Conservative Thought Criminal

Awesome

2010-06-28T15:13:00.000-06:00

I'm working on another post, but this image was awesome enough that I had to post it up here. It pretty much sums up the entire conflict against terrorism:

So awesome.

The Cost of Free Health Care

2010-04-01T15:41:00.001-06:00

***NATIONAL CRISIS ALERT***
There are currently 47 million Americans who can't afford health care insurance! Everybody freak out! Legislate, Congress; for the love of God, legislate!!!

Wait, did I say 47 million? I meant 30 million. Yeah. And that's still a lot.

Did I just say 30 million? I meant . . . well, let's just look at the chart of who's insured by whom in the United States, shall we?

That sure looks to me like 46.3 million uninsured, which is really 47 million if you round up for no apparent reason. But who exactly are these uninsured? Here's a breakdown of just who the 46.3 million are:
9.4 Million: Illegal immigrants.
12.3 Million: People that already qualify for Medicare, but haven't signed up.
11.4 Million: People who can afford coverage and have no pre-existing conditions to exempt them.
13.2 Million: People who can't afford coverage or have exempting pre-existing conditions, but make too much money for Medicare.

OK, so how many should we count in our impending crisis which needs landmark, historic legislation? Illegals are out (they get care for "free" at the ER, anyway). The Medicare qualifiers are out, too, since they already could have coverage (no need for new legislation there). The 11.4 million that could have insurance but don't also don't need helping-hand legislation (though we can still legislate them; more on that later).

Who are we left with? The 13.2 million people who can't get coverage. I'll readily admit that's a problem (along with other facets of America's health care insurance advent), but I'm not here to talk about the problem (maybe a later blog will cover that). Since it has now all been "taken care of," I'm here to talk about the solution. Namely, the health care legislation so recently passed by Congress and signed by Obama known as:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
What a great name! After all, who doesn't want to protect patients and promote affordable care? Only baby-hating, fat-cat loving Conservatives, that's who! They'd rather help fund a rise in Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool than prevent the death of a child.

Typical Conservative Voter

Enter PPACA, the saviour of the uninsured and the promoter of health care for all! No more sick babies, no more people dying in the streets from the common cold, no more making money on the backs of the working proletariat while the insurance big wigs get rich and swim in big pools of gold doubloons!

Let's get down to some of the specifics of how the actual law will work. Here are some of the fun little gems hidden away in the 2500+ pages of legal gobbledygook (a big thank you to Michael Bertaut for slogging through it all; though, to be fair, it is his job for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana):

1. It raises the wage cut off for Medicare.

2. Insurance companies must now accept anyone and everyone.

3. Insurance companies must not medically underwrite (at least, not in a way that would matter).

4. No pre-existing conditions!

5. No more than a 3x price increase for age.

6. No price variance based on gender.

7. No excessive profits (goodbye, doubloon vat!).

8. No excessive rate increases.

9. All insurance companies must adhere to the Federally Qualified Health Benefit Plan standard (with that many words in the name, it's gotta be good; and it's federal to boot!).

10. No negotiated rates for the ER.

11. Insurance companies must use the new Exchange Marketplace to sell insurance (added bonus: it's run by the government, makers of Madicare and Socialist Security).

The best thing about all of this is, it's a Federal law. You know, because those pesky States can never get Socialism right.

Let's go over these one by one and see just how great this will be for the poor uninsured.

1. It raises the wage cut off for Medicare.

By raising the cut off wage for Medicare eligibility, this takes care of the 13.2 million people who can't get coverage now. Let's not consider the fact that Medicare is on track to go bankrupt by 2017. After all, if an entitlement program is going bankrupt, you ought to be able to afford 13.2 million more payouts, right?

2. Insurance companies must now accept anyone and everyone.

You are now guaranteed to be accepted for insurance; because, you know, there are no good reasons to preclude anyone from anything. Oh, and it's totally Constitutional to force a private enterprise, like and insurance company, to enter into a binding contract, like an insurance policy, with anyone and everyone. What could go wrong? Insurance companies probably just deny people because of their gender or race, anyway.

3. Insurance companies must not medically underwrite.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to price based on an individual's risk. No more underwriting! Well, they can still underwrite; they just can't use the information for anything relating to price or payouts. Anyone want to bet they'll now charge the lowest previously offered rates to everyone? Even if they do decide to make the blanket cost higher, though, good ol' Big Brother will be there to put the stops on any obscene profits, so we know we're protected. More on that in #7.

4. No pre-existing conditions!

See the last point.

5. No more than a 3x price increase for age.

Because someone who's nearing the end of their life would never use more than 3x the insurance of someone who's 19 and in perfect health.

6. No price variance based on gender.

Classically, insurance providers have charged women higher average premiums based on the archane belief that the female reproductive system requires more care, and the equally ridiculous belief that men are not able to have babies. So, guess what, guys? You guessed it, you now get to pay insurance as though you were capable of having a baby; or at least as though you required as many wellness visits to the OBGYN as women do.

7. No excessive profits.

Why should a business be allowed to make a profit? Well, maybe a little profit; but not too much. Don't worry. Uncle Sam is on the beat, and he's cracking down on people having money.

There are three basic parts to this portion. First, insurance companies will be mandated to pay 80% of their premiums on health care expense, and no more than 20% on overhead. If you're a Large Group provider, you can pay no more than 15% on overhead (you know, because large groups don't need overhead as much). Apparently employing people (i.e., overhead) is wrong. Any company spending less than 80% on health coverage will be forced to refund the remainder to their policyholders.

Second, no employee of a health insurance company may make more than $500,000. From now on, CEOs will be hired the right way; for their big ol' hearts instead of for their competence. We can all agree that no one ought to make more than $500,000 a year anyway. Except actors. And athletes. And maybe lobbyists, CEOs of other businesses, producers- let's just say we can all agree that health insurance CEOs don't need to make more than $500,000. You know, for the children's sake.

And finally, just in case there's still some room for a profit in there, our friends in Congress and the White House have mandated an $8 billion annual tax for the health insurance industry. Each health insurance company pays a percentage of the tax based on their percentage of market share; so if you have 10% market share, you get to pay $800 million a year to the Federal government for the privilege of being a health insurance provider in America. In 2014. It gets better; by 2017 it goes up to $14 billion. Funny that the health insurance industry only made $6.8 billion in profits in 2008, but still this ought to be a piece of cake for them.

8. No excessive rate increases.

What's the exact definition of "excessive?" I don't know, and neither does anyone else right now. But I'm sure that whatever definition Congress comes up with will be just fine.

9. All insurance companies must adhere to the Federally Qualified Health Benefit Plan standard.

This does a couple of great things. First, it takes control of what qualifies as a Health Insurance Plan out of the hands of those evil, greedy States and places it in the hands of the benevolent, philanthropic Federal government. Because that doesn't violate the 10th Amendment at all.

Second, it raises the minimum coverage bar for all insurance plans (you know, since they'll have so much extra money from the previously noted provisions). It's estimated that 20-25% of Americans will be forced- excuse me, will have the pleasure of purchasing policies with more extensive coverage than what they have now. I'm sure that'll come at no extra cost.

10. No negotiated rates for the ER.

Insurance companies often pay a different amount than the bill the ER gives them. This is because they negotiate the bill down with the hospital. Unfortunately, if the hospital refuses to agree to the lower rate (a rarity, but it still happens), the patient is stuck with the overage.

Solution? Force the insurance companies to pay whatever the ER charges. No recipe for corruption there.

11. Insurance companies must use the new Exchange Marketplace to sell insurance.

Right now, insurance companies overwhelmingly use individual and group brokers to sell their policies. They cite something silly about "money savings," or "cost effectiveness" for why they do it (capitalist double-speak for "making money by selling children into slavery").

This nifty little regulation does away with that. Insurance companies will have to work directly with the new Exchange Marketplace, which means they will have to internally hire a whole new department of sales and policy management professionals to be in compliance. Careful not to exceed that 15-20% overhead, guys!

Repercussions

So, to sum up, insurance companies will now have to take everyone who comes to them to purchase insurance, not charge based on any health indicator imaginable, not exceed 20% (15% for large group) overhead while adding more infrastructure, spend at least 80% of their premiums on direct health care, and come up with more than their 2008 profits to pay a shiny, new government tax.

I don't see how premiums will go up at all; thanks, government! Plus, it'll be super easy for insurance companies to stay solvent with all those new regulations.

Does anyone else see this as a recipe for the insurance companies to "fail," so that the big, nice government can swoop in and save us via single payer (i.e., government run, universal health care; like they have in Cuba)?

I must be paranoid. After all, President Obama never said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. [. . .] A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately." No. Never.

"But wait, Skipper," you say, "those evil insurance companies will get a mandated extra 11.4 million customers, so they'll be fine to pay the taxes that will help keep Medicare solvent." Silly socialist. How did you find your way onto my blog? There's a forum post going unwritten at MoveOn.org as we speak.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention to anything other than the latest Twilight movie, let me tell you something scarier than this picture:

Now high school sucks blood instead of just sucking.

If this law stands, you will be forced to purchase health insurance or be fined by the government. The IRS is, as we speak, hiring 16,500 new employees to enforce this measure. I can't believe I just wrote that as a fact in the USA, but I'll try to move on and save that tirade for another day.

So, back to the socialist's point. Remember all those people who can afford health insurance but don't purchase it? Won't the insurance companies (sorry, evil insurance companies) pick up an extra 11.4 million customers off of this deal? That, surely, will cover the lowered profits, additional infrastructure and oversight, and the new tax burden.

Not so fast. Let's assume all 11.4 million purchase insurance at the going rate for a basic FQHBP coverage policy (see point #9 above). The average cost for a private plan conforming to FQHBP standards is in the neighborhood of $5,500 a year. This would net the health care carriers an additional $62.7 billion ($5,500 x 11.4 million) a year in premiums.

Classically, health insurance providers have a profit margin of 1.5-4%. Let's assume they would maintain the highest level profit margin of 4% for each of these new, 11.4 million customers. That's $2.5 billion profit. Add that to the $6.8 billion in profits from normal business (assuming, of course, they have no drop in profits), and you have $9.3 billion; more than enough to cover the fun new tax. That's right, as long as each and every person in that pool of 11.4 million purchases insurance, the profit margin on premiums is 4%, and the new regulations don't cut into insurance companies' existing profits (even though the new regulations are designed to cut down existing profits), the insurance companies will be able to cover the new tax in 2014. Not in 2017, mind, but I'm sure it'll be fine by then.

So, what happens if people decide not to purchase the $5,500 insurance plans? Well, those naughty citizens get a big, fat fine. $750 a year, or 2.5% of their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (so, they would have to make $220,000 a year to hit a $5,500 fine).

