A Few Thoughts on a Single Payer Healthcare System

Remember when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PP ACA, also known as Obamacare) was to serve as the pathway to a single-payer healthcare system as exampled in Great Britain and a number of other European countries?  At the time the supporters were quick to point out how low the cost of health care was for the average person and even the poorest would receive quality healthcare.  The opponents of the law saw it as government overreach and said that it would implement “death panels” where the state would choose who would live and who would die.  Of course, this idea was dismissed by those who supported central control as just outlandish foolishness.  Which brings us to today’s news.

First, there was Charlie Gard an 11-month who suffered from a rare and fatal condition, and the doctors of the National Health Service told to parents to just let him die as continued treatment was not going to be supported.  When they challenged this, it became apparent the NHS viewed young Gard as a ward of the state and the parents had no real say in the decision.

Now we have the second example before us, again the NHS is telling the parents of Alfie Evans they won’t offer additional treatment for what is likely a terminal illness.  They took him off oxygen and when he continued to breathe they stopped feeding him.  To further their position they won’t let the parents take him elsewhere where other doctors are willing to treat him.  Even the Pope has weighed in on the subject.

You can say what you want about capitalism versus socialism, private insurance versus government insurance, private healthcare versus public healthcare and all the other economic comparisons but at the end of the day it comes down to someone determining a cost versus benefit.  The question in health care is who should that be?

Clearly, for the British National Health Service (as supported by the courts) it is their position the nameless and faceless bureaucracy of the state is where that decision rests, it is after all the state that is paying for the care.  The rights of the parent are subject to state approval and control.  But is the system equal for all?  If the parents were the Winsor’s would the decision of the state be the same?  While I doubt it, I don’t know for sure, but I can’t imagine a bureaucrat being called before the Queen to explain his/her decision.

In our system, as flawed as it is, where does the decision lie?  The answer to that, of course, depends on financial status and the compassion of the various providers, both financially and medically.  There are children’s hospitals where there is sufficient financial support that the families in their care are not, as far as I know, asked to make the tough choice of what is affordable and can decide with their doctors on what is best for the child.

If we do eventually move to a “single-payer” system managed by a government bureaucracy the decision of life or death versus cost will become a part of the equation.  It is inescapable when faced with a fiscal reality of budget limits.  We see it in the VA today, and it is simply foolish to think it would not be there on a larger scale in a larger system.

For those who support the single-payer system be prepared to transfer your decisions on life and death to the state based on a simple algorithm of how much your life is worth to the state, versus how much will it cost to maintain it.

Betwixt and Between

-->

As of right now, I see Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) known best for their distain of the federalist concept, are now embracing the rights of the several states to govern themselves, at least when it comes to the legality of recreational drugs.

Lest anyone think these are long-held beliefs, let’s talk about their past positions.  Both are longtime advocates for a larger, more powerful federal government with increased regulatory authority to force upon the states its control and power.  At least until President Trump and the Republicans came into power.

Both believe the federal government, and not the states, must mandate the elimination of semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles, and that there must be a national database of gun owners so that it can at some point reach out to take the guns should it determine it wants to.

Both support the federal government’s involvement in determining the rights of the states to set policies in education, housing, employment, banking, and voting.

In fact, with the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Ms. Warren advocated for the creation of regulatory agencies that even the Congress couldn’t control.   So, I find it interesting that all the sudden there is a cry for the states to have the power to regulate Marijuana growth and distribution as if it would not be governed by the same statutes that control the interstate commerce of other products.

As with most issues the DNC now champions it seems pretty clear this new-found faith in the States is based on a perception that legalizing Marijuana will result in new support for the upcoming election.  I wonder, is there a secret poll that suggests stoners will turn out in force to support the DNC?  As newly minted pseudo-federalists will they demand the voting locations have to offer snacks to entice voter turnout?

You Know, I Thought We Were Better Than That.

“I thought we were better than that,” has become one just another tired cliché.  I’ve pointed this out here, but this week while I was traveling another instance of our base ugliness made the news.  I am saddened that so many who view themselves as superior to so many others actually find ways to prove they are not.

