I've got the nanny state blues

Did you ever think in a country that prides itself on individual rights and justice that you could be thrown in jail for babysitting for a friend or walking to school? Welcome to Amerika friends!

Our first case is sadly in our own great state, where our Michigan Department of Human Services is threatening a kind person who babysits her neighbor's children when they get home from school. According to those wandering the halls of the MDHS offices in Lansing, she's not a properly registered day care center operator. That reminds me, I better renew my babysitting license, I hope they don't put the "mmm mmm mmm, Barack Hussein Obama" question on the exam because I don't know all the words to the praise song!

To Governor Granholm's credit, she is calling for the law to be amended because clearly it is being misused. The wise representatives who originally wrote the law obviously missed a glaring point and thus we have the MDHS turning into the babysitting police. What I want to know is why do we have to have day care centers licensed anyway and what degree do you have to get to learn how to keep kids from eating art paste? I'll bet that bill wasn't 1,000 pages though and they probably at least read it.

At least that isn't as bad as when Congress accidentally banned children from using dirt bikes in 2008. Maybe they should get a mulligan on the dirt bikes, after all they are more the "Accidental Congress" than the "Imperial Congress" these days.

Our second story is worse because rather than a poorly written law at fault, its the school administrators and police that are causing the trouble and for an even more pointless reason. One Florida school does not allow students to walk or bike to school. Now, it's one thing to not want to have bikes on campus for fear of theft or lawyers ready to pounce like a jungle cat with a lawsuit, but to say kids can't walk to school? Honestly, are they seriously being serious with themselves?

The rationale seems to be kids could get hurt in traffic. So instead of making sure the streets and sidewalks are safe, we are demanding school kids can't use the sidewalks? If our streets are so dangerous for kids that they can't bike a mile, our solution is to threaten the parents of the kids? Apparently that town sees that it is the government's responsibility to regulate who can and can't be walking outside, and that parents aren't to be trusted with the decision to let their kids walk to school.

What do we draw from these two stories? In my mind, they are very visible illustrations of the unintended consequences of government interference. Sure, there are noble goals behind it: wanting to make sure than children are safe from child abuse at day care centers or bad motorists on the way to school. The road to hell is paved with good intentions though, and here we have government oppressing private citizens, albeit in a relatively harmless way. The child keeps biking to school and does anyone honestly think the MDHS will get the fine after the story got air-time? Nevertheless, these are situations where government bureaucrats are needlessly telling parents how to raise their children or who can and can't be a guest in their homes.

Speaking from my personal experience, both of my parents have violated these bureaucratic regulations, and if they refused to knuckle under to the "civil servants" and pay any fines, they could be in jail. I guess it's a miracle I made it out of childhood without the benevolent government looking over their shoulders all the time. Ann Arbor is a really dangerous place to be walking the neighborhood streets at 3pm, after all. I won't even talk about the unspeakable horrors inflicted on me by the unlicensed black market day care industry in Barry County.

Contrary to the misplaced faith that government bureaucracies can deliver paradise on earth, we can see in examples like these how a government too big for its own britches will gradually usurp your rights as a parent and a free citizen. It might be for the best of intentions, but "for your own good" quickly becomes a hammer brought down on your head, not a hand to help lift you up. I don't want a bureaucrat telling me how to raise my child or who I can and can't have in my private home, but unfortunately many in America have bought the belief that we need bureaucrats and millions of pages of rules and regulation to function. This is a problem that will get more serious as the federal government increasingly expands its power and scope.

“When you see a four-year-old bossing a two-year-old, you are seeing the fundamental problem of the human race--and the reason so many idealistic political movements for a better world have ended in mass-murdering dictatorships. Giving leaders enough power to create 'social justice' is giving them enough power to destroy all justice, all freedom, and all human dignity.” - Thomas Sowell

Dollars for the Debilitated - A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing the Disabled Children of America From Being a Burden to Themselves, Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Public

Following the wild success of the Cash for Clunkers program administered by the Department of Transportation, I propose a similar solution to another problem plaguing our country.

First, a brief demonstration of why the Cash for Clunkers model is a great idea to duplicate. The government provides rebates to individuals, with the purpose of giving them an incentive to trade in their old, beat-up vehicles for more modern, efficient vehicles. Not only did this stimulate consumers to buy more cars manufactured in America, but encouraged them to help our fragile environment, which is under constant assault from carbon dioxide as the magnificent Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore assures us. Now, I must admit, some dealers have had to wait a bit to receive reimbursements from the government, but as Secretary LaHood of the great state of Illinois assures us, the checks are on the way. The program was so wildly successful nobody could have planned on so many customers so soon.

