Gay Marriage. And then what?

This post from February 2011 may at first blush appear irrelevant since the Supreme Court dictated decided that the nation's definition of marriage needed to be redefined. But the fundamental question here was what would happen after same-sex marriage became the norm, a question probably more pertinent now than then. 

Today Elder Dallin H. Oaks, and Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints spoke at Chapman Law School here in So Cal. To those outside the church, this may not seem like a big deal, but to Mormons, the chance to hear an Apostle speak “outside” of the pulpit, especially on the subject of religious freedom is a rare treat.

Elder Oaks mentioned same-sex marriage in his talk today. But his address was really about the diminishing state of religious freedom in our country. Elder Oaks reminds me of what I see is the larger issue: the inevitable collision course between societal progressives of the left and religion.

In the late 90’s as liberals campaigned for domestic partnerships, I remember how much effort supporters of domestic partnerships went to assuage the concerns of opponents.  They argued that they were not pushing for “marriage,” just domestic partnerships. These laws gave registered same-sex domestic partners the identical rights of married heterosexuals.  But in the years that have followed domestic partnership laws, we see now that same-sex marriage is what progressives have been seeking all along.

Or is it? Proponents of gay marriage go to great lengths to stress what they really seek is equality. What exactly does that mean and where does it end? If same-sex marriage is finally enshrined in our country, does anyone really believe that the goal of equality will stop there?

It didn’t stop with domestic partnerships, and we are foolish to think those who champion homosexual marriage will be satisfied with marriage. If we give them same-sex marriage, then what? We are being naive if we think that the enshrinement of gay marriage will be the end of this issue.

Societal progressives downplay what they see as the alarmist tone of defenders of religious freedom. As the LA Times editorialized in the headline of today’s article covering Elder Oak’s talk “Many Americans find little evidence that religious liberty is threatened.” (Though if you read the article, “many” turned out to be “one”). 

The Times cannot deny that those who seek to change the very basic unit of society, for better or for worse, will not collide with society's religious institutions and that these conflicts will not continue even if same-sex marriage is made a reality. Frankly, these conflicts are already here.

Think the now infamous wedding photographer story was a fluke? Take a few minutes and peruse the website of the Alliance Defense Fund.  

When religious and progressive forces collide, it is clear that progressives have no problem with religious peoples, so long as they keep those religious mouths shut. Take a look at the comments section of the Times article and it becomes abundantly clear the left doesn’t just disagree with religious people. It wants to silence them.

So as we contemplate gay marriage, I hope we will also ask the more important question:  After gay marriage - what comes next?

The Zenith of Manhood: Listening to the Top Gun Soundtrack While Driving a Minivan

For a few years, my company car was a minivan. Kind of like pocket protectors, once I got past the inherent nerdiness of the van, I was shocked at how practical it was and how much stuff I could put into it. One night I was prompted to write this...

There are certain definitive moments in your life that really let you know your place in the world. You know, times where you realize where you truly stand in the great scheme of things. 

I had one of these moments just the other day. 

No, it didn’t involve a near-death experience. Or a trip to a mountain top. Or a new app on my phone (though sometimes just an update to an app will induce near euphoria). 

You see, owing to an absentee husband, my wife spent four years hustling kids to various school and church events. So when Wednesday nights come around, I always take my younger sons to Cub Scouts. 

Recently one evening I was headed over to pick them up. It was a warm evening and because I was alone, I rolled down the windows. Of my Minivan.  Hey, it was nice outside. 

Cruising, with the windows down in my grocery getter an old but familiar song came on the radio. I turned up the volume. Music cranked, I recognized the song. Which one?  Kenny Loggins. Top Gun Soundtrack.

As went down the road, I realized this is my place in life. Minivan, windows down, “Danger Zone” pumping out the speakers and on my way to pick up my two Cub Scouts. 

Somehow as a kid, I’d figure at this age I’d be listening to the Danger Zone in a Ferrari. Or even Tom Cruise’s F-14. 

But as I laughed at myself that night I realized, no this is where I need to be. A father, a husband, a Dad. Sure it’s my place in life. 

And there is no other place I’d rather be.

Life’s Greatest Happiness? I Think I Know Where You Find It.

I have six brothers and one sister. She has been happily married since then and now has two children. In 2010 when she became engaged I was feeling reflective and wrote the following.

