Out of the Philadelphia Daily News comes a report of police bullying that will make you want to throw something (preferably not at the LCD monitor, they can be expensive). Here's the scenario.

Imagine you are in your car and are rear-ended by another vehicle that drives off instead of stopping. The driver of the other vehicle turns out to be the son of a local cop who is on duty. The son goes and reports the accident to dad. What do you think should happen?

Morally, the father shouldn't show any preference in taking the report of the accident. Ethically, I believe the father shouldn't even get involved and the entire incident should be handled by another officer if not an officer from a different department. Relation to an officer should play no part in the investigation of an accident. What do you think actually happened? Well, if you didn't click through the link, then I can almost guarantee you won't guess. The cop assaults the victim.

Officer Lopez takes his son in his patrol car to the convenience store the accident victims are at and confronts him. During all of this, his son is armed with a handgun, although it was never drawn. Officer Lopez's account is that he ordered Agnes Lawless and her three companions to the ground and that she resisted, assaulting the officer. That is the charge she was arrested on and for which spent a night in jail. That is the story that the courts believed over Lawless' story, even though all three of her companions and the store clerk gave stories that matched hers.

The fact that the courts would side with a cop over the victim isn't unheard of as they often are faced with a he-said-she-said situation of events. The fact that they believed a single police officer over the victim and four other witnesses is concerning if not suspect. Oh, did I mention that the officer's son was involved in the accident that lead to this, thereby possibly prejudicing him in the recount of the events? I did? Oh, I don't see why I bothered since the officer didn't! In fact, he didn't even use his son's name in the report, only referring to him as a "witness." But the court did side with the officer and suggest that Lawless be brought to trial. Well, they did until the store's security footage was released and showed a different course of events. One that matched Lawless' version.

Despite her not being hostile in the least at the outset of the encoutner, Officer Lopez proceeded to approach Lawless from behind with a drawn handgun, forcibly grab her by the neck, force his gun against her neck, and struck her in the face. Lawless, uncertain of what was going on and obviously confused by the lack of professional behavior, felt that the best thing would be to leave the situation and call for some "real cops." She is stopped and physically restrained, not by Officer Lopez, but by his son. Officer Lopez twice asks the store clerk to "do himself a favor" and erase the security camera footage. Three times after the incident, cops tell the clerk to erase the tapes and testify for the cop.

With the video out and the charges aginst Lawless dropped, an Internal Affairs investigation was conducted. Here is a man who violated the public's trust by engaging in completely inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, comitted multiple crimes as he assaulted members of the public, and endangered the lives of all of the people in the store when he needlessly initiated a physical confrontation with a drawn handgun, pressing it up against the body of an innocent person in a threatening manner. Certainly plenty for an IA investigation to work from and with video footage of the encounter, you'd think that would be plenty of evidence.

No, not really. And this is where the article got my attention.

After four months, the district attourney decided not to prosecute Officer L0pez. In the end, the Internal Affairs investigation found that Officer Lopez had violated departmental policies, but that was all. He was reissued his gun and is back on full duty although the department may still reprimand him.

Frankly, that is thoroughly insufficient. He should have lost his gun, his badge, and his commission and been barred from ever being employed in law enforcement again.

Lapses in judgment like that of Officer Lopez's would be utterly inexcusable if committed by the public and should be equally so when committed by police officers. Officers should be ticketed every time they are caught speeding and not let off for the exact reason that they are police officers and should be setting the example of the behavior they expect the populous at large to exhibit. They should be the shining examples of what it means to be a law abiding citizen.

Police officers are granted an incalculable trust by the public and when they violate that trust, there must be significant consequences if the people are to be able to continue to place that trust in the police as a whole. Christ put it best when he told the mass assembled to put the adulterous woman to death when he advised the person who was without sin to cast the first stone.

How can we allow someone to enforce the rule of law who is on film eggregiously violating that law and reportedly shouting, "You think you can hit my son and get away with it, you think you can f--- with me?"

We can't and we should never be asked to do so.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

CBS Evening News did a story[1] on it a couple of nights ago and note that some experts believe, like I theorized in my entry, that the higher drinking age of 21 is "actually contributing to an increase in extreme drinking."

In the story they talked with Mark Bckner, the chief of police in Boulder, Colo., a college town. "We'd find a party where we know there's underage drinking. We would seal the house. Surround the house with officers and we would write every single underage person coming out of that house. We wrote hundreds and hundreds of tickets those years. All we did is we pushed it further underground," said Beckner.

Beckner commented about lowering the drinking age to 18, something he is in favor of, "The overall advantage is we're not trying to enforce a law that's unenforceable. The abuse of alcohol and the over-consumption of alcohol and DUI driving. Those are the areas we've gotta focus our efforts. Not on chasing kids around trying to give 'em a ticket for having a cup of beer in their hand."