The problem I want to fix with the above process is the terrible problem of disabilities. Many people are afflicted with life-changing and debilitating injuries such as cleft palates and club feet. Many individuals are so afflicted with Down Syndrome that they have such a poor quality of life they are better off taking a trip to Switzerland to end their constant torment. Poor children suffering of spina bifida or omphaloceles must overcome vast obstacles in their lives simply to exist.

Society too must pay the awful price of sustaining these individuals in their misery. Millions of hard earned dollars, instead of being spent on enlightening one another about the glorious lives of luminaries in the public spotlight (from which we can learn so much about conducting our own lives in virtuous and fulfilling ways), are being spent on treatments for these persons. These individuals in turn have nothing to provide society, some being physically or mentally incapable of contributing to the general welfare of businesses, the State or even their parents.

Unfortunately, our research hasn't progressed yet to the point of curing individuals faced with these dreadful conditions. Fortunately though, there is potential for alleviate their suffering and ours in the meantime. Friends, you might be comforted to learn their is already a way to stop this situation dead in its tracks, before those individuals ever have to be humiliated in showing their deformed features to the light of the world.

I am talking about abortion, yes, that wonderful right ordained by Providence and found right in our governing document. If we can have cars that don't function be exchanged for ones that do, why not people as well? Alas, forgive me the expression though, a person does not become a person until he or she meets the criteria, which the poor souls afflicted with Down Syndrome in the womb do not. I merely wanted to make sure you understood my modest proposal.

So, I propose we allow a Dollars for the Debilitated program in the new health care reform that is being crafted by Congress, and have that new undertaking be administered by the Health Choices Commissioner (indeed, choice is already in his title, how fitting). Parents will be offered rebates from the government as an incentive to abort their children. In their disabled potential child's stead, we can offer them in vitro fertilization, which might very well be covered as essential care in the pending health care reforms. The great beauty of IVF treatments is that several embryos can be created, and those likely to be disabled can be weeded out through a process know as selective reduction. This leaves only the most fit embryos to be born.

This program will accomplish three things: there will be no more disabled who feel the torment of existence, society will save money on costly treatments and instead of a disabled person unable to contribute to society we will have strong, healthy workers in their stead.

I admit, perhaps a few disabled individuals might be misdiagnosed, and if this is as popular as I foresee, the Health Choices Commissioner might be slow in getting rebates back to the health providers who ply their admirable trade with skill and care. Of course, we would not want to kill the disabled who are already born (who would suggest such a thing?), though they will suffer and cost us money now. It is indeed best in the long run if we pursue the modest route. Any small errors or delays should not stand in the way of eventual progress and a brighter future.

Many will say that we can care for the disabled, that they can have productive and happy lives or that caring for those in need somehow benefits the person forced to provide it. I say whoever makes those arguments is full of complete and utter hogwash; let no person talk us out of something with emotional arguments once we see the perfect solution within our grasp.

So, as you can no doubt see (and I am sure will agree with me wholeheartedly), Dollars for the Debilitated will be a smashing success for improving the state of modern society. Indeed, with the almost assured success of the program, it would be a moral outrage to not pursue it at all costs.

(writer's note - yes, this is a superbly sarcastic satire, so no comments reading "why do you hate the disabled" or "why do you think I hate the disabled." I am merely taking this perfect-storm opportunity to lampoon several people and ideas all at once, with the goal of simply making you stop and think)

The 5 myths of health care reform

It seems that any health care reform bills will wait until after Congress' summer vacation, thanks to the public pressure in opposition to the many plans out there. The next few weeks will be a golden opportunity for both sides to get their talking points out to the voters. Since a 30 second spot can't delve into the details, and there are still multiple plans and bills yet to be reconciled and defined, I thought I would tackle some of the basic concepts behind this debate.

My hope is you take these points to heart over the next weeks, now that we have been given a chance to debate some of these before it's rushed through Congress.