Let's hear that again: if people don't purchase a $5,500 annual premium, they'll have to pay $750. That'll teach 'em! I'm sure all 11.4 million will be begging for a $5,500 insurance plan once they see that $750 fine . . .

It gets better. Remember that part about insurance companies having to take all comers and not being able to deny pre-existing conditions? Here's how that plays out in the real world. Let's say you're one of the 11.4 million who will have to pay for private health insurance or be fined by the Federal government, and you decide to pay the fine instead of getting health insurance. But then you get sick, or break your arm, or something to that effect. Looks like you gambled and lost, right? Wrong.

Since insurers will no longer be able to deny policies to anyone, you can simply purchase insurance after you get sick or hurt. They can't say no, nor can they preclude your infirmity as an exempted, pre-existing condition. So you purchase health insurance when you need it, use it, and cancel your policy when you're done using the services. This is already happening in Massachusetts, which has a similarly formed State mandate for health care.

Follow the logic, here, and tell me where this leads. The only thing I can see at the end is a government takeover of the health care industry. Oh, that and intrusion on a never before seen scale on American soil since the British empire.

Am I just paranoid? Are any of you OK with the Federal government making health insurance a basic human right, running the health insurance companies through legal mandate, forcing private citizens into business contracts with "private" companies with threats of fines and possible jail time (if you don't pay the fine), and legislating overarching standards not enumerated in Article I, Section 8 across all 50 States?

I do not believe that this is the change people voted for. Does health care need to be overhauled? I think so. But this is not the way things are done in a free society. This is not in holding with the principles of freedom, liberty, and individual sovereignty upon which our Republic was founded.

If this is being done in our society, and this is obviously not how things are done in a free society; just what kind of society are we headed for?

2010 Census: What is Your Obligation?

2010-03-18T12:13:00.000-06:00

There has been a lot of talk and controversy covering the 2010 US Census. What are we obligated to answer? Are we obligated to answer? What happens if we don't? Is it too intrusive?

Never fear; I'm here to help. I'm here to help provide information, that is. Whatever you do with this information you do at your own risk. If you decide to decline to answer any of the questions on the 2010 US Census or American Community Survey, any fines or penalties you incur are strictly yours; don't come crying to me. You're a grown-up, so make up your own mind on what to do.

With that little disclaimer out of the way, let's explore what, exactly, the Census is and why we do it. Dust off your Constitution (you may have to fight it out of the hands of a Liberal who's about to set it on fire) and turn with me to Article 1, Section 2. Specifically:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they [US House of Representatives] shall by Law direct. [Emphasis mine.]

The bolded statement is the meat an' taters of the Census. It's purpose is the enumeration (fancy-pants for "counting") of the Persons in the Union in order to levy direct taxes and determine the number of Representatives for the House.

So, to answer the questions as to whether or not we're obligated to participate in the Census: yes. The US House of Representatives has a Constitutional mandate to conduct an enumeration, for the purpose of apportioning direct taxes and representatives, every ten years in whatever manner they write into law. Currently, they have elected to use a mailer and/or canvassers (basically, people going door to door). Should you decide not to fill out your 2010 Census form or to tell the canvasser to take a hike, you're in violation of the US Constitution.

This doesn't take into account, however, the questions being asked on the Census. Per the Constitution, the purpose of the Census is enumeration of the People. Nowhere does the Constitution say that there is a mandate to collect your name, age, race, sex, phone number (duh), type of home, or anything else. Number of people. Period.

The Census Bureau, though, has made it quite clear that people failing to answer the questions on the Census (or the extremely intrusive American Community Survey, which asks questions about wages, fertility, ancestry, what time you leave for work, and many more) can face up to $5,000 in fines. For serious. We'll explore the fine aspect in a minute; let's get to the actual questions first.

For 2010, there are ten questions that we're all asked to fill out (though a lucky 3,000,000 will get the American Community Survey). The following are the questions (in bold), followed by the reasoning for the questions (in italics) given by the Census Bureau, followed by my response to their reasoning (in plain text). Enjoy!

Question 1: How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?
We ask this question to help get an accurate count of the number of people in the household on Census Day, April 1, 2010.
Sounds fine to me. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution mandates this.

Question 2: Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?
Asked since 1880. We ask this question to help identify people who may have been excluded in the count provided in Question 1. We use the information to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.
Sounds reasonable to get an accurate count, though a bit redundant. Oh, and I don't care how long it's been asked for. What does that have to do with anything?

Question 3: Is this house, apartment, or mobile home: owned with mortgage, owned without mortgage, rented, occupied without rent?
Asked since 1890. Homeownership rates serve as an indicator of the nation's economy. The data are also used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions.
None of your business since 1890.

Question 4: What is your telephone number?
We ask for a phone number in case we need to contact a respondent when a form is returned with incomplete or missing information.
I can see asking this, but I can't see having to provide an answer. If my form is complete, there's no need to have anyone contact me.

Question 5: Please provide information for each person living here. Start with a person here who owns or rents this house, apartment, or mobile home. If the owner or renter lives somewhere else, start with any adult living here. This will be Person 1. What is Person 1's name?
Listing the name of each person in the household helps the respondent to include all members, particularly in large households where a respondent may forget who was counted and who was not. Also, names are needed if additional information about an individual must be obtained to complete the census form. Federal law protects the confidentiality of personal information, including names.
Really? That's the best reason you could come up with for this question? Sorry if that cockamamie farce of a reason set off my BS meter like nothing else. Do they think we're so stupid that we can't count the people in our own home without listing names, or that we're so stupid that we'll buy this reason for asking an unconstitutional question during an enumeration? I'll go with the former, though I know it's the latter. Since I can actually count the number of people in my household without having to reference their names, and I'll provide complete information on each (which, Constitutionally, is limited to how many people there are), then I don't need to answer this question. I think I can count to two, thank you very much.

Question 6: What is Person 1's sex?
Asked since 1790. Census data about sex are important because many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing and evaluating their programs. For instance, laws promoting equal employment opportunity for women require census data on sex. Also, sociologists, economists, and other researchers who analyze social and economic trends use the data.
So, in 1790 they asked this unconstitutional question to discriminate against women. Now they ask it to discriminate against men. Pass. Oh, and I don't see where I have a Constitutional duty (nor where the House has a Constitutional mandate) to help out sociologists, economists, and other researchers.

Question 7: What is Person 1's age and Date of Birth?
Asked since 1800. Federal, state, and local governments need data about age to interpret most social and economic characteristics, such as forecasting the number of people eligible for Social Security or Medicare benefits. The data are widely used in planning and evaluating government programs and policies that provide funds or services for children, working-age adults, women of childbearing age, or the older population.
I can maybe see providing my age, but date of birth? How does my specific date of birth change anything? As far as Social Security is concerned, I think that the Social Security Administration has all the information they need on me already. But it has been asked since 1800, so maybe I ought to answer it. After all, if something's been around long enough it's just gotta be Constitutional!

Question 8: Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?
Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.
So, no other ethnicities are covered under the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act? Also, how on Earth does this help to enforce those Acts? It's nice that they think everyone of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin can't speak English, too. That's not insulting to an entire group of Americans at all, I'm sure. I see no reason to answer this question as it is completely useless and irrelevant; especially as it applies to enumeration.

Question 9: What is Person 1's race?
Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.
Wait a minute, this is used to determine congressional, state, and local voting districts? There are so many things wrong with that statement that it makes my head spin. Since I don't believe in the concept of races (and this little known science called Biology backs me up), I see no reason to answer this question.

Question 10: Does Person 1 sometimes live or stay somewhere else?
This is another question we ask in order to ensure response accuracy and completeness and to contact respondents whose forms have incomplete or missing information.
I could see the use for this question, as we don't want anyone being counted twice if they live in more than one place.

So, to sum it all up, I can see the usefulness of questions 1, 2, 10, and arguably 4 for the purpose set forth in the Constitution. The rest are pure bunk; and do let's not even start on the American Community Survey. How a woman's fertility relates to enumeration can only be thought up by the Federal government.

So, what's with the threat of a $5,000 fine if you don't answer? Well, let's explore.

The US Census is governed under Title 13 of the US Code. Penalties are found in Section 221, which reads:
Sec. 221. Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.

Pretty clear, right? Wait, I don't see anything in there about a $5,000 fine. And, come to think of it, there's a bit of caveats in there, too. It seems that these penalties are only in effect should the questions be in connexion with subchapters I, II, IV, or V of chapter 5 in Title 13. OK, so what do those say?

Subchapter I deals with Manufactures, Mineral Industries, and Other Business. So, no relevance there to private citizens and the 2010 Census or American Community Survey. Subchapter IV mainly deals with the Secretary of Commerce's duties and how the information obtained is to be reported and used. Subchapters II and V may have some relevancy to the rest of us.

Subchapter II, §141, states (among other things):

(a) The Secretary shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year, which date shall be known as the “decennial census date”, in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.

(b) The tabulation of total population by States under subsection (a) of this section as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States.

(g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

Part (a) basically states that, starting in 1980, the decennial census of population will take place every ten years on April 1st, and that the Secretary can ask pretty much whatever he wants towards that end. (b) defines the purpose of (a) as "required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States," and says the information needs to get to the President within 9 months. (g) states that census, basically, means whatever they want it to mean.

On to Subchapter V, §193 (then we'll start 'splainin):

In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census provided for by this chapter, the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.

This is basically stating that the Secretary can survey for any topic the Census is being used for. Perusing Title 13, there are quite a few Census topics that can be used, so this would pertain to whatever was being ascertained (e.g., a survey on how much gold was mined in a year should the census be on mineral industries). The purpose of this section, though, is really to allow the Secretary to use sample populations as opposed to actual populations for any census matter not pertaining to apportionment of direct taxes or House representatives, so it really doesn't apply here.

To sum the above up, you can be fined up to $100 for failure to answer, or up to $500 for lying on, any question posed by the Secretary of Commerce in a census. However, the purpose of the 2010 (and all decennial) Census is for enumeration. Therefore, there's a good argument that you can only be fined up to $100 for not answering the population questions (Questions 1, 2, and 10), and up to $500 for lying about said questions.

As far as any other census on any other subject, I fail to find anything in the Constitution that states we must participate. It could be argued that the entirety of Title 13, other than as it relates to enumeration for the purpose of direct taxes and House representatives, is unconstitutional; especially the portion on fines. Now, I can see how the Secretary of Commerce could be vested with the power to ask the questions; but not how that corresponds to a duty on the part of the citizenry to answer them.

So, again, where do they get the $5,000 figure from? Some have suggested that, since there are ten questions and you can be fined up to $500 for lying, the figure is for lying on all ten questions. This is incorrect. According to the Census Bureau, US Code Title 18, Sections 3571 and 3559 supersede Title 13, Section 221. Holy crap, another rabbit trail.