The story also comments about a college freshman, Gordie Bailey, who died of alcohol poisoning during a fraternity initiation. The fraternity members left him on a couch for 9 hours before someone called 911. He died because, according to Gordie's parents, the other college kids were too scared to call for help because the drinking was illegal.

It isn't just some police chiefs that feel a lower drinking age would be better. Minnesota legislators are also looking at the issue, considering a bill that would lower the drinking age to 18 in their state. They also are proposing allowing 16 and 17 year olds to drink at bars when accompanied by parents.

Both stories highlight something that escapes a lot of supposedly "enlightened" people in this day and age: banning something doesn't eliminate it. It is illegal for someone under the age of 21 to consume alcohol, right? But yet, from the SADD website:

In 2005, about 10.8 million persons ages 12-20 (28.2% of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8%) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0%) were heavy drinkers.
2005 SAMHSA National Survey on Drug Use and Health

Three out of every four students (75%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by the end of high school.
2005 Monitoring the Future

About two fifths of students (41%) have consumed alcohol (more than just a few sips) by 8th grade.
2005 Monitoring the Future

Prohibition should have taught us that telling people who want to drink that they can't won't stop them. The war on drugs should be teaching us right now that making something illegal doesn't stop it. All it does is drive it underground, create a mistique around it, and put it in the same realm as other much more harmful things.

I recently read about, though I can't remember exactly where, the idea that by eliminating things from being illegal and underground, you remove the connection to worse items. For example, a party at which significant underage drinking is taking place would also be more likely to have drugs at them.

If teens don't have to find a less than reputable "source" for their alcohol, they may be less likely to get involved in major drugs. After all, "more than 67% of young people who start drinking before the age of 15 will try an illicit drug. Children who drink are 7.5 times more likely to use any illicit drug, more than 22 times more likely to use marijuana, and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than children who never drank."[3] You can argue that drinking itself makes them more likely to abuse other substances but I am more inclined to believe it is the atmosphere into which they immerse themselves in order to consume alcohol underage.

I have my opinions on this topic. I'd love to hear yours.

***
[1] H/T http://www.thelibertypapers.org/
[2] H/T http://hotair.com/
[3] Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use, Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, 1994 as referenced at http://www.drug-rehabs.org/articles.php?aid=318

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

There was an article posted back in January of this year at American Thinker that talks about Mitt's speech and whether religion really is necessary. It is a quick read and I found it to be very thought provoking. Here's a great excerpt:

Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract. This is because no law is perfect. The perfect application of law is only possible if the lawmaker and judge are omniscient, knowing every reason a law exists and every detail, even the thoughts, of the alleged law-breaker.

Since this is impossible, the best situation is to have the fewest laws possible, to avoid illegalizing proper behavior under legislation's inevitably wide swath. The more self-regulating (or moral) a nation is collectively, the fewer laws needed to maintain order.

As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This is the technological equivalent of the government, say 12 years ago, requiring you to keep an accurate log of everyone who uses your phone for the last 2 years.

Sorry, but this is wrong. This is the government sticking it's nose into your private life. If they want to get a warrant for the records you do have, that's one thing but this is different. You don't have to keep a log of where your car goes and who drives it to aid an investigation about whether it was used in a crime. You aren't required to keep a log of all video purchases and what movies are watched on your television/DVD player to make sure you aren't pirating movies. There is no reason to force you to keep a record of who uses your internet connection.

Contact your legislators and let them know that you want the government to keep out of your business.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

First, a quick intro to "Good Samaritan" laws. They are laws enacted to protect those coming to the aid of another from prosecution for any harm that may come to a person due to emergency care rendered. These laws vary from state to state regarding whom they protect and in what ways. Here is an excerpt from California's via this article from the LA Times whic has a story about the incident I am going to bring up:

"No person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission"

Van Horn sues. Torti appeals. They end up at the state supreme court. The court hears both sides and concludes in a 4-3 decision that the above law did not protect Torti because pulling Van Horn from the car did not qualify as "medical care."

In a dissent written by Justice Marvin Baxter, the minority deemed “illogical” recognition of legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for nonmedical actions, like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.

"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."

Let's contrast this with Vermont's Good Samaritan's law:

A person who knows another is exposed to grave physical harm shall, to the extent that the same can be rendered without danger or peril to himself or without interference with important duties owed to others, give reasonable assistance to the exposed person unless that assistance or care is being provided by others.

So let me ask, what would happen California had the same type of requirement? Or what if Vermont had a judge who ruled similarly to this California ruling?

You can't not help but you can be sued if you do.

Think it can't happen? I wouldn't hold my breath...

So what do you think about mandatory help laws? The California ruling?