Myth #1 - The big myth: Health care costs will be controlled

No public or market reform will make a huge dent in costs. It's very simple; Americans spend more on medical costs because we want to be healthy. Americans want to have very long life expectancies, and we have spent billions on researching new treatments and cures to achieve that. It has paid off, since we enjoy relatively amazing health compared with the past.

Health care reform will actually increase costs. There is a simple rule to economics: when you subsidize something, you get more of it. When you hide the true costs of medical care from people, they will be more willing to go to the hospital for treatments. Tax payers with a sore throat will feel obligated to head to the ER. After all, they are paying into the system if they use it or not and they want to get the bang for their buck. It will cost time and money for doctors, hospitals or health boards just to say "no, you don't need the care."

The only way to control costs will be to say "no." As experience with the NICE in UK shows, the government will have to ration care. An economy by definition rations, and we ration care now based on price. The problem with socialized medicine is that as the costs go up, the only way to keep close to a budget is for the government to tell people "no." In a market, a person has to decide whether or not they can pay or if they can get help to pay or get free treatment. In a government controlled system or plan, if they don't qualify or can't see the doctor in time, too bad, because they won't be able to fly to America anymore to get the treatment.

Since when do people believe in an economic free lunch?

Myth # 2: Americans aren't happy with their health care

From an ABC News poll from October:

"Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States — the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000."

"Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage."

As we can see, if you have insurance (which should really only be for catastrophic events) you probably have all the care you want and need, yet you probably think the system is "broken" and in dire need of reform. Why the disconnect? Well, if all you listened to are the news alerts in the mainstream media all the time, you would think there is a massive crisis too. In politics, perceptions are reality.

With all the spending lately, we could have covered the uninsured several times over, but instead the Left seems to be manufacturing a crisis. Sure, the system is not perfect and can always be improved, but if you think we can ever have a perfect system, you are not living in reality.

Why make the perfect the enemy of the good?

Myth #3: The government can make the system more efficient

Bureaucracy and regulation only add cost and time, and there is a lot of both to be had in every government "reform." Anyone who has had to deal with the post office can tell you how bureaucracy goes. The USPS isn't being mean, it's just the nature of the procedure.

It will also open health decisions to the political process. Will you be forced to pay your tax dollars for someone else to get an abortion? Almost certainly. Will the Komen pink ribbon crowd or Jerry's kids get treatments, while the ataxia telangiectasia children get the short end of the rationing stick since they probably won't live long enough to be productive for society?

The President said once your medical records are all available to the government (that happened in the Stimulus Bill, if you weren't paying attention), we'll be able to pick between the blue pills and red pills. The problem is, patients are very different and some treatments might be more effective for others. Why do we need bureaucrats to decide in a committee what works, and not the doctors and researchers with the knowledge? Don't expect any personal treatment. With rigidly enforced rules and massive patient loads, health care reform will treat you not as an individual, but another faceless number or cog in the machine. Is that any better than an insurance company? At least you can pick another insurance company.

When has a bureaucracy or committee made your life easier?

Myth#4: Health care reform is the financially responsible thing to do

As I have pointed out above, costs will increase. It will only get worse as our population ages. Between the baby boomers, 50 million abortions and an already looming crisis with Social Security and Medicare, we'll have bankrupted the country with another generational swindle. Where will we find enough people to pay into the system to support the baby boomer's rising medical costs soon? We might not have to worry about it, since the government can just deny them the care anyway.

Perhaps the greatest evidence against health care being fiscally stable is the current status quo. Just take a look at the federal budget if you don't know what I mean. There are no incentives to save when you can tax and print money at will.

Since when has a government program come in under-budget?

Myth#5: We need public assistance to help the uninsured

Contrary to the President's insistence that the letters he reads every day show how critical it is we hand over a fifth of the US economy without debate or even reading the darn bills, the uninsured still receive medical care now. We are the wealthiest society in the history of mankind; if we can't afford as individuals to take care of the truly needy then it's a damning commentary on our society. There are far less than the nearly 50 million uninsured who genuinely need help, but we can provide them help without screwing the 90% of insured people who get the medical care they need now.

Health care reform is not about helping the uninsured, it's about completely overhauling a system and putting an inept federal government in the driver's seat.

Whatever happened to taking care of our communities, instead of outsourcing our empathy to Washington?

The Solution

Not to be accused of being just a gadfly or sadist, here is my solution. Live healthier. Stop drinking in excess and doing drugs, and leaving dinner up to Domino's every night. Go exercise. Stop handing out condoms like pez candy and then whining when a quarter of teenage girls are infected with STDs. Healthy living will cut some costs.