Since becoming father years ago, I’ve often struggled in trying to describe what it’s like being a parent to non-parent. I’ve found this is very difficult to do and not unlike trying to describe the taste of salt without using the word salt. 

This last weekend, my one and only sister became engaged to marry. My bro-in-law-to be is named Matthew (thus preserving our family tradition of hum-drum first names, perhaps my sister should have married someone named Dragon) and seems to be a swell guy. All of us are genuinely excited for them.

No doubt the future will bless them with a family and a lifetime of happiness. Because of this, we spent some time this weekend talking about marriage. These thoughts came to me:

1. A Great Marriage Truly Gets Better and Better. I’m not in the 50-year club, or even the 25, but I can honestly say that after 13 years of marital bliss, our marriage is still indeed bliss. No fizzle, no puttering out, it's better now than ever. Recently when I finished law school, we both felt such a sense of accomplishment. The fact that we grew together, rather than apart tells me adversity can make you closer.

2. Having a Bunch of Kids is the End All and Be All. What’s a bunch? As a Mormon, you’d have to get over seven for me to even be impressed, so I’ll leave the precise number to you. But in all honesty, I simply cannot imagine life without my children. Today our two boys yet in elementary school had their first day. Marnie and I both went to the bus stop- we were so excited despite the fact that we’ve been through this many times before. And then there was Claire who, after her brothers were gone this morning lamented “where’s my boys?”  These tender moments simply cannot be adequately described with language. There is a simple and unique joy that comes from our posterity. 

3. Our Greatest Work Will Be the Work We Do With Our Families. Quoting from a well-known church leader here, but I sincerely believe that no matter what I do as a professional, my greatest responsibility will be the work I do with my children. We talked today of one of our boys who is doing particularly well in school. Here is the little human being, that we helped create, whose is simply excelling right now. It doesn’t matter what I make of myself, what matters is what I help my kids make of themselves. 

So to those who are engaged to be married and to those who may even now be contemplating nuptials, you have from me my enthusiastic and heartfelt encouragement. May your lives together be an ever-expanding commitment of love for one another and for the family you will create.

Coming back to Blogger...

About seven years ago, I thought it would be a good idea to move this blog to Tumblr. I thought the hip "microblog" atmosphere of Tumblr would fit me, but in an effort to focus on writing, I'm coming back to Blogger.

Of the coming weeks, I will be posting old posts from the Tumblr side that I still think our relevant. Some of these are awful but some aren't too bad.

We're Moving!

This site has moved to:

http://transcendingturmoil.tumblr.com/

Follow me there!

Dems Once Again Paving the Road to You Know Where with Good Intentions

Earlier this year our benevolent leaders in Congress, lead by the majority party, heralded what was called "Credit Card Reform." We have to protect consumers they said, and the way to do that was, of course, more regulation. What could go wrong?

Not surprisingly, Congressional good intentions notwithstanding, the legislation has had the opposite effect. As the Wall Street Journal and several other MSM outlets are now reporting, the new regulation has in fact actually hurt consumers.

Why? Because the new law artificially limits how much credit card companies can charge in late fees.

Now at first blush, this may appear to be a good thing. Credit card companies, along with big oil, the insurance industry, indeed all of Corporate America is evil right? Why these guys only care about profits and sticking it to the little guy!

Except the limits on late fees are hitting Credit Card companies hard. How hard? Billions hard. And they're passing those costs not onto people who DON'T pay their bills to those who DO pay their bills!

Want proof? Consumer interest rates are up to 14.7% from 13.1% only last year. Credit limits are down too. And because the banks are much more limited on adjusting rates after an account is opened, they are forced to charge higher rates- up front.

Thus once again we sadly see, as so often is the case, that despite the best intentions of our friends on the left, they end up hurting the very group of people they intended to help.

Honestly I truly do believe Congress had good intentions. I mean, Congress wouldn't really set out to deliberately punish consumers who are responsible just to help out those who don't pay their bills? Liberals wouldn't seek to hurt those who are successful would they?

You bet they would. It's called a progressive tax system.

Did the Bailout Save Ford? No Mr. President, Ford Saved Ford

Perhaps no decision of President Obama has been more responsible for his low poll numbers than the bailout of the auto industry - namely Chrysler and GM. If you read the data, you'll find a majority of liberals and conservatives who didn't buy the "too big to fail" justification for dumping 60 billion taxpayer dollars into the auto industry.

