freedom yield a perfect, utopian society? No! When human beings co-exist, there will always be problems. It is natural. It is to be expected. However, as Thomas Jefferson declared, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."

Thankfully, as a libertarian, I have an excellent position to argue from. From a deontological standpoint, liberty is always the right thing to do, even if it has negative results; and, from a consequentialist standpoint, liberty has been shown to be the most successful economic and social system the world has ever known. I think I can sleep well tonight.

What is the role of government?

I don't mean to mitigate Devin's post on immigration by posting so soon afterwards, but since Nic's first comment I have been thinking a lot about the role of government, and what it should be. Mostly this post is in response to this comment by Nic "As with most issues, I believe that problems can be solved best by getting government out of the picture and leaning toward liberty." I am not attacking Nic, merely this comment has caused me to think about what role government should play, so Nic, you should more take this is a compliment. I had a simple response in the next comment that I made; " I think we just differ philosophically on the role of government so we probably won't ever totally agree on anything, which is fine." Since then I've spent a lot of time thinking about what the world would be like with less government "intrusion," and it's caused me to ponder where the best balance might lie. Please respond with your disagreements, I'm sure they'll be many.

1. Foremost in my mind is the issue of slavery. Now I know Nic believes in liberty, freedom, so obviously I'm assuming he doesn't believe in slavery. But without government intrusion under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln, would we not still theoretically have slavery in the South? Therefore I believe it is the role of government to protect the God-given, inalienable rights promised by the constitution, that the minority may not have power to protect itself. So my question to Nic (and anyone else), is it the role of government to ensure freedom for all citizens is maximized, or are we to govern ourselves?

2. I believe in government regulation. For example, the food you eat has come from strict standards enforced by the FDA to ensure maximum quality and safety. The water you drink has been treated under safety parameters, set out by the government, to make sure you and your families don't drink water infected with pathogens. Would these systems be better based purely on competing companies with no government regulation? Would our food and water be safe to eat and drink? Based on my experience in Peru, where there seems to be less regulation, the answer is no.

I had a few more to list but I think you get my point. I believe government exists to ensure fairness, equality (including equal opportunities), create and enforce law by popular consent, provide for the defense of our country, and to regulate consumer products and services to ensure quality, fairness, safety, and effectiveness. I agree that government often oversteps their bounds with misguided spending (mainly deficit spending) and occasionally creates laws that don't necessarily reflect the values of the constitution. But overall I think the government does a pretty good job at the things I mentioned. I am interested to hear what you think the role of government is, or is not. I am open to changing my viewpoints.

Undecided on Immigration

Since amnesty looks like the next big push by the Obama administration, and in the wake of Arizona's new law strengthening immigration enforcement (Rich, your unique perspective as a current AZ resident would be much appreciated here), I thought it would be an appropriate time for this blog's first discussion about immigration. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that I haven't formed any hard and fast opinions on this topic. I want those of you who have strong opinions about it to convince me that you're right.On the one hand, I'll admit to having a soft spot in my normally icy cold, stony, conservative heart (that one's for you, Creighton) for those who are willing to leave everything they have behind and come to a land of promise - a land that rewards those who break a sweat, work hard, and improve their lots. At some point in time, this is what our ancestors did. After living in Argentina for 2 years, I can't blame or fault anyone that would rather come here for the chance at a better life as long as they're willing to work for it. Speaking of working, I've worked alongside some "undocumented immigrants" or "illegal aliens" and some on work visas at Custom Fence, and I've found that in general, they are very hard working, family-oriented individuals who sent the majority of their earnings back home to provide for their families, and made concerted efforts at learning english (although I also know there are plenty who are not hardworking or law abiding once they're here).

On the other hand, I know many people from Argentina who have waited years and years, and for whatever reason have not been successful at entering the U.S. legally. Liberals like the word "fairness." How "fair" is it to those countless immigrants who have respected our laws, waited in line, tried to come here the right way, to have so many leap frog them by crossing the border illegally? I'd be very upset if I tried to get here legally, couldn't, to then see a blanket sweep of amnesty. I'd be thinking, "man, I'm an idiot! Why didn't I just hop the fence?" Wouldn't the mere talk of amnesty, then, increase the incentives and encourage people to break the law? I believe in "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law," and thus, am sympathetic towards those who try to come here the right way. But this brings us back to square one: is the current law a good one? Should it be changed? If so, how? Should we take the path chosen by the people of Arizona toward stricter enforcement? Or should we go down the road the Obama administration wants toward amnesty?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to reading what ya'll have to say.

