Kurt's Perspective

Health care reform and the Supreme Court: 2 article series

2012-02-16T12:30:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court has accepted one of the numerous challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

In all likelihood, a ruling (or a variety of rulings) will be forthcoming around June 2012 – a little more than two years after the legislation was originally passed.

This two-article series for KSL.com briefly examines two variables in two simplified scenarios. In particular, what are likely consequences for the cost of health care and the outcome of the 2012 elections if the Supreme Court generally upholds the legislation as constitutional, and conversely, what are the consequences if the justices generally overturn the legislation?

The second article in the series also addresses an interesting potential twist if the Supreme Court decides it wants to take a pass on the case until after the 2012 elections are over.

What happens if the Supreme Court overturns health care law?
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=757&sid=18565349

What happens if the Supreme Court upholds health care law?
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=18589543&nid=757&title=what-happens-if-the-supreme-court-upholds-health-care-law

The surge of Rick Santorum: Sizzle or fizzle?

2012-01-05T14:11:00.000-07:00

Source: nndb.com

For months during the series of seemingly infinite Republican presidential debates, Rick Santorum played a quiet, almost anonymous role. However, in a rapid change of circumstances, Santorum has recently surged to the top of the leader board and virtually tied with Mitt Romney in Iowa’s caucus on Jan. 3, 2012.

He fell short of victory by a mere eight votes.

Is Santorum’s strong showing in Iowa a sign that he will be a serious challenger to Romney for the Republican nomination — or is he merely the next in a long line of “anti-Romney” candidates unable to sustain momentum over the long haul?

I share my perspective in this article for KSL.com.

2012 Elections: Will Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman make things interesting?

2011-12-15T11:29:00.002-07:00

The 2012 presidential election has seen various candidates surge to the top of the polls only to tumble shortly thereafter. As Mitt Romney holds relatively steady, Newt Gingrich has powered his way to the top. But could Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman shake things up just enough to make the GOP race a little more interesting?

Paul is unlikely to win the nomination, although there is a great deal of speculation he could run as an Independent or third-party candidate and serve as a spoiler in 2012. However, his popularity continues to rise in Iowa. A victory on Jan. 3, 2012 would be less than ideal for the other GOP candidates, especially Gingrich and Romney.

Huntsman seems to be following the strategy of Rudy Giuliani in 2008, only instead of putting on his marbles on Florida, Huntsman is gunning for a victory in New Hampshire. And he is slowly but surely climbing in the polls. A win in New Hampshire is unlikely as of today - but certainly not outside the realm of plausibility.

If Huntsman were to take New Hampshire a week after Paul was to take Iowa, those who grumble the GOP presidential race is uninteresting will find their complaints are no longer relevant.

Forthcoming series on Supreme Court and health care law (addendum)

2011-12-08T13:47:00.001-07:00

In my forthcoming series on the Supreme Court and health care reform, I would ideally like to address three variables - although I do have enough material to only address two if needs be.

I have identified two variables and am in search of a third which would be of interest to the readers. Suggestions are welcome.

The two variables I have nailed down thus far:

The impact on the 2012 elections
The impact on the cost of health care

Reflections on Lex de Azevedo's 'Gloria'

2011-12-07T16:03:00.001-07:00

A music professor once told me, "The only thing more powerful than truth is truth set to music."

I don't know whether I agree with her assessment or not, but I do believe that truth set to music - certain kinds of music - can touch the human soul in a very unique way.

A few months ago, I received a phone call from Lex De Azevedo. I had sung for his Millennium Choral Society in the past, and he was calling to ask if I would sing with the choir again for a special performance of "Gloria, The Life of Christ," in the tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah (home to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir).

Lex De Azevedo at the piano

The opportunity to sing in the tabernacle would have represented the fulfillment of a dream I had entertained since I was a teenager, but I didn't know if I had any room in my schedule. I told him I needed to think about it and that I would get back with him the next week.

Ultimately, I decided even though I very much wanted to participate, I simply had too much going on. However, before I had a chance to call him back and say I wouldn't be able to help, a woman in a Ford Mustang ran a red light at 40-50mph and ran into my now-deceased car.

I was taken by ambulance to the hospital where I received the good news my neck had not been broken - along with some not-so-good news relative to a litany of other injuries. For weeks, I did my best to keep up with family, work, school, and church responsibilities.

Several weeks later, I was walking through Temple Square with my eight-year-old daughter and I remembered the phone call I had received from Lex - and that I had neglected to call him back. I told her about the invitation and was surprised by the look of wonder in her eyes and the sound of excitement in her voice. She wanted me to do it.

And so I called Lex back. I got his voice mail and left a message. A few minutes later, he called me back and asked if I would cut his hair. I knew a certain amount of eccentricity runs through the music industry, so I assumed I was being introduced to a level of humor too deep to be comprehended by a relative musical amateur like myself.

I told him, "I'd be happy to cut it for you, but I don't think you'd like the result. Perhaps you'd be more satisfied with an extra baritone for the Gloria concert."

What followed was an amusingly awkward silence. Apparently he had been referred to someone named Kurt for a haircut. Combined with the fact that I was returning his phone call a couple of months later than anticipated, he assumed I was his barber-to-be.

After we got things straightened out (I would be the baritone, not the barber), I looked at the calendar and realized I would have approximately one week to practice the music on my own before joining with the choir for a week of rehearsals culminating with the concert on Nov. 26, 2011.

The next two weeks touched my soul in a way that was powerful and soothing all at once. At the end of each day, I would sit in a rocking chair in my room and sing through the musical work. At first, I felt intimated by the complexity of a few of the pieces. I was exhausted from the length of the days and the pains from the accident, and worried I didn't have the mental capacity to perform at the level expected of me. But something happened as I worked through the music. I began to feel immersed in feelings of peace and calm and fulfillment.

George Dyer rehearsing as "Gabriel"

It was a wonderful week, and the week that followed was even better. I got to know some really good people in the choir. I reveled in the beauty of the music when all of the parts sang together. I closed my eyes during a track sung entirely by the women in the choir and felt as if their harmony would lift me off the ground.

Two weeks of practice culminated in rehearsals with the soloists. It was an honor to backup the likes of George Dyer, Melinda Lockwood DeBirk, Catherine Stambaugh, and Greg Pearson. But it also caused some problems.

Melissa Lockwood DeBirk rehearsing as "Mary"

By this stage of the game, the music was coming together so wonderfully I found myself drifting off, pondering the story of the birth of the Savior. From a spiritual standpoint, I was provided with new insights for which I will be forever grateful. But from a choral standpoint, I became so involved in the story and my own emotions I occasionally missed a vocal entrance.

And although Gloria and the audience deserved vocal perfection from each of the performers - myself included - I somehow feel as if the mistakes induced by the music itself are a testament to just how powerful a work Lex has produced. When a piece of a music has the power to transport people back in time and make them feel as if they are present for the very events being portrayed (all of the words in Gloria are taken from the scriptures), something magical takes place.

I still don't know if my music professor was right about truth set to music being more powerful than truth alone. But I do know that through Lex De Azevedo's Gloria, I came to a more intimate understanding of certain verities as true today as they were 2,000 years ago.

2012 GOP candidates pledge to repeal 'ObamaCare'

2011-12-07T13:05:00.001-07:00

Each of the candidates left in the GOP presidential race have expressed their intention to work towards repeal of health care reform legislation if elected. I have included below links to some of the statements made by the candidates in this regard.

The list is by no means comprehensive of the numerous statements made by the candidates, but I thought it might be helpful to have in one place a short list of links to one or two relevant statements made by each of the GOP presidential candidates:

Mitt Romney
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-11-Romney-on-fixing-health-care_n.htm

In an Op-Ed in USAToday, Romney stated: "If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare."

Newt Gingrich
http://www.newt.org/contract/legislative-proposals

As part of Gingrich's "21st Century Contract with America," the first item in the Executive Summary of Part I reads: "Repeal Obamacare and pass a replacement that saves lives and money by empowering patients and doctors, not bureaucrats and politicians.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=43573

"I signed the Obamacare Repeal Pledge, sponsored by the Independent Women’s Voice and American Majority Action."

Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/

Paul's campaign website includes the following pledge:
"He will work with Congress to:... Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS."

Michele Bachmann
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/transcript-yahoo-abc-news-interview-michele-bachmann-191745856.html

In an interview with ABC News, Bachmann stated: "I'm committed to the full scale repeal of Obama Care because it's gonna hurt a lotta people's lives. And I wanna turn that around."

Rick Perry
http://www.rickperry.org/issues/healthcare/

Perry's campaign website states: "If elected, Perry will repeal Obamacare – a misguided, unconstitutional and unsustainable government takeover of our health care that will undermine patient quality, increase red tape and send costs skyrocketing for taxpayers, patients and healthcare providers."

Jon Huntsman
http://jon2012.com/issues/jobs-economy-regulatory-reform

Huntsman's campaign website states in relation to the Affordable Care Act, "Rather than analyzing each piece of red tape, Gov. Huntsman supports a full repeal."

Rick Santorum
http://iwvoices.com/detail.php?c=2433974&t=Rick-Santorum-Signs-Presidential-ObamaCare-Repeal-Pledge-

Santorum signed the ObamaCare Repeal Pledge

http://heritageaction.com/2011/10/mitt-romney-rick-santorum-commit-to-reconciliation/

During the Oct. 11 debate, Santorum stated: "We need to repeal [Obamacare] by doing it through a reconciliation process. And since I have experience and know how to do that, we’ll take care of it…"

New research highlights importance of family dinner

2011-12-01T14:28:00.002-07:00

Norman Rockwell

New research emphasizes several benefits of eating together as a family - and warns of the consequences for children in families that do not regularly eat together. I address a few of these in this article for KSL.com.

For those interested in more information, I have included below a list of some of the most recent research on the topic:

References

Califano, J. A., Jr. (2008). Parent power: The price young people pay for parental pessimism and nonchalance is high. In H. T. Wilson (Ed.), Drugs, Society, and Behavior (Twenty-Second ed., Vol. 07/08, pp. 208-209). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill.

Fulkerson, J. A., Pasch, K. E., Stigler, M. H., Farbakhsh, K., Perry, C. L., & Komro, K. A. (2010). Longitudinal associations between family dinner and adolescent perceptions of parent–child communication among racially diverse urban youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 261-270. doi: 10.1037/a0019311

Fruh, S. M. (2011). The surprising benefits of the family meal. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 7.1, 18-22.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2011). Adolescent Substance Use: America's #1 Public Health Problem: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2011). The importance of family dinners VII.

Piko, B. F., Kovacs, E., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (2009). What makes a difference? Understanding the role of protective factors in Hungarian adolescents’ depressive symptomatology. [Article]. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(10), 617-624. doi: 10.1007/s00787-009-0022-y

Sen, B. (2010). The relationship between frequency of family dinner and adolescent problem behaviors after adjusting for other family characteristics. [Feature Article]. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 187-196. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2009.03.011

Forthcoming series on Supreme Court and health care law

2011-11-14T18:50:00.001-07:00

AP Photo

I am working on a brief 2-article series for ksl.com that will address the impact of the Supreme Court's forthcoming ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

The articles will examine two broad potential outcomes: what happens if the Court upholds the constitutionality of the legislation, and conversely, what happens if the Court overturns the legislation?

I am in the process of determining precisely which variables I will address and which contingencies I will include. There are a number of ways the Court could rule that are far more complex and ambiguous than a simple yea or nay vote on the totality of the legislation. These particular articles can't be (and aren't meant to be) comprehensive, but I would like to flesh out some potentialities and briefly examine what the Court's ruling might mean for various aspects of the American life.

I will post links shortly after the articles are published.

Supreme Court accepts health care case

2011-11-14T12:43:00.001-07:00

The Supreme Court announced today it plans to hear arguments regarding national health care reform legislation. Although there have been calls for two of the Justices to recuse themselves, both Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan plan to take part in the case.

Most followers of the Court now anticipate the outcome will come down to a 5-4 decision one way or another.

Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have a dramatic effect on the future of health care in the United States, the power of the Commerce Clause, and other important matters.

Review: 'Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism'

2011-10-31T13:21:00.001-06:00

Oxford Press

Shortly before his martyrdom, Parley P. Pratt finished a draft of his autobiography, which was later edited and published in 1874. For more than a century, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have sifted its pages to witness the adventures, trials and testimony of the memorable apostle.

Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow have added to Pratt’s story and the early history of the LDS Church with their new biography, “Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism.”

I offer a very brief review of the book in this article for the Deseret Morning News.

5 questions answered about Parley P. Pratt

2011-10-28T18:01:00.004-06:00

Benchmark Books

The life of Parley P. Pratt is inextricably linked with the early history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow shed additional light on Pratt’s life and his influence on the early history of the LDS Church in their new biography, “Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism.”

The contents of the book, along with a recent lecture by the authors at Benchmark Books in Salt Lake City, provide answers to many questions about Pratt.