The irony is that this program, like President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program have been by largely successful. Today's WSJ reports that the new General Motors is now talking about going public again. If GM is successful in selling stock, taxpayers may actually come out ahead.

Today President Obama was at a Ford plant touting the bailout of the auto industry. What's wrong with this picture?

Ford didn't take any money from the Federal Government. In fact, Ford outright rejected bailout money instead raising capital the old fashioned way: they offered stock.

Because of this Ford has a higher debt than either Chevy of Chrysler (both of whom had their debt wiped out by bankruptcy). But Ford actually has been making huge profits. They have also made substantial gains in market share. And they are bringing back some 2,000 jobs that were originally outsourced. How many companies can claim that?

Ford owe's it success to old-fashioned business sense and capitalism.

At the Ford plant, the President today not only took credit for saving GM and Chrysler, he attempted to take credit for saving Ford. He argued that, in essence, by saving GM and Chrysler, essential suppliers to the industry were saved. In essence: "I saved you by saving your competitors."

Logical limitations aside, why is it politicians feel the need to make these outrageous claims? We all remember the mockery made of Al Gore's infamous declaration that he invented the Internet.

The President today ironically said he'd supported the bailout because he supported American workers.

But it's Ford who showed the President what American workers can do. And they didn't need the Federal government to do it for them.

What The World Doesn't Need: Another Flavor of Doritos

I like having a choice as much as anyone. Today, after exhaustive research I've determined that there are fifteen flavors of Doritos. I believe that is about thirteen more than necessary.

Now, I'm like everyone else. I have tortilla chip needs. But I'd like to meet the person who, scratching his or her belly decides their in the mood for chips, but not just any chips. No, they need Sizzlin Picante and they need it now! Does Subway make flavor suggestions based on the type of sandwich you buy? (British accent) Spicy Sweet Chili will go excellent with that ham and cheese sir.

Below are the flavors.

* Blazin' Buffalo & Ranch

* Cool Ranch

* Fiery Habanero

* Nacho Cheese

* Natural White Nacho Cheese

* Poppin' Jalapeño

* Ranchero

* Salsa Verde

* Smokin' Cheddar BBQ

* Spicy Nacho

* Toasted Corn

* Zesty Taco

* Cheeseburger (X-13D)

* Sizzlin' Picante

* Spicy Sweet Chili

Fictional Account:

Wife: Did you get the chips?
Husband: Yeah I got the chips.

Wife: Did you get Doritos?

Husband: Yep.

Wife: Natural White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: Uh, sure I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: Nacho Cheese or White Nacho Cheese?

Husband: I don't know... I got Nacho Cheese.

Wife: (Screaming) You know what regular Nacho Cheese does to my complexion. I specifically told you White Nacho Cheese. How hard is it for you to get White Nacho Cheese Doritos?

Husband: I hate Frito-Lay.

Is the Far Left Joining the Anti-Obama Movement?

When it comes to those who oppose President Obama, it makes sense that the Tea Party crowd has received most of the attention. I don't consider myself a member of the Tea Party, if there is such a thing, but I respect their efforts and see it as one of the most genuine grass-roots movements of our time.

Well known liberal Robert Reich, former Sec of Labor for Clinton, has a provocative and I think largely truthful piece today on the increasingly louder criticism of the President and Democrats that is coming not from the right but from the far left.

Tea Partiers are getting all the press. But the anger on the left, including much of the Democratic base, is almost as intense. And it spells trouble for Democrats a few months from now.

What are they so upset about? The Dems frankly are ignoring the far left agenda. While Tea Partiers are upset about Obamacare, the far left is livid because the plan doesn't go far enough. And they don't like our continued involvement in Afghanistan (which I support). They also see the President as being too quick to compromise.

Secretary Reich doesn't mention it, but similar criticism has been coming from the Latino community. While there is support the Administration's legal challenge to the now infamous AZ law, many are furious that Obama has not come through on his promise of comprehensive immigration reform. Frankly, before the AZ law, they felt like they were being ignored.

What does this all mean? Well in terms of politics, it's a rare politician who manages to enrage everyone. And the signs are there that this combined with the blow back from a right that is more galvanized than ever could really be trouble for the Dems.

Ask Jimmy Carter. He knows.