I Vote Democrat because . . .

With Nic's permission, I'm posting something I saw on his blog that I knew that Creighton would get a kick out of :) I'm fully expecting a top 10 list for voting Republican in response ... this should be fun.
I Vote Democrat because ...

10. I believe oil companies' 4% profits on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn't.

9. I believe the government would do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

8. I believe Freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

7. I'm too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in 10 years if I don't start driving a Prius.

5. I'm not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies as long as we keep all the death row inmates alive.

4. I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits.

3. I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as Democrats see fit.

2. I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

1. My head is planted so firmly up my a$$ that it's unlikely I'll ever have another point of view.

Here's the link to the source.

America the Beautiful

After spending 10 days outside of the United States for the first time in my life in Peru, there's a few things I've taken for granted that I think is appropriate for this blog.

1. I think we have a pretty good balance of private sector / public or government funded programs here that make the quality of life better for more people. I spent several days in villages outside of Cuzco high in the Andes mountains. These people did not pay taxes, and also didn't receieve anything from the government. The villages surrounding Cuzco and even Cuzco itself had little organization, poor infrastructure, and very little government regulation. There was some public education but it seemed to me to be more under the control of local people and certainly didn't have access to funding like we do here in the U.S. It made me appreciate my own public education, the flat, organized, paved roads I can drive on, and the libraries and schools I can go to.

2. There was very little government regulation in Peru especially in regards to food and water safety that made it dangerous to eat and drink anything. Half our expedition came down with food poisoning, and lots of children out in the villages had parasites, even Hepatitis A that came from eating and drinking contaminated sources. While we do have some of those issues here, it certainly is a lot less. It's comforting to know there are company, industry, and government standards for food safety that make most of our food and water disease-free and safe to consume. That was a luxury not enjoyed in Peru.

3. Oddly enough I gained an appreciation for social security and medicare while there. I do hospice work and the people I take care of all are on Medicare and Social Security. There are no programs like that in Peru, and people really suffer for it. We saw lots of elderly people who suffered severe arthritis who were still working just because they had no choice. They had no access to health care (other than us), and no such thing as retirement. They retired when they died. So while these programs may be in trouble here in the U.S., I still think they are good, and provide a safety net for people to fall on.

In conclusion I just have to say that I love the United States and I'm not sure why I'm lucky enough to be a citizen here and have the opportunities I do. It makes me feel like I have those opportunities specifically to help others that might not. I think we all do. For those of you that have spent time out of the country, what did you feel?

Is it me or Obamacare?

There have been a few things happening worth talking about, but no new activity for a while. So here is a question regarding Obamacare: What are the chances that the taxes, etc. that will be collected over the next four years to help pay for Obamacare will be saved up and available to actually help pay for the costs of Obamacare once the four years are up? I believe that whatever gets collected will be spent, and not on Obamacare. Since the Government has no discipline to dedicate and segregate money collected for a specific purpose (see Social Security), we can add those misappropriated dollars (for at least four years) to the cost of the Obamacare bill. What say you?

Health Tort Reform - Conservative?

This is my attempt to catch up to the 29 comments that were on the last post. Rich asked for comments from Devin and me on tort reform. There was some good discussion.

Tort reform is one area where party politics takes, perhaps, a different path than political philosophy.

Republicans like the idea of tort reform. Democrats don't. The plaintiff bar is squarely on the side of Democrats as evidenced by the money they contribute to that party. The defense industry is in the Republican camp. Plaintiff's lawyers and malpractice insurers need each other in order to keep dragging in the huge fees and monster premiums that each side keeps as a reward and shares with the political party that favors them in the never-ending game.

But what about conservatives and liberals? What about libertarianism in the tort-reform debate? For instance, one of the more popular methods of tort reform (and one that has been in place in Utah for several years) is a cap on awards, coupled with a sharing of the spoils with the State. Over a certain level, punitive damages go half to the State, then all to the State after another ceiling is reached. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Should a doctor be held individually to account, monetarily, for the damage that doctor does to a patient when the standard of care is breached (sounds conservative / libertarian to me), or should a fixed dollar amount be handed out to anyone who can show themselves injured by any healthcare provider in the system?

