In current events, Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected president of Honduras, was exiled by his country’s military in the dead of night. Extracted from his home and flown to neighboring Costa Rica, the president was said to be in violation of constitutional law. Both the national congress and judiciary are said to have supported the move. To many, this was justification for the actions of the Honduran military. The quick condemnation by Western leaders, including Obama, is seen as duplicitous by many right wing pundits.

The point here is… The Rule of Law did not prevail. If Zelaya broke the law, as the Honduran congress and courts say he did, the chief legal authority should have him arrested. Or the congress should impeach him. He should stand trial for his crimes in a court of law and the public provided with evidence of his crimes - and he with a vigorous defense.

Rather than arrest or impeachment, he was deposed and exiled… this is not a democratic process.

It is not a matter of guilt; nor if he is a good administrator or not; or if he is “right wing” or “left wing” politically. It is a question of due process - of which he was denied. That is the issue.

In a broader sense, Obama, and many other democratic governments are indeed obliged to object on these grounds alone. Left unchallenged, this type of behavior returns us to the hypocritical and deceitful practices of Viet Nam, Iran, the Cold War and Iraq. Wherein the overthrow or disposition of any leader that did not suit our national interests was seen as acceptable – without regard to form of government – democratic or otherwise.

We must, as global libertarians, begin to acknowledge that not all democratic processes will deliver the kind of government – or the type of leaders – the Western democracies embrace. But if we truly wish to influence the world’s indigenous populations to seek democratic governance, we must accept their will at the ballot box. Human nature is as human nature does.

Bad leaders will ALWAYS emerge. The totalitarians will emerge quickly. Like Chavez, Zeleya, Castro and the like, they will move to change the constitution or empower “president for life” manifestos. From there the ‘management’ of free elections to the will of the governing elite is always next. Even the most democratic and freest of nations can have bad leaders.

We must have faith that the process of democracy will eventually prevail.

Every time you go to the ATM machine, you are cutting the cost of banks to provide services to you by a whopping 65%. That’s the difference in administrative & processing costs between a teller transaction and one handled by the customer at an ATM.

It is estimated, that like the banking industry in the 1960s, healthcare providers today spend a whopping 50% of their human resources on patient record keeping and record management.

In addition to the obvious need to keep exemplary records of patient treatment, allergies, drug prescriptions, and the like; today’s healthcare providers must address governmental regulatory constraints such as HIPPA and OSHA; health insurance reporting, filing and coding; Medicare & Medicaid compliance; the demands of legal protections around malpractice and liability; and much more.

In an effort to reengineer the cost per patient ratio in American healthcare, the Obama administration (and admittedly, several prior administrations – of both parties) has targeted the cost of patient record keeping and record management as a key success factor in healthcare reform. While this is the right target, much of the work to date has not resulted in much of a difference in cost for either the healthcare provider or the patient.

The answer may lie in the lessons learned from the ATM.

Giving the patient the responsibility for the accuracy and availability of their health records is not much different than expecting a person to be responsible for their financial records. What’s truly exciting about this approach is that it can actually improve the privacy profile beyond what HIPPA requires. By using the internet and a set of well designed secure web “Patient Registry” applications an individual patient can:

• Develop a single heath history and personal health profile - like the history profile everyone fills out time and time again when applying for heathcare or admittance to a health facility;
• Define emergency contacts, successor information, power of attorney and life support instructions;
• Disclose which providers or healthcare interests can have access to their records, and what topics might be restricted and to whom they are restricted.
• Ask to be notified when anyone accesses or attempts access to records – or certain topics (mental heath, for example);
• Remove much of the legal burden from providers with regard to record accuracy between unrelated healthcare events;
• Perform periodic review (or assign a reviewer) to insure continuity of information, treatment, charts and records.

For the care providers, this approach has some immediate benefits. Any person that utilizes this Patient Registry has a fast path through applications, admissions, referrals and appointments. By entering the individual’s SSN and a PIN number – assigned by the patient to the provider – the entire patient history and the history of all relevant treatment, diagnosis or medical advice is available electronically and instantly.

This is only the beginning. As electronic records and digital diagnostic data (such as MRI, CAT Scans, X rays, etc.) become available, they can be linked to the Patient Registry data and automatically reviewed by patient and provider alike. The patient’s insurance company or employer may be given access to certain information to speed payment or reimbursement. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security access could be granted to reduce, if not eliminate the paperwork and delays involved in treatment assessment and reimbursement.

Until the patient is directly in charge of their medical records and history, none of the extensive and expensive electronics records initiatives will result in major savings. As long as providers, record keepers, laboratories, governments and insurance companies attempt to create holistic solutions without first addressing the basic needs and rights of the patient, we will fall sort of true reform – not to mention true cost containment.

JB

References and Sources

Beaudoin, J. l (2006). Article: HHS to fund trial NHINs in 2007; Healthcare IT News; http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=6036

Bogatin, D. (2007). Blog: Google scary now? Personal Health Records, sponsored by Google, next; ZDNet.com; Retrieved August 22, 2007 from: http://blogs.zdnet.com/micro-markets/?p=1261

Broder, C. (2005). Article: Feds seek national health information system prototype; Healthcare IT News, http://www.healthcareitnews.com/story.cms?id=2978

HIPPA, (2006). Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as referenced at, http://aspe.hhs.gov/admnsimp/pl104191.htm

HIMSS News (2006). Seeking Stakeholder Representation for HIMSS/NEMA MDS2 Joint Standards Writing Committee, http://www.himss.org/ASP/ContentRedirector.asp?ContentID=66391&type=HIMSSNewsItem

Rehm, S., Kraft, S. (2001), Electronic Medical Record Systems, American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Retrieved January 8, 2005 from: http://www.aafp.org/fpm/20010100/45elec.html

Weinert, K. (n.d.). A Brief History of ATMs, retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.stopatmfees.com/newpage3.htm

Other Reading:

American Health Information Management Association (AHIMA), Coding Policy and Strategy Committee, Payer’s Guide to Healthcare Diagnostic and Procedural Data Quality, [2001] http://www.ahima.org/infocenter/payersguide/payersguideprt1.pdf

Electronic Health Records Workgroup, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic/ehr_main.html

HIPPA Compliance, Financial Payment Clearinghouses, http://www.hipaabanking.org/healthcare.html , January, 2005

Medical Privacy - National Standards to Protect the Privacy of Personal Health Information, http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/ , January, 2005.