Stark Article on What Afghanistan Faces if We Leave Too Soon

Time Magazine this week features a provocative photograph of a young woman who had her nose and ears sliced off by her own husband under the authority of the Taliban.

I continue to strongly support the President's policy in Afghanistan. This article underscores the need we have to continue our efforts there. Maybe we can't reshape Afghanistan the way we were able to mold Iraq. But we can at least make sure that the murderous likes of the Taliban are kept in check.

Leaving prematurely will have dire consequences. Want proof? Ask the South Vietnamese.

If He Really Wants to Help...

Loved this headline in the New York Times Today:

"To Help Democrats in the Fall, Obama May Stay Away"

Besides the obvious - like just how bad things are for your presidency when the NY Times is printing articles like this - I thought of how much good the President could do by staying away: from the country.

No I'm not calling for his resignation. I'm thinking of how much good he, and the Federal government at large, could do by staying out of things. Out of the auto industry, out of healthcare, out of our personal lives, out of job market. Leave us alone (and our money too)!

Obama is willing to help Democrats by staying away. Why can't he do the same for the country?

Who is Really Betting Against American Workers?

Recently, in what was heralded by the MSM as a major "win" for our country's masses of unemployed workers, Congress, at the urging of the White House passed the latest extension of unemployment benefits. "Checks will start flowing again soon" beamed the New York Times. "Relief is on the way" shouted the Associated Press.

This last week, while I was sitting with 2,000 wannabe lawyers during the Bar Exam, President Obama was sitting with the "ladies" (can that term honestly be used to describe Whoopi Goldberg) of "The View." You know your presidency is circling the proverbial drain when you are taking questions on a couch with Joy Behar.

Though most of the coverage surrounding the show had to do with whether Mr. Obama was soiling the Presidency by appearing on a day-time talk show, I was struck by the President's following comment:

Touting increases in private sector jobs, restructuring and recovery in the auto industry, and saving thousands of jobs that could have been lost, President Obama said -- with an eye towards the future -- "Don't bet against American workers."

The unemployment bill extended unemployment benefits for workers unemployed as long as 99 weeks.

Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that there are people out there who are not in desperate need of help. I'm not now unemployed nor have I ever been unemployed for anything close to two years. I also know that unemployment benefits don't even come close to covering most salaries.

My questions: Why does the President and other liberal elites feel like they have to "take care" of these workers? And why is the President ignoring the vast majority of economists who have stated that continually extending benefits is only prolonging the unemployment problem? How you may ask? Because by continuing to pay benefits, we are taking away the incentive for people to go out and get a job!

Does Obama really think that American workers are so weak that won't surviving without him (and an average benefit of $309.00 a month)?

If the President were truly betting for the American workers, he'd immediately lower our corporate tax rates, which are among the highest in the world. Then he'd be showing his trust in the workers of our country, the best the worlds has, are more than capable of taking care of themselves.

Even more important than that would be for the President, and the Federal Government, to get out of the private job market! The continual meddling of the Fed is only prolonging and distorting the unemployment problem and the job market in general.

Obama is like a parent who needs to be told that there 35 year old son still living at home needs to be kicked out of the house. Yes the guy is going to struggle at first, but trust me, he'll be fine.

The President is right, no one should bet against the American Worker. I just wish he'd be the first to stop.

No More Music Television on MTV - Is this Really News?

As a kid I swore that when I was older I would never begin a story with "when I was your age." But there is one subject that I can't help but make such comparisons in discussing. The price of gas you say? Nope. What you could buy with a dollar? Don't care.

If I hear someone under 25 mention the former Music Television channel (now exclusively MTV, no music, no television) and suddenly I'm an old fogey with a walking cane and a propensity for wearing pants and suspenders at the same time. I can't help but tell these young whippersnappers that when I was their age, MTV had MUSIC. Lots of it!

That's right, MTV literally was music television. My wife and I often reminisce about our favorite music videos of yesteryear. And guess where we saw them? Not CBS.

My favorite show was Dial MTV. A precursor to TRL, and frankly, the internet, daily video lovers would call in (no doubt using the then modern miracle of touch tone phones) to vote for their favorite video. How much have times changed? The record for number one videos of the day was held by Def Leppard.

Then came the seminal game show "Remote Control." I loved the show and in fairness the challenge round did revolve around music videos, but little did I know then that "Remote Control" was the harbinger of things to come.