I address answers to the following five questions about Pratt's life and teachings in this article for the Deseret Morning News:

In what ways is Pratt comparable to the Apostle Paul?
How accurate is Pratt's autobiography?
What was the nature of Pratt's relationship with Joseph Smith?
What was the influence of Pratt on Mormon theology?
What were Pratt's most influential books?

Forthcoming articles on Parley P. Pratt

2011-10-24T16:23:00.000-06:00

I recently completed two articles on Parley P. Pratt, both of which will be published shortly.

The first is a short review of a new biography by Terryl L. Givens and Matthew J. Grow, "Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism."

The second is a series of answers to the following five questions about Pratt:

In what ways is Pratt comparable to the Apostle Paul?
How accurate is Pratt's autobiography?
What was the nature of Pratt's relationship with Joseph Smith?
What was the influence of Pratt on Mormon theology?
What were Pratt's most influential books?

Will conflicts of interest influence health care case?

2011-10-20T09:48:00.002-06:00

The destiny of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is waiting on the doorstep of the United States Supreme Court. The decision of the court will likely come down to one vote.

However, Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan are both facing allegations of conflicts of interest. While it is unlikely these allegations could lead one or both of the justices to recuse themselves thereby complicating the outcome of the case.

I address the potential influence of these conflicts in this article.

Can President Barack Obama be reelected?

2011-10-04T13:31:00.001-06:00

The 2012 election will likely be a challenge for President Barack Obama Whereas his main obstacle in 2008 was emerging victorious in the Democratic primary, Obama must now convince voters who flocked to his side in the 2008 general election to do so again.

Can he do it?

I address the issue in this article for ksl.com.

'The Playboy Club' is bad for television

2011-10-04T11:22:00.000-06:00

The Playboy Club is bad for television not merely because it contains immoral content, but because it stands for pornography. And while it is becoming increasingly unpopular to do so, the nation is in need of more voices who can declare that pornography is immoral, harmful to family stability, and degrading to women.

I go into more detail in this article about why the program is bad for television.

Supreme Court could rule on health care law before 2012 elections

2011-09-29T11:50:00.002-06:00

On Wednesday, the U.S. Justice Department appealed a ruling of the health care reform law’s unconstitutionality to the U.S. Supreme Court. The timing of the appeal means that the Supreme Court could hear arguments in its next term, which begins next week. If the Supreme Court accepts the case, a ruling could be handed down by the conclusion of the term in June 2012.

In this article for the Deseret Morning News, I address some of the issues and the history associated with legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act.

Could Mitt Romney really become president?

2011-09-29T11:46:00.002-06:00

Prior to Rick Perry joining the presidential race, Mitt Romney enjoyed much of the limelight as the early front-runner of the Republican Party. Now, Romney appears to be in a legitimate battle for the GOP nomination. Is it possible for Romney to secure the GOP nomination? If so, does he have a shot at incumbent President Barack Obama? What qualifies him to be president more than the other candidates?

I address these questions in this article for ksl.com.

A companion article will be published soon which will cover the question, "Could President Obama be reelected?

Learning to understand and love after 9/11

2011-09-07T20:29:00.000-06:00

In this very short essay for the Deseret Morning News, I write about one way in which the tragic events of 9/11 impacted me spiritually.

In particular, I discuss how the terrorist attacks ultimately led me to develop a greater love for and understanding of my enemies.

Most impactful U.S. presidents of all time

2011-08-19T22:54:00.000-06:00

In this article, I identify five of the most impactful presidents in the history of the United States.

Lists like these are always controversial, and arguments can endlessly be made in favor of one president or another.

In this new answer to an old question, I analyze five of the most impactful presidents based upon the objective criteria of “character” and “preserving and extending liberty.”

The relatively objective nature of the list and much of the content is inspired by a book that is both insightful and innovative when it comes to picking presidential favorites: The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game by Alvin S. Felzenberg.

Health care reform series

2011-08-15T09:16:00.001-06:00

The entirety of my health care reform series has been published on KSL. I have included links below to each of the nine articles:

The problem with Google search results

2011-08-13T01:11:00.002-06:00

A recent article on the "On Faith" blog of The Washington Post got me thinking about the reliability of Google search results.

In this particular article, the author Michael Otterson refuted the idea that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka, the "Mormons") is a cult. As part of his argument, he responded to a claim found in a British publication that a Google search for "Mormon" and "cult" resulted in 2.7 million hits by showing that the same search results in 4 million hits for Evangelicals, 4.3 million hits for Methodists, and more than 2 million hits for Manchester United.

We have become accustomed in our society to correlating the strength of an argument with the total number of Google search results. In many ways, this habit limits our ability to analyze issues.

Here are the results of a few random searches I conducted to validate the hypothesis that the total number of Google search results is not necessarily a testament to the validity of any particular argument:

Google keyword search	Total results
The White House is in Washington D.C.	138,000,000
The White House is in California	217,000,000

Pluto is not a planet	15,400,000
Pluto is a planet	19,400,000

John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln	225,000
George Washington killed Lincoln	5,940,000

China is in Asia	834,000,000
China is in Europe	936,000,000

Kate Middleton married Prince William	986,000
Kate Middleton married Brad Pitt	3,170,000

Democrats voted for health care reform	5,270,000
Republicans voted for health care reform	10,400,000

Kurt Manwaring wrote this article	10,300
Kurt Manwaring did not write this article	12,200

Book review: The Innovator's Prescription - A Disruptive Solution for Health Care

2011-08-09T13:43:00.001-06:00

McGraw-Hill

"The Innovator’s Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care" by Clayton M. Christensen, Jerome H. Grossman, M.D., & Jason Hwang, M.D., McGraw-Hill, $32.95, 441 pages.

In The Innovator’s Prescription, Clayton Christensen and his associates address the complex issue of health care reform. Their stated purpose is to “provide a road map for those seeking innovation and reform" (xviii).

The central thesis of this collaborative effort is that there is a market solution to the rising costs of health care. The proposed solution illustrates that health care reform is a complex undertaking which involves not only lowering the cost of insurance, but also addressing other critical issues such as expensive “one-size-fits-all” business models used by hospitals and physicians. Nine major categories of problems are identified which must be addressed in order to permanently raise the quality of health care while simultaneously providing greater access at lower costs.

Christensen, a renowned consultant and Harvard scholar, applies his theory of “disruptive innovation” to America’s health care crisis. Disruptive innovation describes the phenomenon that occurs when a product typically only available to the rich is made available to the poor, albeit a product of initial lesser quality.

An example is the personal computer which initially gave rank and file individuals access to basic word processing and games. Over time, the quality of these products became better and better, eventually displacing the role of ridiculously expensive room-size computers and making high quality personal computers accessible at low costs.

The authors claim that this same phenomenon can impact America’s health care system. For example, they argue that in some instances costs can be lowered by supplanting expensive physicians with less-expensive staff or technologies which have the same capabilities.

Christensen tells the story of a physician in Boston who was demonstrating a new technology for removing abdominal growths. The physician concluded the demonstration by declaring, “And the great thing about this… is that anybody can do it!” Quickly realizing that the comment negated the expensive skills of the doctors in the room, the physician immediately recoiled and said, “Oh! I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to say that" (323)!

In 2009, President Obama deplored the rising costs of health care in the United States, saying that “for all of this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured, the quality of our care is often lower, and we aren’t any healthier.”

Yet time after time in The Innovator’s Prescription, Christensen, Grossman, and Hwang demonstrate how disruptive innovation can create a market solution to the health care crisis. They carefully dissect each known problem and demonstrate exactly how more citizens can obtain high-quality, low-cost health insurance designed to improve health.

Christensen and his associates do a masterful job at objectively presenting a complex issue in a reasonably succinct and impressively organized fashion. At the same time, they are likely to incite passion in many readers. Their belief in disruptive innovation is likely to anger physicians who are hesitant to accept less expensive technologies and business models. Their claim that a long-term solution is not possible without requiring everybody to purchase insurance—something akin to the “individual mandate” of national health care reform—is also likely to frustrate many conservatives. Nonetheless, the analysis is unmistakably nonpartisan and it is easy to see that the authors are more concerned with finding a solution than placating their audience.

While the book does not make for light reading, it will be a valuable addition to the library of anyone interested in truly understanding what is wrong with our health care system. The Innovator’s Prescription provides an impressively objective analysis of what is wrong with America’s health care system and what is necessary to create a long-term solution.

Title	The Innovator's Prescription: A Disruptive Solution for Health Care
Author(s)	Clayton M. Christensen, Jerome H. Grossman, & Jason Hwang.
Price	$32.95
Number of pages	441
Ages	Mature
Publisher	McGraw-Hill
Publish Date	2009
ISBN	978-0-07-159208-6

Pelosi's remarks in context

2011-08-06T19:19:00.004-06:00

In the third article of my health care series on KSL, I include a quote by Nancy Pelosi referring to the health care reform bill. The context of the quotation from the article is as follows:

Before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, questions abounded as to what was actually in the legislation. And at least for the general public, there weren’t a lot of answers.

In 2010, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi addressed the National Association of Counties. While extolling the virtues of what would become the Affordable Care Act, she also stated, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

The bill was passed a few weeks later, but questions still remain about what is in the legislation.

Shortly after the article was published, I received an email from a reader who said that I had "mis-quoted her by truncat[ing] her sentence improperly."

In the first draft of my article, I included the entirety of her sentence. However, her quote was one of the most infamous political statements of 2010. As one of the goals of the series is to remain bipartisan, I removed part of the sentence and the associated commentary because I felt it had a tone that reflected poorly on Pelosi. Such was certainly not my intent, and I included a hyperlink to the full text of her speech in my original article for anyone who wanted to investigate further.

For any who feel as this reader, please be aware that remainder of Pelosi's sentence reads as follows:

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy."

How many pages are in the Affordable Care Act?

2011-08-05T22:49:00.004-06:00

One of the topics I am addressing in my health care series for KSL is how the Affordable Care Act works. In the third article of the series, I touch on the fact that it’s difficult to know exactly how the health care reform legislation works because there is still so much of it that has yet to be written.

The Affordable Care Act on its own was passed and signed into law in March 2010. However, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) has responsibility for producing associated regulations—and there will be a lot of them. So many, in fact, that former HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt warns that too much power has been invested in one office and that it represents a threat to the “United States’ viability as a global economic leader.”

The implications of his comments are worthy of an article—or a book—of their own, but space limitations being what they are, it was something that I couldn’t address while giving it the attention that it deserves.

What I did look at, however, were some of the issues surrounding the HHS regulations.

Government entities—and relevant private and non-profit organizations—know that they need to make certain adaptations as a result of the Affordable Care Act. In most cases, they even know when. But rarely does any major change broadcast in the legislation come with a full array of details. So governments and businesses are in the sticky situation of having to plan without knowing exactly what they are planning for.

This concept—that it is difficult to know precisely how the legislation works because there is so much of it which has yet to be written—led me to look into just how much is still left unfinished.

My initial findings were startling.

So… how many “pages” are in the Affordable Care Act? In the actual legislation itself, there are just over 2,400. But the legislation is incomplete with the accompanying regulations, most of which have yet to be published.

Paul Bedard, a journalist with U.S. News, reported in April 2011 that the first set of HHS regulations covered six pages of the actual legislation—but resulted in 429 pages of regulations.

I was curious to see what that would mean for the totality of the health care legislation if I applied a ratio of 71.5:1 to the Affordable Care Act.

The result?

More than 170,000 pages.

No, that’s not a typo. It really is a six figure total. By comparison, the U.S. tax code by my calculations is approximately 13,000 pages.

Now, there are admittedly a couple of problems with this projection. First, you really want to be comparing total words and not total pages. Second, I think that it’s highly unlikey that HHS will maintain its current pace in terms of a regulations-to-legislation page ratio.

But the sheer vastness of the number caused me to think that it would make for a helpful illustration of my point.

Future research

If I have time down the road, I might look into this further. A truly valid projection would entail at least two key components:

1. Compare total words, not total pages.

2. Look more closely into which sections of the legislation the regulations relate to. In other words, some sections of the legislation may take a few pages to put forth and result in hundreds of pages of regulations, while other sections may take many pages in the legislation and result in only paragraphs of regulations. A more reliable projection would have to take this into account.

Top 5 issues of 2012 presidential election

2011-08-02T13:49:00.001-06:00

In a recent article on ksl.com, I highlighted five issues voters want to see addressed by candidates in the 2012 presidential election. In selecting the five issues, I tried to combine timeless questions which apply to any election along with some of the hot-button issues of the day. The end result of necessity is less than comprehensive, but is nonetheless something which I hope will spark conversation.

My Top 5 will certainly be different from lists of others. For instance, one of the readers who commented on the article asked why unemployment was not on my list. While I addressed a related macro-level issue, unemployment is an issue that could have easily made its way into my Top 5.

But that is one thing I hope to accomplish with this article. What issues do others feel are most important for 2012 presidential candidates to address - and why?

