The War Is Coming

A quote from Dr. John Lott:

But not everyone is convinced dozens of cases in pro sports are worth changing the laws of the land, or even requiring mandatory testing for adults and teens. “We go and watch sporting events because of the amazing feats these guys are able to perform,” says John Lott Jr., the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland. “If they’re able to do a bit better job with performance-enhancing drugs, then these athletes should be able to make the choice. They take risks all the time. We pay to watch them take those risks. Why are we interested in legislating against these risks but not against others?”

I can agree that this is a matter of personal decision and the government shouldn’t be involved.

(I speak here in context of these issues within MLB - baseball is the sport I follow very closely, I haven’t followed any cases in the Olympics or other sports.)

However, a private entertainment-centered organization such as the MLB that makes contracts with their “employees” will look at what they think will hold their fan base. If a private organization wishes to internally ban the use of steroids by its “employees”, I’m not sure there is anything we can do about it - or should.

My opinion of the issue in baseball in particular: I pay my money to go watch my team/other teams perform, but I find that it takes away from the feel of the game when there’s a couple guys running around that are stronger, faster, better than everyone else - not because they are gifted or trained harder (which is a big part of the appeal of the game), but because they took some injections.

Does this justify government regulation? Absolutely not.

Still, I support a private organization’s (in my case, the MLB) decision to contractually bar their players from taking these drugs because it is something that directly impacts the quality of the sport and its appeal to the core fan base.

(Please take note of my wording there: “…something that directly impacts the quality of the sport and its appeal to the core fan base.” Therefore, things like steroids clearly apply. What a player’s political views are, how he practices them, what religion he chooses to practice, etc. are irrelevant to the play of the game.

So for instance, whether a player wishes to conceal carry a firearm holds no relevance to the sport, thus should be actively avoided by the organization. Whether a player is a homosexual and wishes to be married - again, holds no relevance to the sport and the issue should be avoided by the organization.

Just for posterity I’ll emphasize again: It’s still absolutely no call for legislation for/against certain practices.

See here.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

[...]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

My first thought: Great news!

My second thought: Why is this even an issue?

My opinions on marriage are not new. I am a newly married man (March 29th 2008) but I am quick to note that my feelings toward my wife were no different the day before our wedding than they are now. They were no different a year before our wedding either. Or 2 years. Or 5 years. Or before that. (We’ve been together for a couple months short of 8 years.)

Yes, that’s right: My feeling is that I’ve been a married man for a couple months short of 8 years - regardless of what the government thinks!

Why didn’t we get married much sooner? Because I despise government interference in marriage. Marriage is an institution of religion or personal conviction. We have a separation of church and state for a good reason: so that the government can’t declare it illegal to practice your religion or creed (so long as it isn’t hurting anyone else).

Now let me insert some personal perspective: I’m a Christian - to me, marriage is a promise of fidelity between a man and a woman before God. I would not go to a church that would marry gay couples because my understanding of my religion is that homosexuality is a forbidden practice. But hey, that’s me. Who am I to say that what’s for me should be forced on someone else? Who am I to say that some other church should be disallowed from marrying a gay couple? A gay couple getting married doesn’t hurt me. So what’s the big deal?

The issue is an issue, of course, because of the government’s “recognition” of marriage. Government benefits for marriage… tax breaks, estate, etc. It is because of these benefits that it is believed by some groups that marriage is a right somehow guaranteed them. I do not see anywhere in the constitution that defines marriage as a “right”. Marriage is defined by laws - laws that exclude certain individuals from practicing or conducting marriages. That doesn’t sound like the spirit of individual liberty to me.

I can not think of a single benefit of the government’s recognition of marriage that can’t be accomplished in another way. Taxes breaks (an entirely different issue - let’s just go with this for now)? When a child is born or adopted, attach the tax break (I believe that was the impetus for the marriage tax break anyway, right?) Estate issues? Take responsibility for your estate and make sure paperwork is filled out to guarantee your spouse’s control/ownership of your property in the even that you pass or are rendered permanently incapacitated. Sharing insurance plans (not exactly a government benefit but I’m sure this exclusivity is protected by some obscure/obfuscated law)? I’m sure the entity that performs you wedding would be willing to provide you some sort of document that “proves” that the marriage took place.

Quite aside from how these benefits can be accomplished, what about the government not recognizing religious establishments?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

Ring a bell? Not only has congress made laws respecting marriage, but they have prohibited the free exercise of certain Christian sects and various non-Christian religions that do sanction non-heterosexual (and non-monogamous) marriages. This all notwithstanding that such interference by the government flies in the face of the spirit of individual liberties!