Within a few years MTV increasingly cut into to videos to show more and more reality shows. But it was ostensibly at least, still focused on music.

Now MTV has dropped all pretense by dropping the reference to music from its title.

I can't say I blame MTV. Remember the A&E channel once meant "Arts and Entertainment." I'm pretty sure Dog the Bounty Hunter was not what they had in mind. Even the Weather Channel shows movies now.

And given the creative morass that pop music finds it in, I'm not sure that if MTV were to go back to its roots much would change.

Still when I think about my formative music years, I will always think about MTV of lore. And I'll think about my favorite videos.

Then I'll listen to my Ipod.

Does the Thought Really Count on Jobs?

One of the mantras of modern-day liberalism is that caring and good intentions can make up for actual failure. Put simply, even if what we are doing isn't working, criticism should be avoided because hey, we meant well!

This is a topic I've written of before.

Today the AP, hardly a bastion of right-wing reporting, reports that the "bi-partisan" jobs bill is unlikely to create any jobs.

Quoting from the article:

Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers— would work only on the margins.

As for the bill's effectiveness, tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

"We're skeptical that it's going to be a big job creator," said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. "There's certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that's hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we're skeptical."

Now does any one believe that the good intentions can compensate for billions of dollars in failure? I know the administration is on the ropes right now with jobs, and they want to show they are doing something.

But can we stop pretending that this bill is anything other than glorified PR?

Things You Learn While Trying to Sleep in Your Car at 5:30 in the Morning

I usually have no trouble sleeping. In fact, I typically have the opposite problem.

When its time for me to hit the hay, I'm unconscious with such rapidity I almost never remember actually falling asleep. I kind of just come to in the morning and ask Marnie, "what happened?"

My normal routine has me up at 5:15am. To put that in perspective, for the last four years I've been in night school three nights a week, forty five miles from home with classes that don't even end till nine or ten.

Over the years, I've averaged about five hours of sleep a night. Yes I know we are supposed to get eight or more but frankly, anything beyond six is wonderful to me.

I hear people talk of having problems sleeping - what is that? I'm sure its legitimate - but that's a problem like having too much money - a challenge I'd love to take on.

I'm up so early because I take my oldest son Joshua to seminary (a church-run religious class that meets before school). We carpool with another family and the arrangement is that I pick up the kids, and the other family takes them to school after the class ends. I usually work out after dropping the kids off.

This morning, the other family couldn't pick them up so instead of the gym, I had the opportunity of spending an hour, in the dark, in freezing weather, in quiet solitude in my mini-van.

The problem is, you can't sleep in my van. Oh sure you could fold down the seats, blow up an air mattress and camp out just fine. But sleeping on those seat cushions? Nope, not going to happen. Apparently the Dodge engineers, in an effort to cut down on driving fatigue designed their seats so as to avoid any possibility of comfort. Think of rocks and plywood.

So after reading the morning news on my phone and after giving up on stealing a few minutes of sleep, I just sat there. And did nothing.

The last years have been so full of school, work, family, church service, parenting. I'm always doing something. Most times I'm doing like fifty things. But this morning, I just stared out the window, watched the rain dribble down my windshield and savored the sunrise.

It hit me this morning that I should make more of an effort to take time to just be at one with my thoughts. I always have time to read and to pray. But taking time to just ponder, why is that so hard to do?

I got home still an hour before work and was excited to tell my wife about my experience this morning. I got about two lines into the story.

Then I feel asleep.

If a Tree Falls..

Since I started this blog last Fall, I've not gone as long as the last few months between posts. Much like my long-suffering personal journal, which has gaps that measure in the years, I've contemplated just giving it up.

Plus I often wonder if it even really matters? Its kind of like the tree that falls in the forest, if no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?

I've thought about this a lot recently, and as I approach these last few months of school before I close myself off from all of civilization to prepare for the bar, I've decided that even if that tree doesn't make a sound when no one is there to hear it - I need this.

I spend so much time ready news, following current events and paying attention to things. And for what its worth, I want to throw my two cents in.

So even if the only person to read these ramblings is myself and my wife (who, after prodding and begging eventually reads these things) I'm going to keep on writing.

That sound in the forest? It's mine.

Is "History" Being Made Too Often?