National Guideline Clearinghouse, a public resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines at http://www.guideline.gov/ , January, 2005

Can someone own you? Can they own your biological parts – such as your genes?

Yes they can. And you might be surprised to learn that the biggest owners of human genetic info are not corporations, but universities.

The ACLU is trying to upend a practice that goes back to 1980 when the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of an inventor that used human bacteria to engineer a microbe that dissolves oil. The “bacteria” was a genetic “discovery” of an existing organism and the bacterial genes were patented as a component in the microbe invention.

U.S. Patent Law is developed to protect the genesis of invention. In doing so, the law defines the term “invention” to mean invention or discovery [35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions. Para (a) ]. That “or discovery” part is what all prior genetic patents relied upon. So the fact that one discovers a gene – is set apart from actually doing anything with it; like creating an invention. So while it can be argued that the precedence set by the Supreme Court in 1980 was to effectively protect the components of an invention, subsequent patents have not had to pass this test, apparently. And the Court’s ruling did not elaborate on the aspect of invention as a precursor to patenting a genetic discovery.

So what’s wrong with gene patenting anyway? Well, the case in which the ACLU is involved is a prime example. A Utah university and a private drug company jointly hold patents on genes named “BRCA1” and “BRCA2”. These genes have been proven responsible for many cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers in women.

By owning the genes, they also own the test for them. So if a woman wants to be tested to see if she has genetic markers for breast or ovarian cancer, she will have to pay the patent holding drug company $3000. Clearly this is not the intent of patent law, especially when federally supported universities are involved.

“It is the policy and objective of the Congress to use the patent system to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research or development…to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs of the Government and protect the public against nonuse or unreasonable use of inventions,…” [35 U.S.C. 200 Policy and objective.]

Since “Inventions” is also defined as “discovery”, this policy applies amply to the ACLU “unreasonable use” assertion.

You will be happy to know, however, that the practice of patenting your genetic code is, for all practical purposes, stopped completely. The Human Genome Project (HGP), which has successfully mapped the entire human genome, has made all our genes a matter of “public record”… so patents on solely the ‘discovery’ of a human gene are no longer valid. You can still patent an invention made from them… but not the genes themselves.

But the issue of patenting discovery still has ominous connotation. And while much of our genetic code is now protected from this practice – (and the patents that came before the HGP have a life span of only 20 years so they are expiring quickly) – there is a precedent here that may cause future discovery to be held hostage thorough misused patent law. In the approximately 80 pages of current patent law, the team “discovery” is used only three times. Therefore it should not be a significant effort to amend this law with more precise language that supports the scope of invention – rather than greed.

JB

References and Sources:

ACLU (2009), Article: ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes, CNN, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/12/us.genes.lawsuit/index.html

Burger, Chief Justice. (1980). Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks v. Chakrabarty, United States Supreme Court, June 16, 1980, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ 193; Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://digital-law-online.info/cases/206PQ193.htm

Human Genome Project (2009). Human Genome Project Information, Oakridge National Laboratory, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml

Landau, E. (2009). How human genes become patented, CNN, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/13/genes.patent.myriad/index.html

US Patent and Trademark Office (2009). United States Code Title 35 – Patents, Appendix L Patent Laws, Retrieved May 16, 2009, from: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

In Geneva, Switzerland this week a political football known as the UN Antiracism Conference (or more precisely: The Conference on “Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance”) - is an example of a much needed dialog hijacked by special interests; namely, religious and cultural leaders.

The first UN Antiracism Conference was held in Durban, South Africa in September 2001. Since that time it has been stuck in a political quagmire. The fact that the UN is more of a pulpit than a forum for debate was never more evident than this 8 year struggle to define racism and discrimination.

It can be argued, that there is no other nation that has more experience dealing with racism – past and present – than the United States. So when they declined not to attend or endorse the “agreement” drafted for the conference, I decided to give this a look-see and try to understand the debate.

I think even the youngest child in the U.S. can understand racism. Not so the U.N., apparently.

Your race or gender is a consequence of birth rather than choice, culture or indoctrination. Such cultural or personal choices as religious beliefs, sexual beliefs and moral bearing, cannot, by their very definition, be addressed by a global standard of right and wrong.

In an effort to address every problem in the world – for every interest in the world – the U.N. once again misses the point. Racism and sexism are real. The reason they are so profound a problem is evident in the arguments of the special interests in the racism debate itself. Political interests want to pit religious beliefs and economic classes against each other in the name of racism.  If you do not accept our culture or abide by our religious laws,  you are racist.  It is postulated by several influential religious interests, that if one’s religion says one is allowed to be sexist or raciest or to discriminate - within their common law -  then that trumps all other arguments.  

The fact the U.S., and other nations, are boycotting this conference – rather than give it the legitimacy it does not deserve – is the proper choice in my opinion.  The only way the U.N. can now extract itself from the mess it’s gotten itself into, is to develop separate conferences. One on racial and sexual discrimination; and another on intolerance of belief, culture and personal choice. We could then see a more uniform argument on the issues facing humanity, rather than only the issues facing those that wish to control humanity.

This separation will never happen of course. The U.N. is not designed to be effective; it is designed to give political voice to those who would not otherwise be heard. A noble goal, I believe, but not very pragmatic if solutions are to be gained. It’s that whole “management by committee” thing that never results in effective governance.

Since so many of the problems of global racism are rooted in cultural and religious belief, I’m not sure we will ever adequately address the key root causes of discrimination: religious dogma and cultural tradition.  Not until John Lennon’s “Imagine” - a world without walls, religions and countries -  will we find the plateau on which humanity may one day stand.  I fear many deaths and much pain await us between now and that day.

JB

Current News:

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/19/racism.conference/index.html

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8006852.stm

Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/04/200941982836646130.html

With an obvious left slant to the political landscape in the U.S., 2009 has seen more discussion about decriminalizing drug use, specifically cannabis, that at anytime in recent memory.

The U.S. “War on Drugs” is all about morality, and has little to do with reality. After billions of dollars spent, and tens of thousands incarcerated, the U.S. has the highest drug related per capita arrest, conviction and incarceration rate in the world. And of course, drug use in the U.S. continues to be three to four times that of the next closest country.