OK, so what is the specific text relating to a $5,000 fine? That's in Title 18, Section 3571, which states:

(b) Fines for Individuals.— Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—
(7) for an infraction, not more than $5,000.

Let's now see two things begged by this section: what is an "infraction" (as defined for this particular section), and what does subsection (e) state? To answer the second question first:

(e) Special Rule for Lower Fine Specified in Substantive Provision.— If a law setting forth an offense specifies no fine or a fine that is lower than the fine otherwise applicable under this section and such law, by specific reference, exempts the offense from the applicability of the fine otherwise applicable under this section, the defendant may not be fined more than the amount specified in the law setting forth the offense.

So, basically, you cannot be fined the $5,000 if a law specifically states a fine that ought to be levied in the case of said law being violated, and that fine is less than $5,000. Oh, wait; it also says that the law must specifically exempt the offense from the fine in this section. So, even though Title 13, Section 221 specifically states how much you can be fined, it doesn't explicitly state that it applies over and above Title 18, Section 3571. Great; so it's worthless.

This still doesn't answer the question as to whether or not failing to answer (or lying on) a Census question counts as an "infraction," thus leaving it open to the penalties in Title 18, Section 3571. For that, we go to Section 3559 of Title 18, which defines an infraction as:

(a) Classification.— An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—

(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

All right, so something is an infraction if it carries no jail time (which is true, so far, for the Census) and it is not assigned a letter grade in that section. The letter grades it references are for misdemeanors and felonies.

Thus, since it's neither a misdemeanor nor a felony to lie or fail to answer Census questions, it's an infraction. Infractions, per Title 18, carry a maximum fine of $5,000. And, since Title 13, Section 221, doesn't specifically state that Title 18, Section 3571 doesn't apply, you theoretically could be fined up to $5,000 for non-compliance with the 2010 Census and/or the 2010 American Community Survey. Pretty slick; and equally slimy.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that these fines, if levied for non-compliance with all but the enumeration questions, are beyond the Constitutional scope of the Federal government. It seems the Census Bureau thinks this, too, as they have very seldom enforced their measures with the threatened fines (I actually could find no cases in which a person was fined for failure to answer a question; though I wouldn't doubt that some cases exist). So, not to worry. No one will come after you if you only answer the questions mandated by the Constitution, right?

Right?

I don't know that I would put money on it (which would be literal, in this case). Consider these fun facts: the government is broke, they are threatening fines for the Census that have never been threatened before (classically, they have only threatened the $100 and $500 fines), and revenue collected wouldn't technically be a tax hike. If ever there was a better recipe for extorting information out of people, I don't know what it is.

To be fair, the Census Bureau has only threatened the $5,000 fine for those who fail to fill out the American Community Survey, and the $100-500 fines for those failing to fill out the 2010 Census. But, to be even more fair, they have no Constitutional right to any information beyond a simple head count!!

So, what to do? I know that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that, "Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [such as the Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen." I suppose that one could stand upon this as grounds for a refusal to answer questions, were one so inclined.

The Census Bureau does address the issue of Constitutionality, albeit rather clumsily. They quote a few Supreme Court cases that really have nothing to do with the issue (the case I quoted was Kilbourn v. Thompson, a case investigating the reach of the House of Representatives in questioning citizens), such as an opinion draughted by a District Court judge in a legal tender case (the opinion was not the holding in that case, to my understanding), and the second and third cases they use, though relevant to the Census, had to do with using statistical sampling rather than an actual head count.

So, what's the point? The government already knows my name, address, phone number, social security number, and a lot of other stuff (they probably have more information on my wife and me than I do). Who cares? Why risk a big, fat fine for essentially nothing?

And that's how it happens. Why risk a lot to gain a little? After all, it's only slightly unconstitutional; and that thing was written so long ago, anyway. What's the harm in it?

Two things: the first theoretical, the second fiercely pragmatic. First, a stand ought to be taken on every right for every person in this Union. We are supposed to be born free, and the Constitution was written not as a limit on the People's freedoms, but a limit on the Federal government's abilities. In other words, the Constitution is a "hands off" document from the Founders (on our behalf) to the Federal government. When they start ignoring it in the small things, what's next?

Second: the pragmatism. In World War II, in one of the lowest moral moments in our country's history apart from slavery, the Federal government rounded up and interred some 110,000 persons of Japanese descent. According to a good deal of evidence collected well after the fact, the US Census Bureau played a key role in helping the War Department find and round up said persons of Japanese descent. Don't believe it (it seems a good deal of liberal bloggers don't)? Kenneth Prewitt, then head of the US Census Bureau, said in 2000, "the historical record is clear that senior Census Bureau staff proactively cooperated with the internment, and that census tabulations were directly implicated in the denial of civil rights to citizens of the United Sates who happened to also be of Japanese ancestry."

But at least they said they're sorry and they promise not to ever abuse our private, personal, biographical information ever again. And besides, that was a long time ago (this is seriously the argument I hear most as to why it's ridiculous to think something like this can happen again).

Forgive me if I'm not overly impressed when the Federal government promises not to use unconstitutionally obtained information in unconstitutional ways, like they did in the past.

Health Care and the DMV

2010-03-15T14:39:00.001-06:00

I just got back from a quintessential DMV experience (which is not yet over), and I was going to pen a tirade against the abuses inherent to government controlled industries. Things like lamenting the fact that you can't go to the competition, that the employees are hired based on criteria other than competence, hours not conducive to working people's schedules, etc.

But it got me to thinking: what if the government really did run health care? Instead of writing on my DMV experience as it happened, then, I am going to relay to you my experience through the lens of government run health care. Same scenario, different details.

My Recent Experience with the DMV, as Portrayed by Government Health Care

It all started with a tickle in the back of my throat. I knew I was getting sick, but decided to see if it went away after a couple of days. It didn't. I knew what that meant: a trip to the doctor's office. This would not be pleasant.

My doctor is only open from 8-5 Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and 9-5 Tuesday and Thursday (with every other Friday off, and all major and minor holidays). I don't have a general practitioner; I have to see whoever's available when my number is called.

I tried to call in to schedule an appointment, but I couldn't get passed the automated system to a real person. I was able to leave a message, though; the system said someone would get back to me within 48 business hours. No big deal; it's not really an appointment you can schedule, but simply access to a faster line. Since I was feeling pretty poor at this point, I just decided to call in sick in the morning and head in to my local health care centre (mine is the State Urban Care: Kennedy Building).

When I got to the SUCK Building, I parked my car about 300 yards from the entrance and trudged through the snow to the lobby. Unfortunately, there was a line out the door for quite a ways (it was the 1st of the month, so everyone's monthly service allotment had renewed which made it very busy) which required an additional 20 minutes in the elements. Needless to say it didn't help my cold, but I knew I would see a doctor soon so I let that pass.

I entered the lobby (finally!) and walked up to the greeter to get a number. He asked what I was there for, and I explained my symptoms. After he entered those into the computer (I watched; he really only entered in the first symptom I gave, but I wasn't about to complain), a number was generated to direct me to the proper department in the order I arrived. I then sat and watched the state news on closed caption (the TV was muted) for the next hour and a half. At least it keeps your mind off of the hacking, wheezing, crying, and bleeding going on around you.

My number came up on the big screen and I hurried to room number 35. After presenting my paperwork to the doctor (actually, Clinical Research and Aid Practitioner; no one gets MDs anymore because the pay doesn't cover their schooling expenses), she decided everything was in order and went over my symptoms. Per the Western Treatment Federation guidelines (all CRAP employees must adhere to WTF guidelines), she garnered a prescription and wrote it on my official health form for that month. She accidentally filled it in on the wrong spot, so she crossed it out and filled in the proper section. I wasn't worried about it because they would issue me a new sheet at the Department of Health and Vaccination once I had my prescription filled.

Next stop: the DHV! Lucky for me it's also located in the SUCK Building, so I didn't have to drive across town or anything. It was a simple process of waiting in line outside in the snow on the other side of the building for another 20 minutes, showing my paperwork to the greeter over there, and watching the silent news for another hour and a half.

My number was called and I went to the Medical Officer of Rehabilitation Oriented Nutrition at window 13 ("drugs" is now considered an offensive word, so pharmacists are said to deal in "rehabilitation oriented nutrition"). This particular MORON had two signs on their desk, one that read, "Do I look like I care how your day is going?" with a wet cat, and another that said "Customer Service: Take a Number" with a picture of a grenade that had a number attached to the pin. Our conversation was frequently interrupted by my MORON talking with other MORONs as they passed by. He advised me that, since I had an entry filled out in the "For Senators, Overseers, and Bureaucrats Only" section, I would have to have the CRAP employee apply for a new prescription sheet and then refill it out. I tried to protest that I'm obviously not an SOB, so that section was clearly filled out in error, but to no avail. MORONs generally don't listen to reason.

I went to the other side of the SUCK Building, but my CRAP employee was gone for the day. I had to come back in two days, they told me. I trudged back to my car and headed to the store to stock up on tissues and comfort food for the next couple of days; I could tell that my cold had settled in to stay, so I might as well be equipped for the wait.

Two days later and I felt like I'd been hit by a truck. I was really excited to get back to the SUCK Building and have my paperwork put in order as I now badly needed my antibiotics. After the same parking, trudging, and waiting antics, I got to see the original CRAP employee who kindly and quickly filled out a form granting permission for me to get a new health sheet, so I went over to the other side of the building, waited for a bit longer, and sat down at the desk of a new MORON who looked it over.

"Everything looks in order," he said, "but we're not giving out new health sheets today."

"What? Why not?" I was more than a bit surprised.

"Well," he explained, "today is a furlough day. No State paperwork can be issued today because the State offices have Friday off."

"Why are you here, then?" I protested.

"We're county employees, so we still come in on State furlough days." His face showed no sign of humour. I stared stupidly for a moment with a gaping mouth. "Is there anything else I can do for you?"

I thought of telling him he could fill my prescription, but knew it was a waste of breath. I decided I'd have to come back next week. On the way back to my car, I got an automated call from the DHV telling me that I had now been scheduled for an appointment two days ago. By Monday, I started feeling better so I decided I'd skip the whole free health care my taxes were paying for and just go to work instead. As I fought traffic down the dilapidated Obama Expressway (which hadn't seen any tax money for repairs in five years), I thought about how much I missed being able to just pay my copay and get care in return, but I also thanked God I didn't break my leg or have a serious ailment. Getting off at the Castro Court exit, I decided if I got sick again I'd just deal with it on my own.

Education: I Fixed It

2010-03-11T14:53:00.005-07:00

We spend about $528.7 billion a year on public education. That number doesn't really mean anything to you? OK, try this: the base defense budget for the United States is $533.8 billion.