On April 17^th Barbara Bush, wife of George H.W. Bush, passed quietly away after an illness.  By all measures, she was a fine woman, wife, mother, and First Lady.  She represented the strength and dignity of those who’ve become known as America’s Greatest Generation.  Before it became fashionable to recognize HIV/AIDS she used her position to bring a humanity to the plight of those infected.  As First Lady, she pushed hard to encourage America to read and be literate.  She was originally from Rye NY and will be buried today in College Station Texas.

Almost immediately after her death was announced, Professor Randa Jarrar, California State University, Fresno, felt compelled to take to Twitter to call Mrs. Bush and the Bush family all racists who deserved to die. She upped the ante when she pointed out she was a tenured professor who couldn’t be fired.  Completing the trifecta of petty, ugly, behavior she gave out the phone number of a suicide hotline for Arizona State University and told people upset with her to feel free to call her and debate the claim, thus closing the line to people who might actually seek counseling before attempting to kill themselves.

She was not the only person who felt compelled to show their ass but is the one I am most aware of.

Hopefully, her university and she will come to find there are consequences to their actions, but I am not holding my breath since so many believe being ugly to one another is somehow protected by the First Amendment and her supporters will claim any critic of her action must be a racist or (xxxxxx)phobe of some kind. 

Arbitrary and Capricious

Today I saw the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 9^th Circuit Court's ruling in the case of Sessions, Attorney General v Dimaya that section 16 of the 18 U.S. codes was unconstitutionally vague. 

The issue stems from the government’s position that any immigrant, no matter his or her legal status is subject to deportation if convicted of a crime that falls under the definition of “a crime of violence.”  There are a number of statutes in question, including the Immigration and Naturalization Act and Armed Career Criminal Act.  The defendant challenged the law, and his deportation under the protections of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.   The Ninth Circuit sided with the defendant, and the AG engaged to challenge the courts finding at the Supreme Court.

What makes this so interesting to me is that Neil Gorsuch joined the majority in siding with the defendant.  The court’s opinion was written by Justice Kagan and Justice Gorsuch concurred in part and with the judgment of the court.  His opening statement is what rings most important to me.

“Vague laws invite arbitrary power.”

It is good to see the Democratic politician’s hyperbole surrounding his confirmation not bear out.  I believe the role of the Supreme Court is to protect the citizen from the overreach of government.  Justice Gorsuch remains consistent with what he said during his confirmation.  He believes it is his duty to interpret the law as the founders would have us understand it, but if the law is unjust and it affects the citizen his first duty is to protect the citizen.

There will be those who condemn him for this decision, but most of that will be along the political boundaries we have divided ourselves into.

How To Make The World Safer

Think of all the things we could do to make the world safe.  Done?  Good.

Now ask yourself, what single thing makes the world safest for the most species and inhabitants?

Once you’ve got that answer, ask yourself -- of the 7+billion people on earth how many agree with your opinion and will go along with your idea.  Is your answer greater than 5 billion?  If so you have a great idea. Now you can proceed to the final step.

Get onto social media so the entire world can fall into lockstep with your plan.  You don’t need a lot of details, just a good meme.  Make sure you use a lot of profanity and vilification of the people who may disagree.  Perhaps suggest they are deranged or just plain crazy.  Finally, recommend they be locked up, isolated, or just “eliminated,” so the world can be safe. 

That is how you make the world a safer place.

The Road Not Taken

All things are possible.  Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26)

“Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.” (a quote made famous by Robert Oppenheimer originally from the 1944 Prabhavanada and Isherwood Translation of the Bhagavad Gita[1])

As we look toward the future there are always two options.  We can look forward to a better future with optimism, or we can see the deep, depressing gloom of a world lost.  The question each of us must answer individually is which path shall I take?

It is so easy in today’s world to choose the darker path because those who feed the information stream scream out all the ills of the world.  There are a variety of motivations for this, profit, fame, pettiness, or just selfish pleasure, but in the end, it all contributes to pushing us towards the negative.