It is amazing how quickly philosophical consistency is tossed to the side when a short-term opportunity to score points or defend the ball presents itself in the party ballgame. I would be interested to hear how y'all perceive tort reform on a philosophical spectrum, and whether you think philosophical consistency should, in this case, be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. (Can you tell how I feel by the way I asked the question?)

The Beauties of Health Savings Accounts

In the context of the ongoing debate about how to fix America's health care system, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, wrote an excellent, timely piece today in the Wall Street Journal that was eye-opening for me. He first highlights the benefits of health savings accounts not with partisan talking points, but with independently cited facts, figures, and good ole' common sense. Here's the link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

After citing many compelling statistics, he concludes:

"The Indiana experience confirms what common sense already tells us: A system built on "cost-plus" reimbursement (i.e., the more a physician does, the more he or she gets paid) coupled with "free" to the purchaser consumption, is a machine perfectly designed to overconsume and overspend. It will never be controlled by top-down balloon-squeezing by insurance companies or the government. There will be no meaningful cost control until we are all cost controllers in our own right."

For my part, I don't think HSA's are the end-all solution for our broken health care system (tort reform and portability across state lines are necessary as well), but they would certainly go a long way towards controlling and decreasing spiraling costs, as Mitch Daniels has illustrated with Indiana's experience. I recommend that everyone read the article and comment.

When the Shoe is on the other Foot: Reconciliation

There's a lot of talk out there that congressional democrats in the Senate want to use the process known as "reconciliation" to ram the White House's new health care bill through because they lack the 60 votes necessary to end the debate and filibuster. Reconciliation, created in 1974, was originally meant to be a legislative measure aimed at passing proposed presidential budgets through congress without a threat of a filibuster, and it only requires 51 votes instead of 60 to avoid a filibuster and end debate.

Anyway, I came across this video on Breitbart.tv that shows how democratic senators reacted when a republican majority threatened to use reconciliation in 2005, or "the nuclear option," to end a democratic filibuster. It's interesting to see the 180 degree about-face when the shoe is on the democratic foot only 5 years later. I thought Joe Biden's quote from the video was interesting: "I pray God when the democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."



Bottom line: I don't like reconciliation. I don't like it whether it be republicans or democrats who threaten to use it. The filibuster is one of the greatest checks to unbridled tyranny of the majority that this country has, no matter what party controls. What do you guys think?

Thoughts On TARP, or the 'Bailouts'

I am trying to form my opinion on the bailouts that cost the tax payers, so far, over a trillion dollars. When Geithner, Poulson (I'm a huge fan of his), Bush, Bernanke, and all the other people decided to let Lehman fail, the world almost came to an end. If memory serves, AIG would have been the next to go since they now had to pay out on all of the Lehman bonds they insured. Before Lehman declared bankruptcy we helped out, or nationalized, Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie. Apparently the government didn't think Lehman was interconnected enough, or the moral hazard was too high. Either way, after Lehman they changed their mind and paid out billions to companies that did, and some that did not, want the money.

I think the problems were with us and the banks. Some people say it's the banks fault for letting us get loans on homes double what they're worth, so they should have to repay the mortgage. I know this will be a sensitive subject to some, but how could either side see it coming? For the same reason that everyone and their dog wanted to buy a house, because it was gonna make everyone tons of money when they flipped it, the banks didn't anticipate homes losing as much money as they did. Likewise, it is our fault for thinking we could pay a mortgage with payments which increase over time, because we thought we'd be making more money or it would work itself out. People with sub-600 credit scores were getting loans, and though it was still that individual's decision to make the purchase, the banks and loan officers were getting too greedy. Plenty of blame can be thrown either way, but I don't think anyone can argue that it was just our fault, or just the bank's fault. Is it only fair that we now help the banks?

2 questions:

1. Should we have bailed out these companies? There is no question in my mind that the bailouts helped us today. I think our financial markets would have been absolutely destroyed today if it hadn't happened. My biggest reason for asking: did we just delay the inevitable and make our day of reckoning worse?

2. GM has a horrible corporate structure, and few companies can be profitable with pensions like the ones they offer. Especially in these markets. Unions need to be done with...forever. Do you think GM or Chrysler deserved the bailout?

Like I said, I'm just trying to educate myself with everyone else's point of view and knowledge. Throw all the facts and links at me that you can.