Still nothing? How about this: what if we funded public education with corporate donations? Sounds like a good idea, right? It would be pretty cool, after all, to attend Google High or Exxon Elementary. Well, it would take the entire annual profits of the following companies to come close to covering the annual bill for our children's public education: Exxon/Mobil, Total, Shell, WalMart, BP, Chevron, Sinopec, Japan Post Holdings, GE, China National Petroleum, Volkswagen, ENI, HSBC Holdings, Gazprom, Daimler, BNP Paribas, AT&T, Hewlett Packard, Bank of America, Samsung, Nestle, JP Morgan Chase, Honda, Verizon, BASF, Proctor & Gamble, UnitedHealth, Nokia, Home Depot, Target, Johnson & Johnson, Mitsubishi, Dell, Boeing, Microsoft, MetLife, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, UPS, Caterpillar, Pfizer, Lowe's, PepsiCo, Kraft, Lockheed Martin, Canon, Cisco Systems, POSCO, FedEx, Disney, Intel, Sysco, Royal Bank of Canada, GMAC, Comcast, News Corp, Apple, Zurich Financial, Coca Cola, Amex, DuPont, Aetna, BAE Systems, Liberty Mutual, Phillip Morris, L'Oreal, 3M, Occidental, Merck, US Steel, McDonalds, Oracle, Telstra, British American Tobacco, and Google. Oh, and it would still come up about $4 billion short (we could just borrow the remainder from China).

I didn't get to the scary part, yet. This may not be the total cost of education. According to some (like this guy), the actual cost per student may be significantly higher due to expenses and funding not counted in the total $528.7 billion. One of the main reasons for this is that the total figure doesn't include local bond measures, among other things, which can add up to some significance.

Now that I have your attention, let's get a little nitty and really gritty. Let's talk about teachers.

I'm not going to hem and haw over the whole tenure aspect of unionised teachers, though a bit could be said about that. I will briefly touch on quality of education, but my main focus will be cost (quality does relate to cost, which is why I'll light on it). Unless, of course, all of those Fortune 500 companies would like to forego their profits in the name of American public education.

So far as quality of education is concerned, there are no hard and fast rules as to what constitutes proper learning. Ask ten different people, and chances are you'll get at least twelve different answers. One thing is clear, though; children are not ill-serviced by attending private, charter, Catholic, or home schools in lieu of public schools (not exactly a news flash, here). In fact, some studies show that the average home schooled child performs one grade level above their public schooled counterpart. But, for purposes of this treatise, we'll assume equal levels of scholastic achievement may be obtained from private, public, home, Catholic, Lutheran, or otherwise schools.

On to teachers; specifically, teachers' pay. I know this is a touchy subject for a lot of people. We've been told for decades that teachers are overworked and underpaid. The question is: are they? I believe the best measure of a teacher's pay is their realised hourly compensation rather than their annual salary. Why would I do such a thing? I'm glad you asked.

The average worker has 52 weekends off a year, 11 holidays, and 3 weeks vacation (though many, myself included, fall well below this amount of time off). That leaves 235 days per year being actually worked. The average teacher, by contrast, works a paltry 185 days per year; basically, 2 1/2 months less. Now, if I compare a teacher making $40k a year to an architect making $45k, it looks like the teacher gets compensated far less for their time. But, when you consider that the architect works 64% of the year and the teacher only 51%, it's not so clear (if the teacher worked comparable hours at the same hourly pay, they would make $50k a year). Therefore, I use hourly wages as it adequately reflects compensation for actual time worked.

So, how much is the average public school teacher paid per hour? The average workweek for a teacher is 36.5 hours, with about 37 weeks in the year being worked. That equates to 1,350.5 hours worked. The average teacher's salary is $49,140 (though some make up to $80,970). This equates to about $36.39 per hour. By contrast, the average pay for a chemist is about $46,590. If that chemist works the typical 40 hour work week, 235 work days per year (if they're lucky enough to get 11 holidays and 3 weeks vacation), they make $24.78 per hour. That figure goes down by about a dollar an hour if the chemist only gets 2 weeks vacation and closer to 6 holidays, like the rest of us schleps.

OK, here's the kicker. Remember how I said earlier that there's no improvement in the quality of education for public schooled kids over private? Private school teachers make, on average, 61% of the wage of their public counterparts. That's $22.20 per hour, closer to the chemist's pay (about $30k a year, for those interested; but they still get all the days off). Think about that for a minute: 61% less pay, equal results. Arguably better results, but we'll let that slide for now.

But wait, there's more! If you act now, you can not only spend taxpayer dollars on excessive teacher pay, but you get a classically bloated government bureaucracy free! Just kidding. It's not free.

The cost to educate a student in the K-12 public schools is, per student per year, about $10,889. Now remember, this figure doesn't include local bond measures or the like, so the number may very well be a bit north of $10,889, but this is what we'll use as our baseline for public education. By contrast, the average private school costs $6,600 per student per year, the average charter school $6,585, the average Catholic school $4,254, and the average home school somewhere between $100-1,000 (generally on the lower side). Amazing what a little government bloat can do for you, eh?

These averages don't tell the whole story, though. There are a great many private schools that cater to the affluent, skewing the average cost a bit higher than a valid comparison might merit. Some of the more prestigious prep schools (you know, the ones our politicians send their children to) can cost upwards of $30,000 per student per year. That being said, there are a great many private schools out there that offer comparable or better education than public schools for a paltry $4,000 per student per year (many are actually at or under $3,000).

Now, if I had my druthers I would pull a C3PO and have all public school tax funding shut down.

Shut them all down!

But this isn't currently feasible as it would have to come along with a huge tax reform to the current, Draconian system (basically, parents would net a greater gain from their tax money now kept in their pockets than the loss from having to pay for schooling out of pocket). Since that's a long way off, we need to do the next best thing: vouchers. Shut down public education entirely and instead issue vouchers to the school of the parent's choice.

Let's do some basic math. If our current expenditure per student is $10,889, and a comparable private education can be had for $4,000; then we could reduce the cost per student by 63%. Flowing from this, that means we could reduce the cost of education from $528.7 billion to $194.2 billion.

Hey, look at me! I just saved the taxpayer $334.5 billion while maintaining or improving our children's education! Someone hand me a Nobel prize.

Band Aid on a Trauma Victim

2010-03-09T13:38:00.000-07:00

Imagine you're watching your favourite surgery-room drama. The first few minutes focus on some inane, soap opera like drivel between the unendingly clever yet woefully jaded head doctor and a female underling who is both too young and far too attractive in scrubs (seriously, does she spend five hours in makeup before hitting the floor to get covered in blood and urine?).

Just then, the door bursts open and two EMTs with chiseled abs and perfect hair wheel in the victim of a brutal beating (who also has pretty nice hair). The victim, blood spewing from multiple knife wounds, is sped into the nearest operating room while the music gains a few drum beats. The doctor, now with his face mask on and somehow scrubbed up and ready to go in less than five seconds, enters the room. His eyes grow wide as the camera pans in.

"Band aid." The hot underling immediately complies.

"He's still bleeding. Another band aid, Jessica." The patient groans and a knife wound, loosely held shut by a band aid, starts to come back open. "I'm losing him; I need more band aids!"

After a few commercials and some horribly out of place witty banter over a dying trauma victim, the doctor succeeds in patching up the victim. With lots and lots of band aids.

If this were a real television drama, it wouldn't even make it on the air. Why, then, do we not only accept but demand that our country be ran in the same way? Bailouts, stimulus packages, electing politicians who promise to do the least amount of damage; they're all band aids, and meanwhile the country is bleeding out.

Just like the trauma victim needs the holes patched up so he can heal, the country needs its wounds closed so it can heal and grow. But band aids (i.e., quick fixes) won't do it. We need to address the hemorrhaging in a drastic way, and then make sure it doesn't happen again. A band aid might work to stop small cuts, but deep rents in tissue that threaten life require a lot more circumspection and intentionality.

Our Republic, to this author's mind, is floundering. We the People have given up our right to self-govern for the promise of a few quick benefits that naturally come from a huge tax pool. What we need to do is step back, asses the real problems, and start stitching them up.

To fully understand the problem with our government (mostly Federal, but the States have manifold issues, too), we first need to define the purpose of our government. Why does our government exist? We are a nation of laws and rights; what role does the government have in these things? Without waxing too historic on it, I'll simply hand out the answer: government is here to, through the use of law, ensure our rights. Not to grant, deny, manufacture, or interpret our rights; ensure them. Period. Taxation is a necessary evil in order for the government to have the ability to enforce the laws designed to protect our rights.

Ask yourself: does this sound like what most politicians promise for us? Does this sound at all like the debate we currently have on a surfeit of issues confronting our nation? Why not?

The answer lies in the beauty of our nation: Personal Sovereignty. The problem lies in the logical conclusion of Personal Sovereignty: Personal Responsibility. We have abdicated our God-given right to Personal Sovereignty because of the fear of Personal Responsibility.

Personal Sovereignty says that you can make a business for whatever purpose you like (provided it does not infringe upon the Personal Sovereignty of others). We like this. Personal Responsibility says that, should the business fail, you will possibly be left poor and struggling. We don't like this. Socialism says that, as long as your business conforms to the will of the powers that be, you can run it into the ground and someone will be there to help you pick up the pieces when it inevitably falls apart. Apparently, if recent history is at all a guide, we like this a lot.

Socialism has cut deep wounds into our once great nation. America is bleeding out red, white, and blue into the soil. A great many costly band aids have been applied, yet still we bleed. We bleed our jobs, we bleed our currency's value, and we bleed our Personal Sovereignty. It's time we stop patching the wounds with ineffective, short term solutions and start addressing the real problem. Are we up to the task?

I suppose time will, as always, tell. I for one will be eagerly awaiting the end of the next commercial break, and hoping our intrepid doctor, Personal Sovereignty, is able to man up and start stitching.

The Only Question of Merit on Abortion

2010-01-19T16:45:00.001-07:00

Baby killers!!!

Woman haters!!!

OK, so we've heard the rhetoric on abortion. According to one side, their opposition is made up of misogynistic sadists hell-bent (or would they say heaven-bent?) on telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. The other side says their opposition is made up of infanticidal maniacs with a thirst for blood that would make Hitler puke.

They obviously both can't be right (unless it honestly is a fight between misogynists and infanticidal maniacs; in which case they both suck). How do we reconcile this? I'm glad you asked, because I have the solution. Well, if not the solution, at least the only logical question that need be asked:
At what point does human life begin?