Forthcoming series on health care reform

2011-08-02T01:55:00.000-06:00

I have begun work on a series of nine health care reform articles. My goal is to present several of the major issues surrounding healthcare in a manner that is both succinct and easy to understand.

The series has been picked up by KSL and will cover nine general topics (in order):

The basics
Is it necessary?
How does it work?
The "individual mandate"
State insurance exchanges
Will it work?
Debunking popular myths
Political controversy
What comes next?

Defending Romney as a Christian

2011-07-21T14:11:00.000-06:00

Mitt Romney is a Christian. This is a question which many thought had been settled when he ran for president in 2008, but which continues to resurface. While he may or may not be the best candidate for president in 2012, his Christianity is not something which should so easily be called into question. I discuss the issue in this Op-Ed at ksl.com.

Who will rise to the occasion?

2011-07-04T21:06:00.001-06:00

Will the 2012 Utah Senate election be refreshingly civil, or a repeat of the 2010 election?

In 2010, Mike Lee defeated Senator Bob Bennett in one of the dirtiest races in the history of the state of Utah.In 2012, a potential electoral battle between Senator Orrin Hatch and Congressman Jason Chaffetz is beginning to take shape. In this Op-Ed in the Utah Daily Herald, I praise both men for their accomplishments, but raise a warning flag that the level of civility in their initial dialogues is disturbingly reminscent of the nastiness in the 2010 election. I argue that Utahans deserve a civil campaign and ask which of the "candidates" will rise to the occasion.

Crime and punishment: To flog or not to flog?

2011-06-28T13:21:00.005-06:00

By a number of standards, the U.S. prison system is in disarray. One proposal to fix some of these problems suggests that incarceration rates could decline from 2.3 million to approximately 300,000 and redirect much of the $60 billion plus spent on the prison system to other societal needs. The solution? Flogging.

Flogging is a form a corporal punishment where the offender is beaten—usually with a whip or a cane. The process causes severe pain, but has been used by America in the past and is currently used by other countries. In a new book, In Defense of Flogging, author Peter Moskos argues that using flogging as an alternative to incarceration for certain criminals would be more cost effective and less cruel than the current prison system. The idea is both controversial and intriguing.

While the concept deserves a great deal of thought and study to form an educated opinion, a random sampling of some of my questions includes the following:

Does the crime fit the punishment?

Moskos argues that flogging would be voluntary and not made available to the most dangerous offenders. Consider crimes punishable of one to five years in jail: does, say, four lashings with the cane fit the crime? Would there be varying numbers of lashings for certain levels of lower-tier crimes? Is flogging too lenient? Too severe?

Is flogging a successful deterrent to crime?

The punitive approach to justice asks whether or not the punishment fits the crime. A restorative approach where the goal is not merely to punish but to rehabilitate asks if flogging would be a successful deterrent to crime? If you knew that you could commit a crime and receive as punishment a short, but intense period of pain, would you be more or less likely to commit the crime again?

Truly cost effective?

If you would be more likely to commit the crime again, is flogging as an alternative to incarceration truly cost effective? The fiscal costs of crime go far beyond the amount spent on incarceration, and there are social costs to crime as well. If recidivism rates were to increase while incarceration rates were to decline, would flogging truly be a cost-effective solution?

What of the impact on therapeutic justice?

While much is wrong with the criminal justice system, a therapeutic approach to justice is one area where there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. This approach mingles many different disciplines in an attempt to make law a therapeutic vehicle where the focus of the criminal justice system is not on past behavior and punishment, but current and future behavior. Progeny of this approach include specialty courts such as drug courts which appear to be making significant progress. Does this approach go by the wayside if flogging becomes a popular alternative to already-innovative therapeutic approaches to crime?

Potential for discrimination?

In Moskos’ proposal, flogging would be voluntary for eligible offenders. What of convicts who elect to receive flogging as opposed to incarceration but are deemed to be physically incapable of surviving the requisite number of lashings? Are there legal concerns of equity or discrimination if a desired punishment for an identical crime in an identical jurisdiction is offered to one but not to another?

Pre-flogging drug tests?

It is the 21^st century and there are plenty of illicit substances available to dull physical and emotional pain. If inflicting punishment is a central motive in the flogging proposal, will recipients be tested prior to the flogging to ensure their senses will be fully alert to the pain?

America’s reputation for human rights?

Flogging isn’t exactly lining people up and shooting them or putting them in holes and throwing stones at their heads, but as an unconventional (and possibly effective) alternative, it does raise eyebrows in a country known for advertising its commitment to human rights. Would the institution of flogging, albeit voluntary, damage America’s reputation for human rights? Does the emphasis on lower-tier crimes add to this potential or would it be viewed globally as an act of mercy to spare convicts from years of incarceration? And what happens if a flogging recipient dies in the process or the immediate aftermath of the punishment? Would America lose credibility in calling on other countries to end their human rights violations, or is the comparison more apples to oranges than substantive?

These are only a few of many questions which could be asked about the proposal to make flogging an alternative to incarceration in certain situations. The idea is definitely controversial, but it is also intriguing. Is there enough validity to the idea that it should be seriously evaluated in policy discussions or are the potential unintended consequences to severe to seriously consider? Whatever the outcome, Peter Moskos has produced a thought-provoking contribution to criminal justice literature.

A return to sportsmanship

2011-06-21T11:44:00.003-06:00

I love sports, basketball and football in particular. There is nothing quite like the smell of the air when football season starts in the fall, or sitting in a cold car catching the last few minutes of a Cinderella game on the radio during March Madness.

I am also a dying breed of fan that refuses to boo when a ref blows a call and who cheers whenever either team scores. I always considered myself the epitome of sportsmanship. You can imagine my surprise when I found myself cheering recently not because my team won a game—but because another team lost.

On June 12, the Dallas Mavericks won the NBA title by defeating the Miami Heat in six games of a seven game series. Personally, I’m not a fan of either team, which is why I found it odd that I was so invested in the final outcome. More importantly, I found it disturbing that I wasn’t cheering for a particular team to win, but for the Miami Heat to lose.

Why? I think it had everything to do with LeBron James. I didn’t like the way he left Cleveland. His infamous egotistical “Decision” turned him from a sports legend with oodles of fans to an exceptional athlete who was almost universally hated. I was among those who didn’t have the most positive feelings for LeBron because of the way he acted, but I also felt bad as I watched him pretend like it didn’t hurt to be so widely disliked. I was about to set my childish grudge aside when I saw video footage of him and another teammate mocking an opponent. Instantly, I felt justified in being annoyed and began again to root for LeBron and Company to lose.

When I found out that the Mavericks had defeated the Heat, I felt a sense of elation—and then a feeling of sadness. I was elated that LeBron finally got his comeuppance, but saddened that I was taking joy not in one player’s or team’s victory—but in their defeat. So much for being the epitome of sportsmanship.

It is difficult to justify LeBron’s behavior over the last year, but it is also difficult to justify such poignant animosity for him—especially when looking at what he has not done. LeBron may have acted arrogant and childish, but he did not have adulterous affairs, he was not cited for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and he was not arrested on weapons charges. There were no public confessions of misdeeds, no instances of reckless behavior, no prison sentences—only arrogance.

In choosing to root against LeBron James, I was guilty of the same misdeeds I attributed to him—childishness. It is unfortunate that sports fans today are often just as proud of who they want to lose as who they want to win. I am saddened to have been part of that group, but am determined to return more fully to the role of an educated—and grown-up—sports fan.

As I recommit to step up the level of my own sportsmanship, I would invite all of us who live (perhaps more fully than we should) for a good game to set aside some of our more base passions and enjoy the purity of the game for what it can and should be.

Does the punishment fit the crime?

2011-02-23T08:25:00.001-07:00

Illegal immigration is a sensitive issue around the country. Unenforced and antiquated policies cause government numerous problems. At the same time, a growing disdain for those who have come to America illegally is growing, resulting in angry words and legally troublesome policies such as are found in Arizona. Utah is currently in the process of deciding how to handle the situation. In this Op-Ed in the Deseret Morning News, I offer three questions which we should be asking when creating immigration policy.

Better health-care law is possible with compromise

2011-01-29T09:50:00.001-07:00

The partisanship present in the debates over health-care reform fatally cloud the objective vision necessary to create a viable solution to the problem. In this Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, I discuss several issues which need to be incorporated in a truly successful health-care bill and address the necessity of a bipartisan solution.

Hateful rhetoric and the future of political discourse

2011-01-13T10:02:00.004-07:00

The attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and the associated murders are causing people to place blame on various individuals and potential causes. Rep. Gifford's congressional district was among those identified in the infamous political battleground map created by Sarah Palin's political action committee last year. This has led many to question whether Palin's map and the increasing role of vitriolic rhetoric in our political debates led to the tragedy on January 8, 2011.

This is the wrong question to be asking. I discuss what I believe to be the more pertinent issue in this Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Two keys for health care debate

2010-11-08T07:27:00.001-07:00

In the wake of Republican gains in the 2010 election, rhetoric from the presumptive new leadership indicates that a potential re-hashing of the health care debate may lie ahead. I offer two rules for business and government leaders to use in subsequent discussions relative to health care policy in this Op-Ed in the Deseret Morning News.

Vote based on issues - not religious affiliation

2010-10-26T23:17:00.001-06:00

Like other states with a large Mormon population, Utah elections often include isolated instances where Mormon candidates either ask for or infer that Mormons owe them their votes simply because they belong to the same religion. As a Mormon, I have a number of concerns with this line of thinking. Religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) can have an appropriate place in determining who one should vote for, but casting a vote based solely on religious affiliation is a practice which I feel is inappropriate.

I offer this Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune dealing with the issue of religious affiliation in voting decisions. In particular, I deal with the issue of Mormon voters in Utah elections.

Link to Op-Ed
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/50518629-82/mormon-party-vote-candidate.html.csp

Anger is fueled by misconceptions

2010-09-07T00:40:00.004-06:00

Before the proposed mosque near Ground Zero in New York became a political tool, I formed an opinion about what was happening. At the time, I felt that it was legal for the mosque to be built. I felt that it would be a wonderful symbol of American religious freedom. But I also understood the sensitivity of the issue and felt that it was unwise for the people behind the proposal to proceed in the midst of public discontent, whether or not the fears and discontent were rational.

Since that time, I have been amazed as otherwise level-headed people have made outlandish statements. As the issue has gradually worked its way into Utah in a tangible form, I have continued to ponder upon the issue. This reflection has caused me to change my opinion somewhat as it relates to the wisdom of building a mosque near Ground Zero in the midst of over public outrage. I offer my thoughts in this Op-Ed in the Deseret Morning News.

Immigration debate needs compassion and common sense

2010-08-21T17:04:00.001-06:00

The debate over illegal immigration is becoming increasingly polarized. Unfortunately, the result of polarization is often extremism. In this Op-Ed in the Standard-Examiner, I argue that a legitimate solution to the conundrum of illegal immigration policy requires elements of both compassion and common sense.

The curious case of the Blagojevich verdict

2010-08-18T19:21:00.000-06:00

12 Angry Men, the 1957 film starring Henry Fonda, features a jury debating a seemingly open-and-shut case. Fonda portrays a lone holdout who eventually convinces the other eleven jurors to change their minds. The recent trial of Rod Blagojevich seemed to begin in a similar manner, but it ended in a stalemate. 23 times.

Rod Blagojevich is not a man of little reputation. Sadly, he has a reputation for all the wrong reasons. The name “Blagojevich” automatically conjures up thoughts of grandstanding, corruption, and excessive vulgarity. As governor of Illinois, he once ranked as America’s “least popular governor” in the Rasmussen Report By the Numbers. Notwithstanding his widespread reputation of infamy, it took a scandal of enormous proportion to propel him into the realm of nationwide water-cooler conversations.

Blagojevich was arrested in December of 2008 on political corruption charges which included an allegation that he tried to sell President Obama’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. It was an almost unthinkable accusation—but the FBI claimed that they had phone recordings which proved the charges against Blagojevich.

In the ensuing days and weeks, there were numerous calls for Blagojevich to resign as governor of Illinois. He insisted upon his innocence, but was impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives in January 2009 by an overwhelming vote of 114—1. By the time his case came in front a jury, he was facing 24 separate charges. It seemed like he was doomed to a lifetime in prison. A Henry Fonda-like rescue wasn’t even a consideration.

But the impossible—or at least the unlikely—often turns out to be less portentous than it initially seems. After 11 weeks of formal arguments and 14 days of jury deliberations, Blagojevich was convicted on only one charge, namely, that he lied to the FBI.

The public outrage began almost immediately. Blagojevich’s former lieutenant governor called it “a sad day for our state.” The government vowed to retry the case. Even the jury foreman said that he found the verdict “offensive.” Blagojevich maintained his innocence and even questioned the validity of the single conviction which garnered the unanimous support of the jury.