For me, Robert Frost’s poem “The Road Not Taken” serves as a guide to follow my own heart and not be persuaded by the shouts of those who find pleasure in their own voices.

---

[1] http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/now-i-am-become-death-the-destroyer-of-worlds

A View on Leadership in the Air Force (conclusion)

In my previous post I talked briefly about the fact the military is not like a commercial enterprise and often the tools the civilian leaders attempt to impose on the force cause more disruption than increased efficiency.  Then I dealt with what I view as flaws in the leadership development scheme.  They were “Change is Good,” “A Rigged System,” and “First Command.”  In this post I intend to discuss the more serious flaws I believe lead to disillusionment and lowering moral.  They are “Building an Unsustainable Force,” “Social Justice is a Core Mission,” “A Lack of Personal Accountability,” and “Performance Reviews are Smoke.”

We have built an unstainable force and are unwilling to admit it.  Obviously, we operate within a defined and regulated budget and the amount of money available to pay for everything all the politicians in Congress, The President, and the SECDEF would like is finite.  The office of the SECDEF sets guidelines the AF leadership must comply with to stay within its budget.  It also projects the costs into the out-years so it can plan for the force and force modernization.  As the Air Force looks to modernize to 5^th Generation Fighters they sought ways to pare the single largest cost in the Air Force, its manpower bills.  Based on the choices available we drew the force down to a little over 320,000 as an end strength.  That number is climbing slightly but the force today is far below what it was when we had a cold war.  Today we have a warmish hot war and the force is asked to do far more than what it had ever been built to do prior to 9/11.  In 1960, when the threat of nuclear war was the principal challenge the USAF faced had 813,474 personnel to meet its global commitments.  As the Vietnam war grew so did the AF, reaching a peak strength of 905,314 in 1967.  During President Reagan’s years, the force stood around 600,000, or just a little less than twice its current strength.  Back then we were a garrison force where most people spent most of their time training with short TDYs and an expectation they would be home within a week or two of leaving.  The longer rotations of 90 days were usually at locations that offered some social time off.  Even with the longer deployments, the stress of the force was manageable and an individual could expect a high demand assignment followed by a relatively stable one.

After Desert Storm, we began moving from a garrison force to a rotational force as we closed base after base to reduce cost.  This has created a situation where significant numbers of personnel are pushed forward for 3, 4 or 6-month deployments at something that hovers around a 1 to 4 ratio.  Following 9/11 that ratio when down to about 1 to 2.5 and for those forces in demand the ratio often approaches a 1 to 1. While we have been doing this -- new demands continuously flow down, requiring short notice response and a total force commitment where Guard and Reserve forces now carry a much greater percentage of the load then they were ever envisioned.  Meanwhile, we close bases, retire aircraft, and further reduce the force until the only people left to deploy are those who are not up for a new assignment or school slot.  The toll on the humans in this cycle are measurable in terms of divorce, PTSD and other mental issues.  Suicides are up, DUI is up, and separations are up for those who see no light at the end of the tunnel.

Those who’ve been recognized for their high potential don’t seem to be subject to the same rotational demands as their peers for they are serving as executive officers, on a command staff, in professional development, or serving at the higher echelons of a joint force to get the credits necessary for flag rank.  The result is obvious.  To use a farming analogy, we are eating the seed corn of tomorrows crop of leaders and commanders.  Those positions will still exist, but the quality of the officers and senior NCO’s that will fill them will be less than it was. 

We have reduced our ability to fill the pipeline as we reduce training capacity in UPT and UCSO (UNT for old folks like me).  Of course, we did this for sound economic reasons, but when individuals in the prime of their capability abandon their career the inexperienced airman needed to replace them just don’t exist.  We see this especially in the UAV/RPA pipeline where again to save costs we are now beginning to qualify NCOs as “pilots.”

We will never say “we must do more with less,” because of past experiences but isn’t that exactly what we ask of your airman?