This is the hinge point upon which the entire debate turns. If something is a human life, to end it would be to kill it. If something is a mass of cells within the body, to end it would be to simply separate a piece of the body; like one might a mole or tumour. By proxy, if the thing growing within the womb is a human life, to destroy it would be killing a human life (I won't say "murder," because that would depend on context). If it is not a human life, to tell someone they cannot destroy it would be limiting one's personal liberty.

So the only question that has any significance is that of the point at which a person becomes a person. Is it the zygote? The embryo? The sperm and egg? Live birth? Ability to survive outside the womb? The answer to this question is the only thing that matters in this debate.

This has been thought of as a 14th Amendment issue, but it's actually a 5th Amendment issue (same wording and applicability as the 14th, in case you were curious; it's just that the 14th is more fun to use): No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If a fetus is alive and is killed (not by accident nor by medical expedient, such as to save the life of the mother) without due process of law granted to all other people in these United States, it is a violation of this amendment in that someone's life has been taken without due process. If, however, a fetus (or embryo, or zygote) is not alive, depriving a woman of her right to do with her body as she pleases would be a violation of this amendment as it deprives her of liberty without due process. And you thought the Constitution was just an outdated document written by a bunch of old fuddy-duddies; silly fascist!

With the preamble out of the way, on with the arguments! We're going to consider the scientific arguments for when a person becomes a person. There are various other angles with which to attack this debate, but none with as much rationality and objectivity (such as the religious argument, the historical argument, the cultural argument, etc.). There still exists ample room for interpretation in every view, but I'll try to cover the intrinsic problems therein. We'll go from furthest out from conception to closest into conception (I'm not touching any of the pre-conception arguments because I think they don't fall within scientific bounds, weak arguments to the contrary notwithstanding).

One argument for the beginning of human life centres around the concept of the fledgling organism being able to live outside the womb. I will refer to this as the Viability Argument. Its proponents advocate a person becoming a person when they are able to autonomously live outside the womb. The current point of gestation for this argument is 21 weeks and 6 days. I say "current" because this is technologically limited. Should technology advance to the point where a premature baby of younger than 21 weeks and 6 days is able to survive, this definition will, obviously, change.

Herein lies the major issue with the Viability Argument: consistency. Whereas the definition is quite specific (able to live apart from the mother), it is not constant. If a person is a person at 21 weeks and 6 days or beyond, what happens if medical science is able to advance to the point where they can save a 20 week old? Is that organism not granted rights until 13 days later? If someone purposely kills a premature infant, who was delivered at 20 weeks of gestation, at 21 weeks and 5 days, is it murder? You can see the problem. This argument's inherent weakness is that it is limited by technology, and not definitive of the organism itself. While it has some good points (and is in use in places), it is too weak to be conclusive. Also, by defining a "human life" as one able to live on its own, would this redefine others as not alive? A person on a life-support system, or a toddler unable to fend for themselves; would these become non-life?

I don't think it would go to that extreme, but suffice to say there is a logical problem with the definition should it apply to all human life (as it must should it be used for this purpose).

Next up: the Neurological Argument. Proponents of this viewpoint define life as starting when the brain is developed, anywhere from 8 to 25 weeks. The earliest (8 weeks) argue that basic brain formation is the start of human consciousness, while the latest (25 weeks) argue that consciousness begins when the organism displays an individual EEG pattern. There are also some in-between who argue for around 20 weeks because this is when the thalamus is formed, thus the organism has the capacity for rational thought (though, as we know from Congress, "capacity" and "ability" are often two separate animals).

The EEG argument seems to make the most sense of the three for no other reason than consistency. This is a common measure used to determine the end of life for a human individual, so it seems consistent to also use it as the measure of the start of life for a human individual. The problem comes in when we look at the youngest premature baby to have survived (the aforementioned 21 weeks and 6 days). If life does not begin until there is a specific EEG pattern, could someone have killed the youngest premie on the basis that it was not yet alive? I hardly think anyone would argue for that. Still and all, the Neurological Argument has quite a bit more logical credence than the Viability Argument.

On to: the Embryological/Gastrulation Argument (use that word at your next party; nothing gets girls like nerdy sciencey-talk). This argument puts the beginning of human life at about twelve days after conception. At this point, the possibility for "twinning" (the super-creative phrase they came up with for "making twins") is exhausted. The argument states that, prior to this point, the existing zygote may or may not become more than one individual life form. Should we grant "humanity" to the zygote prior to this point, thus labeling it an individual, how will that label stand should the zygote undergo twinning? Would the twins be classified as a single entity? To offset this potential pitfall, the Embryological/Gastrulation Argument posits that we cannot call a zygote a human individual prior to roughly twelve days after conception because we might erroneously label two or more people as a single life form.

The problem with using this argument as a timeline for abortion ought to be manifest, but I'll pretend that it isn't and explain it. Nothing in the argument shows that the zygote is not alive, but rather that we don't conclusively know how many lives will result from said zygote. While it might make a nice litmus for labeling "individual," it's a poor choice for labeling "life."

Our penultimate argument to view: the Genetic Argument. This argument places the beginning of life at about 24 hours after conception. This is roughly the time it takes for the egg/sperm mix to form a new, unique genome. This argument states that, since the organism has a separate genome than either parent, and the genome is human in nature; it is a separate, individual human life form. This argument is both clean and fairly definitive, but it does have a few potential issues in today's "letter of the law," litigious society.

First, if human life is defined as an organism with a unique, human genome; what of twins? They have identical genomes (at least, identical twins do). Would they be labeled as a single life form? Second, what of cloning? Should a clone be made with a genome identical to the parent being cloned, is it not considered alive? Third, what of the dead? Aren't they entities with unique, human genomes?

There is some obvious room for fine-tuning, but I find the Genetic Argument to be the most logically sound (other than the last argument, which we'll get to momentarily). Of course, the other arguments have quite a bit of merit; but I have yet to see this one definitively disproven.

All that being said, there exists an inherent problem with each of the foregoing arguments: time and individuality. In order for a definition to be made law, one must put some real, tangible numbers to it. Let us take, for example, the formation of the thalamus at 20 weeks. Does everyone have a fully formed thalamus at exactly 20 weeks? What if someone gets theirs at 137 days? Would we make verification surgery mandatory for every abortion performed before, say, 18 weeks? Would we simply perform an autopsy on aborted fetuses and see if they had a thalamus, then charge the doctor and/or mother with murder if they did?

Obviously, whatever definition we arrive upon, in a legal sense, would have to allow room for the individual. Otherwise, it is not a true definition at all (in the aforementioned example of thalamus formation, if we arrived upon 20 weeks but were OK with aborting an 18 week old with a fully formed thalamus; then we are not really classifying it as a life since we are comfortable with ending it without due process).

This brings me to the final argument: the Reagan Argument. It's already awesome because it references The Gipper, but I'll go on to explain it anyway. In 1983, then President Ronald Reagan said the following in an article he wrote for The Human Life Review:
"If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it."

This, to my mind, is the heart of the issue. The debate rages on as to whether this is a right-to-life or right-to-liberty issue, but it all hinges on whether or not the thing growing inside of a woman's womb is alive. Though I cannot say that a fetus is definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt alive; I also cannot say that it is definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt not alive. Not in any stage of development.

The real question, then, is this: on which side do you err when life is not clearly, indisputably shown one way or the other? Do you risk being a potential misogynist, or a potential murderer?

Political Speechmaking 101

2009-12-02T14:55:00.001-07:00

How do they do it, those masters of political theatre? How do they stir the blood, inspire votes, and espouse tenuous political positions all the while offsetting scorn and reproach? Quite simple: the speech. A good speech will correct a multitude of political and personal woes, as well as secure that fat cheque and cushy seat (along with all of the sweet perks of legislative and executive life that are so deserved; clearly read between the lines of the Constitution if you're smart enough to have gone to a progressive college).

I will here elucidate the art of the speech. When you're done reading this, you too can perform a monologue that will briefly inspire and minimally offend the voting masses. No need to thank me; my reward is the feeling I get knowing I, in some small way, helped another (that's a political speech tactic, by the way: praising yourself while looking selfless). You'll learn how to find a message, deliver your point, and, most importantly, how to lie. Let's begin!

The Message

In order to craft the perfect speech, you first have to know what the speech is for. Now, while this may seem elementary, it's not as cut-and-dried (in politics) as you might think. What you need to do is expunge your "traditional" idea of what a message is and embrace a higher definition.

A message, traditionally, has been though of as an idea, thought, or order transferred from one person to another or a group of others. This, as we shall see, is not strictly true in politics. Politically, a message is the information received by a person from another. Though the difference appears semantical, it is not. Let's say that you wish to relay information to a friend that a loved one of theirs has died. While you think of it as sharing information, your friend will think of it as imparting grief. Thus, the given message is one of information about the earthly demise of a loved one, but the received information is that you are a bringer of grief.

In politics, there is only one message that you ever want to portray: you are the best thing that could ever happen to whatever situation you are speaking about (unless you are speaking on behalf of a candidate, in which case your message is that your candidate is the best thing). Let's take an example: Environmentalism.

Now, you might start a speech aimed at getting people to drive less with the idea that you're relaying information about how to save the planet. Wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG! What will people think? How will they perceive you? Probably as someone infringing on their right to travel about freely; in short, as an intruder at best and a tyrant at worst. That won't do at all. What you need is a gimmick!

A gimmick will get round all of those pesky notions that liberties are being threatened, you are a callous and/or heartless person, you've lost touch with the common man, blah blah blah. Instead of, for the above example, focussing on how car exhaust damages the environment and, thus, we ought to drive less; focus on the actual or proposed damage and its effects. Focus on the devastating flood that will be caused by global warming, or throw out some shots of a cuddly, baby polar bear drowning. Play on fear and shame; two of our strongest emotions.

Viola! Just like that, your message has gone from one of you being a tyrant and all around meany-mean (by relaying information only) to one of you being a nice and decent fellow who only wants what's best for everyone (by playing on emotion and possibly skirting the issue in favour of trumped-up rhetoric). With that squared away, on to . . .

The Delivery

It has been claimed that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. In politics, it is neither what you say nor how you say it; it's how it's reported. And how are things reported in today's era of thirty-second-or-less attention spans? Sound bites.

No useful media outlet will ever replay or quote an entire speech. Those that do cater to the fringe elements that you can't persuade with a speech, anyway (pesky ideologues who form their opinions and political leanings on such transitive things as "facts" and "morality;" not the sort we're after). Knowing this, you must cater your speech to brief, witty quotes that stand out enough to make an enterprising reporter think, "Hey, that's well written. If I quote that, I won't have to do any writing myself!"

Take care, though, as this is a two-edged sword. If you make a point that is antithetical to your message (the message that you are awesome) with too much wit or brevity, it is in danger of taking centre stage as the kingpin of your speech; at least, as it's reported. To avoid this, and to ensure the "correct" message is sent out, a bit of artfulness is required.