How could such a seemingly open-and-shut case result in a hung jury on virtually every count? Jury member, Erik Samello, stated that the holdout “just didn’t see what we all saw.” Many efforts were made to persuade the remaining juror, but to no avail. Stephen Wlodek, another juror, declared, “In the end, based on what happened today, the people of the state did not have justice served.” It appeared as if everybody but Blagojevich, his attorneys, and a single juror were on the same page.

Given the nature of the evidence against Blagojevich and the character of Blagojevich himself, the recent verdict raises the question: did the government botch a slam-dunk case—or was Blagojevich’s alleged enthusiasm for corruption at work with a member of the jury?

Time will tell. Whatever the outcome, the curious case of Rod Blagojevich is one of those rare political stories which are equally at home on the cover of The National Enquirer or The New York Times.

The intersection of politics and religion

2010-08-06T11:45:00.001-06:00

When my grandfather was looking to get married, he likely received some advice from his father before meeting the in-laws for the first time: “Son, have a good time. Be polite. Show respect. And don’t talk to her father about politics or religion.” That statement has rarely been truer than it is today.

The presidency of Barack Obama was supposed to introduce a new era of bipartisanship. For reasons not completely within his ability to control, the opposite has taken place. A liberal congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid lays down the law on the left, while an emerging Tea Party ramps up passions on the right. The policies espoused by each group grow further and further apart. What exacerbates the situation even more is the use of divisive and uncivil rhetoric.

For example, several months ago, Sarah Palin made fun of President Obama’s reliance on a teleprompter. The irony of the situation was that she was reading from notes scribbled on her hand which reminded her to focus on topics such as “energy” and “lift[ing] American spirits.” Roberts Gibbs, the White House Press secretary, couldn’t pass up the opportunity. He proceeded to make fun of Palin by looking to scribbled notes on his own hand during a press conference which referred to the topics of “hope” and “change.” And so it went, back and forth, one insult after another. What should have been a respectful discourse between grown-ups was instead an escalated version of a petty argument between children.

Lest anyone be confused, politics does not have a monopoly on divisive rhetoric. Acclaimed author, Anne Rice, recently announced that she was “quitting” Christianity. For most believing Christians, “quitting” your religion seems like a counterintuitive thing to do. But Rice opined that she couldn’t stand the constant bickering, and said that it was “impossible for me to ‘belong’ to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group.” While there are two major political parties in America, Christianity Today estimates that there are nearly 38,000 Christian denominations in the United States. That makes for a lot of people saying, “It’s my way or the highway.” Divisive rhetoric abounds.

Anne Rice may have quit her religion, but what about the rest of America? A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center shows that nearly 1 in 6 American aren’t affiliated with any religion. I suggest that one reason religion is becoming less important in America is because people are being increasingly turned off by heated rhetoric. Virtually all religions have one tenet or another which speaks to a principle of unity. And yet so many groups use conversion tactics that essentially say, “You’re wrong. We’re right.” This black-or-white, all-or-nothing, saved-or-be damned mode of conversation isn’t helpful to the cause of religions or their worshippers. I’d go so far as to say that Abraham, Jesus, and Mohammed would agree.

We’re famous in America for saying that the constitution provides for a separation between church and state. And yet it seems that there is one place in particular where politics and religion intersect. These two topics which have long given way to controversy and ruined first-time dinners with the in-laws seem to share a commitment—to divisive rhetoric.

Personally, I am not a fan of divisive rhetoric. If I am shopping around for political parties and the only thing I hear is Democrats blaming Republicans and Republicans blaming Democrats, I don’t find myself inclined to join either one of them. The same thing goes for religion. If I am searching for religion and the only thing the preachers can say is how terrible all of the other religions are, I’m automatically going to be suspect of what they have to offer. Divisive rhetoric doesn’t work for me. And the increasing number of Americans who leave their parties to become Independents and who distance themselves from affiliated religion indicates that many others feel the same way.

The real truth in the whole matter is that everybody brings a little bit of truth to the table. Democrats have some good ideas. Republicans have some solid ideas of their own. Of course, they all bring a lot of nonsense to the table as well. And when it comes to religion, the fact of the matter is that there are elements of truth and goodness in Christianity, in Judaism—and in Islam. Politicians and preachers alike will be more effective if there is recognition that all of us possess at least some degree of goodness and truth.

It’s easy to point out problems and it’s easy to hate. But America wasn’t built by doing things the easy way. If our country is to continue its upward climb, our politicians and preachers alike must set aside divisive rhetoric—and make civility the new intersection of politics and religion.
Posted by Kurt Manwaring at 11:42 AM

Keep deceit out of immigration fight

2010-08-02T00:32:00.004-06:00

The temperature of the debate over illegal immigration continues to rise in Utah. A few weeks ago, a list was published which contained personal information for approximately 1,300 purported illegal immigrants. Many of the people on the list turned out to be legal residents of the United States, and two state workers were subsequently fired for stealing the information from state databases.

The shady tactics used in the debate continue to arise. Last week, a document was released to the Utah press which claimed to be a preview of Rep. Stephen Sandstrom's new immigration bill. The bill contained a number of shocking details which were guaranteed to cause controversy. The real shocking detail in the affair was that the bill was an elaborate hoax.

I offer this Op-Ed in the Deseret Morning News arguing for the use of honesty in the immigration debate.

Link
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700052788/Keep-deceit-out-of-immigration-fight.html

USATODAY links to Op-Ed on prayer and patriotism

2010-07-27T21:22:00.001-06:00

I was interested to see that my recent Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune dealing with prayer and patriotism was published in the University of Utah topic section of USATODAY. I have received a great deal of unsolicited response to this article and hope that it can contribute to the discussion on illegal immigration. While prayer (or belief in God) is not required to show patriotism, prayer can in fact be a patriotic act - regardless of the language in which it is offered.

Prayer shows patriotism - in English or Spanish

2010-07-23T09:08:00.002-06:00

On July 4, 2010, the closing prayer at a Hyrum, Utah celebration was offered by a Spanish minister - in Spanish. The event elicited a number of letters to the local newspaper claiming that it was unpatriotic to offer a prayer in Spanish. I offer this Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune and suggest that prayer can be a very patriotic gesture - regardless of the language in which it is offered.

Link to Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/49961784-82/patriotism-prayer-cause-language.html.csp

Alison Peek Asks About Utah's Closed GOP Primary

2010-07-16T06:41:00.001-06:00

Several weeks ago, I published an Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune which dealt with a choice I made not to vote in Utah's GOP primary. I recognized the severity of the consequences, but made a conscious decision for a specific reason. I was interested to see that Alison Peek of the Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner used my story as a catalyst for a recent article.

Link to Article in the Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner
http://www.examiner.com/x-37114-Salt-Lake-City-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m6d29-Why-is-Utahs-republican-primary-closed-democratic-open

Awareness Is A Valuable Commodity

2010-07-16T06:09:00.002-06:00

A Salt Lake City radio host recently covered a variety of topics in his three-hour program. He mused aloud in the final hour why people are so quick to call in with opinions about Mel Gibson's latest debacle or the immigration fervor that is increasing in its intensity, yet few people have an opinion about matters of international human rights. I took his question, rhetorical though it may have been, and pondered on it. I share some of my thoughts in an Op-Ed in the July 26, 2010 edition of the Deseret News.

Link to Op-Ed
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700048543/Awareness-is-a-valuable-commodity.html

Drug Tests for the Unemployed

2010-07-12T09:21:00.000-06:00

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is proposing an amendment to the tax extenders bill which would require mandatory drug testing for those seeking new unemployment and welfare benefits. He recently responded to an editorial I published in the Deseret Morning News and asked a number of questions about alleged flaws in this amendment. Given the economic implications involved, I would like to take this opportunity to address his questions.

First, would the passage of this amendment actually increase crime rates rather than lessen the number of drug users around the country? In short, it is very likely that such would be the case. Senator Hatch argues that “certainly there will be a good proportion of the population who will self-identify their problem and seek treatment options.” This is not necessarily the case. Most substance abuse treatment professionals do not believe that money is enough of an incentive to break the cycle of addiction. Study after study shows that when drug users don’t have access to a typical source of income, they turn to property crime to obtain the necessary funds to feed their addictions. From a historical perspective, crime rates do tend to increase during times of economic recession. Although the current recession is an anomaly in that aspect, this much can be said: the lack of welfare funds is not likely a significant deterrent to drug abuse.

Second, what do we do when individuals seeking welfare assistance actually test positive for substance abuse? Senator Hatch asks if it is not a good thing to create a policy that leads more individuals to seek treatment for their addictions. His question skirts around the issue. Yes, it is a good thing to know who needs help. The data obtained from the passage of this amendment would be very valuable. But what do we do with those who we identify as drug users? In Utah, the state utilizes 19 different treatment facilities. While the demand for their services continues to increase, their budgets continue to be cut; there is already greater need than there are resources. Perhaps the rest of the country is different in this regard and has adequate funding for state treatment centers, but I doubt it. Yes, it is good to identify those who need help. But if there are no resources to treat them, what lasting good will come from denying them access to welfare funds?

Third, Senator Hatch utilizes statistics from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA) to illustrate that “we simply cannot afford to do nothing.” He is right. In fact, the latest statistics from CASA show that the drug problem is even more serious than the Senator suggested. We cannot afford to do nothing. But at least in Utah, we have also not been able to afford what we have already been doing. This amendment is not “a modest first step” as the Senator states. Rather, it is a one-mile stretch of an already-long highway which is running increasingly short on funds.

So what is to be done? The Senator inferred that he was open to criticism if “prescriptive solutions or ideas” were offered to help those who suffer from the effects of substance abuse. While there are numerous criminal justice programs which have already proven effective, individual states have chosen to cut funding for these programs. It is therefore something of a moot point to discuss alternatives.

Accordingly, I suggest the following modifications to the Senator’s amendment if it retains its original goals to better use the taxpayer dollar and to help those who suffer from substance abuse. First, institute random drug tests instead of tests at the beginning of the welfare process. A simple Google search will show any drug user how to test clean for any substance with advanced warning. Second, provide federal funding to support 100% of the outstanding need for drug treatment services in all states and territories which would be impacted by the amendment. Third, provide federal funding to support both the anticipated cost of random drug testing and the projected need for additional treatment services. The costs associated with these modifications would be enormous, but they would enable the amendment to the tax extenders bill to achieve its objectives.

Unless modifications are made to the amendment, it is not likely to achieve its objectives. Crimes rates could potentially increase. Drug users would likely not be deterred in great numbers. And most importantly, those who were found to test positive would have only modest access to treatment because of lack of funding. The goals behind this amendment are solid and commendable. But it would be irresponsible for any Senator to vote for its passage without providing the resources necessary to reach its objectives.

The Ten Commandments and the Death Penalty

2010-07-02T06:56:00.000-06:00

The execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner on June 18, 2010, elicited protests from groups and individuals who oppose the death penalty. In the process, the Ten Commandments were used out of context in support of an anti-capital punishment position.

Rocky Anderson, former Mayor of Salt Lake, stated that the Ten Commandments were meant to be commandments and not merely suggestions. He further emphasized, quoting from the Book of Exodus: “Thou shalt not kill.”

The point which Mayor Anderson was likely trying to make is that to kill a killer is still to kill. This viewpoint is held by many who oppose the death penalty. They ask how we can discourage homicide when we espouse its use by our criminal justice system. An old adage says that you can’t teach a child not to hit by hitting. For opponents of capital punishment, the same principle applies: you can’t teach someone not to kill by killing.

The problem with an issue such as the death penalty is that evidence is sometimes taken out of context to enhance the emotional aspect of an argument. In particular, Rocky Anderson’s example of the Ten Commandments fails to consider the totality of the Law of Moses which was practiced during the times referenced in the Old Testament. The Law of Moses was a form of theocratic government. It is true that one of the Ten Commandments reads, “Thou shalt not kill.” But it is also true that the next chapter of Exodus goes on to prescribe capital punishment for a number of offenses. The context of the Ten Commandments clearly shows that while murder was forbidden during the time of Moses, it was also punishable by death.

Capital punishment is a sensitive issue. Strong arguments can be made—and have long been made—on each side of the debate. Rocky Anderson brings up an incredibly valid point when he infers that killing is killing, no matter who carries out the deed. The philosophical implications of capital punishment are profound and have tried the intellect of great thinkers across the world. The reality of capital punishment is even weightier, and tries not the intellect alone, but also the hearts of those involved. It could be said that there is nothing more sacred in life than life itself. It is therefore no surprise that the enforcement of the death penalty would generate a tremendous amount of passion and debate.

There are numerous and valid reasons for supporting either side of the death penalty issue. However, an issue of such importance deserves to have arguments which provide evidence in its proper context. Many a war has been fought by focusing on various biblical passages at the expense of setting aside the context. There is even debate today over the meaning of certain passages in the Koran which has given way to violence on a global scale. Controversy and holy writ often seem to be firmly intertwined. And yet to ignite passion by ignoring context is irresponsible. Yes, the Ten Commandments state, “Thou shalt not kill.” Yet the Ten Commandments are only ten out of 613 commandments found in the Law of Moses. And the violation of some of those commandments was punishable by death.