Many of us who have labored through a history class will remember hearing the dire warning from all who teach history: "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." So far in my life I've had no trouble remembering history, and have managed to avoid assassinating any Archdukes from Austria. In high school, however, I did find out that forgetting Geometry does in fact require one to literally repeat it.

Recently I've noticed that the term "history" or more specifically "making history" has sure been thrown around a lot. I think we're using this term a bit too casually.

When I think of making history I think of, well, history. You know, important elections, wars, major events, natural disasters, etc.

The New Jersey Nets potentially setting the NBA record for worst franchise start? I'm sorry sports fans, that is not making history.

I mean can't sports writers come up with a better phrase than making history? Do they really think a sports franchise win-loss record should be described the same way as the lunar landings?

Baseball is even worse. How often do you hear commentators gushing over a pitcher who "made history" by setting a record for the number of strikes thrown on an odd day of the week with a full moon?

The phrase is also grossly overused in politics. Yes the election of Obama was historical (indeed all Presidential elections are). But remember the night Pelosi said the House health care bill would pass, her quote was: “Today we will pass the Affordable Health Care for America Act… We will make history..."

I know the Dems see this whole health care debate as big deal and frankly it is. But does she really believe voting on her bill was a chance to make history?

There is one thing Pelosi and supports of her insanity should realize.

Infamy is sometimes as easily made as history.

This Time The Music Gets Lost in the Scandal

One of my all time favorite rock and roll stories involves rock god Alice Cooper biting the head off of a chicken. Way back in the days of Heavy Metal's infancy, Cooper was on stage performing a concert at temporary venue erected on someone's farm. Somehow a chicken wandered up on stage. Cooper had never been on a farm and assumed the chicken, as most birds, could fly. He picked it up and threw it out over the audience. Of course the fowl fell into the crowd where the, no doubt stoned, masses of moshing fans promptly stomped it to death.

The next day the press reported the incident something to the affect of "Alice Cooper Bites Head Off Chicken on Stage." Apparently Frank Zappa, responding to the stories, asked Cooper if the rumors and stories were true. Cooper initially denied it to which Zappa famously replied, "Well whatever you do, don't tell anyone you didn't do it."

You've likely heard by now of American Idol runner up Adam Lambert's performance on the AMAs this week which prompted literally thousands of complaints to the network and a subsequent cancellation of another show. No chickens were involved but Lambert kissed another male musician and gave a face-full of crotch to another.

I'm sure the whole incident will no doubt serve as great publicity for his album and certainly can be justified under the mantra that even bad press is still nonetheless press.

However Lambert spent all of the Idol competition and the months afterwards not focusing on his sexuality but on his music. This prompted many in the gay community to criticize him for not being gay enough.

Clearly Lambert's actions were both premeditated and designed to shock and to garner attention. And they were likely in response to these critics. The tragedy is that now instead of a focus on his very obvious talents as a musician, the story is instead about what really amounts to a juvenile publicity stunt.

Lambert of course claims a double standard, and claims the furor is because he is gay.

Unlike Alice Cooper, who frankly needed a good chicken biting story to make up for mediocre at best singing skills, Lambert would do well to focus not on sensationalizing his sexuality, but to truly make his career, all about the music. In other words, let the talk be about his merits as a musician.

Isn't that what being treated equally really means?

Olympic Defeat Reveals the President's Influence is in his Head

The gathered masses gasped and broadcasters struggled to hide their disbelief as the announcement was made this morning that Chicago not only would not host the 2016 Olympics but was removed from consideration after only one round of voting.

To the those in the President's fold, namely the Mainstream News Media and other Kool-Aide drinkers in the Democrat party, the rejection of Chicago has to be seen as a rejection of Obama himself. In the aftermath, so many of the pundits could only say "no one expected this." And who could blame them? Both Obama's AND Oprah (did she really think she could make the Olympic Committee another extension of her book club)? How could they lose?

To most in the President's place, this experience would serve a wake up call. I don't think it will.

We all laugh at teachers who lead children in hymns of praise to the President, we mock those who voted for Obama because he would solve their every problem or even pay their mortgages.

The larger concern for me, is that I really think Obama believes the hype. Obama really believes that if he merely "wills" it, it will happen.