Has Biden Totally Lost It?

I was just wondering if anybody heard about Joe Biden's recent interview where he took credit for the success in Iraq as "one of this administration's greatest achievements"?

Now I've been one of this current administration's harshest critics from the outset (even during the campaign), so it goes without saying that I think he's just totally full of it (even more than usual--if that's even possible, lol), but I'm curious to hear everyone else's reaction to it. Is there even any credibility left to lose at this point, or is that why Biden thought he could get away with such an audaciously idiotic statement (given his ardent OPPOSITION to the surge and everything Bush did in Iraq literally the entire freaking time!!)...since people don't even take them seriously anymore, anyway?

I guess there's two questions here: 1) is there any credibility left to lose for Obama, and 2) if so, then to what extent does that outright, two-faced (I mean they blame all the bad stuff on Bush, yet somehow they get to take credit for his greatest success...really?) lie hinder it. I mean it is Joe Biden, after all...

President's Day

Tomorrow we celebrate Presidents' Day. We have lots to be grateful for by way of this country's chief executives. As I mentioned before, I am appreciating Bill Clinton more and more, so when he went to the hospital last week with a heart problem, it was a concern, especially given the many good things he has done in his post-presidency (some in tandem with George H.W. Bush).

The genius of America, though is not that we have been graced by wonderful statesmen as chief executives. Rather, it is that we have been graced with a system that empowers true leaders, restrains would-be tyrants, and reveals incompetents.

Sarah Palin's Hand

I did not watch the tea party conference or Sarah Palin's keynote speech. However, I have seen lots of news shows, slanting both right and left, that cannot stop talking about the notes that Palin had on her hand at the conference. The quantity and quality of both the right and left news coverage about this seemingly minor issue is baffling. Can't these guys think of something more news-worthy than this? The media obsession with this lady, on both sides, is getting out of control.

I do not wish to defend Palin here, or make excuses for her. However, I do wish to call out the many lefties in the news and on TV who have skewered her for this small, hand-written outline. I think it is disingenuous and hypocritical for attacking Sarah Palin about the handwritten reminders on her hand when Pres. Obama can't even address a bunch of sixth graders without using his beloved teleprompter. Although Obama's heavy reliance on the teleprompter is understandable. When he doesn't have it and when he's just talking off the cuff, he's either talking about putting infants on breathalyzers, making fun of handicapped people, or digging holes for himself by telling the Cambridge Police Dept. how stupid they are.

Look, President Bush was certainly not blessed with the ability to even speak coherently at times (my personal favorite was the botched "fool me once" line - classic). President Obama is a very talented orator. Sarah Palin is not, nor is she as up to par substantively as she needs to be. She knows this, and recognizes it as a weakness. But my question is this: is it worse to jot down a few reminders on your palm to help you remember what you'd like to say, or to have every single word laid out for you on the teleprompter. Many lefties in the news referred to Palin's palm notes as "cheating." If palm notes are "cheating," then what is the teleprompter?

From where do you come?

This is not a political post, so I hope nobody finds it inappropriate. Nic just found out that Creighton lives in his neck of the woods, and it caused me to wonder about everyones' background. I'm curious what life experience and education everyone is bringing to the table, and the states in which you live.

As for me:

I am attending Arizona State University (Phoenix, AZ), have a Bachelor's in Business Management, and will receive my second Bachelor's in Biological Sciences next year while I wait to hear back from medical schools. My work experience consists of sales and management of sales teams.

No children, but a wife of just over two years. She is in the last year of her Physician's Assistant program at Midwestern University.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I have to admit my bias before I even begin this post. I believe homosexuals are severely mistreated in our country today, and I don't find them to be evil. The homosexuals I know are good, honest, loving people. I also do not believe homosexuality is a choice, or a consequence of upbringing. I believe it is either genetic, or due to some kind of chemical imbalance during development in the womb.

From what I understand, the don't ask don't tell policy allows homosexuals to serve in the military only if they do not disclose they are homosexual. One such homosexual who wanted to serve his country said earlier today, "why am I refused the opportunity to serve and defend my country because of who I am?" I agree. I understand that some homosexuals may be mistreated if they join the military, but I believe the military could implement new rules as to the treatment of fellow gay soldiers. I do not think sexual orientation should stop someone from being allowed to serve in our country's military. What do you guys think?