A recent study by Glenn Greenwald, attorney and best-selling author, under consignment to the CATO Institute (listed as a “Right Wing” think tank), shows that the complete decriminalization of drugs in Portugal, has been a resounding success. Much to the amazement of the conventional wisdom of the right, drug use did not increase, it decreased. After a couple years, violent crime and criminal activity surrounding drug trafficking has fallen drastically.

This will not be the only such decriminalization. Many other countries are eyeing Portugal’s achievements. Portugal did not have an easy road either. There had to be adjustments made to policy and approach as time went on. But it is the consensus that they will never again return to criminalizing drugs in Portugal. In countries that decriminalized only cannabis, the results are good, but not as stark as the complete decriminalization of all drugs, as in Portugal.

I, for one, am a right-of-center Independent. My politics generally follow the most achievable and sensible policy. But, I have been one of those misguided hypocrites that used drugs in my youth, but supported heavy legal penalties later in life after my house was robbed by people trying to get valuables to sell for drug money. As I grew older; as my own children went through young adulthood, I grew more fearful for their safety from “the drug dealers” lurking in every school cafeteria.

But then, slowly, I saw the disparities in the law around drugs vs. other offenses. Mandatory sentencing laws affected several friends and their families. Then a friend’s son faced a life ruining arrest, but his attorney prevailed. If convicted, the ¼ ounce of cocaine found in his apartment could have made him a life-long felon at the age of 19.

Today we face overcrowding of prisons and jails where over 25% are incarcerated on mandatory sentences for trivial offenses. Our tax dollars provide billions in training, arms and materials to dozens of foreign countries that export drugs. We fight an endless war along our boarders with dozens now dying daily in Mexico… all on account of illegal drugs. Thousands die. Millions are spent on law enforcement and interdiction. And the drug use, drug killings and drug crime continue unabated.

I also look at the moral impact of drugs on our society. Young women are especially vulnerable to drug related abuse and crime. From prostitution to neglect and physical abuse, women, especially those with children, fear to avail themselves of help or social programs for fear of loosing their children or going to jail… so they simply endure the addictions, abuse and heartache.

I remember when I was young; one of the lures of drug experimentation was simply the fact that it was illegal. It had little real ‘value’ outside of claiming my independence from the status quo. Now, older and wiser, I see more clearly the fallacy of the “War on Drugs”.

“There is clearly a growing recognition around the world and even in the U.S. that, strictly on empirical grounds, criminalization approaches to drug usage and, especially, the “War on Drugs,” are abject failures, because they worsen the exact problems they are ostensibly intended to address. “Strictly on empirical grounds” means excluding from the assessment: (a) ideological questions regarding the legitimacy of imprisoning adults for consuming drugs they choose to consume; (b) the evisceration of Constitutional and civil liberties wrought by drug criminalization; and (c) the extraordinary sums of money devoted to the War on Drugs both domestically and internationally.” - Glenn Greenwald

It is time for a non-ideological, scientific, realistic debate on the causes and effects of drug use, and the complete cessation of the war on symptoms. A war on the problem has been missing in this debate. We need to now address the “Law on Drugs” and remove the fulcrum on which organized crime and personal addiction balance.

JB

Sources and References:

CATO. (2009). Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, POLICY FORUM, Friday, April 3, 2009; CATO Institute; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887

Chin, B. (2008). Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana, The Boston Globe, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_2_setu.html

Degenhardt, L. et al (2008). Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys, PLoS Medicine Vol. 5, No. 7, e141 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141, Summary retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141

Economist (2009). How to stop the drug wars, from The Economist print edition; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193&source=hptextfeature

Greenwald, G. (2009). The success of drug decriminalization in Portugal, Salon.com; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/14/portugal/index.html

Grudgings, S. (2009). Latin America ex-leaders urge reform of US drug war; Thomson Reuters; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN11358345

Olszewski, D., et al. (2009), Women’s Voices - Experiences and perceptions of women who face drug-related problems in Europe; EMCDDA; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/womens-voices

Peters, J. (2009). Albany Takes Step to Repeal ’70s-Era Drug Laws; The New York Times, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/05/nyregion/05rockefeller.html?_r=1

Reuter, R. (2009). Professional Bio Brief, Professor, School of Public Policy and Department of Criminology, University of Maryland, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.publicpolicy.umd.edu/facstaff/faculty/Reuter.html

RightWingWatch.org. (2009). Right Wing Organization Profiles: Index; People For the American Way; retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/right-wing-organization-profiles-index

Wickham, D. (2009). Bill Clinton admits ‘regret’ on crack cocaine sentencing, USA today, retrieved March 15, 2009, from: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/03/bill-clinton-ad.html

The 1990 Acid Rain Program is a market-based initiative taken by the EPA in an effort to reduce overall atmospheric levels of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x), which cause acid rain. The program is an implementation of an emissions trading (cap-and-trade) initiative that targets coal-burning power plants, allowing them to buy and sell emission permits (called “allowances”) according to individual needs and costs. The ARP was the first cap-and-trade program of its kind in the U.S.

The 101^st Congress crafted and passed the ARP legislation during the first two years of the Republican administration of U.S. President George H. W. Bush (with further amendments in 1995 & 2000).

Overall, the Program’s cap-and-trade system has been immensely successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO₂ emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976 (when monitoring first began). Furthermore, the EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.

But CO₂ (Carbon Dioxide) is an entirely different beast. Anytime anything is burned, CO₂ is created. It is a fact of nature and it cannot be ‘reduced’ through technology. Even natural gas, the lowest CO₂ creating fossil fuel, produces over 50% of the CO₂ produced by coal – but it is 4 times more expensive. And as supplies get scarcer, gas will only go higher. As more and more power plants reduce coal consumption, coal gets cheaper. It’s an economic irony that cannot be completely eliminated.

By and large the “clean coal” initiative has met only with disaster. No matter how effective the costly ‘scrubbers’ that sequester CO₂, they cannot eliminate it – they can only ‘capture’ it. And the quantities that they capture are extremely difficult to store as bio-hazard waste products. The need for air-tight CO₂ ‘storage’ is many times that of nuclear waste storage. So while many people, including President Obama, are under the impression that there is a “Clean Coal” alternative, the technology simply does not support the notion. Only the coal lobbyists believe ‘clean coal’ is a reality. No one that understands the science and the technology does, however.