The death penalty is a sensitive issue which rightly demands our respect. While persuasive arguments can be found on either side of the capital punishment aisle, it is only ethical to take context into consideration when arguing for or against the death penalty.

The Sooner the Better

2010-06-29T22:42:00.002-06:00

After failing to secure a place in the Republican Primary, three-term Senator Bob Bennett declined to seek reappointment as a write-in candidate so as to not “divide the state.” His actions are admirable, yet the circumstances surrounding his defeat lead to many questions about the role of unity in politics.

The struggle for unity in politics has always been a problem. The word itself refers to the use of intrigue and strategy in the search for power. Divisiveness is a natural byproduct when there are competing claims to positions of authority. And yet, it is not necessary to wholly discard unity in the process.

Just as Senator Bennett recognized the threat to unity within the state, George Washington warned of a similar danger at the conclusion of his second term as President. In his farewell address, Washington stated that he would not seek another term in office. He then turned his attention to the issue of unity, citing the virtue as an essential component of a free society. He warned of the dangers of party politics and pled that they be set aside for the good of the country.

And Washington was right. Unity is essential to freedom, to independence, and to liberty. It makes the weak strong and the strong even stronger. And yet the stark reality is that there are some issues upon which we simply cannot agree. There are times for compromise and then there are times to stand fast. If unity is so important, what is to be done during those times when our ideologies are seemingly more incompatible than ever?

The answer is simple, although like most good ideas, it is much easier said than done. The way to preserve unity when no agreement can be reached is to engage in civility.

Civility entails so much of what we do not see in today’s increasingly vitriolic political discourse. Civility respects the messenger while disagreeing with the message. It does not require the use of four-letter words, loud voices which negate the need for stereo speakers, or the manipulation of facts designed to induce fear. When it comes to politics, civility says, “I see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree.”

The tone of the current election cycle is not easily characterized as civil. In fact, Senator Bennett referred to the current Republican Primary as “the nastiest race that we have had for a party nomination in the history of the state of Utah for a statewide office.” His views are likely shared by many other candidates and voters participating in elections across the country.

While the use of uncivil rhetoric and strategies may prove effective for getting one elected, there are associated dangers. As already pointed out, unity (which is strengthened by civility), is essential for maintaining liberty. Additionally, the lack of civility can threaten party power. As the use of uncivil rhetoric rises, voters who agree with the message find themselves increasingly turned off by the messenger. This is evidenced in part by the number of Republicans in Utah who leave the party to become Independents. There are short-term benefits to forsaking civility, but the long-term effects are much more precarious.

We live in troublesome times. We face difficult challenges. It is not possible to always agree. But let us, as voters, and as citizens of Utah, set an example of civility as we engage in the civic duty of politics. To do so will help preserve the unity upon which our country was founded. And the sooner, the better.

Senator Hatch's Response

2010-06-26T23:28:00.002-06:00

Senator Hatch wrote the following article in the Deseret Morning News in response to my Op-Ed critiquing his proposed amendment to require drug tests for new welfare applicants. While it appears we may not be on the same page when it comes to some of the particulars, we both share the common goal of finding more effective ways to deal with the growing substance abuse problems in Utah and around the country.

Link to Article:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700043316/Drug-tests-for-public-assistance-would-fight-addictions.html

To Vote or Not to Vote: The GOP's Closed Primary

2010-06-25T19:04:00.001-06:00

The business of politics is becoming increasingly dirty. Nevertheless, I headed to the voting booth this week to vote in Utah's Republican primary. My experience that day is the subject of this Op-Ed published in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Link to Op-Ed: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/49830289-82/vote-republican-primary-decision.html.csp

Drug-testing Proposal Has Flaws

2010-06-18T00:36:00.002-06:00

Senator Orrin Hatch recently announced his intention to include an amendment in the tax extenders bill which would require drug testing for those seeking new unemployment and welfare benefits. I have the utmost respect for Senator Hatch and offer the following Op-Ed in the Deseret Morning News to suggest his amendment has inherent concerns which may outweigh the good it seeks to do.

Link to Op-Ed
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700041203/Drug-testing-proposal-has-flaws.html

Our Declining Ability to Think

2010-05-21T15:06:00.006-06:00

In 1996, I was a sixteen-year old college student taking my first philosophy class. I was introduced to the rules of logic, to Socratic questioning and to Socrates himself. And yet it wasn’t until years later that I learned a saddening truth: we are losing the ability to think.

The declining role of thought in today’s society is illustrated by the following Calvin and Hobbes cartoon:

“I’ve been thinking Hobbes—“

“On a weekend?”

“Well, it wasn’t on purpose…”

What does it mean to think? I am referring not to the mere electrical impulses of our brains which create near-automatic thoughts, but our conscious decisions to meditate, to ponder, to think deeply. The philosopher Rene Descartes built upon the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, and Augustine by deducing, “I think, therefore I am.” One inference of this statement is that to not think is to not exist. The ancient Egyptians literally believed this. They believed that chaos was held at bay by concentrated thought. Some scholars believe that their endless rituals were actually designed in part because they feared that the end of thought would signify the end of the universe. In the past, thinking has been held in much higher esteem than it is today.

There are comparatively few thinkers today. We’ve all experience “foot-in-mouth” syndrome at one time or another by speaking before we think, but again, this isn’t the type of thought I am referring to. I remember the first time I took philosophy seriously. I would spend hours walking by the river trying to take in page-long sentences by John Stuart Mill or reflect on the teachings of Marx, Rousseau, and Locke. It took an amazing amount of concentration. And the more I thought, the more I realized how little we emphasize thinking in society today.

Of all the variables which have contributed to the decay of conscious thinking, two causes in particular stand out: the Industrial Revolution and resulting technology. The Industrial Revolution created situations where people focused repeatedly on one task, limiting their ability to think about other things. Resulting technology has created the radio, the television, and the internet. Ironically, while these innovations can enable us to think deeper about life, we often use them to the contrary. It is not an infrequent occurrence for someone to go to work or school, focusing alone on one or two subjects, only to come home and immerse themselves in a world of media that rarely requires applied thought.

What does it all mean? Emerson is known to have said that “the ancestor of every action is a thought.” The Buddha affirms this principle when he purports, “all that we are is the result of what we have thought.” The declining role of thought in our society likely will not result in the end of the existence as the Egyptians believed. However, it will likely affect the level to which we enrich and are enriched by life. In one sense, as we lessen in our ability to think, the world around us becomes smaller. We are aware of less and capable of less. The world as a whole progresses as the quality of life is enhanced by specialized technologies, but individuals digress as they are able to comprehend less and less of what surrounds them.

Our society is in need of a return to concentrated thought. In the past, cultures have recognized the importance of thought. An ironic byproduct of the Industrial Revolution and resulting technology is that we think less. While the Egyptians believed that chaos would ensue if thought ceased, today we face a real danger of losing our ability to enrich and be enriched by life because of our increasing inability to think.

On the other hand, imagine the possibilities if we were to not only enjoy the amenities of modern society, but to meditate upon them as well.

Bullying: A Growing Problem

2010-05-10T17:22:00.003-06:00

Phoebe Prince committed suicide on January 14, 2010. She was 15 years old. An investigation into her death revealed that Phoebe had been the victim of bullying for nearly three months, both at school and online. The last straw was broken on the day of her death when the verbal harassment and threats of physical abuse became too much too handle. Nearly two months later, Northwest District Attorney, Elizabeth Scheibel, charged nine teenagers in connection with her death.

As tragic as it is, this story is by no means an anomaly. Bullying is a real problem which deserves our sincere attention. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines bullying as “aggressive behavior that is intentional, repeated over time, and involves an imbalance of power or strength.” Bullying affects numerous groups and individuals, takes various forms, and is associated with horrendous consequences. While many efforts are being made on a public-policy level to alleviate bullying, there are additional components which must be a part of any legitimate solution.

Although bullying is a term which could be used to describe antagonistic relationships in any age demographic, research studies tend to focus on those who are most vulnerable: students. Bullying can affect everyone: boys and girls, kindergarteners and high school seniors, those struggling with obesity and anorexia. Although every instance of bullying is unique, there are certain characteristics which make some more vulnerable to bullying than others.

Victims of bullying are assaulted in many different ways and by many different people. In general, there are three types of bullying. First, bullying presents an immediate threat in the form of actual physical violence. Second, bullying can also take the shape of verbal assault. Lastly, certain types of non-verbal interactions such as emotional abuse also qualify as bullying. These many variations of inappropriate aggressive behavior are embraced by boys and girls alike. Sadly, even adults engage in the bullying of children. The problems associated with bullying are becoming more widespread as time goes on and have even entered the realm of cyberspace.

The consequences of bullying can be fatal, as evidenced by the suicide of Phoebe Prince and many others. Unfortunately, the lesser consequences of bullying are also serious. Students often cite bullying as among their top school-related concerns. One study actually revealed than 1 in 5 high school students would not use the bathroom at school because they were afraid of being bullied. The reality is that bullying is far more than a mere perceived fear. Bullying can affect the physical health, academic performance, and mental health of its victims. The consequences of bullying are so far-reaching that even those who are not directly targeted can suffer negative repercussions.

The tragic consequences of bullying are now being addressed on a public policy level in most states. Currently, 41 states have instituted laws that address bullying in schools. It is anticipated that the remaining 9 states and the District of Columbia will follow suit in the coming years. These legislative efforts demonstrate that bullying is a serious issue with serious consequences which demands serious solutions.

A necessary component of any bullying policy is proper education. Whether instituted on a school-wide or state-wide level, merely having a guideline in a place is not enough to stop the tragic consequences which are associated with bullying. The ideal solution to the problem of bullying comprises legislation, district policy, public education, and personal responsibility. The absence of any of these variables lessens the degree to which bullying policies can be effective.

How to Alienate Voters

2010-05-06T09:06:00.001-06:00

Elections are becoming a big business. As voting demographics change because of dissatisfaction with the status quo, it becomes more difficult to know how to successfully alienate voters. As a concerned citizen, I offer political candidates three solutions guaranteed to alienate even the most loyal voters.

The first essential strategy to alienate voters is to begin throwing mud in the primaries. It stands to reason that if you can’t win your primary you can’t win the election. While mud-slinging was taboo a few generations ago, it is now a standard business practice of many politicians. A half-hearted politician cannot be respected. As such, mud-slinging should not be reserved merely for the general election. In order to alienate voters early on, it is essential to dirty the name of your opponents in the primary elections. Once voters know that you are committed to doing whatever it takes from the beginning, your chances of alienating voters will increase exponentially.

The second step to alienating voters is to tell everyone what they want to hear. If you take a stand on any issue, especially in front of a hostile crowd, you run the risk of developing a reputation as someone of character. To alienate voters, this simply will not do. You must be equally attractive to pundits on Fox News as you are on MSNBC. You must be for gay-rights when addressing LGBT groups, and staunchly opposed when speaking to evangelical Christians. You must be tough on immigration when speaking to Border States and lax on border policy when speaking to the Hispanic demographic. In short, you must tell every group precisely what they want to hear in order to alienate voters. The more you stand up for what you believe in, the less chance you have of alienating those who are still undecided.

The final key to alienating voters is to ramp up the hateful rhetoric. Respectful dialogue in political debate is a sign that you trust the voters to make decisions based upon the facts of an issue. To alienate voters, you cannot do this. You must show voters that you believe it is more important to vilify an opponent than to laud the virtues of your own platform. Furthermore, you must be able to effectively spin the position of your opponent in every situation. Just as you must be able to present yourself in a positive light to each audience, you must also be able to present your opponent in a negative light. To fail to do this is to run the risk of gaining votes because of your civil approach to the campaign. If you truly want to alienate voters, you must engage in rhetoric that is not only loud, but hateful.

Although voters can be alienated for a wide variety of reasons, these three strategies will greatly increase your chances of losing votes. Remember, it is not enough to start throwing mud in the general election – you must begin in the primaries. Furthermore, you must tell everyone what they want to hear and be certain you do not take a stand on any issue, especially ones about which you feel strongly. Lastly, throwing mud and telling people what they want to hear will only take you so far. To truly alienate voters, you must ramp up the hateful rhetoric and make the election not a contest of ideas, but of uncivil verbal sparring.

The candidate who will hold fast to these three principles is the candidate most likely to alienate voters.

The Iron Cage That Holds Us Captive

2010-04-19T11:44:00.006-06:00

As long-term unemployment rates reach their highest levels since the Great Depression, discussion continues about a potential downfall of American capitalism. Even if America emerges from this crisis with no significant changes to the economy, there is a certain theory of economics which currently holds us captive.