State of the Union

I'm just curious to hear everyone's reaction to the President's speech. I know there are political junkies out there who watched it or at least read the transcript, so let's hear what you think ...

The Political Pendulum, in MA?

To everyone's surprise, the special election tomorrow in Massachusetts to replace Ted Kennedy in the Senate is actually competitive. You don't get more "blue" than MA, and there hasn't been a republican Senator from there in over 30 years. Moreover, Ted Kenedy's seat has been controlled by that family since 1953. In the election, you have Martha Coakley as the dem nominee, who is the current Attorney General. On the R side, you have Scott Brown, a col. in the MA National Guard and a virtually unknown state legislator.

The stakes are high. Scott Brown would be the 41st republican senator, which means that they could filibuster the health care legislation, already "hanging by a thread" according to Chris Dodd. Pres. Obama went to MA yesterday to stump for Coakley, just like he did for Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine, who both lost the election for VA and NJ governor, respectively. Will it help? It's not looking good for Coakley. The poll today has Brown over Coakley 51 - 46.

So if Coakley loses tomorrow, taken in context with NJ and VA electing republican governors, powerful D senators like Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan "retiring," and 10 more dems in the House "retiring," does this mean that the democratic party is on its way out? Last May, Creighton asked the same question about the Republicans. It's amazing how quick the tables can turn in politics. I'll answer my own question the same way I answered Creighton's. No. It's just the political pendulum, and I wouldn't read much more into it than that. To Creighton's credit, he didn't know last May that the health care debate would have gone the way it did, that the economy would still be in the tank, and that Obama's first year popularity would drop off quicker than any previous president in U.S. history.

Back to the MA Senate race. Why is Brown leading in the polls, despite all the odds? Has Coakley coasted, bungled the campaign, and taken victory for granted? Perhaps there's something to that. The mainstream press will give that answer, wanting to distance Obama and his policies from another defeat at the polls. I'd give Brown some credit though. He's struck a chord with the people of MA, who already have universal health care. "We're going to be basically paying for our plan, and then we're going to be subsidizing Nebraska and Louisiana…boy, that's a real bargain." I also loved his response to CNN's David Gergen when he condescedingly asked Brown if he was willing "to sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and block the passage of health care for another 15 years?" Brown immediately shot back: "With all due respect, it isn't Ted Kennedy's seat, and it isn't the democrats' seat. It's the people's seat."

So what do you guys think? Would a Scott Brown victory be a referendum on health care? On one-party rule? On Obama's policies? Or would you chalk it up to Coakley's bungling of the campaign?

The Story of Taylor Pugh and His Beautiful Breck Hair

I know this one isn't as politically charged as most posts on here are, but this has bothered me since I heard about it a day or two ago. I figured there would be some pretty good opinions on here.

I'm sure by now we've all heard of little Taylor and formed our opinons in one direction or another. Let me first make my side very clear: Rules are put forth for a reason. Even if you don't like them we must still obey them. In this case, Taylor is enrolled at a public school in Balch Springs, TX. (East of Dallas) Public schools are very clear about their code of conduct and dress codes. In fact, they send home a copy of the student handbook at the beginning of every year with each child. There's also all the required paperwork for the new year. Most of which is duplicate info from the year before. In our school district, I have to sign several forms stating that my children and I agree with and will obey said conduct and dress codes. The same can be said for other districts we've been in in years past. It's all pretty much the same.

Before I go any further with this, I have an anecdote that I think is very relevant to this issue. When we first relocated here in 2007, I was thrilled when I finished gathering all the school supplies and spent as little as I did. Then I saw, way down at the very bottom of my list in teeny tiny print, KISD is a standardized dress district. Uniforms. I had no idea that I needed uniforms. Khaki/navy/white polos or oxfords with khaki or navy pants/shorts/skirts/capris, tennis shoes and belts for grades 3-5. Ok, no big deal. All the major stores carry these specific items, so I got 5 sets of uniforms for each of the 2 school-age kids I had in school at that time. (Now it's 3 kids. Pants are the hardest to recycle from kid to kid, but the uniforms really do make mornings go pretty smoothly as far as dressing goes. BUT, I'm stuck buying 2 sets of clothes: Uniforms and regular street clothes for when they aren't at school. That gets pretty costly.)