This does not mean that there is not a solution somewhere on the horizon. There is promising research around biomass solutions (like algae masses that eat CO₂ and emit oxygen) and other technologies – but the scalability is not even close yet. More research may be the key – but we are fooling ourselves if we think ‘clean coal’ is just a matter of will, effort and money. It is much more than that.

Once again the government is looking hard and long at a cap-and-trade initiative to attack the CO₂ and other greenhouse emissions. And the Republicans – in true allegiance to the coal industry lobby – are fighting it tooth and nail.

In any event, if we are going to truly find a ‘clean coal’ alternative it will only be when we have the money and the research resources to put to the task. A cap-and-trade initiative for greenhouse gases will provide that stimulus to the industry and the companies that can develop solutions. While its success may not be as dramatic or as quick as the SO₂ and NO_x reductions in the Acid Rain legislation, it will take us in the right direction much faster than any reasonable alternative.

JB

Cappiello, D. (2009). Capitol power plant dims clean energy hopes, Associated Press, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_POWER_PLANT?SITE=OKOKL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

EDF (2007). The Cap and Trade Success Story, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

Fehrenbacher, K. (2008). Former Energy Secretaries: Cap and Trade Is Bad for Business, earth2tech.com, Retrieved March 1, 2009, from: http://earth2tech.com/2008/11/12/former-energy-secretaries-cap-and-trade-is-bad-for-business/

Total Stimulus Budget – Near $900 Billion. The Republican analysis (CNN, 2009) unearthed the following “Pork”:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy de-funded last year because it said the project was inefficient. - There is no such thing as “Clean Coal”. It makes little sense, IMHO, to spend more money to build a power plant that it can make selling that power once it is done. Jobs involved may be a positive aspect, but how many NEW jobs and for how long? I’d kill it! (Subtract -$2,000,000,000)

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. – WTF? Where’s the jobs or distribution of wealth here? I’d kill it. (Subtract -$ 246,000,000)

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program. - Wasn’t this already funded? Must have been if the cut-over date used to be,… like,… today! Kill it. (Subtract -$ 650,000,000)

• $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship). - I expect the polar ice will melt long before we get it built in any case. Kill it. No huge jobs or economic uplift here… If we still need it 4 years from now let’s look at it again. (Subtract -$ 88,000,000)

• $448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. - I’m all for new construction. Lot’s of jobs both in construction and setting up infrastructure, etc. Since it is a gov’t project we will hire more people than we have too, it will overrun the schedule by at least a year and the budget will get bigger each quarter till it’s $1.5billion at least. Go for it!

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters. - Since there is NO WAY this building will be complete before budget cycle 2011 – shelve the furniture appropriation for later. Kill it. (Subtract -$248,000,000)

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees. - Like it. Only we need a totally new energy policy that makes these vehicles more abundant and cheaper in the short run. Go for it.

• $400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent STD’s. - Where are the jobs and economic uplift here? The CDC cannot prevent STDs. Damn liberals. Parents and kids prevent STDs. Give this to a faith based program where it belongs and get the gov’t out of this moral crap. Kill it. (Subtract -$ 400,000,000)

• $1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs. – I’m all for covering sh.t up. If it means lots of jobs for a couple years at least, then do it. Go for it.

• $125 million for the Washington sewer system. – If by “Washington” they mean D.C. – well, I’ve lived there. Its worth twice this to get it fixed up. Lots of good jobs here too. Go for it.

• $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities. – The Smithsonian is Huge, with a capital “H”. So this could mean lots of jobs and maybe increased revenue for the area around the ‘peoples’ museum. I’d need to know the scope, scale and schedule of such an effort though. ???

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion. – Confused? I am. Does this mean the 2010 census is not at all funded; partially funded, but lacks $3b or what? In any event, census taking is an extremely labor intensive task. Labor – like in JOBS. Need to know the money is going to the labor side of the issue and I’d be all for it.

• $75 million for “smoking cessation activities. Like state and local governments have not banned enough, advertised enough or sued enough; the US Gov’t must now give money to… Who? Jobs where, economic stimulus where? Lowering health costs by $75 million maybe? Doubt it. Need to see justification. Initial reaction: Kill it. (Subtract - $75,000,000)

• $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges. – Like it. But the students need the tuition to get to the campus first. Could be a keeper.

• $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI. Without it they go unsalaried? For raises or new agents & employees… ?  If this is FBI expansion … cool. If not, Kill it. I gotta do without a job, they can do without a raise. (Subtract -$ 75,000,000)

• $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction. – I’ll drink to that. Ok, is this ‘additional’ money, or funding for ‘existing’ programs? If there are no jobs or economic uplift here (like greater than $25M), we need to leave it for another day. (Subtract -$ 25,000,000)

• $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. – Now you’re talking. Billions in losses like we suffered years ago is not a good prospect in this economy. Give the creation of jobs and local investments that go along with this, I’d say it’s a keeper.

• $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas. – Camels in urban areas!… Oh, Canals. Is this not Corps of Engineers stuff in the first place? How is this different (jobs, investment, etc.)? $10m is a drop in the bucket.. actually, it is so little that it raises a red flag for me. ???

• $6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings. And $3B to tear half of them down and plant trees. Anyway, you can get the sense of just how big our government is when you can spend $6 billion on light bulbs and windows. But, size of government aside, it is needed - and it will employ thousands to get it done, pump millions into the economy for materials, goods and services. Gotta say yes.

• $500 million for state and local fire stations. Like saying no to motherhood. Lots of good construction jobs in this too – over a long period. Gotta say yes… again.

• $650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands. Most studies show that fire management causes as many problems as it solves. Also, need to see number on job creation, economic uplift (goods services, etc.). Initial guess is that it does not do a lot for the economy. Things such as this may be ‘reasonable’ as a government project, but should be left to the annual budget process rather than an “economic stimulus”. Kill it. (Subtract -$ 650,000,000)

• $1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs. Could be a good one. I’d keep it!

• $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service. Much like the DHS project, it means jobs and money spent in the materials needed. Let’s do it.

• $412 million for CDC buildings and property. See PHS & DHS… Get er’ done.

• $500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health facilities in Bethesda, Maryland. Again, construction and renovation have a thumbs up for the most part.