*****
[1] Chances are that what she saw was some liquid, probably antifreeze and the "smoke" was actually steam from the antifreeze hitting the hot engine. Doubtful if there was any real danger of explosion at all, but I used to be in emergency services and have learned about this stuff. The general public has not and only knows what they see on TV. I could talk for a while about the ways in which ridiculously unrealistic cinematic special effects have warped the ability for the public at large to react to real life situations, but that is a different subject entirely.

[2] I heartily object to this phrase as it implies carelessness. How easily and carefully could you be when pulling an unconcscious adult from a car? Would they be limp and flop around?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A $30 million project to add a lane to Highway 217 in Washington County is the first to include requirements for hiring African-American and Asian-American contractors. In years past, ODOT did not specify which minority groups needed to receive state contracts.

“If you’re a minority, you’re a minority. There’s no classifications,” said Gene Nelson, owner of Forest Grove-based Sundown Electric Co., a Native American-owned electrical contractor specializing in highway construction projects. “We are now a minority that is being discriminated against.”

The majority of blacks feel that with the election of President Obama, Martin Luther King's dream has been fulfilled. I'm not sure that what the Oregon DOT is doing right now is quite in line with his dream that his "children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I'm of the opinion that Dr. King's dreams will more fully be realized when our government hires contractors based on who can do the job quickest, cheapest, and best, not based on the color of their skin. His dream won't be reality until Gene Nelson's comment of "there's no classifications" applies to all US citizens and not just minorities.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Take a few minutes and read this article about Susan Porcello, an NYPD officer, and Gaspar Musso, a WWII Marine. Porcello responded to a 911 call by Musso back in July when he accidentally overdosed on prescription medicationss. She noticed he served in the Marines and in the course of conversation found out he had no family and no friends and very meager resources. She accompanied him to the hospital but decided that someone who served his country deserved better than to be so alone so late in life. More than that, she did something herself about it from that day on.

Anything I write isn’t going to convey what Porcello did for this man, so go read the article. Acts of service like this are what deserve to be reported by the mainstream media, not a couple hours of photo-op service some politician had an intern schedule for him or her.

Officer Porcello has upped the ante. She is setting the example for the kind of service that American citizens need to be offering not just on Martin Luther King Day, but everyday.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This 22 year old from San Diego, California claims to have already gotten more than 10,000 bidders with the high bid to date being $3.7 million.

Miss Dylan “who has a degree in Women's Studies insisted she was not demeaning herself. ”

I guess that is all a matter of perspective. You can’t demean yourself by doing something that you see as acceptable and not lacking in dignity. To be demeaned requires a loss of respect and in her view, this isn’t something disrespectful.

But then, I am left wondering why she remained a virgin so long if losing her virginity is not demeaning. So that she could share it with someone special? That’s certainly not what she is doing now. Especially since she is insisting that this is a one night stand: "I get some men who are obviously looking for a girlfriend but I try and make it clear that this is a one-night-only offer. “

The article concludes with her being quoted as saying, "It's shocking that men will pay so much for someone's virginity, which isn't even prized so highly anymore."

I’m going to have to disagree. Apparently virginity is highly prized. Just not by her.

What are your thoughts? Why is the bidding getting so high if virginity has little value in today’s society?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Anyway, I recently came across another article that directly relates to the original topic and decided that maybe it is time I start sharing these thoughts on here so that perhaps others can help me come to a conclusion.

The article I came across is the report of a settlement between eHarmony.com, a dating website, and Eric McKinley. Let me fill you in on some of the background and details of this.

eHarmony.com is a website that caters to Christian singles looking to form a lasting and committed relationship. With the traditional Christian aims, it deals only with matching up heterosexual couples. In 2005, Mr. McKinley was less than happy with that fact and filed suit in New Jersey claiming discrimination by eHarmony against homosexuals.

After three years, eHarmony has settled. Full details of the settlement can be found at www.onlinedatingmagazine.com. The short version is that eHarmony will be forced to conduct additional research in order to provide the basis for the new website they will be putting up that will match people of the same gender. They are also going to have to pay to advertise that site in ways that target homosexuals.

What bothers me the most about this, and what Michelle Malkin points out rather well, is that eHarmony never discriminated against homosexuals. Anyone could join and be matched according to the parameters of the service eHarmony offered. She drives home this point wby making a couple of comparisons: "This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a ribeye or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services."

eHarmony's troubles don't end there, though. California currently has a class action suit pending against eHarmony where the plaintiff's don't have to "prove actual injury to obtain damages, just that they visited eHarmony and were denied service."

Why force a Christian man who wants to operate a specific business model to change that entire business model and to operate a business that now conflicts directly with his religious beliefs? It isn't as though there aren't any dating websites that not only include but are specifically targetted at homosexuals. There are plenty out there. So why focus on this one dating service focused specifically towards heterosexuals?

eHarmony is hardly the sole example of this. One of the first articles I encountered about this type of issue was the account of a photographer in New Mexico. Elaine Huguenin and her husband own a small, family run photography company and declined to take a job photographing a lesbian commitment ceremony on the basis that it conflicts with their religious beliefs as Christians. They were sued by the prospective client and were forced to pay more than $6,600 to the prospective client.