Take care of the uninsured the old-fashioned way. It's time we re-learned a simple concept: C-H-A-R-I-T-Y. If you are an upper-middle-class person complaining about the uninsured, when was the last time you did anything about it yourself?

Tackle some tort reform. It won't be a magic cure, but easing pressure off of doctors scared of being ruined by malpractice suits will help a little towards cutting some costs.

Most of all, realize that with the demand for research only accelerating, we will be spending a lot on health care. As long as we want to be healthy, we will keep spending more to be healthier. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Let's keep health care as a service industry, however imperfect, rather than turn it into a byzantine monstrosity like the IRS.

The Lesson

Socialism fails, because a roomful of bureaucrats can't possibly have the same knowledge as millions of patients, nurses and doctors. Socialized medicine, like most other government takeovers of the private sector, will end up doing the opposite of what it is intended to do. Instead of helping Americans improve medical care, it will make it worse. Much worse. Even Dr. Mario won't be able to save us from this one.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

Happy Independence Day!

It is necessary, when looking back on the founding of our country, to remember the reasons for it. Here they are:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

The hidden cost of public policy

Public policy is confusing, costly and byzantine. My degree is in American public policy, and trust me, confusion is part and parcel of the public policy process. We're currently witnessing an explosion of public policy and spending on the national scene: bailouts, stimulus, czar of this, czar of that, new departments, new regulatory systems, increased staff and pay. The media reports on all this, but always fails to illustrate the simple principles that a dollar spent publicly isn't efficient as a dollar in the private sector, and every regulation and tax law has hidden costs.

To illustrate this, let's examine my current experience at work. All I am trying to do is have mail go out from our office with a different address. The main cause of my problems is the simple fact that nonprofit mail is charged at a different rate. Now, the intentions behind this are good; encouraging nonprofit activity by cutting their costs.

But look at the unintended consequences of it. I have already spent about $50 worth of our organization's money for labor dealing with researching the forms necessary to do this. The Post Office didn't know how to do it so they had to spend time asking questions internally before taking the time to explain it to me. Because of the different tax rules for nonprofit organizations (which lawyers, congressional staff and agencies spent time and resources on writing, monitoring and reviewing those policies), dozens of copied pages of legal documentation are required to prove nonprofit status (just consider the carbon footprint!). Those pages required lawyers, paper, ink and time spent reading, writing, reviewing and understanding. This change in address was only necessary because certain mailings have to originate from certain districts for some regulatory reason for the Postal Service. Communicating all this to the many parties involved required time and electricity for computer and phone use.

These are only a part of the hidden costs involved with a seemingly simple rule. All this so I can put a different address on a letter. Time and resources spent on answering questions, instead of helping our organization help society improve. If you think pro-lifers aren't helping the economy, ask how much better off we'd be with those 50 million aborted Americans since 1973 paying taxes to prevent the massive crisis looming with Medicare and Social Security. That's what happens when you create massive debts to be paid off by future generations, but then kill off a third of the future generation. Duh!

In the end our organization will save money and the costs in this case are minuscule even though they are spread out over a massive stretch of the country. The nonprofit mail rate in the end may be more beneficial than harmful, although no one can ever figure out the true economic impact. The fact is, there were hidden costs involved in that public policy choice of different mail rates.

Imagine this situation though in different settings, multiplied over millions of individuals doing business or paying taxes with even bigger regulations and expenses. Economics is the study of how a society spends its resources; those choices necessarily involve rationing scarce time and resources. How much more will the economy have benefited if we spend resources on meaningful things instead of determining how to navigate bureaucracy?

So as we begin to debate the merits of moving healthcare across the country from a somewhat private system to a public system where a government bureaucracy controls and is responsible for managing millions of interactions between individuals seeking or giving medical care, remember the hidden cost of public policy. I guarantee when it comes to healthcare, the cost is too much to bear.

Review: How Football Explains America

I just finished reading How Football Explains America, by ESPN reporter Sal Paolantonio. For anyone who loves the game of football, this is an excellent read. Also a great gift for Father's Day! My copy was a gift from my friend Mikhail, who always argues with me why soccer is better.

Sal sets out to prove his thesis that football is popular because it mirrors our American society. This is opposed to the views that the TV Media is responsible for making football the most popular sport in the country, or people are just attracted to the violence.