Think of his pronouncements over the summer that the health care bill had to be passed before the summer Congressional break. Think of how many big speeches he has given. It seems to be his answer to everything. He has weighed in on virtually every issue. And honestly, how many "big" speeches can a guy give?

The complete lack of influence that arose form his joint-sessional healthcare speech to Congress notwithstanding, Obama's trip to the IOC demonstrates the arrogance and pride of the man. It also shows how completely overstated his popularity is. Despite falling poll numbers and near universal rejection of his radical ideals, the MSM and his minions just can't come to grips with the fact that Obama is not nearly as popular as they believe. And even less popular are his positions.

There will likely always be those who believe Obama can walk on water.

Here's to hoping that Obama is not one of them.

Fleeing From the Public Option

Overriding all of the debate over nationalized healthcare, is the larger issue over the role of government. Will our country improve if the government becomes more involved in our day to day lives? Can government intervention fix the economy? Is government ever the "answer." Amidst all of this debate, the proverbial mud has been slung from both sides with one warning of death panels and the other making accusations of fear mongering.

I know that not everyone is passionate about these issues, and that sometimes its easy to get lost in all of the vitriol. I recall seeing one Facebook status last month that said "Got up early to study healthcare." This can be pretty heady stuff!

I think one of the best ways to evaluate this issue, is to consider these questions: 1. What has resulted from government involvement in industry? 2. How has government involvement in healthcare worked already, (in our country or others).

To this end, today's L.A. Times provides two excellent answers to these questions.

First, there was a front page article on the Canadian system in today's paper. This article goes a long way to answering our second question.

Though none of the bills currently in Congress contemplate the Canadian model, the system has for years been touted by the left as an example of successful government-controlled healthcare.

There are several anecdotes in the article. All detail the frustration Canadians have in waiting for health care. An active 72 year old is told she would have to wait a year and a half to have surgery. The justification for this delay? Her injury wasn't life threatening. Now ask yourself, if your in agony from back pain, would you want to wait eighteen months for surgery? What kind of quality of life is that? The woman in the story ultimately went to the U.S., paid out of pocket and received the care she needed.

To boot, the Canadian government is facing huge budget deficits. For example, health providers are being told to "[hold] the number of MRIs to last year's total...[and reduce] elective surgeries by 14%.

All of us have complain when public services get delayed, or when budget cuts affect our schools. But how would you like being told you can't get the care you need because services are being cut back? Now that's a budget cut that really hurts!

Another example of just how badly the government handles heathcare, is the Veteran's Administration. Have you ever talked to a veteran whose happy with the way he or she is treated at the VA? I have a classmate who is a Iraq veteran. Her take is, if the government can't treat returning soldiers right, it surely won't be able to handle taking care of the general population.

Think of your own interactions with government employees: the post office, county officials, the DMV - do these experiences inspire any confidence in the government?

Juxtaposed with today's article on Canadian health care, the Times also had a very frank opinion piece on the disfunction that occurs when government gets involved in private industry. The article discusses the mortgage industry and government sponsored companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac The Times editorial board is absolutely correct when it says:

The companies' troubles demonstrate that the mix of public mission and private ownership is too combustible to be sustained. The federal sponsorship and duties convey an implicit governmental guarantee against failure, which gives the companies an incentive to take excessive risks as they compete for market share. And grabbing the biggest possible share of the $10-trillion U.S. mortgage market works for shareholders, but it only increases the consequences for taxpayers if the companies go belly up. The private sector has shown in the past that it can sustain a secondary market for mortgages. The government should give it the chance to do so again after the wave of foreclosures has passed, either by cutting its ties to Fannie and Freddie or by dismantling them.

I suppose one could read this and argue that one solution then would be to eliminate private ownership from the equation. Of course this would be the very government takeover that those on the right have been warning of.

Of far greater value is the lesson to be learned from Fannie, Freddie and the mortgage debacle: the best fix to economic issues will always be based in private, market-based solutions. Does this mean the private sector had no role in causing the current crisis? Of course not. But it does mean that the best chance of solving the problem will be through private industry - not the Federal government.

In conclusion, I hope that as our leaders debate these issues, they will ignore the doomsday rhetoric from both sides, and focus on demonstrable track record that Canadian Health care has laid before us. I hope they see the havoc that the government mandates to broaden home ownership has wrought upon the mortgage industry.

The lessons from history are in front of us. We'd be foolish not to learn from them.