In California, a case was recently won by a lesbian couple in which they sued a doctor for not performing artificial insemination for them. He refused to perform the procedure based on the woman's marital status and indicated that he would not perform an artificial insemination on any woman who was single. He referred her to another doctor and paid the difference in cost. This was a non-essential, non-lifesaving, elective procedure that would have cause the doctor to act in direct violation of his conscience and morals, yet the state of California says he had no right to refuse to do the procedure simply because his it would have violated his religious convictions.

NPR has compiled a host of other examples that include:

• Catholic Charities ceasing adoptions in Massachussets for refusing to facilitate the adoption of children to homosexual couples.
• Yeshiva University's Albert Einstein College of Medicine, an Orthodox Jewish private university, that was forced to allow same sex couples into its married dormitories, despite the fact that homosexual marriage hasn't been established in New York.
• A mental health counselor who was fired for refusing to counsel a lesbian on how to improve her lesbian relationship because it violated the counselor's religious belief.

I personally find all the above examples repugnant. They elevate certain people's "rights" above the "rights" of others. The government has stepped in and demanded that these people act in a way that directly violates their religious beliefs. Suddenly the right to practice one's religion has been demoted and cast aside to make way for non-discrimination.

These homosexuals and many more like them are clamoring for "their right" to obtain services from anyone they choose, even if those services, such as the case in eHarmony, aren't offered by the person or company. But what about my rights? My right to practice my religion free from government intrusion which would include the government dictating to me that I must conduct my business in a certain way that violates my core beliefs.

It is at this point however, that the comparison to racial discrimination often enters the conversation. I firmly believe that discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or the country they were born is is a disgusting practice. But I see a distinct difference between racial discrimination and what I have described above.

None of the above cases involved discriminating against someone purely because they were a homosexual. Simply, the people above didn't want to engage in behaviors that could be seen as advocating and condoning homosexuality. They didn't want to further that cause, encourage people in that lifestyle, or do something that would legitimize their pursuing homosexuality.

Put simply, racial discrimination was largely about the individual. And certainly some homosexual discrimination has been about the individual, but none of the above cases fit that. This is about behavior and lifestyle. And not just any behavior and lifestyle, but one that a significant number of people feel is immoral and wrong.

There has to be a way to stop people from discriminating against an individual while not forcing them to act in violation of their religious or moral convictions by doing things that legitimize behavior.

How can we respect both "rights?"

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Good read. Check it out.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

When it comes to President-Elect Obama, many of my concerns revolve around his policies which favor big government and increasing government involvement in multiple aspects of the people's lives. This expansion of government power is in direct opposition to my increasingly Federalist beliefs around national government. Let the states govern the people and keep the Federal Government to the minimal role it was originally assigned.

President-Elect Obama and I differ on this. He seems to support expanding Federal powers. A prime example of this comes from his new website: http://www.change.gov. On the "America Serves" page, he outlines his intention to impose compulsory community service on the youth of America. I quote:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

How is it that he advocates the government be completely hands off with what a woman does to her own body regarding abotions (including the horrendous practice of late term abortions), but then feels that he can tell you exactly what to do with yours in the realm of how you spend your time and what you choose to do or not do to better your community?

The last concern I will raise about his compelled service initiative is the idea of where that service will take place. In the same paragraph, President-Elect Obama says that he is going to institute new national service programs including "Classroom Corps...Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps."* I'd bet that his hours requirements aren't going to be an on your honor system where you can volunteer where you like. You'll probably be required to volunteer in one of the "Corps" or in another approved program. And if some programs are going to be approved, others won't be and I wonder greatly who gets to decide what causes are worthy of the government's blessing for this service program.

The second problem I have with his thinking along those lines is that President-Elect Obama has chosen to start surrounding himself with like-minded individuals. Take for example, his first executive staff appointment: Representative Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff.

The Examiner reports about the fact that Rep. Emanuel co-authored a book entitled The Plan: Big Ideas for America. In that book, he calls for compulsory national service by all Americans between the ages of 18-25. He calls for an elistment of all people among those ages for a three month "basic civil defense training." The report also highlights the fact that Rep. Emanuel insists that such service isn't "a draft" but that he then goes on to say that "[s]ome Republicans will squeal about individual freedom."

I would certainly hope that more than just "some" Republicans would squeal about compulsory service and I am willing to bet that it would be more than just Republicans squealing as well. Sure the Chief of Staff can't propose or introduce anything directly, but the fact that this is the man President-Elect Obama wants adivising him and in charge of White House affairs should be very telling and very concerning.