• $160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service. What’s with paid volunteers? Does this pass the smell test for you? Either they are expanding their staff or they are not. If not - this probably reflects pay increases for ‘administration’… and you know what that means. I gotta see the beef here before I say yes.

• $5.5 million for “energy efficiency initiatives” at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration. – Whoa.. I’m a veteran, but I can’t see how all these dead guys are burning that much energy. Now, if this is VA office energy initiatives, I’m cool. Just not going to see a lot of benefit for those ‘cemetery’ initiatives - IMHO. (Subtract -$ 5,500,000)

• $850 million for Amtrak. Well for what? “For Amtrak” says nothing. If its infrastructure building and improving mass transit, etc. - cool. New jobs, more riders, fine. But if this is one of those black hole subsidies, which it probably is,  forget it. (Subtract - $850,000,000)

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint. Humm. How will they reduce the hazard of lead based paint? If it’s lead based, it’s a hazard. If it’s not, it’s not. Problem solved. Please make the check payable to Jerry W. Bennett, Bellaire, Texas…

• $75 million to construct a “security training” facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies. Whoever wrote this was not too biased, huh? My question is what kind of training has to be that secure? What the hell are they teaching in this place? Kill it. (Subtract -$75,000,000)

• $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems. Maybe not a bad one. Money to computer firms, programmers, contractors… Could be money well spent. Go for it.

• $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations. Alternative energy? If we are talking ethanol here, then scrap this white elephant before it get loose. If we are taking about opening it up to free enterprise solutions. Then I’m all for it!

——

Bottom line is this: MOST of this stuff does not belong in a stimulus bill it belongs in an annual budget (you know, those things that are supposed to balance). Anyway, I logged a total of $5.4 billion of the top of this list. That’s 5/10 of one percent of the proposed $900 Billion. I don’t know about you - cause I’m an independent - but if I were paying my Republican senator to dick around with 5/10 of one percent of the issue here, I’d fire his ass in 2010.

I want to know where the other $890 Billion is going, you idiots!

Look, The Democrats in the House were supposed to allow a bipartisan debate… if they would have, all this non-essential junk would have been trimmed.  Obama did not put all this crap in this stimulus, the democrats in the house did.  But Palosi is still in the Bush era of bipartisan “elect-em and forget em” rule.  She and her colleagues are as  much to blame as any Republican.  We need to get rid of most ALL of them next time around. There’s a new sheriff in town, and Obama needs the line item veto and a lot of public support.  Let’s give it to him.

JB

CNN (2009). What GOP Leaders deem wasteful in Senate stimulus bill, Cable News Network [CNN], retrieved February 3, 2009, from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

As I type this, the Palestinian people are once again having to endure fear and death from the never ending power struggle between Hamas and Israel.  I am of Jewish descent and my views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are well known to those who follow my writings (http://aberantnews.org/?p=32).  And, while I feel much of the burden of violence and hate in Gaza are manifested by the radical right of the Palestinian politic – I cannot help but think much of the violence and distrust in the region is also the fault of Israeli right wingers as well.

A staunch supporter of Israel’s right to exist, I often wonder how Israelis would feel if the roles were reversed.  If the Palestinians were given the right of sovereignty over the land of Canaan - and it was Israel that was pushed onto the edge of global society. The Palestinians have as much claim to this territory as do the Jews.  Remove the power zealots from each camp, and the two have the same roots in Abraham and the rule of law as children of the book.

Once upon a time Palestine was the jewel of the Middle East. Will it ever return to its former glory? Is the quest for martyrdom taught by the power mongers of Islam going to be the death of all that was great and good in Palestine?  Are the Zionists that preach dominion over all the Arab lands going to make Israel the global symbol of intolerance and hubris?

I sit here today, a Jew in genetics only, trying to understand the tactics of Israel.  The never ending, unguided, poorly designed rocket fire from Hamas was more a reminder of political failure than it was a threat to life and limb.  In the last 10 years nearly 6,000 rockets have been fired and less than a couple dozen Jewish casualties had resulted. So, militarily speaking, the Hamas rockets were of little threat. More people died of auto accidents in Israel than Hamas rockets. As a military tactic, the latest attack of Gaza by the IDF is analogous to swatting flies with a sledge hammer.  More Israeli casualties will result – and far more Palestinian & Islamic hate will result - from this assault than all the Palestinian rockets could cause over the last 10 years.

So who is giving the advice in Israel?  Don’t they know that generous food and humanitarian aid to Gaza would trump Hamas’ grip on the population there? But then, who in the Islamic world are secretly hoping that Hamas will be eliminated? Surely Fatah has much to gain if Hamas is broken. Egypt, Jordan and others fear the tactics of Hamas as a means to an end.  But then, so do I.  It’s my opinion that most of Hamas is a bunch of power hungry organized crime figures that are holding 1.5 million people psychological hostage. I’m not alone in that assessment, even right wing Arabs and Hezbollah insiders think poorly of Hamas. But when Israel attacks Gaza Hamas becomes stronger.

Israel has many enemies. They are the favorite target of any Muslim that wants to become powerful – either politically or religiously.  But in truth, if the Muslims did not have the Jews to hate, they would simply hate each other. Many more Muslims would die at the hands of other Muslims if the ‘Zionist” common enemy were not there.

Ok, so much for sharing blame… what is the answer?  The elimination of Jews? The elimination of Palestinians?   All of you that think either of these is a workable solution raise your hands… then leave this blog. Because you are part of the problem. You will never be part of the solution.

For the rest of you, let’s try this; Israel: insure that all Palestinians have food, clothing shelter and justice. Yea, justice. Like giving back the land and liberty they once had – before they listened to the other Arabs of the region and screwed everything up (circa 1948). Long lived occupations, embargos and blockades only serve to empower your enemies and punish the innocent.  Palestine: You have made your point. The Zionist land-grab of 1947 was unfair. Life is unfair. The native Indians of the U.S. lost an area 400 times that of Israel.  Get over it. History is not kind. You have children and grandchildren to think about.  Stop putting your trust in Hamas and start demanding justice and the countries of the world Will stand by you!

Every time someone tells you to take up arms against another… stop right there. Whether Israel, Palestine, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, the USA,… makes No Difference; dictatorship or democracy, monarchy or theocracy – no form of government is immune to the corruption of power. We should all live by the same standard – giving each other the same respect and allow each to live, worship and behave as if we had to live on this planet together forever.