I’ve yet to see a convincing argument on why it is acceptable for the government to declare who can and can not get married. I’ve heard some say that it diminishes the value of a straight marriage. How can that be? The value of a marriage is held between two people (and God, for many people). That is a value that can’t be changed unless the relationship actually changes or one or both partners find evidence of infidelity or other misconduct.

There are those like President Bush that believe that voters should be allowed to decide the definition of marriage. Why is it acceptable for the majority to crush the practice of creed of a minority? Democracy should not be used as a tool of tyranny. If you want the people to decide the definition of marriage, let the people decide for themselves, and remove the imposition of the government’s will.

(Note: I’ve got the idea stuck in my mind that the government controls on marriage had racist origins. I’m trying to find support for this idea, I’m not sure where I learned that. More on that when I can find it.)

The Jefferson Memorial is sinking.

“…is sinking in spots and needs repair, a study concluded.

The domed landmark built in the late 1930s and early ’40s is not in danger but should be monitored, according to the yearlong engineering study commissioned by the National Park Service.

The study released Tuesday attributes the sinking mainly to soft soil under the wall that has compressed over the years. In some places, the wall has sunk almost a foot since the memorial was built.”

In other news: the constitution is sinking, and the prevailing parties don’t seem to care…

The NRA sounds close to endorsing McCain - no doubt, given Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s clear stances on our gun rights. Wayne LaPierre speaks well of McCain in this AP article:

A top official of the National Rifle Association said Republican John McCain has been a reliable ally of gun owners despite divisions with the powerful lobbying group on some issues.

“We’ve had our disagreements, everybody knows it,” NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre told The Associated Press in an interview Tuesday. “I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on those. We’re not foolish enough to ignore the vast areas of agreement in which John McCain has been a friend to gun owners.”

NRA executive VP Wayne LaPierre also discusses the Democratic candidates:

But his harshest words were directed at the Democratic candidates. LaPierre accused Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama of “mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners” on the campaign trail.

“They try to say one thing in the heartland of the country and they vote another way back in Washington,” he said. “And I just think the public sees through it.”

The public certainly sees through it, as they did in the 2004 elections with John Kerry’s stunts - for instance, him posing on a “deer hunt”, AK-47 in hand. I believe there was a turkey hunt in there too.

This election is different though. Even with Nancy Pelosi as majority speaker, not much has been managed in the anti-second amendment cause. Second Amendment supporters have become lazy: the anger over useless assault weapons bans has faded to a dull ache, and issues like Iraq and Health Care have come to the front. If these issues prove to be far more important to voters than the Second Amendment, we need to be careful. Obama has been rallying anti-gun democrats everywhere, and pro-gun democrats won’t be voting for McCain.

It’s time to go into damage control now, not months after the election when a new and stronger assault weapons ban is making its way through congress.

This is old, I suppose, but entertaining and educational as well. Blue Steel Democrats’ blog writes correctly on “hunting rights” vs. “the right to keep and bear arms”:

Whenever the anti-gun folks mention that no one wants to take away hunting guns, I simply remind them that that the Second Amendment and Oregon Constitution do not say that there is a “right to keep and bear sporting goods.” Its sole purpose is to allow citizens the ability to protect themselves from tyranny - not to shoot deer.

C. Michael Arnold notes that Oregon’s RKBA is stronger than the Federal Constitution’s, and was written well after handguns were in wide use:

“The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power”
- Oregon Constitution, Article 1, Section 27

Zak J. cleverly notes about Sen. Obama that “…If you think the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear sporting goods, I guess you just found your candidate.” Read here.

Sam Stein at the Huffington Post writes in his article “Before Bitter-Gate: What Obama Said Hours Earlier About Guns”

Just hours before Sen. Barack Obama uttered his now famous “bitter” comments, suggesting that small town Americans had turned to guns and religion out of economic frustration, he appeared at a different private event and offered a much more nuanced, sympathetic interpretation of gun ownership.

That quote, however, never made it public. And since then, “bitter-gate” metastasized into Obama’s biggest liability — the perception that he is out of touch with average Americans now a key concern for many voters and political kindling for the Senator’s opponents.

But is it fair?

Obama argued at the time that his sentiment was correct but his words were not. [...]

Yes, Mr. Stein! It is fair. Here’s why:

1. Obama’s voting record
2. He wishes to ban sale and transfer of all semi-automatic firearms (Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998)
3. Has openly supported an assault weapons ban (see here)
4. Has consistently opposed concealed carry, except for retired LEOs: “I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done–and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms.” (source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007) Let me note that I can name so many instances off the top of my head where a citizen knows more about and demonstrates superior proficiency with firearms than so many police officers.