Social Justice has become a core task or mission.  When I entered the Air Force we were in the middle of the social unrest caused by the Vietnam war, but there was a more fundamental issue, and that was discrimination of the black minorities.  President Truman, over the objections of his senior military commanders, had integrated the armed forces in 1948, but still subtle and not-so-subtle discrimination existed in 1974 when I became a Lieutenant.  The CSAF mandated equality training for all personnel and we did this until the service grew tired and declared success in racial equality.

President Obama did the same thing as President Truman for the LGBT community, and now the service is in the process of training its force that LGBT personnel must be treated fairly and equally.  Personally, I think President Obama’s choice was better than the direction of President Clinton which was “don’t ask, don’t tell,” but there are some significant morality and social issues that come with mandating individual support and implied approval of sexual orientation that does not arise when we mandate people not be discriminated against because of their race.

As we see in the civilian culture we come from there is an increasingly militant approach to demanding that society view itself in accordance with the most vocal voices of a pretty small minority.  The service draws from society and those same forces are at work.  The senior leadership, just like in Truman’s years, have one view of the world and the younger airman another.  We see in President Trump an attempt to return to a policy that would bring us back to an earlier time.  In my opinion that is a foolish choice that will only compound the unrest and delay what must be the ultimate goal of integration into a cohesive fighting force.

Whatever your view on the current social justice diatribes, the services inability to provide a consistent policy where all are treated equally is demoralizing the force.  Today we have some who demand equality, and others who view the minorities as receiving an unfair advantage.  Both positions seem to be relatively small, but both are vocal enough to detract from the unit cohesion necessary in a fighting force.

Let’s discuss accountability.  The one thing a bureaucracy does really well is to provide a shield or buffer for accountability.  For example:

Customer service rep: We can’t approve your form 123.

Customer: Why?

Rep:  Well it’s our policy not to approve this form.

Customer:  What should I do to get this approved?

Rep:  You need to submit another form asking for approval of this form

Customer:  Is there someone I can talk to?

Rep:  No, you have to submit form 123 to talk to someone.

By most standards the Air Force is a pretty good bureaucracy to work for, its Commanders and Senior Leaders are frequently voicing their support for some magical thing called “empowerment” where a conversation like I illustrated above won’t happen.  But on the other hand, we have all developed a “cooperate and graduate” kind of mentality where failure, except in the most extreme or most public situations is kind of pushed aside, so careers are not adversely affected by those mistakes.

For example, how many flying squadron commanders have been relieved of command by their commanders, but still make O-6 because they’ve filled all the squares and the relieving authority didn’t want to hurt a good officer they just didn’t trust to lead anyone.  What message does this convey to the subordinates?

Then, of course, there are those who go from bungling one job after another and their commanders pass them off as quickly as possible so they don’t have to deal with them.  At the end of the day their career experiences are really broad and look good on paper and all the sudden they are promoted to senior ranks and seemingly no one knows why.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating we return to the days of flogging or making the guilty sit in the town square in stocks but having someone swinging from the yardarm occasionally might be okay.  (This is humor, and I point it out just in case some are unfamiliar with the concept.)

There is a business management consultant named Peter Drucker.  He is best known for his theory that business can never be really efficient because people are promoted at least one level above their competence.  This is known as the “Peter Principle.”  My experience in the Air Force suggested long ago we will generally promote at least two pay grades above competence based on the masking of competence in the promotion recommendation files.   Which brings me to my last flaw.

The Promotion System is Smoke and Mirrors.  We have reached a point in the evaluation process where secret words and phrases are more important than actually telling individuals how they perform in comparison to their peers.  For rated officers, how well you do your primary job is hardly ever a data point, unless you happen to earn a DFC or MOH and then it will be noted in your records that you did well.