I won't spoil all of his points for you, but he details some important milestones and figures in football history, and shows how they mirror the great milestones and figures in our nation's history. His recounting starts with the earliest transitions from soccer and rugby to football, and gives a persuasive argument of how every major change in football was because of the changes in society. He easily dispels the notion that America didn't love the game before TV starting airing it.

Each chapter is woven around the narrative of the 2008 NFL season and its major teams and players, linking the great moments of football past to the great moments of today. Here's a taste of some of the titles of the better chapters: "How Football Explains Manifest Destiny," "How Football Explains West Point," "How Football Explains Alexis de Tocqueville."

My only gripe is that while he talks briefly about fantasy football as another way people became more involved in the sport, he failed to discuss football video games. Besides your smashes and classics, no games are more popular than NCAA Football and Madden every year. Now, I acquired my love for the game going to Michigan games. There is no experience quite like taking in a Ohio State/UM game in the Big House. But I acquired my interest in the players and appreciation for the strategy from the video games (my first was Joe Montana Sports Talk Football for the Sega Genesis). Without that, I might never have become engrossed in the game and learning the finer details like I have.

Overall, this is a very intelligent and compelling book for football, philosophy and history nuts. I think it paints an excellent picture of why our country has fallen in love with this complicated, brutal and exciting sport so much, while the rest of the world sticks with that other sport stealing football's good name.

On George Tiller

I woke up this morning and turned the computer on. I go to the Drudge Report to see the latest assault on US Capitalism or more Kim Jong-Il stupidity, but instead I am greeted with this headline: Abortion doc gunned down in church...

I can't believe it.

George Tiller, the infamous Kansas abortionist nicknamed "Baby Killer" Tiller, the subject of a recent drawn out legal morass regarding his practice, was shot and killed in his Lutheran Church. His suspected murderer is some man named Scott Roeder. I still don't believe it...

Here's some major points about these two individuals. Dr. Tiller was a despicable man. He operated one of the few abortion clinics in the country that aborts viable unborn children. He had used his money and power to influence Kansas politics to escape prosecution for his accused legal violations. He has injured and maimed several women at his clinic over the years. What he deserved was to be prosecuted for his violations and serve the sentence due, not to be killed in the middle of a Sunday service in his church's narthex while his wife sings in the choir. Whatever he had done, killing him was neither legal nor moral.

Scott Roeder appear to be a 51-year-old man. He has been described by news sources as a member of Kansas militia groups. He deserves to be prosecuted (if he indeed was the murderer) and receive the maximum sentence available in my opinion.

What Roeder did was even more heinous than Dr. Tiller for one reason: unintended consequences. Maybe in his twisted view he thought he would be saving lives, but his actions could mean more lives will have been lost. With the help of an agreeable media, he will have tarnished an entire movement's reputation.

This comes on the heels of a recent poll to suggest that a majority of Americans consider themselves prolife for the first time since Gallup first polled the question. This comes on the heels of a report suggesting that people with prolife bumperstickers could be domestic terrorists. This comes with the common stereotype of a prolife activist that condemns everyone to Hell and is full of hatred.

In a sick way, this might be the single biggest gift to the pro-abortion movement in years. It will allow them (again, with a willing media to enforce their narrative) to paint prolife activists like yours truly here as nutjobs bent on destroying rather than protecting. They will send out fundraising appeals galore suggesting a wave of violence will result and can only be stopped if you give them more money. They will go on talk shows saying how a majority of prolifers share the views of Roeder and they need to be stopped. We need to treat them as domestic terrorists, because look, they just assassinated a citizen! They will use this as much as they can to advance their agenda.

In this specific instance, what will this do to Tiller's family and church family? Will they be further alienated from the prolife view? Will they be further alienated from God? What has Roeder done to his own soul?

What Roeder did was not save the lives of many unborn; he may have well been the influence behind thousands more abortions of lives not yet conceived, and damaged the lives and souls of many people here today. I am sure Mr. Roeder thought himself to be a far morally superior person to George Tiller. In the end, he became even worse.

I'm quite livid because years and years of work, effort, time, money, blood sweat & tears to encourage universal respect for the of the sanctity of all human life could be endangered by the actions of a lone person, who put his own twisted and egotistical view of himself before the good of the many, his fellow man and God.