Max Weber (1864-1920) was a German sociologist who wrote extensively about what he called "the iron cage of rationality." He had in mind the idea that capitalist societies were becoming ever-more dependent upon a rationalist approach to economics. Rationalism is the theory which assumes that all decisions are made based upon a cost-benefit analysis. It assumes that companies and consumers alike base all of their decisions upon available facts and choose the course of action which entails the greatest benefits.

There are several problems with this approach. On a large scale, Weber considered that a strictly rational approach to decision making would become so fine-tuned that we would become trapped inside of limits which we would unknowingly set for ourselves, or within an "iron cage of rationality." As technology becomes more and more advanced, examples of this can be seen all around us. Have you ever tried to order from the McDonald's lunch menu one minute before breakfast ends? The McDonald's corporation is so bound by cost-benefit analyses that you can't order from their lunch menu one second before breakfast ends, let alone one minute.

I worked for a company once which tracked every second of my daily activities. At the end of each week, detailed statistical reports were compiled of every conceivable area in which I could make progress. But the reports were based solely upon statistics and technology and could not take any other aspect of the work environment into consideration. If I had engaged in consultation with the department head for three hours, my report would simply show that my productivity was three hours behind where it should have been. Plus the two minutes and eighteen seconds it would take me to walk to and from my office.

Another flaw in the idea of rational economics is the fact that consumers are not strictly rational. This idea assumes that when you go to the store to pick out a jar of peanut butter, you will take into account all of the ingredients in competing products, calculate the cost per ounce, and know precisely the reasons for which you wish to purchase the peanut butter. Unfortunately, this theory does not take into account the fact that consumers rarely govern their purchases by a strict cost-benefit analysis. Sometimes we're just hungry.

Companies today certainly use technology and rationalism to their advantage. With each successive year, corporations learn how to squeeze more labor out of every second of productivity and how to maximize every cent of available funds. However, this approach does not allow them to consider strategies that lie outside of a strictly numerical cost-benefit analysis. Their potential for progress is not unlimited, but rather confined within an economic cage that holds them captive. Furthermore, rationalism assumes that customers are completely rationale when they clearly are not.

Perhaps more importantly, however, rationalism assumes that society is concerned with nothing besides efficiency. The more capitalist societies trend in this direction, the less freedom its citizens will have to explore avenues which cannot be tracked, analyzed, and reported.

Sound extreme? Theories which attempt to explain large-scale interactions typically do.

But consider this: How often do you finish a project only to exclaim, "What a waste of time?"

To a certain extent, we are already held captive by the iron cage of rationality.

Activist Judges and the Supreme Court

2010-04-13T16:44:00.010-06:00

There are a few topics which always seem to rile up legislators in Washington: taxes, war, immigration... and Supreme Court nominations. The recent announcement of Justice John Paul Stevens that he intends to step down has reignited a debate over the role of activist judges.

Why do vacancies on the Supreme Court give birth to so much contention? Disagreement about constitutional issues has been vibrant since the document was first conceived. Indeed, agreement on the principles contained in the constitution was so hard to come by that noted historian, Catherine Drinker Bowen, referred to the process and final product as the "Miracle at Philadelphia." From the first beginnings in 1787 until today, debate over the meaning of the constitution has remained constant and fierce.

There are several popular theories which speak to how the constitution should be interpreted. For example, originalism is the school of thought which seeks to determine how the Founding Fathers originally intended for the document to be interpreted. Modernism is the theory which seeks to interpret the constitution based upon how it would look if it were written today with an understanding of modern issues. Altogether, there are about 5 basic schools of thought.

Today, Supreme Court nominations are hotly debated because of accusations of a sixth approach to interpreting the constitution, namely, activism. An activist judge is one who interprets the constitution not based upon dominant theories of the law, but rather based upon personal bias and feelings.

For example, a hotly contested decision of the Supreme Court is that of Roe v. Wade (1973) which gave women the right to have abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. In this context, an activist judge would be one who casts a vote based not upon interpretation of the law, but rather personal feelings about abortion.

Another example can be found in 2009, when President Obama caused a nation-wide stir by indicating that he wanted his first nominee to the Supreme Court to possess the virtue of empathy, a quality seen as inconsequential by legal scholars who believed that judicial decisions should be made using law and precedent as guiding principles instead of personal feelings.

The primary purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution. The Court also serves another valuable function, which is to act as a check on the legislative and executive branches of government to prevent abuses of power. However, the power of the Supreme Court has evolved over time, giving the Justices power in effect to create legislation. This occurs when the Court rules on the constitutionality of actual legislation. By ratifying or reversing legislation, the Court in essence ceases to be a merely interpretative body and commences to legislate. The obvious problem with this lies in the fact that the Founding Fathers created a separate governing body whose purpose was to legislate, namely the United States Congress.

Is there an appropriate role for activist judges on the Supreme Court? No matter how impartial any Justice claims to be, he or she will always bring some amount of bias to the bench. This is human nature and cannot be totally eliminated. However, to appoint a Justice who would consciously make decisions based upon bias is inappropriate, especially when considering the expanded powers of the Court to occasionally serve as a legislative body.

Regardless of whom is chosen to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court, one thing is for certain: the debate over the role of activist judges will reconvene as soon as the whisperings of another vacancy begin.

Prescription Drug Abuse In Utah

2010-03-27T22:36:00.002-06:00

A recent study by the Utah Department of Health highlights certain factors associated with prescription drug abuse. Prescription drug overdose deaths have been a plague in Utah for several years and there are many signs that the trend will continue.

In an Op-Ed in the Salt Lake Tribune, I offer three suggestions for addressing the issue on a state-wide level.

Link to Op-Ed:
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14764987

Is the Tea Party A Threat to the Republican Party?

2010-03-24T12:23:00.004-06:00

With each successive year, Democrats and Republicans seem to grow in their distaste for each other. This year is no different, as the two major parties have come to blows over issues such as health care and economic recovery. At a time when crises are more than plentiful, does the emergence of the Tea Party as a third-party represent a threat to the Republican Party?

The Tea Party is an anti-tax protest movement that was spawned during the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (aka, the "stimulus package"). The name references the Boston Tea Party of 1773 where residents of Boston unloaded British shipments of tea into the harbor as a way of protesting taxes. The Tea Party movement represents the far right of conservative thinking and emphasizes fiscal conservatism.

Third parties such as the Tea Party can represent a danger to either of the two major parties. This danger is most often referred to as the "spoiler effect." In essence, a third party candidate draws votes away from a major party candidate but is unable to secure enough votes to be elected. The result is that the third-party candidate "spoils" the election for the major party from which votes are siphoned.

As an example, consider that 100 votes are cast in an election. Suppose that only two candidates are running and the results as follows:
    REPUBLICAN: 65
    DEMOCRAT: 45

In this scenario, the Republican candidate would win the election. However, observe what would happen if a strong third party candidate were to enter the race:
    DEMOCRAT: 45
    REPUBLICAN: 40
    THIRD-PARTY: 25

In this instance, the third-party manages to obtain only 25 votes and is unable to secure a place in office. However, note that all 25 votes were taken from the Republican who would have originally won the race. As a result of the third-party candidate, the Democrat would now win the election.

In a similar manner, the Tea Party threatens to take away votes from Republicans because its foundational principles are conservative. For example, some believe that a 2008 Senatorial election in Oregon was won by a Democrat because the Tea Party exerted its influence and drew votes away from the Republican candidate.

This situation is likely to repeat itself in the next national elections. Historically, elections swing in the opposite direction of the party to which the President belongs in the first election after his inauguration. For example, after President Johnson was elected, the Republicans gained 47 seats in the House of Representatives two years later. After President Clinton was elected the first time, the House of Representatives gained 54 Republican seats in the next election.

History suggests that Republicans can make significant gains in the November 2010 elections. National dissatisfaction with health care legislation and economic issues have Republicans primed to recapture many seats in the next election. However, as the influence of the Tea Party expands, the dangers to the Republican party grow as well. As Orrin Hatch, a Republican Senator from Utah observes, "If we fractionalize the Republican Party, we are going to see more liberals elected." In other words, what is a tremendous opportunity for Republicans may end up as an astonishing defeat due to the impact of the Tea Party.

The addition of the Tea Party to the political landscape of 2010 represents a potential threat to the Republican Party.

Which leads to another question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Is the Health Care Bill Bipartisan?

2010-03-22T11:40:00.020-06:00

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed a bill which aims to revolutionize health care in America. As with any legislation, much could be said about both the pros and cons of this bill. But what of claims that the legislation has been passed with bipartisan support?

What is bipartisanship? Webster's defines bipartisanship as being "marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties." In this case, Democrats and Republicans. A bipartisan bill would therefore entail a reasonable amount of cooperation, agreement, and compromise between Democrats and Republicans.

Thus far, the bill has had a contentious history. Since the original Social Security Act of 1935, many presidents have tried to incorporate universal health care but without success. Most recently, President Clinton failed to see a bill through to completion. President Obama appears to have succeeded in this regard.

In 2008, then Senator Obama supported universal health care. Once elected, the president turned his focus to health care. Even though his approval ratings took a sharp downward turn, he pressed forward. Proposals for a bill began in March of 2009, followed by hearings in May of 2009. By the end of 2009, both the House and Senate had passed versions of the bill but could not agree amongst themselves.

Finally, on March 21, 2010, the House passed an amended form of the Senate bill. From start to finish, contention was an ever-present figure in the process.

Nancy Pelosi, current Speaker of the House, claims that the current bill has been passed with bipartisan support. She maintains that "a bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes" and believes that because Republicans participated in making adjustments to the final version of the bill, it is therefore a bipartisan effort. Senator John McCain disagrees, stating, "I have been part of bipartisan negotiations for many years... this was not bipartisan." The claims and arguments go back and forth.

How do the voting statistics of the current bill compare with past bills of historic consequence?

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935
Democrats: 344 / 388 (89%)
Republicans: 97 / 127 (76%)

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Democrats: 198 / 315 (63%)
Republicans: 165 / 205 (80%)

MEDICARE / MEDICAID, SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1965
Democrats: 294 / 361 (81%)
Republicans: 83 / 172 (48%)

HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010
(Pending vote in the Senate)
Democrats: 219/253 (87%)
Republicans: 0 / 212 (0%)

Zero votes. Zero Republicans voted for the current bill, joined with 34 other Democrats who were heavily pressured to vote otherwise.

If the bill passes in the Senate and is subsequently signed into law, the status of health care in the United States will be significantly altered. Arguments can be made that this would be for the better, just as arguments can be made that it would be for the worse. Each side has many legitimate points.

But can a bill of such consequence really be touted as bipartisan without the support of a single Republican?

President, Interrupted

2010-03-18T17:16:00.011-06:00

The debate over health care reform is nothing if not controversial. And where there is controversy, contention often looms nearby. A recent showdown between Fox News and President Obama illustrates just how divisive this issue has become.

At the heart of the debate is whether the government should play a role in the administration of health care. For the most part, the divide is straight down party lines: Democrats say yes, Republicans say no. The issue has become a main focus of the Obama administration even as war looms overseas and the economy struggles to stay afloat.

President Obama's use of the media has been unprecedented. Whether calling a press conference or appearing on multiple news programs in a single day, it is rarely unclear where the President stands on certain issues. A recent appearance on Fox News has introduced a new chapter in American journalism.

The current White House has never been fond of Fox News - a conservative media organization. However, the stakes involved in the current health care debate forced their hand. On March 17, 2010, President Obama tried to make an appeal to conservatives across the country. But he didn't get very far.

The interview was conducted by Fox News anchor, Bret Baier. He was frustrated that his time allotted for the interview had been cut from 25 minutes... to 20 minutes... to 15 minutes. And so he interrupted the President in the middle of his responses, time... after time... after time.

An exasperated Obama repeatedly made comments such as:

"Bret, you've got to let me finish my answers."

"I'm trying to answer your question and you keep on interrupting."

"Bret, let me finish."

But Baier was not swayed, and continued his challenges of the President's incomplete answers.

Baier claimed that he was just trying to "get the most for our buck." The incident certainly garnered a lot of attention, as major news agencies across the country piled in their criticisms. And deservedly so.

Whether Republican or Democrat, the office of the President of the United States is one that should be held in high esteem. The health care debate is a naturally controversial one. Much is at stake. Situations like these usually bring out the worst in all sides.

Civility in our public discourse has been declining for years. The media has played a substantial role in the regression, as controversy is almost always a guaranteed ratings-getter. But sometimes it is better to sacrifice ratings for integrity and civility.

Journalism is discredited to a certain extent when it exercises such uncivil behavior towards the highest office in the United States. The health care debate is no doubt a controversial issue, but the tensions involved can be eased to a large extent through the use of civil dialogue and responsible journalism.

Make Drug Court Funding A Priority

2010-02-26T15:00:00.006-07:00

Every year the Utah legislature must decide how to divide the annual budget among many different programs. This task becomes even more difficult when there are budget shortfalls. This year's deficit provides a particularly difficult challenge.