The people who do the evaluations may or may not be taught how to evaluate people or what the secret words are, and if they don’t know the secret words - every one of the people they rate will suffer the consequence.  Of course, there are good leaders who will sit down with the people they lead and who will provide honest and candid feedback on how the individual is doing and areas they can improve on.  In attempting to formalize this feedback system into a mandated requirement complete with specific form the bureaucracy condemns the majority to a perfunctory interview with the rater where he/she is usually working to complete his/her task as quickly as possible since they have multiple people to advise/counsel.

There is a management technique referred to a “Management by Walking Around.”  Personally, I find this the best and most effective way to provide both the leader with a clear understanding of those who are working and those who aren’t as well as providing quality performance feedback to the organization.  The most important aspect of this is a rather common-sense rule that seems to be lost in today’s world.  The boss should not condemn or belittle the staff in public, but if a criticism is necessary it should be done on a one and one basis in private.

Then we come to the idea of feedback for the Commander.  In the traditional sense of organizational behavior feedback traditionally flows down, not up.  The bosses boss ultimately determines if they are doing a good job or not, but over the past twenty years, the Air Force has become (in theory at least) an organization concerned for the welfare of its entire force.  Routinely they conduct anonymous climate surveys to give the Wings and MAJCOMs feedback on how the minions are doing.  This is a nice tool, but I don’t think it provides the direct feedback that forces the Commanders to reassess their personal style or techniques.  As I said bureaucracies are good at maintaining a lack of accountability.

I wonder what would happen if, when it came time for a commander’s performance report to be written there was a required entry on organizational feedback where the subordinates got to rate the officer on three-point scale (Definitely Promote, Promote, Do Not Promote) and the statistical average was placed next to the recommendation of the Senior Rater.  What would the promotion boards look like if they had to consider evaluations from subordinates as well as the senior commanders?

Once, when I was speaking to a boss about how as we are paring down reports to the minimum possible explanation of impact and capability I wondered how the board would know who should really be considered for readiness for promotion.  Without thinking, he made a candid statement he realized immediately was a mistake.  He said, “Don’t worry the board members know who should be promoted.” He then went on to say, “What I mean to say is an entire record is considered.”  

If we could be completely candid perhaps we would change the reports to reflect some of the dry humor the British are so famous for.  Consider these for reference.

https://www.strategypage.com/humor/articles/british.asp

Well, that’s about it for me.  I don’t have any answers to fix the problems, so perhaps I shouldn’t bother noting them, but I needed something to think and write about so this was as good as anything.

For those who are currently in mid-career, good luck.  Look for those choices you control and never believe you are a victim.  Remember, you control your life and your career, even when it’s not going as you envisioned.  Look for the good in your choices and keep moving forward.  Best wishes from an old Nav.

A View on Leadership in the Air Force

--> edited

The USAF has a retention problem.  Too many trained and qualified officers and airman are choosing to leave the service at the peak of their proficiency rather than serve to retirement.  A good friend posted a couple of opposing views on leadership in the USAF to discuss the current climate and how people we know are making a difference.  The articles got me to thinking about this subject, because it is one near to my heart and when I was a serving officer it was one I used to think about often.  I would return to it from time to time as a civil servant when we had a change in the senior leadership and new priorities were brought into the organization.  This seems a good time to put my thoughts together and see if I can be somewhat coherent with them.

I’ve written about this subject a number of times.  For example, here, here, here and here.  In the thousand or so posts I’ve written I am sure there are more, but these are enough. I doubt that anyone really cares deeply about my views on this subject, but for the record, I do have a degree in Organizational Behavior so the psychology of an organization and its leadership is something I have given a great deal of thought about.