First, the bites you want heard. These are the quotes and sound bites that will portray you as a saviour, doctor, smart next-door neighbor; whatever effect it is you wish to promote for your current agenda. Plan these carefully to come at the beginning or end of your talking points (paragraphs in print), and preferably save the juiciest ones for the beginning and end of the speech itself. It's so easy to get lost in the mix, so don't make some poor reporter have to dig for the gems!

In the same way, you'll also want to bury undesirable items. Avoid them or ignore them if you can, but every now and again you will have to say something that could possibly make people perceive you as less than the incredible person that you are (at least, that you want them to believe you are). Bury these points in the middle of the speech, and in the middle of the paragraphs. Further, make sure they are buried in the middle of a sentence; and make sure the sentence is as dull and drab as you can make it. Force any reporter with an axe to grind to appear to be "fishing" by ensuring any negative sound bites will be surrounded by ellipses (you know, the ". . ."). That way, the dry, uninteresting tidbit they picked out of your otherwise stellar speech will appear to be missing vital context that, in light of the glowing sound bites reported elsewhere, must exonerate you from any shadow of perceived malfeasance.

Speaking of malfeasance . . .

The Lie

This is far more simple and more elegant than the first two portions. In fact, it can readily be used to promote either a good image of you, a great sound bite, or both!

If you're going to lie (which will be most of the time), always start off with a variant of the word "clearly." Since you're introducing what you're saying with the word "clearly," anyone who doubts your authenticity can now be called an idiot as your statement was, definitively, quite clear.

Let's go with our Environmentalist example. Your goal is to decrease people's use of vehicle technology, but you don't want anyone to think that. There are several ways to handle this, all with the use of the wonderful "clearly." The easiest is to simply state the opposite of your intentions, such as: Clearly, I have no ambition to limit the use of modern vehicle technology. Now, if anyone wants to challenge you on this, they'll have to boldly come forward and call you a liar. That would be rude, so they probably won't do it. QED.

But what if a more artful approach is necessary? The more complex the lie, the more complex the use of the word "clearly." Another form of the word may be in order; a more forceful one, even. Let's say that you're in favour of a policy that would inevitably lead to a rise in taxes. You could explain how the policy is necessary, and the American people will understand and accept the sacrifice, it will save children, etc.; but who's going to listen to all that? Besides, it still leaves the impression that you're for a tax hike, which, even though you are, is never popular. Instead, simply say: Let me be clear: my proposal will in no way add a single penny to anyone's taxes. Much easier and clearer than some long, drawn out explanation that no one will listen to in any case. Remember: sound bites.

Contrarily, you could claim that the negative of your premise is "clearly" incorrect. Using the above example, you could say: Clearly, there is no evidence to support the ridiculous notion that this proposal will lead to a tax hike. Not a bad sound bite, but best to bury it anyway as it contains a potential negative. Follow up with something like: In fact, this plan will most likely lead to a tax savings. Though you didn't use "clearly" in the second sentence, it was linked to the first which did contain a "clearly." If you want to be extra sure, combine the two sentences with a semicolon; no one reads anything long enough to contain a semicolon. To bring it home, "sum it all up" with a sound bite quip that can't be passed up, like: Our consciences will not bear the possibility of disaster because we failed to act.

And there you have it. Lather, rinse, repeat and you've got yourself a political speech guaranteed to get you or keep you in office! (1,000 political jobs were created or saved with this blog post.)

Thanksgiving Revisited

2009-11-25T10:10:00.002-07:00

We all know the story. The Pilgrims disembark from the Mayflower to start a new life in the New World. Times are tough, and they, for some reason, have forgotten how to farm. Luckily, some natives stop by and teach them how to work the land. A great harvest is brought in and everyone feasts together. Afterward, they go to a nearby hill and hold hands while singing John Lenin's Imagine and crying.

Except for that last part, that's basically how I learned it in elementary school. I don't believe it was ever revisited during my tenure at higher education. So, like with most things, I was left to my own devices to become educated on our nation's history. I would like to share what I found.

I must warn you, however, that this will not be the standard story you may have held on to that closely mirrors the myth above. This will not be the stuff of children's plays and Thanksgiving greeting cards (more's the pity). If you would rather live with a caricature of history in your mind, by all means please stop reading now. If you, like me, would rather the truth than a fairy tale, read further.

At the start of the Plymouth colony, all lived in a communal advent. Each person was to work equally and to collect equally. There was no individual property, but communal property. Though this predated the work of Marx by some 228 years, they were living in a communism (though the colonists took the rubric from Plato, so it's not really a new concept). William Bradford, Pilgrim and governor of the Plymouth colony for some 35 years, had this to say about the communistic experiment:

"For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."
-William Bradford

In seeking equality, they had found a particular oppression. Discontent was bred amoung the colonists. Radio stations refused to play Imagine, and Che shirt sales were at an all time low.

Bradford needed a new direction. He believed that, "God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." Instead of community property and stores, he decided to divide the land by family and population, with each being able to work his own parcel as he saw fit. The free-market was thus born in the United States (though not yet the United States).

The result? According to Bradford:

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
-William Bradford

In fact, the Pilgrims had so much from their harvest that not only did they not go starving, but they were able to export corn back to Europe!

So, what was the real first Thanksgiving? A giving of thanks to God for showing the colonists the err of communism and allowing them to embrace the free-market system. While you may think that's rhetoric or politically motivated, it is fact. It is history.

I thought communism was an outdated idea that has been shown a failure for these past 100 years. I was wrong. It has been shown a failure at least these past 388 years. It is not a bold, new idea; it is not progressive. The question is: will we learn from our forefathers, or make the same mistakes they did through our ignorance and hubris?

Free Dumb

2009-11-18T10:59:00.001-07:00

Have you ever watched someone eating and driving, or mountain biking with no helmet, or listening to Hannah Montana and just wanted to reach out and smack them? Seriously; what's wrong with some people? Isn't there anything we can do to curb this blatant idiocy before they all start to breed and promulgate the "stupid" gene?

Sadly, the answer appears to be "yes." Here are a couple of the more blatant examples from recent legislation:
-Driving with a Cell Phone
-Smoking in Restaurants

The banning of these things is atrocious, and patently un-American. Don't believe me? Read on, my pinko-commie-fascist friend!

Driving with a Cell Phone
Yes, driving must have rules for safety. No, I'm not advocating for a complete abolition of traffic safety regulations and stop lights. What I'm getting at is that when the government bans cell phone use in the car, it is arbitrary and intrusive. In short, it is legislating behaviour and not action.

We all know people who can drive, talk on the cell-phone (non hands-free, no less), blare the radio, and eat a burger at the same time all while staying in their lane and avoiding an accident. Contrarily, we also know those who could have hands at 10 and 2, no superfluous noise, no passengers, and no controlled substances in them and still manage to hit a parked bus while going the wrong way down a one-way street. The behaviour of the second driver is much more conducive to good driving, but the actions are not.

Now, does a cell phone distract someone while they are driving? Of course, to a greater or lesser degree. So does the radio, a passenger, the events of your day, billboards, a passing S-10 slammed with 24" rims, and a three hundred pound man in spandex trying to jog. With all of these distractions (and more), how do we ensure that people are being safe while driving? Do we institute a law that bans looky-loos from rubbernecking at accidents or joggers? Ban eating in the car? Outlaw car radios? Ban cell phone use? Limit vehicles to the driver only to avoid distractions from passengers?

The answer is what we've already done. You can't (or, at least, shouldn't) legislate behaviour; only actions. We implement laws stating how one must drive; stay in your lane, speed limits, the person on the right at a four-way stop has the right of way, etc. If you can follow all of those while playing pong on your modded DS, so be it. If you can't follow them even while doing everything you learned in driver's-ed, prepare for tickets, insurance claims, and friends always offering to drive.

Smoking in Restaurants
But, but second hand smoke kills! Think of the poor waiters and waitresses that are dying just because they went to work! The children; think of the children!!!!! You don't hate children . . . do you?

Here's a novel idea for all those (including me) who don't want to dine or work in a dingy, smoke-filled restaurant or bar: don't. Go somewhere else. Do you know what happens to businesses that have people that won't patronise them due to a policy of theirs? They change the policy or go out of business. It's called "voting with your feet," and it's even more effective than real voting.

But don't you, the waitress, and the children have a right to not smoke if you choose not to? Of course. At the same time, the owner of the restaurant has a right to allow smoking in their property. Should you refrain from dining there, both sets of rights remain intact. Should you be forced to dine there, or the owner forced to ban legal smoking there, one or the other's rights have been infringed.

If you infringe upon another's rights to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness, you have crossed the line from simply exercising your rights to outright bullying. Laws that infringe on one person's rights to stave off the possibility of having another's violated (and not the imminent possibility, like traffic laws) are merely state-sanctioned bullying. This is why so many people are against cell-phone laws, seat-belt laws, smoking bans in restaurants, and the like. (Disclaimer: follow the laws, people. Just because you disagree doesn't get you off the hook from following it. But, we do have a system in place to change the laws.)

The bottom line in all this is that you have the right to be an idiot. You have the freedom to be dumb. You can't (constitutionally) legislate someone out of being stupid, but you can legislate against things stupid people do that affect the rights of others. No, talking on a cell phone while driving does not affect anyone's rights. No, smoking legal substances on private property does not affect anyone's rights. But banning them does.

To Whom Do You Bow?

2009-11-16T14:39:00.004-07:00

There's been a lot of talk about President Obama's bowing to foreign leaders; first the king of Suadi Arabia, and now the Emperor of Japan. Here are the infamous pictures (Google it if you need video to believe it; basically, it's exactly what it looks like):

OK, so he bowed. What's the big deal? Isn't bowing just a show of respect? Many view this as simply a cultural advent. Having lived in Japan for a little less than a year, I can personally attest to the reality that a bow in Japan is more of a handshake than anything else. So why the hubbub (and, more germane to this page, why am I writing about it)?

It's time for a history lesson; followed by a cold, hard truth that many Americans want to shut their eyes to.

First, the history. American Presidents have never bowed to foreign heads of state (and, classically but not as a rule, American citizens in general haven't either). It is not only tradition, but a matter of close-held principle. One finds the theory for this in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8:
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.

Now, this may, at surface, seem like a simple matter of our United States not granting its own citizens the titles of Duke, Lord, etc. to avoid the entrapments found under British rule; and to an extent that would be correct. However, the essence of this law reaches much further than the letter of it. In order to understand a law, one must first understand the moral that the law is supposed to implement. The best quote I could think of (though a myriad of more obscure quotes exists) comes out of the Declaration of Independence:
All men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

The two major facets of this quote are the beliefs that: 1. All people are created beings, and 2. The Creator made all people fundamentally equal; i.e., having the same, basic rights. This belief is often expressed today in the concept of "human rights." The fact that most believers in "human rights" seem to eschew the advent of a Creator, though inconsistent in my opinion, does not change the fact that human beings are seen as equal amoungst themselves.

