I read a recent quote from John McCain that one of his first tasks, should he be elected President, would be to "restore" America's reputation in the world. Implicit in his statement is the criticism that George W. Bush has harmed America's stature in the world, and that it is a priority that other nations "like" us. I've been fuming ever since I read the quote, but it fits well with other McCain policy positions over the past couple of years. It was McCain who forced President Bush to tie the hands of American military investigators by publicizing which techniques are acceptable for interrogation of military prisoners. I remember then that McCain said we needed to "show the world" that we are different.
I beg to differ. The worldview of those who hate America will not be changed one iota no matter what we do, and the empirical evidence of the superiority of the American way is manifestly obvious to anyone who cares to see. I do not understand this need of American appeasers to be liked. It certainly should not be a matter of national priority. We must however, be respected, and the resolve of our national will should be unquestioned. The lesson Osama bin Laden learned from the American response to Somalia, to the U.S.S. Cole and West African embassy bombings, and other attacks on American interests over the years, was that America would cut its losses and sell out its allies when pushed to the brink. We were viewed as impotent and weak and unwilling to stay a difficult course. Say what you will, and notwithstanding his mistakes, God bless George W. Bush for proving Osama wrong and for showing the world that our resolve is strong, at least for the last six years.
The goodness of America is seen in the millions who want to come here to start new lives, and in the strength and resiliency of our economy. The foreigners who hate America are motivated by interests which are contrary to American interests, and examples include Russia, China, North Korea, and of course the Islamist states. Left-wing European elites oppose America partly from jealousy and partly to further their own economic interests in competition with America's. Can anyone be so gullible as to be deceived by these people? Unfortunately, yes. That the Democrats and some Republicans running for President do not see this obvious truth reflects, I think, an insular mindset that often develops among those who are too comfortable with power and its trappings.
I myself am not fully comfortable with the degree of the Bush policy of intervention and engagement in the world, and I do see problems related, for instance, to American national security from unbridled free trade policy, but the arguments of the Left against such policies are breathtakingly shallow and hypocritical, and I am almost ashamed for the people making them. However, it is in the context of today's Republican party that real ideas are being debated with intellectual rigor, vigor, and respect. Such debates over immigration, trade policy, and education reform are driven intellectually from the Right, and whatever policy coalesces from these debates will be stronger and better because it will have been borne from this crucible of moral and intellectual discourse.
I've written above of my unhappiness with John McCain's policies (while I honor his unquestionably heroic service to our country), and I have grave concerns at this point about each of the top tier GOP Presidential candidates. I've also written about Mike Huckabee, and I really believe that if he could just get a little more exposure, others would find him as appealing as I do. Huckabee did win a recent straw poll among GOP activists in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and I'm hopeful that this portends a move up for him in South Carolina, which is a critical early primary state.
America is the greatest nation the world has ever known, albeit with flaws, but unquestionably great. I am sorry that some who have inherited bountifully from her greatness are so quick to carry water for her enemies, and I pray that come November 2008 we have at least one choice for President who can stand tall for America's interests.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Health Care--Who Controls Your Choices?
Who makes your health care choices--you, your doctor, your insurance plan, or your government? Who should make such choices, and who should pay for the delivery of the chosen services? In truth, each of the four entities I mentioned above plays some role in the delivery of health care in America. Today marks my first effort at discussing the state of health care delivery in the United States, and it's my opinion that the critical question is the one I asked at the beginning of this paragraph. Who should be paying for the array of wonderful and advanced treatments available to us?
Our society has come to accept the notion of health care as a "right," and that it should be available, at least at a basic level, for everyone regardless of their ability to pay. This principle collides, however, with the inconvenient truth that someone must pay. As a provider, I wouldn't be in business very long if I did not pay my staff and my office rent and insurance and all the other expenses associated with a medical practice, not to mention that I would like to provide for my family. The tension evident in today's system results from the fact that the users of a given service, poor or not, are largely removed from directly paying for that service. This divergence drives up the costs of care and the demand for services.
For the vast middle class in America, the linkage between a health care service and its cost is lost, and the result is greater demand at greater cost, and ultimately more limited choices. The schism that I'm talking about has come about because of the huge and intrusive role of third-party payors--insurance companies and government--that has developed over the years. I can give a multitude of examples, but I'll be brief to try to illustrate my points. For every service or good you can think of, there is a balance between supply and demand, and cost is the expression of that balance. Assuming you're not on food stamps, who pays for your groceries? You do, of course, as you do your phone bill and your car payment and whatever else you buy. Now, again assuming you are part of America's great middle class, how did you choose which car you drive? The answer is that you bought the car you wanted, that fit your needs, and that you could afford. No one expects to pay their employer or the government a monthly premium, and to be given a choice of three different cars to pick from every March. And if my absurd illustration were true, I'll assure you that not only would your car choice be limited, it would be more expensive, as well. Competition is a potent motivator, and innovation is its result.