His voting record and his book/quotes speak for themselves. Obama not only doesn’t support but stands against our second amendment rights. (For those who argue on the meaning of the second amendment, I will later post some information for you - primarily writings from the framers of the constitution on the second amendment which clearly state their intent.)

My “racism rant” is coming up here. I can’t help it. I hate racists. I know the irony on hating hate. But I do, and I can’t help it. I hate racists. They make my stomach turn. They make my ears hot. They make the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

Racists make me feel violent - a feeling I’m not prone to. Racists make me feel hate - a feeling I fight to avoid through reason and the wisdom and love of Christ.

Now look: Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause

You people disgust me.

Would you vote for Condoleezza Rice? Would you vote for a conservative African-American like Bob Parks? I don’t think I would vote for either of them in a primary given an option like Ron Paul, but I would certainly “come home” to the Republican party when pushed to make a decision for individuals like these.

But none of my feelings have anything to do with any of those individuals being African-American.

I believe Obama is wrong on many issues. I think he is anti-American and his beliefs are broadly unconstitutional. I will not vote for him. That has to do with the words that come out of his mouth that I can read in the news every morning. I wouldn’t have to see a picture of the man to dislike him. He is a human being. He deserves the rights and respect owed to every single human being simply because they are human beings.

What is it that you are so afraid of? What are you so offended by?

(Ironic: I haven’t read “Black & Right” for quite some time, but he has a post about that exact same article.)

Something I have noticed from Bob Parks’ writings is that he sees a great deal of racism among liberals/Democrats. In fact, the tone of his post about the article in question appears to suggest that he believes that the racism being experienced by Obama’s campaigners is coming largely from Democrats. If you have the time it is well worth checking out his blog, especially his information on the heavily anti-civil rights history of the Democrat party.

Bellinghammer at “Adventures of a Bellinghammer” posted a great open letter to John McCain, read it here.

Excerpts from his letter that held great interest for me:

“I understand your concern about Global Warming and Climate Change. One way you could position yourself on this issue is to first call for a Constitutional Amendment that specifically grants the federal government authority to address climate/environmental issues that extend beyond the boundaries of any single state.”

I appreciate this perspective. While I’m hesitant to allow such power in the hands of the Federal Government, if we are going to take action, let’s see to it that the Government is actually willing to take on such a responsibility by formally voting on granting itself such authority.

“Another big issue this campaign season is health care. One thing you could do is publicly question how Obama’s and Clinton’s plan is Constitutionally sound. Where does the executive or even the congress get the authority necessary to implement their solutions without a Constitutional amendment? Reference the 10th Amendment for some arguments against the legality of their plans.”

Another “constitutionalist” viewpoint. I like it. McCain could also simply bring up the fact that the lack of mandate in Obama’s single-payer health insurance plan will make it fail. The only way a single-payer federal insurance plan can work is if:

1. Costs are controlled - they are spiralling out of control, and I don’t see a moral or legal/constitutional way to do this.
2. Subscribing is mandatory - group health insurance plans work because the insurance company does the math and “gambles” that only so many people in that group will require so many dollars for health care. If a single player system is non mandatory and non-refusing (as Obama’s is), people won’t subscribe until they need it. When they need it they will be taking more money from the system than they are putting in. There’s no self-responsibility emphasized here, and when self responsibility isn’t required it won’t be taken.

Bellinghammer also makes a strong point on Constitution discussion during McCain’s “Town Hall” style meetings:

“Include some statements how the oath you took to preserve and protect the Constitution when you joined the Navy and every time you are sworn in as a Senator is important to you in your stump speeches and town hall meetings. Taking this approach would position you nicely to question how some of the “change” initiatives being promoted by the Democratic party can be legally performed without a Constitutional amendment.”

Great call. Pressuring the Democrats this election on the Constitution will be a terrific way to set McCain apart from the big government Neo-”Conservatives” we’ve got in office now. Many of Obama’s beliefs will be crippled when he is forced to answer for the constitutionality of them.

Unfortrunately, the same goes for McCain.

While chatting with Bellinghammer, I mentioned that all this pressuring on the Constitution might force Obama to make another flap - this time perhaps about the Constitution. My example was getting Obama to say, perhaps “Why do you value a piece of paper more than [whatever the topic is on]?” Bellinghammer noted this article about President Bush, in which it is written:

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Ouch!

Little did I know that the “health care issue” is as old as the Raw New Deal.

We saw the first proposals for universal health insurance under FDR. Medicare/Medicaid in 1965. And in 1968 even Richard Nixon was talking about the health care cost crisis.