I'm all for getting involved and serving. I've served my communities in the past and as soon as grad school is over, I plan on finding ways to serve the community to which I move. Our country was founded on the basis of everyone contributing to their community. But that was based on voluntary service. Never compulsory.

Everyone should get out and serve in some way. But becaue they want to, not because the government requires them to.

I think everyone needs to take a hard look inside him or herself and decide to what degree they feel comfortable alowing the government to mandate their activities, regardless of whether the cause is good one to help or not. And then they need to figure out how to work with others to draw a very firm, very deep line in the political sand.

*Huh, I wonder how those four new national programs will be funded, being that we are already operating at one of the highest rates of national budget deficit and at the highest state of national debt ever.

---------------------
UPDATE: Apparently, sometime during the night, the change.gov site was revised. They changed the section that I quoted above to remove "require" and instead said this:

Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free.

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

Further, a 2004 estimate by the US Census Bureau puts the number of US college students at 15.9 million. And as for the $4,000 a year tax free for a hundred hours of service, that works out to $40 an hour. How many college students do you know that will turn that down? Let's say two thirds participate (10.3 million). That is going to cost the government $41.2 billion dollars. Or rather, it is going to cost $41.2 billion dollars in new taxes on the public. Before administrative costs, which will be substantial to manage tracking every student participating, verifying they are enrolled, determining who is elligible (full time, 3/4 time, part time?), tracking approved service opportunities, logging and verifying hours "served," ensuring people aren't starting college only to cram in service and then drop out, and so on, and so on. Not cheap.

And all this for what? Rebecca commented that service is a good thing and helping get people out from behind their computers and game consoles is a good cause. I don't disagree.

I disagree that this is the government's job. I disagree that we should allow the government to take this authority to demand service from it's people. They have no authority to do that. And when you open the door by allowing the government to demand certain people do certain things, you open the way for a host of civil rights issues and government abuse. The line must be drawn firmly or eventually the government will start requiring other things of its citizens like that everyone has to serve 100 hours a year or incur a tax penalty. Not a huge leap.

Pressing people into service is not teaching them to contribute. Especially when you are paying them $40 and hour for their "service." All that teaches them is that they should be reimbursed for everything they ever do. We already battle a "what's in it for me" attitude in today's society. How will this affect it?

Service is about serving, not getting. President Kennedy told us to ask what we can do for our country (and by extension, our communities), not what our country can do for us (like paying us to do some community service).

This is a step in the wrong direction.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

First, and very subjective in nature, I find something very satisfying in going out and casting my vote at a polling place. Signing in on the voting registry, filling out the ballot, and dropping it in the box feels substantial. Filling out a form at home, licking an envelope and dropping it in the mailbox, all done with mindfulness that there is a hard deadline for it to be in the mail by feels more like paying a bill than fulfilling a civic duty.

There's the reduction in opportunity for voting fraud as well in that you have to actually show up and sign in. Sure makes dead people voting less likely.

But I also think that there is a "filtering" effect that happens because of opportunity cost. With voter turnout at 64% in 2004, there is certainly a portion of the remaining 36% who just didn't feel that it was worth it and I am willing to wager that with that apathy comes ignorance. They don't really know positions. They don't know records. They don't know what they are voting on other than the 3-8 sentence summary that they gloss over.

Frankly, I am happy when those people don't vote regardless of which way they would have leaned. I wouldn't ever deny anyone their right to vote, but I am sure glad when people who are too apathetic to study out the issues and make an informed decision are also too apathetic to vote. Sending out ballots in the mail negates this and lowers the opportunity cost to those voters in casting their ballot. They get bored with the sitcom they are watching or hear one inflammatory (and almost certainly half-true) statement on some political commercial and impulse vote.

The other side of this is when people of equal ignorance on political, financial, and other pressing issues get swept up in emotion and lose the apathy around activism and voting. Such as this woman, Peggy Joseph.

Disclaimer: this is about her, the voter, not the candidate! I am doing my best to keep politics itself out of this blog. It wouldn't matter if she was at a McCain rally, a Bob Barr rally, or a Cynthia McKinney rally, I'd still use this video as an example.

Ms. Joseph seems to actually believe that if Senator Obama is elected, that she will no longer have to pay her mortgage or pay for the gas in her car. Not only that, she seems to have some real emotions wrapped up in this.

I wonder if our Founding Fathers might have been out of touch with "the people" when they signed the Declaration of Independence and then later when many of them also set up our Federal government. After all, these were people resolved in their cause, committing treason against England, and risking death in participating in setting up a new government. They were passionate about being involved in government, in keeping it in check, and ensuring that the best people were elected and that they were elected based on realistic political promises and outcomes. Did they truly realize how ignorant or apathetic the general populace was? Or if that didn't exist at that point, then how ignorant, apathetic, uninformed, and misinformed the general public would become? Do you think they ever envisioned a Peggy Joseph?