First things first, a military organization is unique.  As much as civilians would like to compare it to industry – it just never translates smoothly.  For example, during the 1960’s Robert McNamara was the Secretary of Defense.  He had come into the administration from Ford and in his role he  attempted to bring all the management tools and policies he had developed at Ford.  He thought he could increase efficiency and reduce costs if we just practiced the sound commercial practices of a mighty U.S. industry.  During his tenure he was a supporter of FTX program (a one size fits all fighter for both the USAF and USN).  In trying to make one airplane do everything they came up with a good short-range bomber that was too heavy to land on any existing USN carrier and since it takes an act of God to cancel a DOD development program it went into production as the F-111 for the USAF.  In managing the growing war in Vietnam, they (President Johnson and SECDEF McNamara) attempted to guide our involvement in ways that ultimately condemned the effort to failure.  In the course of that war, they about destroyed the US Army.  On the bright side, the administration's failures helped shape officers who would understand the conflict and rise to create a military that was shaped to fight the conventional war in Europe but easily adapted to a desert theater that was perfectly suited for the tactics and doctrine they had written in FM 100-5.

What makes the military service unique is the workforce.  The workforce is young and usually trained to levels other industries could only hope for their employees, but there is also an expectation of those who are in the combat arms that at some point they may be confronted with life or death decisions that require their complete commitment to mission.  I can think of no other industry that asks so much of its young men and women, or places so much responsibility in an 18 to 30-year old as does the US Military.  In private industry, the 18 to 30-year olds are there to learn from the senior managers.  Certainly, they rarely lead. That is not the case for the military where a 22-year old Lieutenant may have 40 individuals and a few million dollars of equipment under his charge. 

That said, the USAF is different from the other military branches, both in its short heritage and its focus.  We are a service that grows directly from a technology.  The idea of the machine being paramount is fundamental to the DNA of the service.  When given a choice between a new machine and a person – the Air Force has inevitably deferred to the technology.  People are a necessary component to the operation of the technology, but in our quest for the better technology, we struggle to understand how to deal with the human component. 

What compounds this problem is the fact we are now engaged in a war we must fight but can’t possibly win.  The best we can hope for is the opposition will grow weary and decide to focus their outrage in another direction.  Finally, we have an evolutionary change in our society that leads the youngest members to enter the service with different social expectations than those of its senior leaders and commanders. In the past, there was an expectation the young would learn the social ways of the leadership, but today it appears to be a bit of the young teaching the old as the services change to meet the demands of the political leadership imposed by our Constitution.

It seems to me there are a number of issues coming to a head that has caused a cultural rift that drives our service culture to fragment and leads to dissatisfaction among the mid-level grades (both officer and non-commissioned officer).  The challenge for the most senior officers is to understand the flaws, but this is difficult.  They have succeeded in their careers and I suspect they candidly see little that should be changed. 

What are the flaws?

The first is an institutional belief that change is always positive and critical to career success.  No one gets a good performance report for maintaining the status quo.  Our future leaders are taught they must come in and make the unit better with their leadership.  Even if they do nothing, the performance reports must reflect a positive unit improvement in moral, mission, and capability.

The second is the rigged system.  When we, as an institution, choose the individuals who will be placed on the path to the stars we do so at a point they barely know the Air Force, let alone how to lead.  When we were a much younger AF we had to take our leaders from the other services or those who were around when the AF was born.  As we’ve matured the Academy has, just like the other Services, become the training ground from which the majority will be chosen.  In practice – we choose 26 to 28-year olds who show promise and put them on a sheltered path where the best assignments and right jobs are set at their feet.  If they don’t screw up they will be promoted ahead of their peers and be eligible for promotion to flag rank.  The unfortunate consequence of this is they have little or no perspective on the problems of an average career officer or NCO.

The third goes back to the second.  For those who are supposed to be the crème de la crème of the Air Force we really don’t allow them to be responsible for actual welfare of humans until just before they are eligible for promotion to Colonel (about the 18-year point), and then for fighter pilots they will command 24(ish) Type-A personalities who want to be the next Chuck Yeager.  For other rated officers they may command squadrons up to a couple of hundred people but for the first time in their lives, they will have to make life and career choices that affect real live people.  Remarkably, we have something over a 90% success rate in this.  Which begs the question, is the rigged system really right or do we adjust our expectations to reinforce its rightness? 

There is one exception to this.  In this war, battlefield airman have risen in stature to levels never anticipated.  Their officers and NCO’s follow a leadership model more closely aligned with the Army.  To succeed they must deal with the human element from the time they are Lieutenants, but I hazard a guess that a CCT officer or CRO will not be a CSAF in my lifetime.