Drug courts should be a funding priority for the legislature. Drug courts take a unique approach to the problem of substance abuse and seek not merely to punish behavior - but change it. Criminals who participate in these courts are sanctioned or rewarded over time based on their behavior. The courts make use of numerous social programs, including counselors, medical professionals, and job services. The result is that drug users who would otherwise continue to commit crimes develop the skills necessary to become productive members of the community. What began as a single court in Florida during the 1980's has become a global phenomenon because of its successes.

The economic and social impact of drug courts in Utah is impressive. Studies show that crime rates tend to increase during times of economic difficulty. There is therefore an extraordinary need to make drug court funding a priority this year.

Drug courts are one of the most financially viable social programs. Among criminal justice programs, there simply are none better. In Salt Lake County, every dollar invested in the drug court program yields a return of about $4.29. For times when every dollar counts, drug courts certainly live up to their reputation. By making drug court funding a priority, legislators show tremendous judgment when it comes to dollars and cents.

There are also impressive social benefits of the drug court program. Recent statistics show that drug courts reduce crime nationwide by an average of 10 - 14%. Locally, that number is just above 10%. Drug courts do much more than merely keep criminals off the streets for awhile. They attempt to keep them off the streets indefinitely. No other state program has proven as effective at reducing crime associated with drug abuse.

Some argue that drug users should not be rehabilitated, but merely imprisoned. This is evident in part by the fact that nearly 85% of prison inmates were convicted on crimes associated with substance abuse. However, statistics show that when drug users do no more than serve their time, they reoffend at astronomically high rates. At a time when prisoners in Utah are currently being released early due to budget shortages, drug courts become not just a valuable tool - but an indispensible one. Drug courts not only lessen the immediate impact on jails and prisons, but also make a significant dent in the number of prisoners who consistently reoffend. When used in a program such as drug courts, rehabilitation is a hands-down better alternative than incarceration alone.

The State of Utah legislature has many tough decisions to make this year. Although there is a temptation to cut numerous programs, drug courts should be viewed as a funding priority. No other criminal justice programs yield economic returns as impressive as those seen in drug courts. In addition to economic benefits, the social advantages of drug courts are impressive as well. Recidivism rates are significantly lowered due to drug courts. The strain on prisons is lessened. The streets become safer. Economically and socially, drug courts make sense.

By making funding for drug courts a priority, the legislature will show that they can make use of the current budget shortfall to get $4 worth of benefits for every $1 they invest. During times of serious economic difficulty, this ability would be a tremendous asset to Utah taxpayers.

* Published in the Deseret News, February 26, 2010, at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700012156/Drug-courts-should-be-a-funding-priority.html

The Depressing Alternative To A Depression

2010-02-17T15:05:00.010-07:00

President Obama said today that we have successfully staved off an economic depression by passing the stimulus package. The $757 billion bitter pill is working. But at what cost?

What is a depression anyhow? No one really knows. It is surprisingly difficult to define. It is a prolonged recession. It has high rates of unemployment, reduced access to credit, growing numbers of bankruptcies. Banks fail. Stock markets crash. Basically, all the things that have happened over the last 2 years.

And yet experts somehow agree - what we have been experiencing is not a depression.

The Great Depression of the 1930's embodied unemployment rates that seem astronomical even now. Today, 1 in every 10 job-seekers cannot find work. In the dark ages of America's economic history, nearly 1 in every 4 people who wanted work could not find it. It took more than a decade to straighten things out. If it hadn't been for World War II, the depression may have lasted even longer.

As difficult as a depression is to define, Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Economics, takes a stab at a more abstract definition:

Depressions are signified by times of free lunches.

Free lunches? Not exactly a technical term, but it gets the idea across. During times when the economy is functioning properly, capitalism works. Supply and demand balance each other out. The markets trend upward, people keep their jobs, new jobs are created. There are tough times, but everyone is working and earning, and things eventually work out.

Krugman's depression economics are signified by times when we no longer have to earn our lunches. We create resources, we create money, we create lunches. The maxim of the weight room, "No pain, no gain" goes out the window. Why pay for your lunch when you can find it somewhere for free?

The latest recession embodies all that typically comes with a depression. In addition, we are also saddling generations to come with debt that we cannot pay for. Hardly a week goes by that some expert does not warn of the dollar failing, of China refusing to purchase more debt, of inflation rising beyond our control. Times are tough.

And yet, President Obama is probably right on the money (excuse the pun) when he says that things could be worse. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a situation where $787 billion would not temporarily help.

White House officials warned that if the stimulus package was not passed, unemployment rates would reach 8%. The bill passed, and unemployment climbed over 10%. And yet it could have been worse. Much worse. In this sense, the stimulus package was a success.

But at what cost? What will be the result of that which basically equates to printing money to pay the bills? How long will it take before the debt is paid off?

Was it worth it?

I have never lived through a depression. I am sure it would be awful. And yet, we refer to veterans of World War II as the "greatest generation." How was it that the greatest Americans came out of the direst of economic conditions? Would America have produced men of such great character if they were not made to work to get ahead, to pay the bills, to buy their own lunches - or go without?

For the moment, we seem to have avoided economic catastrophe. But our depressing alternative to a depression is one where we are collectively placing the role of individual responsibility upon the shoulders of the government. An economic depression would be awful. But a situation where we abandon the work ethic which made us great in favor of a temporary fix is alarming.

How good can a lunch taste if we always get it for free?

The Writing On the Hand

2010-02-16T16:51:00.008-07:00

When someone talks about the "writing on the wall," they are referring to a bad omen. A sign that the future does not look all that good. Its origins come from a story in the bible where supernatural writing appeared on the wall of a temple, signaling the downfall of an empire.

It may be that some recent political writings signal a potential problem for America as well.

On February 6, 2010, Sarah Palin was addressing a convention of the Tea Party. Word got around that she was interested in a nomination, assuring her place in the 2012 general election. But what really got everyone's attention was the writing on her hand.

Video of her speech revealed some ink scribbles on her hand. Independent gurus later revealed what was written:

"Energy"

"Budget (Cut?)"

"Tax"

"Lift American Spirits"

Essentially, a cheat sheet for her speech. For someone who had come across as less-than-intelligent at various times in the past, this incident didn't do much for Palin's credibility. What added fuel to the flames was a joke that she had made during the speech where she poked fun at President Obama's reliance on a teleprompter. The irony of the situation made it instant news.

But it didn't stop there.

Soon afterwards, White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, played his own card. At a White House briefing soon after Palin's address, he mockingly referred to notes on his hand where he had written down a partial grocery list, as well as two key words from Obama's presidential campaign:

"Hope"

"Change"

One or two of the press erupted in sincere laughter. The rest of the room responded as well, but more in disbelief of what had been done. It was a cheap shot - and it was aimed at someone that wasn't supposed to be a serious contender for the White House.

And so it went, one insult after another... after another.

I am all for debate in politics, and humor usually makes things more interesting. But do we really have to be so callous in our debates? For a country that requires most college graduates to take courses in civics, it is unfortunate that its leaders seem to have misplaced the virtue of civility.

If we do not change the tone of our public discourse, the "writing on the hand" may very well end up being the "writing on the wall" - foretelling our decline as a nation. If we want to remain as a leading force for good in the world, we must make use of those values which make us great within the walls of our own country.

A Few Problems with Merit Pay for Teachers

2010-02-09T11:32:00.015-07:00

The Utah legislature is currently considering a bill which would reward teachers with a pay commensurate with the test score results of their students. While the desire to reward educators based upon their performance is to be admired, there are several major problems with the proposed solution.

Merit pay addresses the issue of how teachers are paid. It seeks to reward them according to their "merits." Consider a company who pays their employees based upon a commission of sales. The employee who sells more of the company's product will earn a higher paycheck than the employee who is not as productive. They are paid according to merits. Accordingly, merit pay for teachers assumes that student test scores are the product. The higher the test scores, the higher the teacher pay.

The current system used to compensate teachers is threefold. First, teachers are paid based upon their academic degrees. Second, they are compensated based upon various certifications they obtain. Lastly, their paychecks are influenced by the number of years they have taught in the public school system. Under these guidelines, a teacher with a Master's Degree who has several certifications and has taught school for 30 years will receive more than the teacher who only has a Bachelor's Degree, has not yet earned any certifications, and is just entering the workforce.

There are several problems with the current system. At the forefront of the debate is the fact that teacher experience does not necessarily equate with teacher performance. In other words, a teacher may meet all the criteria for a high paycheck, and yet be an ineffective teacher. The proposal of instituting merit pay seeks to find a better way to reward performance, namely, by rewarding teachers who have students with high test scores. Although the effort to provide students with more effective teachers is noble, the solution of merit pay actually causes more problems than it solves.

Merit pay assumes that every teacher has an equal opportunity for success. However, the reality of the classroom is far different from an ideal controlled environment.

While college graduate students gain admission to various programs based in part upon testing scores, elementary school students do not typically take entrance examinations. The result is that a wide variety of students enter the K-12 classrooms.

To illustrate, consider the growing trend of non-English speaking students. Teachers are expected to elicit high test scores from pupils who do not share the same language as their instructors. Additionally, K-12 classrooms are comprised of students from different socioeconomic backgrounds - a factor that cannot be understated when it comes to impacting test scores. Moreover, students often bring numerous learning disorders to the classroom.

To reward teachers based upon merit pay assumes that teachers will have an equally distributed amount of students in the classroom from foreign countries, diverse economic backgrounds, and who possess varied learning disorders.

And yet this is not the reality. Many classrooms are full of students who only speak English, come from wealthy families, and are mentally healthy while other classrooms have few students who speak English, a majority who come from poor families, and many who suffer from serious learning disorders.

The proposal of merit pay for teachers by the Utah legislature is problematic. Although there are problems with the current system of compensation which is largely based upon experience, instituting merit pay would cause more problems than it would solve.

Rewarding teachers based solely upon performance is a noble idea, but until the associated problems can be appropriately resolved, merit pay should not be instituted.

* Published in the Salt Lake Tribune, February 13, 2010, at http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14390954.

Child Abuse: The Beginning of the End?

2010-02-02T19:22:00.010-07:00

A recent study conducted by the government found that rates of child abuse have declined over 25% from 1993 to 2006. As a sociology graduate, I have always been fascinated by the reasons for statistical trends. Although the study in question focuses more on numbers than hypotheses, I thought a topic as important as this could use a brief examination.

Child abuse rears its ugly head in many forms. In particular, child abuse is manifest in three main categories: physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. The disturbing crime is prevalent in our society. In 1993, approximately 743,200 victims reported incidents of abuse. Over the course of 13 years, that number dropped to an estimated 553,000 victims. A major flaw in a study of this kind is that the researchers have to assume that all cases of child abuse are reported. Of course, this is not the case and the total number of victims is certainly higher. Nevertheless, this dramatic drop in reported cases gives great hope to the fight against child abuse.

First among the theories explaining the dramatic drop in child abuse rates is the idea that there is greater public awareness of the issue. Linda Spears, vice president for public policy for the Child Welfare League of America, states: "It was a hidden concern before-people were afraid to talk about it if it was in their family." She also surmises that the decline is due to social programs designed to help child abuse offenders.

A second thought is that rates have dropped because of a crackdown on child abuse during the 1990's. Although the "war on drugs" has yielded questionable results in terms of substance abuse rates, David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, states that intensified efforts by the criminal justice system resulted in higher rates of arrest and prison terms for child abusers. Additionally, child protective services also saw an increase in their workforce. The result of Finkelhor's "troop surge" has apparently been a drop in child abuse rates.

Finkelhor also offers another theory which may have contributed to the decline in child abuse. Rather than focusing on the efforts of the public sector alone, he points out the potential benefits of pharmaceutical companies in the private sector. He believes that advances in medicine have given child abusers additional tools to overcome their behavior.

Stigma also plays a role in this issue-for better or worse. As long as our society focuses only on punishing offenders, there can be no great change in future behavior. However, when the possibility of rehabilitation enters the picture and we offer our support (while disdaining the act), future rates of child abuse can be dramatically curbed. This effect of stigma is something that is hard to overstate. In another place, I called for a "war on stigma" in addition to the wars we clamor for to combat various social ills. We can certainly do more to eliminate the evils of our society by looking at the entire picture and seeking to understand all of the issues.

A 26% decrease in reported child abuse rates does not signal the immediate end of the problem. It certainly does not ease the pains of those who have been and those who are currently victims. However, progress is progress. In this case, the results may be due to greater public awareness, a crackdown on child abuse by the public sector, advancements in medicine by the private sector, and/or a changing role of stigma in our society. Whether due to these theories or others yet unmentioned, the results of this study certainly offer hope for our future. It would be a great thing indeed if these results could be added upon, signaling the beginning of the end of child abuse.