Of course they did, because they set up the Electoral College system. Unfortunately, 48 of the states have set up a winner take all setup so that the winner of the popular vote takes all the electoral votes. Kind of negates the wisdom of an Electoral College in filtering for an ignorant or misinformed general population, doesn't it?

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 did away with the testing that was in place that discriminated based on race or color. And that is a great thing. No person should be discriminated against and denied their right to vote based on race, color, religion, sex, etc.

But people who are utterly misinformed and ignorant to the reality of what Senator Obama or any political candidate would actually be able to do for her shake the sprouting libertarian in me and leave a tiny piece of me wondering if a very basic political knowledge evaluation and delusional thought screening prior to stepping into the election booth wouldn't be a bad idea.

Truthfully, I'd never actually vote for such a measure to be put in place, because I wouldn't trust that the line in the sand could be drawn well enough and without some bias and/or discrimination built into it. But I'm left wondering how the course of history and politics would/could change if the ignorant and apathetic vote was minimized or eliminated.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

A prime example comes out of England with their National Health Service (NHS) that "provides healthcare to all UK permanent residents that is free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation" (Wikipedia on Healthcare in England). One would think that after 60 years of providing the bulk of healthcare for the nation that the NHS would have all the kinks worked out and the system would be running smoothly. That's not what the Telegraph has to say though.

An October 14 article on Telegraph.co.uk reports that many NHS employees have been receiving "physiotherapy" appointments through private insurance paid for by NHS in order to help them "return to work more quickly." Apparently the services offered by NHS aren't quick enough. That should tell you something.

The article doesn't say how slow was too slow for NHS, but to get an idea, let's check with the BBC. In a 2005 article, they note that waiting times were on average 95 days. That's right, over three months to see a specialist. How did they remedy the long wait times? By contracting out to the private sector. Hardly a triumph for socialized medicine.

What about in the states though. We shook off British despite inferior tactics and numbers, surely we can triumph again the health care arena, right?

Well, let's take a look at Massachusetts. Massachusetts has state funded healthcare for those who cannot afford private insurance. In fact, it is state mandated, meaning if you don't have private health care, you are required to get the state healthcare or pay a penalty. Recently the Boston Globe ran an article about health care waiting times with the new health care system in place. Can you guess what things look like?

The article notes doctors working 60 hour work weeks handling increased patient loads. One new practitioner had to stop accepting new patients after only six weeks. Many internists have stopped accepting new patients altogether. And waiting times? The standard wait for a standard appointment with your physician is between 2-4 months.

If England is running anything like that, no wonder NHS is sending their own staff to private physicians.

One wonders though, if even England's NHS admits that socialized medicine takes so long, why is it still being pushed? If private physicians are good enough for NHS, shouldn't they be good enough for the rest of England to use? And if we see that England is having these kinds of problems, why are we pushing that way and being pushed that direction by some prominent political hopefuls?

I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but it seems a shame to address a problem by making it worse.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

I was nice to see I am pretty much on the mark according to Jeffrey Goldberg's article for The Atlantic (nice, in the fact that I feel vindicated in my travel security cynicism, not nice in the fact that airport security really is a sham):

[Bruce Schnei­er, a security expert] and I walked to the security checkpoint. “Counter­terrorism in the airport is a show designed to make people feel better,” he said. “Only two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers.” This assumes, of course, that al-Qaeda will target airplanes for hijacking, or target aviation at all. “We defend against what the terrorists did last week,” Schnei­er said. He believes that the country would be just as safe as it is today if airport security were rolled back to pre-9/11 levels. “Spend the rest of your money on intelligence, investigations, and emergency response.”

Personally, I see it is as a sad statement on society that

1. the government spends so much money putting on a show of security to make people feel better
2. more people don't see that it really doesn't work
3. there isn't a public outcry about the money that could certainly be applied better in other areas and easily be more effective

An often paraphrased statement by Benjamin Franklin goes along the lines of "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither and lose both."

Yeah.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

In our society, we throw around the term "right" rather loosely and I wonder if the term is becoming diluted and misapplied. I know the readership here isn't huge, but I am still working this out for myself and I am interested in what everyone else has to say.

So how do you define it?

Is there a difference between a right and a civil right?

Who grants a right?

Can you have a right to something that costs money?

What disqualifies something as a right (it'd be a right, but for X)?

I'm not going to debate, argue, or counter any comments that are left. I plan on taking in what is said and trying to form my own opinion that I'll post later.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

This isn't your parents' $10 per "A" on your report card type program either. No, the school district will be opening bank accounts for the students to facilitate bi-weekly deposits of their good behavior money. How much money would require that? Well, a good kids can earn up to $100 a month every month for just behaving themselves (good manners), getting good grades, and showing up to class on time and regularly. That's a chunk of change!