This may all sound naively ideological to many, but we are becoming a Global society. Economies are global; the internet & communications are global; resources are global; politics is soon to be global; … we are no longer a world of isolated people, cultures and deeds. We are in the infancy of an information technology driven world order now.  Those that understand and influence this new order will reign in perpetuity.

JB

Sources & References

Annonomus (2009). Protests mount as Israel unleashes ground forces, New Zealand Herald, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10550483

Paul Beaver (2009). War amongst the people, Al Jazeera, retrieved January 3, 2009, from: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/200913772015547.html

Sultan Al-Qassem (2009). Hamas must step down as Gaza’s keeper, The Daily Star, retrieved January 6, 2009, from: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=98859

Recently president-elect Obama’s transition team sent email to the party faithful asking that they go to their www.change.gov website and postulate on their “Vision” of what American can be. Now, I don’t know if this is just good political theater, or if each and every response will actually be given due consideration. Probably somewhere in between. Nevertheless, I am always up for a challenge so I thought I’d give this a try.

Definition of a “Vision”

So what is a “Vision” anyway? Among the definitions of “Vision” put forth by Princeton University’s web dictionary are:

• A vivid mental image; “he had a vision of his own death“;
• sight: the ability to see; the visual faculty, “His vision is 20/20”;
• the perceptual experience of seeing; “the runners emerged from the trees into his clear vision“; “he had a visual sensation of intense light“;
• imagination: the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and is not present to the senses; “popular imagination created a world of demons“; “imagination reveals what the world could be“;
• a religious or mystical experience of a supernatural appearance; “he had a vision of the Virgin Mary“.

So a vision can range from fantasy to science to observation and back. Give a writer that much ground and you could end up with almost anything. However, I will try to keep my “visions” in the context of the political – categorized using the Obama team “Agenda”.

• Revitalizing the Economy
• Ending the War in Iraq
• Providing Health Care for All
• Protecting America
• Renewing American Global Leadership

The Economy

It seems as though every major economic FUBAR in the last 200 years was perpetuated by government. Not by government regulation – but government deregulation and meddling in business operations. Recessionary influence comes from debt/deflation reactions. When government influences poor business decisions (push sub-prime ARM mortgages – then follow with higher prime rates) and encourage over speculation (remove regulations on credit default swaps, etc.) they establish the environment of crisis.

It does not stop with Wall Street or financial institutions. Such poor political decisions as allowing corn ethanol subsidies and disallowing zero emission electric vehicle subsidies – shows that government is still engaged in the practice of trying to generate wealth rather than competition. A very bad idea in a free market economy. Government is the biggest factor in ‘un-leveling’ the free economy playing field and it must stop soon. A global free market economy will not stand for long if governments get in the way of the process. Just as with a professional baseball game, the umpires and referees are there to see that the game is played by the rules – but they should not influence the outcome of the contest. Government is here to establish and enforce the rules – from there on out the players of the game need to stand or fall on their own merit. Bailouts only perpetuate the bad play of the contestants.

Economic recovery is embodied in many of the initiatives about which the president elect has opined. Energy solutions, infrastructure repair and improvement, ecology requirements and re-creating jobs are paramount. But when the government becomes the key de facto job producer and employer, there comes a threat to - once again - create an imbalance in the free market opportunities of business.

And lastly, let’s stop the political B.S. about energy. We are not stupid. Corn ethanol is a BAD idea; there is no such thing as Clean Coal; Hydrogen is not a panacea for energy solutions; and even if we had an abundance of energy creation - our national delivery grid is ancient and technically obsolete.  Petroleum will run out in 30 years (or at least it will be too expensive to ‘burn’ as fuel).  Scientists say CO2 will be at dangerous levels within 80 years. Do the math. Spend our national resources where it makes sense.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a free market vision for America: Repeal the Commodity Futures Modernization Act; phase out Freddie & Fannie completely; flatten out the tax code; allow free enterprise to determine the best next energy solution; get “shovel ready” infrastructure projects underway immediately; stop funding ‘operations’ like corn ethanol production and start funding ‘research and development’ - like better battery technology, lower cost nuclear energy solutions and natural gas storage methods; to name only a few.

War in Iraq – and Elsewhere

While the war in Iraq is thankfully winding down – as it should not have been started in the first place, Afghanistan looms as our next great FUBAR. More troops may not be the answer. More economic and educational aid may prove – pound for pound – more influential than ammunition.

Pushing Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters into Iran and Pakistan has its own set of potentials that may be worse than the disease. It appears that Islamic fundamentalists throughout the region out number democratic moderates. At least they are more prone to action, so it seems that they number more. If only we could mobilize the moderates….

Back in Iraq, our draw-down there is seen as inevitable. But the pressures on the fledgling democracy of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki are such that – without the powerful military of the U.S. to quell unrest – a power struggle will ensue and Obama may be forced to redeploy combat troops if he is not careful. I’m not sure that a coup or civil war in Iraq can be ignored by the U.S. due to the destabilizing influence of Iran in the region.

This bed was made by Bush – but Obama will have to sleep in it.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a ‘world peace’ vision for America: Engage in dialog and technology exchange with fundamentalist political groups. Education and knowledge will trump cultural dogma every time – given enough time. Infrastructure, schools and free trade improvements will bolster democratic governance. Use force only where life and liberty are in eminent danger. This goes hand in hand with the Global Leadership role the U.S. needs to reassert. When in Vietnam we Marines often complained about the “do not fire until fired upon” rule of engagement. However, in our own way we were somewhat proud that we where held to a different standard than our foe. It is not a weakness to hold humanity in high regard, even while others do not. Especially when others do not.

National Health Care Reform

I have been on the front “side line” of this for some time. I wanted to be on the front line, but my proposals never gained much momentum. My proposal was to establish a non-profit organization that was funded by government grants as a start-up, and then self funding over time. Investors are not all that excited about non-profit funding and the government seemed disinterested since I did not have any academic sponsorship.

First a little background. My wife is a nurse; her father a retired surgeon; her mother an RN. I have heard all the stories. On the other hand, I am an information technology (IT) professional by trade  (www.jwbennett.info). I’m one of those misguided individuals that think IT can help address any problem.