To be continued.

Giving Up What You Never Had

I am sorry, but I refuse to listen to a 17-year old tell me how the country must be run.  A 17-year old has, as a best-case scenario, maybe 10-years of relatively cognitive thought and zero-years of actual responsibility towards society.  They have nothing but the ability to parrot what their parents, teachers, or the collective pool of friends have told them they should think or say.  Their need to be part of a group makes them more likely to buy into the justification of the mob mentality we see around us today.

How many of us spend time considering what our founding fathers fought for, rather than just buying into the history lessons of what they fought against?

How easy is it to talk about the Boston Tea Party, where the “Sons of Liberty” dressed up and threw the tea shipped from England into the harbor to protest the English tax?  When we talk of Lexington and Concord we think of the “Minute Men” fighting against the British attempt to capture the militia’s leaders and destroy its supplies.  The problem is a nation cannot be built and survive on negatives.  It cannot exist to be against something, it must be for something.

It has been apparent for some time the young people of this great land seem to have been taught only that they must be against things and have not sorted out for themselves that it is more important to be for an ideal.  We see in the latest anti-gun movement all the things they are against, but the only thing I hear in the positive is “We need to be safe.”  An admirable idea, but there is a complete unwillingness to discuss any option that flies in the face of the negatives they espouse.

They are taught to be against “intolerance” yet their action demonstrates the fact they themselves are intolerant of views that run counter to the party.  They have not made the connection that they should be for a positive, not the negative.

They say they are against violence, but still, they support the violent rhetoric of the loudest voices within their political sphere.  They seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between being for peaceful resolution of conflict and giving lip service to the meme of anti-violence.

So, what did our founders fight for?

If we look at the two documents that created our nation, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, we will see one common theme.  They wanted sovereignty as independent states and freedom from an oppressive foreign government.  Article 2 of the first document says “Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right with is not by this confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.”  Learning from the failure of the Confederation the Congress was more direct with the Constitution, for they understood the dangers of a stronger central government, but the protection of the nation took precedence for them.  James Madison, writing in Federalist paper 41 said,

“THE Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered under two general points of view. The FIRST relates to the sum or quantity of power which it vests in the government, including the restraints imposed on the States. The SECOND, to the particular structure of the government, and the distribution of this power among its several branches. Under the FIRST view of the subject, two important questions arise: 1. Whether any part of the powers transferred to the general government be unnecessary or improper? 2. Whether the entire mass of them be dangerous to the portion of jurisdiction left in the several States? Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the FIRST question. It cannot have escaped those who have attended with candor to the arguments employed against the extensive powers of the government, that the authors of them have very little considered how far these powers were necessary means of attaining a necessary end. They have chosen rather to dwell on the inconveniences which must be unavoidably blended with all political advantages; and on the possible abuses which must be incident to every power or trust, of which a beneficial use can be made. This method of handling the subject cannot impose on the good sense of the people of America. It may display the subtlety of the writer; it may open a boundless field for rhetoric and declamation; it may inflame the passions of the unthinking, and may confirm the prejudices of the misthinking: but cool and candid people will at once reflect, that the purest of human blessings must have a portion of alloy in them; that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused. They will see, therefore, that in all cases where power is to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next will be, in case of an affirmative decision, to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment. That we may form a correct judgment on this subject, it will be proper to review the several powers conferred on the government of the Union; and that this may be the more conveniently done they may be reduced into different classes as they relate to the following different objects: 1. Security against foreign danger; 2. Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations; 3. Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States; 4. Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility; 5. Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts; 6. Provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers.”[1]

It is my fear the voices of outrage all seem to seek greater, not lesser, centralized control of those things I have long viewed as fundamental rights and what I chose to defend with my service.  The liberal voices have a short-term view that what they believe is the right way to do things is the only way to do things, and that if they get their way everything will work itself out.  The fallacy of this view is so apparent they refuse to even consider it, but we need only look at them to see the danger.