Come 1973, the HMO Act passed. The nation got a bitter taste of what could come of managed care. The backlash began.

According to Dallas L. Salisbury at The Commonwealth Fund:

“Researchers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, suggested in that debate of the early 1990s that the answer was an individual mandate, an end to employment-based coverage and major changes in the tax treatment of health insurance benefits. They proposed that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program was a perfect model, and that individuals could be allowed to buy into it if nothing else, as a replacement for employer coverage.”

Democrats have embraced this.

How many of us knew that this was a concept handed down from the likes of the Heritage Foundation?

In my exploration of Obama’s full health care reform plan:

“Increasing use of generics. Some drug manufacturers are explicitly paying
generic drug makers not to enter the market so they can preserve their monopolies
and keep charging Americans exorbitant prices for brand name products.48 The
Obama plan will work to ensure that market power does not lead to higher prices
for consumers.”

From footnote 48, Marc Kaufman (April 25, 2006), “Drug Firms’ Deals with Allowing Exclusivity,” Washington Post:

“The agreements follow two federal appeals court rulings last year that rejected Federal Trade Commission actions that since the late 1990s had prevented brand-name companies from paying their rivals to drop patent challenges.”

[...]

“Leibowitz said that when brand-name and generic companies agree to end their patent litigation, both generally benefit but the public suffers. The agreements allow the branded companies to maintain their patent exclusivity for longer periods, while the generic company receives money for, in effect, dropping its challenge.”

Two federal appeals courts upheld the ability of corporations to make out of court settlements over patent disputes. This sounds reasonable. So some companies are using their “right” to settle disputes out of court, and Obama makes it sound like a conspiracy.

…and Democrats whine about the Republican spin machine?

However, this sounds like an issue with patents, not an issue with America’s “health care system”. Do you want to fix the problems with the patent system? Fine. Is it wise or fair to make a special case for drug companies? Doubtful.

I’m of the opinion that patents are bad for freedom. There are those that will argue against me: they will say that without patents there is no motivation to innovate. I disagree of course: I think there are those that will innovate and will make money and accept that competition is a must in a free market. Some will be able to keep ahead of the competition in order to stay in the market. Of course the argument could be made that without patents, the little guy can’t compete because a big company can just steal the idea… but this is already happening: the “little guy” is already screwed by being unable to compete by presenting viable alternatives to name brand products.

Of cost and Information Technology:

Lowering Costs Through Investment in Electronic Health Information Technology Systems: Most medical records are still stored on paper, which makes it hard to coordinate care, measure quality or reduce medical errors and which costs twice as much as electronic claims. Obama will invest $10 billion a year over the next five years to move the U.S. health care system to broad adoption of standards-based electronic health information systems, including electronic health records, and will phase in requirements for full implementation of health IT. Obama will ensure that patients’ privacy is protected.

In Obama’s FAQ:

Q. How much will it cost us taxpayers?
A. The Obama plan will cost between $50-65 billion a year when fully phased in.

Consider this: the IT systems Obama discusses in the paragraph are already being studied and embraced by medical professionals across the country and around the world. These systems are expensive and complicated for new users. They are prone to errors due to users and implementation. There is little question that, once implemented, these systems could save time, money, and cut down on contamination issues (fewer surfaces = decreased possibility of infection from contact). But does Obama ask no questions about the costs incurred by the instability resulting from a forced rapid adoption of these systems? Is there no question on the burden of the extra $50 billion of phase-in costs?

Drug reimportation. The second-fastest growing type of health expenses is
prescription drugs.46 Pharmaceutical companies should profit when their research
and development results in a groundbreaking new drug. But some companies are
exploiting Americans by dramatically overcharging U.S. consumers. These
companies are selling the exact same drugs in Europe and Canada but charging
Americans a 67 percent premium.47 Obama will allow Americans to buy their
medicines from other developed countries if the drugs are safe and prices are
lower outside the U.S.

This I agree with whole-heartedly. The current administration’s refusal to allow reimportation is a protectionist pandering tactic. In a free market it’s fair for a company to sell a product for what consumers will pay, but we can’t allow the government to protect “artificially” raised prices.

I leave you with some of the other side of the story from one of the most socially conscious pharmaceutical corporations:

Information on Merck’s social responsibility and charity: http://www.merck.com/cr/

Merck’s public policy (including their activities in developing countries, DTC advertising, and R&D): http://www.merck.com/about/public_policy/

Remember that there’s a reason that we in the US have access to the best medical technology in the world, and remember the reason: because the free market motivates. If we step on the corporations that develop these technologies, what could happen?

More later.