Flowing from this idea (or, as I would put it, truth) that human beings have equal rights, a title of nobility cannot be imparted as it would grant the owner of said title special, additional rights. It would, in essence, claim that noble as a superior human to his or her fellows. From this idea, the founders wrote Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8.

Logically, one cannot deny a title of nobility to one's countrymen on the basis that all men are created equal, and then turn around and recognise a title of nobility for a foreigner. That is why the Presidents of the United States have never bowed to a foreign power. Not only would it signal our entire nation's fealty to that foreign leader (though not through policy; only symbolically), but it also recognises that leader's superiority to the common man. This is about as un-American as it gets, barring a reversion to slavery.

Flowing from this are other ideals and actions, such as the US flag dipping to no nation. Many globalists (and ignorant Americans who wish to sound "cultured") simply view this as American hubris, but this misses the mark by a long shot. The refusal of our armed services and Olympians to dip the United States flag to another country, leader, etc. stems from the idea that the United States stands for all free men, and that free men do not bow to anyone but God (and, even then, at their choosing). It symbolises the reality that no men are born better than their fellows, and that certain rights are innate to all men; handed down from their Creator.

So, that's the basic history. Now for the reality.

Many (if not most) people in America take the exercise of their rights as a given. They believe that the ability to speak, worship, and express themselves freely is a natural thing, and that it is a permanent advent. They often, as a result, believe the poeples of other countries to be inferior, weaker, or "differently righted" than those of this country. Each of these conclusions are antithetical to the ideal we've discussed thus far. These conclusions are what enable people to say things like, "Oh, the Chinese just live in a different culture. Freedom wouldn't work over there." The illogicality of this statement is so manifest that I won't here enumerate it; suffice to say, all people would wish to be delivered from the barrel of a gun if they're facing it.

Note that above I said "exercise of their rights," not simply "rights." Remember, rights are innate and handed down from our Creator. They are not dictated to man by man, but discovered by man in man. The exercise of these rights is proper and correct for mankind. From this, we logically can surmise that all people, regardless of geography or the flag they live under, are entitled to these rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).

Why, then, are the people in China, or Vietnam, or North Korea, or Cuba, or a slue of other nations not able to exercise these rights? Why can we in America? The conclusion that Americans are innately different than their fellow humans around the globe is unsatisfactory. If that were true (that we as Americans "just won't be pushed around"), then there does exist a class or caste hierarchy amoung men, and rights are not equal across the board. We reject that premise.

To what, then, do we attribute this global disparity? The simple answer is usually the best answer. In this case: government. There exists a uniform set of rights amoung people; there is not a uniform government. Now, I'm not bucking for global government here. I think each nation ought to rule itself, and that local government is the best government. But, I would like to throw out the idea that men live under different rules because of the different governments they live under. Of the democracies and republics, the rights to free expression, religion, and speech are generally exercised with little impediment. Of the communisms, despotisms, monarchies, etc., those rights are usually limited to a greater or lesser degree. And why not? If nobility exists, in whatever form, why not unequal rights? It is logical, but it argues from a faulty premise.

Here's the truth Americans generally don't want to look at: the exercising of our rights is not guaranteed. Neither is it a permanent part of the landscape. If we are, indeed, men like any other; and if, as we know is the case, men elsewhere are denied the free exercise of these rights: therefore, we can be denied the free exercise of these rights. If other men, whose freedoms are repressed, live under repression because of their government; therefore we could live under repression with the same form of government as them.

We as Americans need to realise that our rights are granted; not guaranteed. Like a garden, our government must be tended, weeded, cared for, and protected to flourish. Our purpose in managing our government, just like managing a garden, must be deliberate and with a clear goal in mind. Are we tending the garden, or have we let the weeds from within and the elements from without hinder its purpose?

Stuff I Believe

2009-11-16T13:31:00.001-07:00

All men are created equal.

Global Warming (or, if you will, Climate Change) is a hoax and a shakedown.

Majority consensus does not equal correct or appropriate action.

Most people like to be led. Most leaders are not to be trusted.

You will never argue someone out of dogma.

Force can only change actions, not beliefs.

Everyone has faith; just in various things and to various degrees.

If you can't beat 'em, it doesn't get you off the hook from fighting.

It is not arrogance to believe that others are wrong. If you don't believe this, you hold nothing to be true.

The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, and the evidence pointing to it being so is scant.

The best advice is usually what we would least like to hear.

We all know how to act properly towards one another.

Unprotected left turns are generally a very good thing.

Law enforcement, education, and most other things properly start in the home.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but just because you're entitled to believe it doesn't mean you're entitled to be free from dissent.

Jesus is the Christ.

The end never justifies the means.

If something is right, it is right. If wrong, wrong. We shouldn't be afraid to say so.

Truth does not rely on numbers.

Personal liberty for all inevitably means someone, somewhere, is going to do something you don't like.

Being unique is not a virtue intrinsically. Welcome to the biggest club in history; six billion strong and counting.

No one cares that your parents didn't get along; they only care that you're acting like a child.

If the entire world disagrees with you, you ought to entertain the possibility that the entire world is wrong. You also ought to entertain this possibility if the entire world agrees with you.

Your opinion doesn't matter without corresponding action.

To be continued . . .

How to Rein in Crazy Spending

2009-11-13T23:32:00.002-07:00

There needs to be a debate not only about getting spending under control, but about how to get that spending under control. I think, as you know if you read my first post, that we need to put the power back in the hands of the States. When control is local, power is accessible by the voter. When control is Federal, power is spread over such a wide swatch that it is easy to manipulate a majority of the masses and tyrannize the rest of us (this has been thoroughly exposited elsewhere, so I'll go with this as a given).

So what, exactly, are we dealing with, here? How much spending is sent where, and who does most of the spending? By how much? These are questions I had, so I went about finding some answers. In order to tackle a problem, one would do well to first know exactly what needs to be fixed. If a light suddenly goes out, I want to know if it's the bulb before I start tearing out drywall and rewiring the house.

For others who would like to know this information as well (and, hopefully, to spark some conversation aimed at solutions), I have compiled a couple of charts (using a great little tool at http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/charts.html#usgs302). The first is Interest, Education, Welfare, Health, and Pensions spending. The second is Defense, Transportation, Protection, General, and Other spending. The third is Debt and the Federal Deficit. I have them broken down by Total, Federal, State, and Local. Without further ado- charts!

Total:

Federal:

State:

Local:

The first thing I see here is that Federal debt's out of control (not that State and Local are anything to smile about). The second is that the Federal government is spending at a higher percentage of the total than the State and Local governments combined. The third is that there's a lot of spending going on that doesn't actually produce anything (though that's a Federal, State, and Local problem as well). These last two, and possibly all three, could be cured by getting the money back where it belongs and was always intended to reside.

I don't, personally, see that the Fair Tax nor Flat Tax will solve this problem and get the money back in the hands of the States (aside from defense and some of the general and other spending, which are properly the jurisprudence of the Federal government). I also don't know that repealing the 16th Amendment will do this as the Federal government still has the power to lay an income tax (among others; the 16th Amendment merely defines the way in which the Federal government may abuse the income tax unconstitutionally, not whether or not it's lawful for the Federal government to tax income). They're still very good ideas, and they probably would be a heck of a lot easier to implement than a Constitutional Amendment, but I think that only a Constitutional Amendment would do the trick completely instead of being a band-aid on a trauma victim.

I'm a big fan of putting all of the taxation in the hands of the several States, directly, and having the Federal government funded by the States, indirectly (as it relates to the people and their property, that is). This would allow the law of Uniformity (per the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1), but would also allow the States enough autonomy to decide upon whatever form of taxes they choose. This may make an issue with Apportionment, but I don't know if that could be covered in the language of a proposed amendment. Something like:

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States for the Regulation of Federal Monetary Appropriations
1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The Congress' power to collect duties, taxes, imposts, and excises shall be limited to thirty per cent of all revenue collected by the several states; such funds are hereby to be collected by the Congress from the States directly. For the purposes of this clause, interest on state-owned investments shall not be considered collected revenue by the state which owns the investment. This clause shall constitute the fulfillment of the apportionment and uniformity clauses in Article one, Section two, paragraph three and Article one, Section eight, paragraph one.
3. The Congress shall be limited in its exercise of spending to the powers specifically enumerated by Article one, Section eight. The term "General Welfare of the United States" in Article one, Section eight, paragraph one shall be defined as the intent of the powers granted to the Congress in Article one, Section 8, and shall not be construed as a separate duty or power from those listed.
4. All persons claiming entitlement to government monies or services outside of the powers enumerated to the Congress in Article one, Section eight, shall have recourse to appeal for said monies or services to the state in which they reside. The states shall fulfill or deny any claims as their legislatures shall see fit.
5. This amendment absolves all responsibility of the Congress for any appropriations, payouts, services, or otherwise that do not fall within the powers enumerated in Article one, Section eight, as clarified by this amendment.
6. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I'm not certain on the percentage of the total that the Federal government ought to be entitled to; I took thirty per cent by taking the (rough) total per cent currently going to the Federal government and subtracting the (rough) percentages of things the Federal government is paying for but ought not be (as they fall outside of the enumerated powers). The number has a very wide margin of error, so it could reasonably be much higher or lower. This is just an idea for the wording and spirit of such a proposal.

The only problem with this plan? It would either have to go through a Constitutional Committee or a Constitutional Convention. The first would be made up of US Congress people and, hence, would probably go no further. I don't trust legislators to pass an amendment through committee that will limit their powers; if anything, they've proven over the last century that people will do almost anything to hang on to their power (except, for some reason, the general population of the United States). The second, a Constitutional Convention, is a bad idea because it opens the door for all kind s of frivilous and wacky junk that the fringe elements of our society have waited for decades to march out. Right alongside this amendment to right the wrongs of the 20th century politicians would be amendments for free health care, outlawing hunting, and mandatory health clubs for polar bears. And a big global warming amendment, but that's another subject.

Notwithstanding, I think a case could be made that this would be far easier to implement than term limits. Perhaps that could be a platform for it; scare the politicians with term limits, then slip this in and tell them we'll stop with the term limits if they pass this amendment. We can throw in a free trip to the country with the mistress of their choice to sweeten the pot.

Real Revolutionary

2009-11-11T15:43:00.001-07:00

This is not a real revolutionary:

This is a real revolutionary:

Never forget what people stand for. It can remind you of the difference between true heroism and common thuggery.