After hearing all the family war stories of how medical practitioners are forced in ever increasing numbers to abandon insurance networks and controls in favor of cash-services – and looking at the staggering number of people without health insurance, the long lines at emergency rooms, and so on – I had a thought. Let’s do a typical IT “Business Analyst” review of the average heath provider. Where do they spend their money; where do they spend their time; where do they make their money, and lastly, how do we measure success of the product or service offering?

My analysis led me to several conclusions. First, by far the most time and money is spent on record keeping. Patient records, insurance records and regulatory record keeping took 60% of the effort of a heath provider. None of which are particularly beneficial to the financial success of the enterprise. In typical IT Analyst fashion, I deduced that automating – or removing – much of this record keeping burden was essential to lowering cost and improving productivity of health providers.

The problem, of course is HIPPA. Not the Act, per se, but the processing and management of patient records by a 3^rd party is problematic. Answer – do HIPPA one better. Put the patient in charge of the record keeping (with considerable help from a secure internet based application that does the heavy lifting).

Next problem – who owns, controls and administers the internet application and database? An insurance company? The government? Hummm.. Any for-profit enterprise or government entity could have conflicts of interest that would strain the intent of HIPPA. So, the only answer I saw was a Non-Profit corporation that had considerable oversight by the government, the healthcare industry and the insurance companies. The internet program application must have considerable benefit for all – including, and foremost, for the patient. Tall order.

Beyond just electronic record keeping, this “Medical Registry Organization” (MRO) would provide ANSI-type standards for record interchange and security. The patient or his/her designate would determine which records were public, which were private, which were available in emergency, which providers has access to what, and so on.

Actions: Suggested actions to provide a ‘universal healthcare’ vision for America: The answer lies in offloading the recordkeeping burden to the record owner. Until the records burden is addressed costs will not moderate – for the taxpayer or the government. Just as banks used ATM’s to offload teller workloads to the account owners (decreasing cost and increasing productivity & profit dramatically, I might add); health care record management can be also offloaded to the patient. Every insurance or for-profit industry “electronic records” initiative will fail in the end due to competitive and regulatory pressures. An independent non-profit organization or “institute” is the only reasonable answer. Health care reform should also look at the many agencies and departments of government that are charged with health and welfare oversight (some 20 agencies in HHS plus EPA, OSHA, USDA,…) and try to rationalize and/or consolidate data, technology, personnel and facilities into a more robust and functional public health organization.

Protecting America

Homeland security has most of its resources focused on the prevention of terrorism. But the fact is most of the death and destruction the average citizen will face comes not from terrorists, but from nature and human error. Considering the money spent to date on homeland security, we have little to show for it. Katrina showed us what real homeland security should be – but was not. Beyond prevention, security means good threat assessment and effective first response.

As most intelligent travelers will tell you, the security show TSA puts on at the nation’s airports is nothing short of pageantry. It is there to instill a sense of security in the public – nothing else. Actually, the single reason 9/11 could not be repeated today is that airlines are now required to secure the cockpit door. It has little, if anything, to do with the TSA’s elaborate security threat detection methods. I could make a belt out of C4 explosive and walk on any plane in all but 4 or 5 airports in the U.S.. No problem. Any nonmetallic weapon can be taken on board almost any aircraft by almost anyone. And if you think this is news to any would-be terrorist, forget it. They already know. But since they cannot use the aircraft as a weapon any longer (and since the average American passenger is more attentive now days), they will move to softer targets.

By far the most effective anti-terrorism activities have been those we hear only rumors about. Communications monitoring & analysis, elaborate pattern matching, decryption methods and other technologies used by the NSA have done more to spoil would-be threats than all the long TSA lines put together. Add to that the efforts to remove the terrorist network money supply, and I think we could have decommissioned every metal detector in the US and been just fine. Ok, maybe that is a little irrational, but not by much.

Actions: Suggested actions for a “secure” vision for America: The DHS is a great idea, but its focus is upside-down. The TSA is at the top of the heap with regard to funding and influence, when it should be FEMA. Keep up the good work at NSA and CIA. Keep the DOD out of DHS programs. I’ve heard rumors of bills floating around congress to deploy federal troops to “assist” local law enforcement in the event of ”emergency”. Hummm. If the National Guard or state and local police are not properly trained or equipped, then fix it. Leave federal troops out of homeland security contingencies.

Renewing American Global Leadership

Without a doubt we have already made progress in this area. Just by electing president-elect Obama, Americans have reached across the cultural and economic gulf of world opinion. But we cannot rest on that laurel.

When we think of global leadership we think of the Middle East, Russia, Africa, Asia… but we also need to consider Mexico, Latin America and Canada. Of all our international dealings, our dealings with American states and border states should be improved first.

Under the Bush doctrine we have seen a major shift to the left in Latin America and an increase in organized drug crime in Mexico. While I too fear a nuclear Iran, I fear more a destabilized government in Mexico. If push came to shove, the Israelis are more than capable of handling a threat from Iran. Mexico however has many infrastructure, education and economic issues – exacerbated by U.S. immigration policy - that have a greater potential to affect the U.S.. You want to restore the U.S. leadership? Start by addressing the Mexican immigration issue.

Outside the Americas, a global economy – enriched by a global information technology network - is moving at breakneck pace. The welfare of everyone is starting to be influenced by everyone else. This will require – in time – a new look at not only national policy – but global policy and global governance. The U.N. is a political football and pretty much as effective as any organization run my committee. But, it is all we really have right now, so let’s see what we can do over the next four years to give it some balls (excuse the vernacular). Darfur, Guinea, Burma, Zimbabwe, et al – little action to deter genocide and massive rights violations. I think there is a place for an “international police force” but they must have the mandate, the training and the equipment to do the job.

Actions: Suggested actions to restore a “global leadership” vision for America: Start with immigration reforms and boarder state relations. Want to stop the march of leftist ideology in Latin America? Lift the Cuban embargo. Engage in open and frequent dialog with other states. Encourage political dissent and policy arguments. Often, if you get the other party talking enough, they reveal the REAL reason for their conduct. And it is usually power related. Give them ‘perceived power’ and they will be your friend for life. And sanctions rarely work either. Not in Cuba, not in Iran, not in Palestine. They only tend to push our adversaries closer together. Let’s try something different. How about open trade, domestic technology transfer, cultural influence, free and open dialog,… What a novel idea!