Last Friday the temperature didn't get above about 28 degrees. For us here in Texas, that's arctic. I bundled the girls and even put them in thick, fuzzy, hot pink socks. They wouldn't be outside that day, but I can't stand the thought of them not being prepared in case they have to go out. Apparently my oldest daughter's teacher did a sock inspection. She made all the kids in Lilly's class take their shoes off and then checked their socks. At first I didn't think much of it. Maybe Mrs. Dockery was just being thoughtful by making sure everyone was prepared for the weather. Then Lilly told me that Mrs. Dockery said she couldn't wear those socks anymore. SAY WHAT?! I always hit the dollar bins when I'm at Target and get the girls those fun sock. (Hello Kitty, Disney princesses, Strawberry Shortcake, etc.) I figure they're stuck in those boring uniforms, so I might as well do what I can to brighten things up a little. They wear these socks all the time. When they're in skirts or pants, it doesn't matter. I've never had anyone in 2 years say anything about their freaking socks. There are other kids that do the same. Naturally I can't find my student handbook the one time I need it, so I called the school Monday. Sure enough they're only allowed to wear solid white, tan or navy socks. The lady in the office had to look it up because even she didn't know what the policy is on that. Then she admitted that it's asinine, especially if the kids are in pants, which they are because it's winter. SOCKS!

Well, now I know the rule, and my kids are stuck in plain white socks from now on. It's pretty simple. I'm not so much a conformist as I am a choose-your-battles kind of girl. Socks are pretty insignificant in this case.

Back to poor Taylor. First of all, Taylor's parent(s), Delton and Elizabeth Pugh, filled out the paperwork like mine. They agreed to all the guidelines set by the school board. Second, Taylor's in Pre-K. It's not mandated, so, in my opinion, he's really more like a guest at school. Yes, the school is still liable for him. Yes, they still have to take care of him. But that doesn't mean he's exempt from following the rules. He's 4, so it's not Taylor making the decision to keep his hair long. Elizabeth claims "he likes it like that" and "he'll cry if [they] cut it." Delton says, "I don't see why I should be required to hold my child down against his will and cut his hair." If that's the case, maybe I should reconsider the next time my 5 year old wants to go out in the backyard to hunt for rollie polies while in the buff. I mean, it always makes her cry when I tell her she has to keep her clothes on. Besides, she really wants to do it.*

Taylor has been in ISS (in school suspension) since November because of his hair. He sits alone in the library with a teacher's aide all day. His parents have flat out refused to cut his hair, and he's aware that he's in trouble because of it. He even says that he misses his friends.

I blame the school (Floyd ES) almost as much as I blame Delton and Elizabeth. Floyd has the right to enforce the rules that the Pugh's agreed to. However, keeping him in ISS for 2 months is ridiculous. (Perhaps the Pughs should consider taking him out of school if they don't want to cut his hair.) Elizabeth even goes on to say she'll continue to fight it.

What kind of message is that sending to Taylor? He's entitled? The rules don't apply to him? Isn't that what's wrong with a lot of today's society? The only thing Taylor is entitled to in this case is an education. By not cutting his hair, his parents are doing him a great disservice by infringing on it. I'm sure the aide is doing a great job with him, but where are the social skills he should be learning by participating in the environment in which he's intended? I understand that social skills can be learned without being in school, but that's part of the curriculum. All 3 of my kids went through Pre-K, and it was a wonderful experience for each of them. I feel badly for Taylor because his experience should've been the opposite of what it is now.

The Pughs were offered a compromise. Cut Taylor's hair above the ears and collar or keep it in a braid. They refused even that stating that a braid will make his scalp bleed. Instead, they put it in a neat ponytail. OK, I'll give them that one....kinda. Floyd made it pretty clear, but they still wouldn't do what was asked.

This will get me jumped from all angles, but I'm really not trying to be judgemental. And I'm saying it anyway. You can look at Delton and Elizabeth and see that they either haven't grown up or haven't conformed to societal norms themselves. So I guess it stands to reason that they wouldn't see the harm in keeping his hair long. There IS no harm in keeping his hair long except for the fact that they agreed to follow the dress code. If that's their excuse then maybe this should be mine: "I'm really not a fan of uniforms, so maybe I'll start sending my kids in their regular clothes. I understand the district's reasoning behind that decision, but I don't agree with it." Really, I won't challenge it because that's just stupid and a waste of time because I already agreed to it. (And I've already spent all that money on uniforms!)