I ask that you pray for three things: first, that Tiller's family will emerge from this tragedy closer to God. Second, that Roeder (again, if he did do it) will repent and apologize for his actions. Third, that his actions will not deter the growing belief in this country that all humans regardless of level of development have the inalienable right to life.

Justice is… not blind?

As expected, President Obama nominated a candidate for Justice Souter’s spot on the high court. Like I predicted, it was a candidate meant to both score political points and to shred the US Constitution. I just heard on WOOD 1300 radio a comment from a Hispanic activist saying how Sotomayor’s much needed perspective as a Hispanic will result in better law. Say what?

We always think of justice being blind; the idea that justice does not depend on your status or popularity, but the principle that all men are created equal. But wait, according to that Hispanic activist, justice is favoring certain ethnic groups? Perhaps he meant to say there is some discrimination in the Supreme Court’s decisions. That’s a fair assessment, considering how many awful decisions they have in their history (Dred Scott comes to mind in this regard).

But how do we address that? Do we pick judges with intelligence, commitment to the Constitution and fervent belief that justice must be blind as possible?

Apparently not. We pick a nominee who actually said that Hispanic women will make better legal decisions that white men. We have regressed in some ways in this country. Do we really believe the sum total of our human experience depends on the color of our skin? Do we believe that laws must apply differently for Hispanics or whites or blacks?

On one hand, liberals say we need to have a fair and just society free of racial discrimination. On the other hand though, they pit groups against each other and act as if racial minorities are homogenous blocks of voters who will support whoever throws them a bone. A bit of cognitive dissonance, wouldn’t you say?

I’m irritated by this because not only because identity politics is the obvious motive, but it was being openly discussed as a purely political pick, and nobody seems to care. If she actually believed in the US Constitution this would be a good pick since my definition of the pick isn’t that we need more white men on the bench, Latino females, black women or even red-bellied woodpeckers (don’t laugh, “nature” already is considered a legal person in Ecuador). My definition of a good pick is a judge who will be a judge; not a socialist activist eager to hand over our lives to the federal government.

The entire debate over her qualifications will center on her race and gender, not her abilities. That will be profoundly sad. Is that the kind of society we want, where we are judged by the color of our skin and not the content of our character?

Perhaps the only positive thing from this is that it wasn’t Jennifer Granholm!

The new imperialism?

Imperialism is a term very much in-vogue in some circles; the idea that the cultural and political West still very much oppresses the rest of the world. Well, I'm going to explore another facet of this here. There's several I could examine, for example, how a political system originating with "dead white men" led to some of the greatest suffering, poverty, genocide and oppression history has ever known. But that's for another day. Today, we're again going to look at that very ugly topic of abortion, and how the US and Europe is exporting the culture of death to the rest of the world.

Abortion is old, and no society has a monopoly on it since over the course of history, like so many other evils, many societies have given in to the temptation. In recent history, however, it's been the West that has been committed to an abortion agenda. The catalyst for this post was the recent news about us axing the Mexico City Policy and restoring taxpayer funding of the UN Population Fund.

The Mexico City Policy forbade any of our tax dollars going to organizations that provide or promote abortion overseas. The UN Population Fund itself participates with China's one child policy, a doctrine that includes forced abortion, forced sterilization, jailing of dissidents and other forms of oppression (worthy of our funding apparently).

Who are these countries that restrict abortion? Some are in the West like Ireland, Poland and Malta. Many though are in the geographical South. Many are poor and predominately Catholic countries in South America or the Philippines, some countries in Africa and other places. These countries don't want abortion. They've seen the broken families, broken women and broken societies that have been left in abortion's wake. They've seen Russia literally dying as the country aborts away their own citizens. They don't want it.

Yet we are giving our money to groups who try to force their governments to change their laws. They routinely find themselves in front of a UN commission trying to explain why they don't support "reproductive rights." They have American taxpayer-funded groups full of foreign citizens agitating their citizens and messing with their judicial process. Under the Bush Administration, our envoys to the UN would stand up for these countries. Now, our envoys are actively supporting a cultural coup in these countries.

If that's not imperialism, tell me what is...

So what about all those intellectuals and their denouncements of imperialism? Where are the protests, blog posts and righteous indignation on this issue? The West is trying to manipulate other countries into joining them in the generational genocide. Where are those voices on this?