Does anyone else get a sick feeling in their stomach about this? It's not necessarily the kids getting money for good grades. That's been around for a while. Parents have been doing that for a long time. Some of New York City's schools did that specifically for Advanced Placement testing with underwhelming results. But that was a privately funded incentive program. And maybe that is where I am a bit hung up on this.

It's sad enough that the schools have to be parents to these kids in motivating them to do well (we'll forget about sex education, discipline, early morning programs, after school programs, and all the other ways the schools sub for parents), but now the taxpayers are having to cough up an extra $2.7 million for it in that school district. I imagine other solutions have been tried, I just find it hard to believe that that is a) the best solution out there and b) will even be effectively in any significant way in the long run.

Maybe I'm wrong, but something doesn't sit right with me about $2.7 million being taken from taxpayers to pay students to do what they should already be doing and what taxpayers are already paying for in the first place.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

The gist of the story is speculation about how well Sarah Palin, being a sitting governor, could possibly be running Alaska since she has only been in Alaska for three of the last 29 days. I won't disagree. The AP raises a good point. Sarah Palin is being paid to be Alaska's top executive and she is instead out on the campaign trail courting another position...and still being paid to be Alaska's governor.

I don't like that. The AP is on the money in asking about this. Of course, Alaska does have a Lt. Governor tht is able to step in and take care of many of the issues that arise while Gov. Palin is on the road, so it isn't like no one is at the helm. But still, she's being paid to do a job that she isn't doing.

I'm left wondering though, why does the Associated Press only chastize Palin? By all means, note and ask questions, criticize if you must, but let's make sure that everyone gets a chance to see if the shoe fits before you only make one person wear it.

You really have to ask why the AP chose to only focus on her, a VP candidate, and not include, I don't know, maybe the presidential candidates? And what the heck, let's be fair and include the other VP candidate as well.

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden are all sitting US Senators. They are being paid to do a job and to represent their constituents as issues and bills are raised in the Senate. Back in July, USA Today did an article that talked about Obama and McCain's voting records. As of that date, Obama had only shown up 12 days in the senate for the entire year as of the date of the article. McCain trails with only 6 showings. The Washington Post tabulates that Obama and McCain have missed 45.9 and 64.1% of their voting opportunities, respectively. Joe Biden isn't far behind at 30.8% of his votes missed.

That is sickening. Sure, the article says that the Senators have staffers who keep an eye on the legislation coming up for votes and inform the Senators so that they can return for issues where their vote could determine the outcome of legislation. And that is good, but they are still getting paid $169,300 a year to apparently only show up for half their votes. And that record of missed votes is only going to increase as the campaigns continue.

I told you this was not about politics...well, not about the politicians or slamming any one candidate. It isn't. It is about the morality in getting paid to do a job that you aren't doing. I can understand getting paid to do a job while you are running for reelection to that very same position. But to get paid to do a job that you largely neglect because of different or higher aspirations is just plain wrong.

I personally think the candidates, if they truly want to show their convictions to good morals and being responsible to those that elect them ought to step up to the plate and resign their current positions in order to run for other offices.

Bob Dole did just that when he ran for the office of President. Some people called it a "stunt" or a grab at attention. Sure, I guess you could see it that way. Other people see it as being responsible. But either way you see it, his constituents weren't denied a senator who was devoted to representing them and not off working on other pursuits.

Attention grabbing or not, responsible or not, I believe that resigning a current elected position when you decide to run elsewhere is the moral thing to do.

Do you?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Broadly and generally speaking, I see the battle against racism as having tiered results. The first and most basic was policies and social rules that dictate tolerance towards those of other races or a curbing of racist behavior. Tolerance has lead to a demand for acceptance or a push to eliminate prejudiced thoughts and beliefs. Acceptance has begotten an expectation of sensitivity to racism or, in other words, you are expected to be on the lookout for racism in all its forms, everywhere you go. And anytime that sensitivity is demanded, hypersensitivity isn't far behind.

Hypersensitivity is often used as a humorous device in entertainment. The first example that jumps to mind is in an episode of the sitcom Seinfeld where Kramer refuses to wear a red ribbon during an AIDS walk and everyone mobs him since you can't actually be against AIDS if you don't wear the ribbon. He's on the AIDS walk, yet instead of seeing a man there supporting the cause by walking, they choose to get offended that he won't wear a red ribbon.

The sad fact is that hypersensitivity like that exists in the real world. Don't believe me?

Prime example: The Colusa County display on their seed producing crops (a $30 million/year source of revenue) that was featured at the California State Fair.