* Information for this blog is taken from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35205114/ns/health-kids_and_parenting

* For a more detailed discussion on the role of stigma in combating social ills, see my 2009 article in the Hinckley Journal of Politics at: http://www.hinckley.utah.edu/publications/journal/2009_Hinckley_Journal.pdf

The Dignity of Satisfaction

2010-01-20T20:46:00.013-07:00

Earlier this week, we celebrated the life and influence of Dr. Martin Luther King. The America we know today has been dramatically altered for the good in large measure due to the vision and diligence of Dr. King.

In his “I Have A Dream” speech, King addressed the issue of “satisfaction.” When would advocates of civil rights be satisfied? He stated that satisfaction would not come while African Americans were subjected to policy brutality, while segregation remained, or while voting rights were withheld. It would not come as long as progress meant merely movement from one sphere of poverty to another or while children were devalued through signs such as those stating, “For Whites Only.” He said that he dreamed of a day when those travesties would no longer reign.

Many of those dreams have come true. Rates of police brutality have fallen dramatically, segregation has been abolished in all public educational institutions, and offensive signs have largely been relegated to scenes in historical movies. Unthinkable in years gone by, an African American presides in the White House. Truly, the vision of Martin Luther King has become a reality of today’s America in many ways. However, while Dr. King spoke of those things which would not bring satisfaction, I sometimes wonder about those things which would.

Two years ago, I attended a lecture given by a civil rights activist. His reputation as a philosopher and author was firmly established. I studied his theories in my university courses and anxiously awaited his lecture. True to form, he gave an amazing presentation. He spoke with passion, with intellect, and with sincerity. I was very impressed—with one exception.

A student had asked for a comment on the progress that had been made since the time Dr. King began his fight. Instead of appropriately lauding the advances that had been made, the speaker discounted them. He said that we should place our entire focus on the progress that has yet to occur. As with his other points, the speaker was passionate. However, unlike earlier in his speech, I felt not inspired—but uncomfortable. After all that had taken place since the 1960’s, barely a word of praise was uttered. He spoke as if the students in attendance had to pass through their own signs labeled “For Whites Only” to see him speak.

Referring to the fight for civil rights, Martin Luther King stated, “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity.”

To me, dignity includes a sincere respect not only for ourselves, but for others. Dignity recognizes the innate worth of humanity and the accomplished good in all people—even in our enemies. Dignity does not wear rose-colored glasses, but instead views society and self with a realistic and dignified optimism. If I am 200 pounds overweight and seek to correct the life-threatening issue, a loss of 50 pounds still leaves me with plenty of ground to cover. To discount the progress that had been made and focus only on the work yet to be done would make me discouraged. Not only would this perspective leave me without satisfaction, but it would also leave me without dignity. On the other hand, if I were to recognize the progress that had been made and commit yet again to pursuing my goal, my satisfaction would indeed be dignified!

The struggle for civil rights will always have some measure of progress ahead of it. I think it is a mistake to discount the strides that have been made in favor of emphasizing all that yet needs to be. To do so comes dangerously close to fighting for dignity without actually being in possession of the virtue. The legacy of Martin Luther King can be maintained not only by acting for change, but also by using the triumphs of yesterday to fuel the victories of tomorrow. If we do so, we will then find that our satisfaction is truly dignified.

A "Pants on Fire" Dishonor

2009-12-21T12:05:00.010-07:00

POLITIFACT.COM recently published its findings on the political "lie of the year." The winner? Sarah Palin, for her rhetorically charged allegation of health care reform. From my perspective, it is not the lie as much as her choice of words which deserves such a dishonor.

If you've missed the controversy over the course of the year, here is a snippet of her original "death panel" remarks:

"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Clearly, the remarks made here are divisive; politifact.com has gone a step further and deemed them wholly without merit. To her credit, Palin stands by her claim. But she also stands by her choice of words, comparing the tone with President Reagan's decision to refer to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire."

While the "lie of the year" may go to Palin, her choice of divisive rhetoric is not unique. Unfortunately, language used to divide is becoming much too common.

Shakespeare once spoke through Juliet to negate the power of certain words: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

I disagree. In any society, words have an associated stigma for good or ill. If I was told to smell a beautiful red rose referred to as "diarrhea," I would at the very least be hesitant to take a whiff. Similarly, I would I have a hard time taking comfort in a political leader of any party who consciously used negatively charged words to prove a point. And while Sarah Palin may be the winner of this year's shameful contest, she is not alone in her choice of tone.

Words can be used to divide or unite. How we use them is our choice. It is not a requirement that politicians always agree. But it should not be a liability to try and get along in the process of disagreement. In days gone by, fierce but polite debate would often conclude with the phrase, "I respectfully disagree."

Perhaps it would do our entire society a great amount of good if we were all to add a little more respect to our disagreements.

* For an additional examination of divisive rhetoric, see my previous post: "Kill the 'Death Panel' Rhetoric."

Rwanda: A Genuine Respect for Life

2009-12-17T12:35:00.021-07:00

Recently, I watched a Frontline documentary entitled, Ghosts of Rwanda. I came away from the experience feeling very impacted by the extremes of human nature in regards to life: our ability to either take life or to tamper with its creation. One story in particular led me to a deeper understanding of what it means to have a genuine respect for life.

In 1994, over the course of approximately 100 days, an estimated 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda—a country in east-central Africa. The situation was eventually termed genocide, although for a variety of reasons—some complex and some inexplicable—international aid was not given in the form of troops until the damage had been done. Killing was widespread and virtually unrestrained. Unlike the Jewish holocaust of World War II, the vast majority of murders were committed one at a time. Large-scale Nazi gas chambers were replaced by long-edged Hutu machetes.

One of the characters portrayed in the documentary was the chief of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Rwanda, Philippe Gaillard. The Red Cross had a long standing policy of neutrality, but Philippe felt morally obligated to make the world aware of the perpetrators of the genocide. He emerged as one of many heroes in a dark conflict. Despite his best efforts to develop a thick skin, the constant exposure to death and murder took its toll on Philippe. His response was as heartfelt as it was poignant:

"When we came back from Rwanda, my wife and I had been married for seven years. We had deliberately had no children. It was so evident for her, for me, that after this experience we both wanted to create life. And it is so beautiful. [My children] will know it, they will discover it, [but] I would never explain to my son that he was a product of genocide. That’s not easy to explain."

One recurring theme throughout the documentary is the capacity of mankind for great good—or great evil. Truly, the motivation of Philippe to create life stood in opposition to the desire of the Hutus to destroy it. As I reflected on his story, I gained a new perspective of two directives familiar in one form or another to all three of the world’s major religions.

The Ten Commandments are found in the Old Testament, a book which is revered by Jews and Christians—and also appreciated by Muslims. The two “commandments” I am referring to are found in quick succession:

Thou shalt not kill (Ex. 20:13).

Thou shalt not commit adultery (Ex. 20:14).

The change in my perspective was more or less a realization of the actions covered by these two commandments. Of all the terrible things of which mankind is capable, the worst is the taking of human life (i.e., “thou shalt not kill”). The second offense is nearly as grave, but lies at the other end of the human spectrum of sin: the inappropriate tampering with the creation of life (i.e., “thou shalt not commit adultery”). In between these two transgressions lie an innumerable degree of misdeeds which affect human life to one degree or another.

My exposure to Philippe’s story led me to see that mankind has long been warned of the dangers associated with taking human life—or tampering with its creation. The lessons that can and should be learned from the 1994 genocide in Rwanda are many. Among them is the capacity of mankind to develop a genuine respect for life, even while immersed in a culture of disrespect of the worst kind.

Kill the "Death Panel" Rhetoric

2009-12-16T16:07:00.003-07:00

The true aim of a conservative is to unite others in a common cause that leads to the betterment of society. As a conservative, I believe that hateful rhetoric which misleads the public with talk of “death panels” does not contribute to national unity.

Let me be clear, I do not believe that the passage of universal health care legislation is a step in the positive direction for our country. While I espouse bipartisanship, the passage of a bill such as the ones currently being considered simply violates too many of my political principles.

So why am I advocating against “death panel” rhetoric? Because I believe in American unity, and I believe that the way in which we use words serves to either unite or divide us as a nation.

If used to unite, words have tremendous power to do good. Roosevelt inspired a nation drowning in an economic cesspool when he declared that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Kennedy stirred our patriotism by advocating that we ask not what our country can do for us, but what we can do for our country. Dr. King pled for unity when he proclaimed that he had had a dream. And now in our day, Obama has announced that the government will decide if your grandmother lives or dies. Now, each of these presidential statements have been accurately summarized, right?

Wrong.

If you are reading this editorial, you know the facts of the issue and the inaccuracy of the allegation. However, the purpose of this piece is not to deal with the way in which a bill is interpreted, but rather to address the danger of rhetoric that goes by many adjectives: misleading, deceitful, hateful, vitriolic, or most importantly, divisive. Even if a legislative bill actually designated a death panel, called it a death panel, and indicated that we no longer had the choice to decide whether we live or die—hateful rhetoric is not a good strategy.

Contrary to hateful rhetoric is the concept of meaningful debate. When the founding fathers gathered for their miracle in Philadelphia, no doubt insults were flung that skimmed the issues, crossed the line of propriety, and did not always make use of common sense. But these men who are so revered by us today eventually found a way to get past their deeply held—not to mention, well-founded—personal beliefs and were able to whittle down one decision after another through meaningful debate.

Why is it that we cannot do the same?

The issue of universal health care is of universal importance. Regardless of the outcome, the consequences will have a domino effect that goes from one generation to the next. However, we should use this issue not as an occasion to spread hate for a supposed larger good, but as an opportunity to showcase our devotion to the virtue of unity. If, as some claim, our nation is going to hell in a hand basket, it will not be directly attributable to the passage of a universal health care bill. Rather, if our nation ever meets with a tragic self-inflicted decline, it will be because its citizenry has lost the value of unity and chooses hateful rhetoric over meaningful debate. Such need not be the case. The government will not decide whether our grandparents live or die, but we as a people will decide the fate of the hateful use of our words. And I am in favor of killing the “death panel” rhetoric.

* Intended for publication 07-Sep-2009

Obama's Inauguration: Utah's Opportunity

2009-12-16T16:04:00.003-07:00

Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 20th is an opportunity for Utah to showcase the virtues of tolerance and patriotism.

As a Mormon living in Utah, I did everything that I could not to vote for Mitt Romney in the primaries — just as I would have acted similarly in regards to Clinton or Obama if I was a woman or African-American. I didn’t want to be accused of voting for Romney simply because he was a Mormon. That being said, after much consideration I eventually cast my vote in his direction.

I faced the same dilemma in the general election. I gave Obama every bit of leeway I could because I felt that Utah didn’t need another citizen voting Republican simply to vote Republican. I received numerous emails tempting me to further the cause ignorance: Barack Obama is Muslim, he isn’t patriotic… he’s the anti-Christ. My responses? No, he’s Christian—but so what if he was Muslim? Yes, that was an interesting YouTube video—but have you seen the other ones that demonstrate his patriotism? Seriously—the anti-Christ? The vitriolic rhetoric was rampant, and my own circle of staunch Republicans thought I was insane to even consider voting for—a Democrat!

My vote ultimately didn’t do much for the sake of diversity in Utah. I voted for McCain. In the end, I simply disagreed with too many of Obama’s policies. Consequently, I should fight against the incoming administration at every turn, right? Wrong.

Aligning with Obama’s policies and his presidency are two completely separate issues. In the first instance, to support an issue I disagree with would be immoral. In the second, to withhold support from a president who espouses different policies would be intolerant and unpatriotic. Obama’s economic policies are hardly unadulterated capitalism, but then 2008 wasn’t exactly a good year for laissez-faire in the Bush administration. As a fiscal conservative, does that mean that I should hope for failures in the Obama administration so I can prove that my points are justified? Absolutely not. Two of my family members just returned from the war overseas, and one is preparing to leave. Something is fundamentally wrong with saying, “Thanks for putting your life on the line, but I kind of hope you guys fail over there so that we can get a Republican back in the White House.” A loyalty to the presidency of the United States is crucial—even if there is a disagreement with its policies.

Utah Republicans should support the Obama presidency and can do so without betraying their ideals. As a die-hard BYU fan, I cheered voraciously for the Utes in the Sugar Bowl: they were a good team and it was the best thing for the (Mountain West) conference. As a Utah Republican, I will support the Obama presidency: he is a good man, and it is the best thing for the country. By doing so, I do not betray my conservative principles, but instead show that Utah is more than an ignorantly red state. I am calling for Utah Republicans to demonstrate a support for the virtues of tolerance and patriotism by supporting Barack Obama’s presidency—even if there is a disagreement with his policies. This support need not necessarily manifest itself in the voting booths, but should be demonstrated by advocating against hateful rhetoric. America is a great force for good in our global society, but will lose its influence if it loses unity. Disagreement in democracy is not an oxymoron, but an opportunity. And January 20th is a great opportunity for Utah Republicans.

* Originally published January 2009