One Blood

2009-11-10T12:35:00.004-07:00

To say that race is big in our country is to say that Godzilla is a mild blemish on the Tokyo skyline. Racial issues dominate the workplace, elections, legislation, and many people's entire worldviews. Here are a couple of notable quotes to illustrate my point:

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns."
-Rev. Jeremiah Wright

"If O.J. had been accused of killing his black wife, you would not have seen the same passion stirred up."
-Rev. Al Sharpton

"An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man."
-Jimmy Carter

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
-Sonya Sotomayor

"I love being famous. It's almost like being white."
-Chris Rock

All of which begs the question: what is race? Though most have contemplated racial issues, I doubt very much they have taken the time to exactly define race. Is it skin colour? Eye shape? Ancestral region? Cuisine?

Most definitions I've seen pivot around a central theme: hereditary differences in appearance, mainly skin tone combined with distinct facial features. This idea was popularised in the nineteenth century mainly by the works and followers of Darwin, with the main racial groups being Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid. We know them today as White, Black, and Asian. I would submit that, adding Latino, these would be the major, accepted races in the minds of most Americans (others, of course, exist; I'm being very general, here).

Are these classifications correct? Rather than posit a long, drawn-out comparison of cultural and political perspectives ranging from the ancient Mayans to the modern Slovakians, let's get objective. Let's talk about DNA as it relates to race.

Genetically, the average difference between any two humans is 0.2%. This is the same whether the people being compared are both black, one white and one latino, or any other combination you can think of. At the same time, the makeup of the human genome as it relates to race (skin colour, hair colour, facial features, etc.) is only about 0.012% of the total genome. Therefore, biologically, there is no such thing as race. We must conclude that it is purely a social construct.

"But wait," you say, "there are proven differences in the races! What about IQ scores, or cancer rates, or the racial makeup of athletes?"

That's a good point. If no real differences exist in the so-called races, why the statistical differences? Well, you know the old saying: statistics don't lie, but you're stupid (to paraphrase). Let me explain:

Suppose you have four people being tracked for a case study on colon cancer. One is an affluent white, two are impoverished blacks, and one is an impoverished white. Each gets colon cancer. The affluent white, after leading a generally healthy life full of groceries from Whole Foods (or, as we po' folk like to call it, "Whole Paycheck") and getting the best medical assistance available, beats the disease. The three others, after living a life mainly subsiding on Top Ramen and Spam and getting medical assistance from WebMD and an inner-city hospital staffed by "doctors" with associates degrees in finger-painting, succumb to the illness. Statistically, 50% of whites (in our hypothetical study) beat colon cancer while 0% of blacks do.

The problem is, statistics are separated from the entirety of the subject's experience. When we try to boil people down to "black" or "white" or whatever else, we fail to take into context cultural issues; like environment, customs, eating habits, access to medical facilities, upbringing, and a myriad of other facets. We fail to see the whole person for their vast litany of experiences and the social structure surrounding them and we attribute everything to the paltry 0.012% of their genome that we can see at a glance.

This is not to say that there are no attributes of merit that may be attributed to race (such as a higher predilection towards a certain infirmity, or other such thing), but even this is not as cut and dried as it first appears. The main culprit for this phenomenon is people grouping together who share a common ancestor; not the innate differences of a "race." If heart disease runs in your family (as it does mine), you're more likely to get heart disease. If your family happens to be asian, that doesn't equate to all asians having a predilection to heart disease. It may not even be that your family carries the gene; it may be that your family loves to eat country fried steak covered in Crisco three times a day and that's been a family tradition for a hundred years.

We like things to be neat and calculable. We want one flow chart that has a cool, 3D pie graph of everything we need to know about society. Since race is tracked like no other facet of our lives (I can't remember ever being asked to list my height or BMI or favourite colour on a job application), it is easy to classify people based on this trait alone. Before you do, though, let's look at one other thing: the definition of racism.

While there are a lot of definitions out there for this term, I propose a new one. My definition is unique in that it has no political origin, nor does it contain a positive or negative connotation. In that, I find it far more accurate and applicable (as objective things normally are). So, without further ado, Skipper's definition of racism:
racism ˈrāˌsizəm (noun)
-The classification of a person based solely on their race.
DERIVATIVES
racist noun and adjective
Jesse Jackson racist and idiot

That wasn't so hard, was it? Now you'll be able to tell, beyond politics and personal opinion, if a statement is truly racist or not. Let's have some examples!

Answer whether the following statements and organisations are racist or not. No cheating, talking, or open books. This will go towards your final grade.
She is a typical white person. Racist or not?
African-Americans watch the same news at night that ordinary Americans do. Racist or not?
The Congressional Black Caucus Racist or not?
Aryan Nation Racist or not?

Pencils up! Answers? They're all racist; thanks for playing.

If it classifies by race, it is racist. A study on race as it relates to prison recidivism is racist. Hiring based on skin colour is racist. Political and charitable organisations which have a racial prerequisite for admittance or a goal of promoting people based on their ethnicity (NAACP, KKK, Black Panthers, UNCF, MEChA, etc.) are racist.

Now, I know this may sound harsh to some, but remember that the definition is strictly factual; what you connote with it is your own. The United Negro College Fund exists to promote black students going to college. Its purpose is to promote individuals based solely on their race, and is, therefore, definitively racist. Whether you agree with their aim or not has nothing to do with the fact that they practise their charity based solely on race.

The problem is, there are a lot of people in this country (particularly in politics) who think it's bad to be a racist, but still classify people based on their race. I would rather they just come out and be honest and say that they favour one race over another. If you're ashamed of the logical label for your actions, maybe you ought not be doing them.

So, are you a racist?

The 10th Amendment and You

2009-11-06T10:49:00.011-07:00

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Seemingly so simple, but these twenty-eight words have been constantly misconstrued, circumvented, or flat out ignored.

So what? It's just a bunch of old-school rhetoric spewed out by some powdered-wig sporting fundamentalists over two hundred years ago. Move along; nothing to see here.

Or is it something more than that? Not to hide my bias (not that I could; why else write a treatise on the 10th?), I find it horribly relevant today.

This amendment, last of the Bill of Rights, can be seen as a conclusion to the Constitution as it was originally written; sort of a catch-all for anything not covered in the rest of the document. To fully understand its significance, one first must understand the intent of the framers for the Constitution. Here are a couple of quotes that might help out:

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

-Thomas Jefferson

"A republic is the best of governments."

-John Adams

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

-James Madison

I could go on all day, but a lot of you were probably educated in public school so you have neither the patience nor the ability to read anything written prior to 1995 (for the record, I was also educated in public school; I'm just a snob). The point is, the founders were pretty united by two ideas:

1. Rights are innate to man, not granted by the government.

2. Local politics are the best politics, because the public has more control over them (the basis for a Republic over a Democracy).

The first point, that our rights are innate and not granted by government, is a simple notion with severe ramifications (I'll leave the religious question out of it, for now). If it is true, then there are things that we, as humans, have a right to; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come to mind. Any government infringing on these rights (no matter how cool their "Che" pictures look) is violating the very nature of mankind. If, on the other hand, it is not true; then all rights are arbitrary and may be enforced or repressed at the will of whoever happens to be in power. I'll take "true" for 304 million, Alec.

The second point, that local politics are the best politics, makes all kinds of sense if you think about it (it actually makes sense even if you don't think about it, but it’s best that you do; instead of just mindlessly following along like a zombie without cool powers and a thirst for brains). Not only does a person have more relative clout in a local election (one vote in a town of 10,000 voters is 0.01% of the vote, whereas one vote among 131,000,000 voters is only about 0.00000076%), but they have the advantage of having lived around the person running for office. In essence, it makes it much harder for a politician to "image build." Kind of like when Jesus said, "a prophet is not without honor except in his hometown" (oh no, the J-word!). Basically, unless we're talking about Jesus, we would know the person running for office and know that they can't walk on water; regardless of what their PR guys tell you.

So, what does this all have to do with the 10th Amendment? Well, once we understand that the Constitution was not meant to grant the Federal government power but to limit the scope of the Federal government's power, we can look at it in a proper light. In a nutshell, it says that whatever isn't laid out in the Constitution is left in the hands of the People and their States. Think about that for a minute. It means that whatever rights you think you have and whatever powers you think the government ought to have, barring what's already written down in the Constitution, are supposed to be dealt with at the State or interpersonal level. The House of Representatives and the Senate are not supposed to be the major law-making bodies in these United States; the State and local legislatures are supposed to be.

Now, for those of us who grew up post horse-and-buggy days, this seems like a foreign concept. We vote for President, maybe Senators, and call it a day- er, decade. Whereas I could wax grumpy about people not getting involved locally, I won’t because I can hardly blame them. These days, most laws are handed down from on high, while the local-yokels are there to try to bend them to suit our needs (or their own needs, if you live in California). People don’t get involved in local politics because they don’t see the relevance; and I’m not sure that they’re wrong. At least in practise.

But journey with me now [insert dream-sequence music here] into a magical realm, ruled by the 10th Amendment. All taxes go to your local government first, and most of them stay in your town. You and your neighbors decide what the rules are for schooling your children, funding your parks, police, fire, and city services. You decide where the roads need to be improved, bridges built, and monuments erected (PM me if you need a pic of me in a Superman suit for your town square; I’ve got like a dozen of them and they’re not moving on eBay). Want universal health care for your city or state? Go for it! Next to no government intervention in life and business? You’re the boss! But wait, where’s the Federal government? Don’t worry; they’re busy doing the only things they’re allowed to, like having a military and managing our (limited) international role.

OK, wake up. We’re not in dreamland anymore. The good news is, a lot of the above is still possible even under the current paradigm (I hate using that word; let’s pretend I said “zeitgeist”). The difference is, a lot of your tax money is going to the Federal government first and the local governments a distant second, third, or fiftieth. It’s not that government isn’t supposed to provide for schooling, welfare, health care, and the like; it’s that the Federal government is not supposed to. Those sorts of decisions were intended to be made on the State and local levels, where the people with the most at stake have the most control.

How do we fix it? Repealing the 16th Amendment would be a good start (that’s a whole ‘nother blog for a whole ‘nother time), but it takes something both bigger and simpler than that. We need to change the way we think about our country and the type of government it has. Would you call us a Democracy? I think most Americans would. There’s an old joke that says, “Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.” We need to stop looking at our country as a simple majority rule system. We were set up far better and more elegantly than that.

We are a Republic. Our rights are our own, and the government is set up to ensure those rights do not get trampled. We and our neighbors determine our own destiny. We have all of the strengths of a large nation, but all of the virtues of a small town. We flex global and act local. Until we can get back to these concepts, America is doomed to slip from what made it great into the mediocrity epidemic throughout the rest of the world. The choice, and the burden, are ours.