The display contained caricatures of the various seeds of Colusa County. Those seeds included tomato, cucumber, pumpkin, and watermelon seeds. The display was drawn by residents of Colusa County's juvenile hall, Fout Springs Boys Correctional Facility.

Along comes Veronica Thrasher and her husband who immediately took offense at the depiction and called it racist. Or, at least the depiction of the watermelon seed. The drawing of a smiling watermelon seed is obviously racist (ignore the fact that watermelon seeds are actually. . .well. . .black). It didn't matter that the drawings were done in a facility where the population is 40% Hispanic and 40% African American. No, Thrasher objected because it was obvious that if the residents of the facility ". . .had the benefit of a black history class" that showed images depicting African Americans "as a happy black slave eating watermelon," Thrasher said, ". . .they might have drawn Waldo Watermelon Seed a little differently."

So let me see if I understand the reasoning here. First of all, because the seed is black in color, any personification of the seed must consequently be categorized as African American. It can't just be a seed that is smiling? And then, even if we accept the first, no black person can ever be depicted as enjoying watermelon because a couple of black slaves over a hundred years ago enjoyed a watermelon?

Black slaves are often depicted as shirtless. Does that mean that every black guy on the skins side of a shirts and skins basketball game is racist? Black slaves are often shown working in agriculture. Does that mean that every farmer who's black or who employ's black workers is now racist? Maybe they wouldn't go shirtless or work the fields if they had seen an image depicting slaves that way because then they would understand that doing so is racist.

That, or maybe some people are looking a bit too hard for racism. In the picture below, do you see anyone being harmed, threatened, or intimidated? Was someone or some group of people demeaned or insulted in this drawing? Do you see any of that?

Racism is one thing. It does exist and is an offensive thing.

But sometimes a seed is just a seed.

References:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1196475.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414042,00.html

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Up first is a question about abortion that I came across back in March. For the purpose of this post, let's temporarily suspend the argument about whether abortion is right or wrong generally.

The question at hand has to do with what rights a man has when it comes to a decision to abort a baby. The easiest way to explain the issue is with a hypothetical case: John and Jane are sexually active together. She becomes pregnant and the two of them disagree about what to do.

Scenario A
Jane decides she wants to keep the child despite John insisting that she have an abortion. She has the child and then sues John for child support, which he is then obligated to pay. In today's society, this is the current norm for paternity issues, with the father being required to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted her to keep the baby or not. I haven't heard too many objections to this set up. After all, the baby is half his and he should have to shoulder some responsibility whether he likes it or not.

Scenario B
Jane decides she wants to have an abortion. John is adamantly opposed to her aborting the baby and wants to take responsibility for the baby that is half his. Jane simply can go ahead with the abortion despite John's protests.

So, where is the equal, shared responsibility of the father for the child in Scenario B? How is it that in Scenario A, Jane's decision to have the baby trumps John's desire to not have to shoulder parental responsibilities (or at least child support obligations) but when the situation is reversed, she still trumps him?

I believe that it is ethically wrong to have this double standard. Can you honestly agree that Jane can dictate whether John's child lives or dies but John can't dictate whether Jane's child lives or dies? Is the child equally theirs or not?

If the child is equally theirs, then the man should have just as much say in the fate of the pregnancy as the woman. If it is not equally theirs and the woman has more say than the man, then paternal obligation laws need to be reformed to reflect that and hold the man less (or not) financially or otherwise responsible for a child that he didn't want but that the woman refused to abort.

Agree? Disagree? I'd love to hear why.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Barbara is on the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), a state run health care plan. Suffering from lung cancer, Barbara sought treatment from a physician who prescribed a medication that would slow the growth of her cancer and consequently extend her life.

So, like any one of us would do, she wanted to fill her prescription and start taking the medications. And that is what she would have done, except her insurance said no.

OHP came back and said that they weren't willing to pay for her medications.

"We can't cover everything for everyone," Dr. Walter Shaffer, medical director of the state Division of Medical Assistance Programs said. "We try to come up with polices that provide the most good for the most people."

Oregon is the only state that allows physician-assisted suicide. Apparently it is the preferred alternative if the state doesn't feel that your treatment for a terminal illness will be of "enough benefit."

[Dr.] Shaffer then addressed a priority list that had been developed to ration health care. "There's some desire on the part of the framers of this list to not cover treatments that are futile," he said, "or where the potential benefit to the patient is minimal in relation to the expense of providing the care."

Thankfully, the company that makes the drug that Barbara was prescribed has stepped up and is providing it to her at no cost.

I personally think that OHP was flat out of line for indicating that they would pay for the suicide option but not her meds. Right or wrong on their refusal to pay for meds, offering the alternative was just plain wrong. Let her doctor bring up the assisted suicide option.

“To say to someone, we’ll pay for you to die, but not pay for you to live, it’s cruel,” [Barbara] said.

Permalink | Leave a comment  »