Lastly, I believe the U.N. is a fine place to voice opinion and do some political wrestling, but no where near a venue for pursuing global peace or justice. At least give it the mandate to do good independent international intelligence gathering so the true cause and affects of actions can be understood by all.  In my fantasy vision of a new world order I have a list of “what ifs”: What if Interpol became an agency of the U.N.? What if the G10 shared threat assessments with them? What if we established a full volunteer U.N. Police & Peacekeeping force?  What if we sponsored a movement to establish an international language?  A language not spoken by any permanent member of the Security Counsel; like Spanish?  What if, indeed. Too far out maybe?  Mark my words, the day may come when the U.N, yes the U.N., is our last best hope.  Woodrow Wilson’s League of Nations vision was far ahead of its time.  But - with the advent of the internet, international free trade and economic symbiosis among nations - it’s time may have come.  Indeed,  the time to make it work may be moving right past us….

For what it’s worth.

JB

Sources:

Bennett, J. (2008a). BLOG: Replacing rhetoric with truth, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=51

Bennett, J. (2008b). BLOG: One Doctor’s Painful Decision, Aberant News, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from http://aberantnews.org/?p=49

Bernanke, B. (1983). “Non-Monetary Effects of the Financial Crisis in the Propagation of the Great Depression”. THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW (The American Economic Association) 73 (3): 257-276.

CDS. (2008). Definition: Credit Default Swap. Wikipidia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap

Corn, D. (2008) Article: Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones Magazine, August 2008, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html

Flat Tax. (2008). Countries that have flat tax systems; Wikipedia, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax

Kroft, S. (2008). The bet that blew up wall street, CBS – 60 Minutes, retrieved October 27th, 2008 from:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/26/60minutes/main4546199.shtml

Miron, J. (2008). Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer; CNN, retrieved September 29, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/

Mishkin, F. (1978). “The Household Balance and the Great Depression”. Journal of Economic History 38: 918-37.

Mufson, S. (2007). Article: Oil price rise causes global shift in wealth; The Washington Post, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/09/AR2007110902573_pf.html

NOW. (2006). Transcript: Who killed the electric car?; Public Broadcasting Service (PBS); retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/223.html

Paul. R. (2008). Article: monetary system is fraudulent; retrieved October 24th, CNN, 2008 from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/ron.paul.economy/

Pickins, T. (2008). America is addicted to foreign oil; T. Boone Pickins; retrieved October 25th, 2008 from: http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

U.N. (2008). The United Nations, MSN Encarta Encyclopedia Online, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564986/United_Nations.html

Vance, L. (2008); The Flat Tax Is Not Flat, NewAmerican, retrieved October 25th, 2008 from http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/442

WordNet (2008). Definition: Vision, Princeton University WordNet, Retrieved December 26, 2008, from: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vision

I hold a somewhat controversial view of this whole same-sex marriage debate.  Recently, President-Elect Obama’s choice of right-wing evangelist Rick Warren as his inauguration invocation presenter has sparked further rhetoric on the “Marriage” debate. So, I thought it was time to lay my views out there – for what they are worth. First – “the Facts”.

1. Let’s look at what “marriage” is.  It is a religious rite.  Performed by a clergyman or other empowered individual (such as a justice of the peace), marriage is a purely religious tradition.  Marriage has not always been a vow of monogamy.  To the contrary, the bible and other religious scriptures (Torah, Koran,…) state that men could have multiple wives and sexual partners.  Abraham was said to have several hundred wives and concubines in his lifetime; the Prophet Muhammad is said to have had at least nine, and so on. 
2. Let’s look now at the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of separation of church & state.  Churches are not taxed – in return for their exclusion from politics. Common Law is derived from social laws not religious “laws”.  With obvious Christian influence (…One nation under God; …endowed by his creator…; etc.) the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights acknowledges the moral compass of Christianity as a basis of traditional Common Law – but insists that tradition be a guide rather than an absolute.  There is no “State Church” so all religious beliefs and traditions are said to be equal in the eyes of the law.
3. The Bill of Rights states that, as U.S. citizens, we ALL have a right to “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” .  It is the purpose of government to empower these rights by allowing free expression and free enterprise.

So, if we use just these 3 facts as a basis for marriage law and rights in this country, we have to draw some very interesting conclusions. 

I recently asked several newly married couples (1^st time marriages, all) if they understood the legal covenants of marriage (e.g. equal responsibility for debts, community property, child care obligations, survivorship, entitlements, power of attorney, etc.).  None of them understood, fully, the legal ramifications of being “married”.  When I asked same sex couples about ‘social contracts’ however, I was amazed to find that they had very detailed knowledge of the terms and conditions of such a contract – right down to trust funds for survivorships and the lack of federal entitlements, such as spousal social security payments. So I found a notable disconnect between the tenets of a ‘social contract’ and those of a ‘marriage’. 

Next, we look at the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This issue alone has considerable weight on this argument.  The individual’s right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a direct and specific indication that same-sex marriage cannot be made illegal on its face.  Denial of happiness to any couple or group because you do not agree with that group’s culture is not what liberty is all about.  It is a direct contradiction of the Bill of Rights and I cannot see how the U.S. Supreme Court could, under any reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, find that same-sex marriage could be held illegal in ANY state in the union.

Ironically, it might be argued that ALL marriages are illegal - because no written covenant [contract] is in evidence.  And the parties to a purely religious marriage should not be given spousal rights without some type of written agreement on the specific issues of such rights – and the entitlements and responsibilities afforded by local, state and federal agencies.

So my conclusion is this:  We heterosexuals have no right to deny homosexuals their liberties or their happiness. It says so in the Bill of Rights.  Furthermore, the religious rite of marriage has no standing, legally, to dictate the legal covenants for spousal rites and responsibilities – unless those rights and responsibilities are acknowledged and agreed to in a social contract.  In other words, our Constitution, taken at face value, does not provide for ‘marriage’ as practiced in common law because neither party agrees to its many covenants in writing. 

So the next time the self righteous among you want to tilt against the same-sex windmill, take a minute to consider what would happen if your marriage were considered illegal and the many rights and resources available to you as a couple were suddenly removed.  Looks different that way; does it not?

JB