I have my suspicions. I suspect they only care about their personal issues. If it's capitalism or religion we are talking about it, we're the most horrible civilization in the world. If it's the encouragement of killing another society's future, then they seem to be silent or apathetic. I can't blame them too much in that regard. If we believe something is right and good and true for one person, then it follows that is must be right and good and true for all mankind. As much as some of us try to deny or forget, there are fundamental universal truths about good and evil, right and wrong and most of us operate based on that principle. I question though what good abortion will do for the rest of the world. It certainly hasn't done any good here.

Maybe like Margaret Sanger you share the belief that one less poor mouth to feed is a good thing. Maybe you believe that a human's worth is only judged on if they are "wanted" or not. The truth of the matter though is that many of these countries are in their particular circumstances because we and they stopped seeing each human individual person as good and a blessing, but rather as a means to an end. If you want the US to be a force of good in this world as we have been on many other issues, start talking about how the US should be exporting liberty and freedom, not death. If you think the US shouldn't be imposing their beliefs on the rest of the world, it's time for you to speak up on this issue instead of looking the other way. Either way, abortion destroys and tears down women, children, men and society. We should not spend a single dollar of ours to be complicit in it, either here or abroad.

Who will join me in denouncing this new imperialism?

Supreme Court Racism?

OK, so the title is better for a discussion of the Dred Scott case. That's my "favorite" case to talk about, particularly in regards to Roe v. Wade and the abortion issue. But I digress, since this post is only tangential to the issue of abortion.

I'm talking about the replacement for Justice David Souter. We know the nominee will be pro-abortion with no exceptions, activist when it comes to paying attention to the constitution, probably will think the UN dictating American law is fine and the 2nd Amendment is a throwback to the unadvanced neanderthals and their muzzle loaders. That's no surprise, in fact, it's a sad state of affairs that I can tell you a lot about the nominee's identity before he or she even make it on the short list. That's a whole other post.

If we listen to the what the establishment media tells us, the next nominee will certainly not be a white male Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Now, that doesn't bother me. I'll take a Clarence Thomas over a suburban latte-liberal any day of the week and twice on Mondays and Thursdays. What bothers me is that the qualifications for the new judge will not be based on their jurisprudence or knowledge of the Constitution. Instead, the qualifications will be on whether the prospective judge will be Black, Asian, Hispanic, a women, etc...

All the names being circulated (Sears, Sotomayor, Koh, Hagan etc...) are purposely either women or racial minorities. Each special interest group is now arguing for their respective identities. NOW and other abortion lovers want a woman. Syndicated columnist Ruben Naverrette says it's time to make history and put a Hispanic on the court. In the article, Naverrette actually says anyone who thinks we should be colorblind in the decision-making process is probably just resenting affirmative action. Gee Ruben, perhaps Martin Luther King's dream of a land that judges its citizens by the content of their character is just latent white male rage against the threat to the WASP hegemonic power structure.

The title of this post like my other eye-grabbers is designed to make a point. An entire branch of government has become a way to throw out scraps to various groups to score political points. It has nothing to do with the best candidate, or even more importantly a commitment to basing judicial decisions on the Constitution.

What unites us Americans any more? Our Constitution is treated like a wad of Quilted Northern. Our government documents are frequently in two or several languages. Religion is under constant overt assault from imperial judges representing the views of 5% of people. Liberty is traded in at the welfare office or corporate boardroom for a few cheap bucks. US History is taught in school from the viewpoint of 60s radicals who are no longer fronting the Communist Party but trusted with helping shape the minds of our children. The media has become the mouthpiece for the Democrat Party and their many opposing special interests. Instead of becoming the great melting pot, we are becoming a collection of disparate interests all struggling for their spot in the federal trough. A very wise man once said a house divided against itself can not stand. There is a great danger to identity politics, but the Left doesn't care. They just want the power, and the easiest way to get it is through judicial fiat.

If we believe race shouldn't matter, if we believe that we should always strive to move towards a colorblind society, if we have a dream that all individuals should be considered equal before the sight of God and the laws of men, then this current process is a corruption, not a celebration of diversity.

I will leave you with two things. The most incredible and insightful comment about liberty I have ever heard came from none other than that hated man Rush Limbaugh. He asked "what was the smallest minority?" Nobody could answer. He did for them: "the individual." I will end with King's words about his dream of a society that looks beyond race:

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today! I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together!