I choose to look at the last ten years to set the framework for this shift towards the extreme, although it actually traces its origin back further. Beginning with the election of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt we have seen an increasing growth of the central government and its powers to control and regulate our lives.  Much of this increased power and authority has been used wisely and has helped the nation flourish, but it seems with the increased polarization – the good of the nation as a whole is increasingly sacrificed to satisfy the demands of the few. 

Following the financial crash of 2008, our nation chose to place its faith in the Democratic party to pull us from the disaster, much like it did in 1932.  The problem was the Democratic party was no longer the great representative of all the nation but had over the past 40 years grown to represent the urban and liberal elite.  There were no longer the voices of the southern and mid-western Democrats to offer a moderation for the costs to be borne by the great social programs the party wished to pursue.  As a result of their choices, the party lost Congressional strength in each of the subsequent six years.

Then we have the issue of a young, articulate individual who seemingly rose from the back row of the Senate to become President.  It was reminiscent of the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy, who brought to the job an aura of glamor and grace to replace the staleness of the Eisenhower years.  In this case, President Obama and his ability to articulate the thoughts of the left so well on television seemed to be what the nation wanted.  He, of course, had overwhelming support from the black minority who turned out in record numbers to bring him to the office.  Unfortunately for the nation, he chose to see his election as a mandate that his party was the only game in town and set in motion choices that would divide our nation further along racial and political lines rather than find unity and commonality.  He was aided in this by what can best be described as an adoring press and entertainment industry who covered up his failures and condemned those who questioned his decisions to use the various departments within the Executive Branch to secure the political advantage.

When his term was up, the media and the Democrats were so sure they had control of the government that they moved to the next great social hurdle.  The fulfillment of the dream of every woman activist since the passage of the 19^th Amendment.  We had to elect a woman.  Unfortunately, they were so sure this was a slam dunk they chose the worst possible woman to push forward.  A woman who carried so much baggage she could have been mistaken for a hotel porter.  Just to get her past their own party’s primaries they had to rig the system, yet still, they persisted.  In the general campaign she leveraged every insider advantage available yet somehow, she lost because she had told the rust belt state Democrats they didn’t matter in the grand scheme and the urban elites were all she needed or wanted.

Now we have a political outsider as President and the daily rage has reached the insane stage.  As he undoes all the executive orders and hidden government agendas so carefully crafted during President Obama’s administration you would think the opposition would be concerned with the effects of too much-centralized power, but other than name calling it doesn’t seem to be that big a deal for them.  The issue isn’t how much power the government should have, just who should have it.  It isn’t they are for more freedom, they are just against who should limit it.

The issue for me comes down to a group of young people who’ve led sheltered and privileged lives now coming on the political stage willing to give up the rights and freedoms that this nation was founded on without understanding the cost of those rights and impacts of their loss.  How can they possibly understand what they are choosing to condemn when they’ve never had to worry about ever?

---

[1] www.congress.gov, The Federalist Papers, No. 41

Four Days Removed

Each of us handle loss in our own way.  We had three cats, now we have two.  Bama was a good pet.  As far as cats go I think he represented his species well, but he did seem to have some dog in him.  He would come when I called, and he liked to sleep on my lap, both qualities are more associated with the canine than the feline.

He spent his first year in a Vet’s office and was given to us by someone I worked with.  He was with us for about 15 years and was about as tolerant of all the stuff we did to him as you could possibly expect.

For the past couple of years, he has suffered from epileptic seizures (we suspect from a brain tumor), which we treated with phenobarbital.  More recently he seemed to have developed a hypothyroid condition which also required medication.  About a week ago he began to experience multiple seizures and did not seem to respond to increased levels of medication.

Perhaps it was due to all the stress we are going through right now, or perhaps it was from the tumor growing?  We will never know. 

Four days ago, we made the decision to put him to rest.  It was both considerate and self-serving as we prepare to move to a new and distant home.

I cried.