I understand that we're allowed certain things based on religious and/or cultural beliefs. (I'm sure they'll use this as a cultural issue since they have until 18JAN to cut Taylor's hair or conform to the compromise the school district offered. That's just my prediction, so don't get bent out of shape.) The army has very strict regulations regarding this very thing, but some soldiers are allotted various allowances for things based on the same criteria. But we rarely hear about it. You're given a set of rules/standards, and you're expected to abide by it.

I know Taylor's too young to understand or be affected by any of this now. If this is the precedent the Pugh's are setting now, what will it be like in 8 or 10 years? What will the excuse be when he can't play football because he's failing? Or when he gets into a fight at school? Maybe he didn't throw the first punch, but he should still suffer the consequences already in place for such a violation.

It's not just the Pugh's, I know. Their time will fade and someone else will take over. It just seems like this is setting the stage for other things to become the norm. It's very unsettling.

* I'm aware that hair and going outside without clothes each have their own set of consequences. The idea is that you can't let a kid do whatever they want. They also need to understand why.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCVbuNg1s2M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD7kYoE9rXA

Another Healthcare Post...more of a dream....

DISCLAIMER: I am speaking of what I think will happen with our healthcare system at the current pace...not necessarily what this bill leads some to believe will happen.

I am working hard to provide for my family by working full time while taking a boat load of classes, volunteering, researching, and studying for the MCAT. All this in the hopes that 8+ years from today I will be able to replace someone's knee, or treat a small child with chemo. I don't care if this current bill does not have a public option; it is the governments foot in the door. The government doesn't make their influence in programs smaller as time passes.

I feel that I do not have a responsibility to help anyone I don't want to help once I am finally Dr. Jones. Equal access to healthcare? Yea right. I am currently unable to have the house that I consider most comfortable. Should that be the responsibility of my neighbor? Absolutely not. Some people may say they are not parallels of each other. Why not? The materials to build a house cost money, and someone needs to pay for the materials. If I am unable to afford them, why should I feel entitled to access them? Healthcare costs money: research, materials, bedding, buildings, education, marketing, and lots lots more. Why should we think that universal access to healthcare is possible, or in any way self sustainable? Why should it be compulsory for me to sew someone up when they come in my office door? If I am able to have access to government programs like housing, healthcare, food, and all living requirements, why would I work for anything? If I make $5,000 more than what a specific program requires, would I be tempted to make $5,000 less next year to ensure eligibility for those programs?

I'm rambling. My point:

When I am Dr. Jones, I will do my best to provide the best healthcare to my patients. I will study new procedures, diseases, and medications. When someone comes in the door, I will be as prepared as I am able. I will do this in the hopes of running a successful business. One that is rewarding to me in every way. I want financial comfort for my family, and it seems AWESOME that I can achieve that by helping dozens of people each and every day. If someone comes to me and says they cannot afford it, I will help them anyways. Not because the government makes me, but because I have put myself in a financial position to make those decisions, and because I would not be able to sleep that night if I sent someone away.

Is it just me, or is this the only way to keep everything we consider American? To continue the advancements in the medical field. Lets say we have 20 million people who TRULY can't afford health insurance. I believe we are a little below a million doctors in the United States. I think my payroll could allow for 30 free patients per year. The amount of unpaid insurance claims will be higher than that.

Is it possible to revert that far back from where we are as a country? This applies to every industry and service, but is not in hopes of encouraging free-riders.

Don't try to make it compulsory, lets just be good people!

Choosing to be Selfish: Abortion

The more time I spend with my precious daughter, Amy, the stronger my feelings become against abortion. She has blessed my life beyond imagination, and it becomes increasingly difficult for me to comprehend how so many would rather kill their unborn child before being "inconvenienced" by an unexpected addition. What saddens me more is that there are so many who adamantly defend a woman's "right to choose" (by the way, where is that in the constitution?) over the defenseless unborn's right to life. The way I see it, the woman already made her choice the moment she decided to have unprotected sex, but the equation of choices changes when a child is conceived.

I ran across a powerful James E. Faust (a pro-life democrat) talk tonight that I wanted to share on the subject. He told a story about Mother Teresa, a deserving Peace Prize winner, that touched me. Here is a snippet from the 1995 talk, "Serving the Lord and Resisting the Devil"