Apart from emergency care, my illustration above is as equally applicable to health care services as it is to car purchases or haircuts or groceries. Unless our current system changes, patients will in the future have vastly greater restrictions placed on them with regard to choice of doctors, hospitals, treatments, and medicines. We are already seeing examples in physician provider panels, and in medicine formularies that pay for only one drug, if any, in a given class. The bureaucracy chooses which medicine to pay for, and which physicians to contract with, and those choices are driven by interests that are often at odds with the patient's best interests. Physicians, for their part, have little incentive to openly publish their fees or compete for patients based on convenience issues such as flexible appointment availability or timely message return. Employers, saddled with the job of picking insurance options for their employees, are left with a responsibility and cost they'd rather not have, but which has developed because of a longstanding tax loophole which favors employer-provided health insurance. Human nature can't be legislated, and those who pay the bills will always control the process. My fear is that the precious doctor-patient relationship is at risk from these outside forces.
One ridiculous and disingenuous proposal before Congress now is to have the federal government "negotiate" drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This means price controls, and I can't think of a more effective way to dry up the basic research that leads to breakthrough treatments, which now routinely cost one billion dollars or more to bring a single drug to market. Certainly it's not fair that we are the only major Western nation without price controls, and the result is that we wind up subsidizing new drug development for these socialized countries. But the solution is not to do wrong just because everyone else is. I am armed today with a potent arsenal of drugs which are effective treatments for hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, and many of these drugs did not exist 13 years ago when I entered private practice. Lives are being saved today because of the existence of these medicines. Instead of beating up on Big Pharma, lots of folks need to give them a word of thanks, and we should let our congressmen know how we feel, as well.
Nobody wants to hear doctors poor-mouth about money, but the truth is that primary care physician incomes are down about 9% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last 10 years, and Medicare reimbursements are on track to be reduced even more drastically in years to come. Let's say you're a doctor with a full practice, and Medicare reimburses you only about 60% of what a private insurance plan would for the same service. How anxious would you be to fill all your slots with Medicare patients? Not very, and therein lies a substantial looming problem for everyone nearing the age of 65. Reimbursement is better with private insurance than with Medicare, but the same issues are in play, just delayed a little bit.
I'm a board-certified internal medicine specialist, and I deliver what I believe to be excellent care for my patients. Yet, I'm only a participant in three of the four available Blue Cross plans in the area, for example. Why am I not part of the fourth? It has nothing to do with my qualifications, but is because I was unwilling to provide my services at the price Blue Cross offered for that particular insurance plan. Meanwhile, I provide exactly the same services for Blue Cross patients in the other three plans, for a fee that I find acceptable. Blue Cross, and employers, you see, are driven by different motivations than patients themselves might be. Why should the employer or the insuror determine whether a patient can see me? I submit that the cost, quality, and choice available to patients would be greatly improved if the patients were more directly responsible for the cost of their care.
How might this be accomplished? One solution is being implemented now in the form of high-deductible health insurance plans coupled with health savings accounts. These programs are relatively new but are already transforming the health care delivery dynamic. The problem is that these plans are not nearly available enough to make a dent in the overall system. If these plans were more widely used, patients would likely become much more savvy consumers of health care dollars, and doctors would ultimately be forced to compete for patients much more directly in terms of transparency of cost, availability and convenience of services, and patient satisfaction indices. In my own new solo practice, I'm trying to implement some of these protocols, but in many ways I'm swimming upstream with my efforts. In any case, it's not just my solution, or anyone else's solution, but a multitude of solutions that will fit the needs of a diverse America. This is the vision I have for health care in America, with the patients and their doctors driving innovation.
Sure, patients may not immediately see the problems with third-party payors as I see them, and indeed these problems have developed gradually over the last 50 years. Nevertheless, the predicament is real and worsening, and I pray for wise leadership to bring us to sustainable long-term solutions. The surest path to success will be one in which the individual patient maintains maximal control over his own health care decisions, and that recognizes that it is the payor who has the control. I've chosen to be a solo practitioner for the freedom and flexibility that are its fruit, both for me and for my patients. I believe that people will value what I have to offer. On a broader scale, I hope Americans will continue to have a rich array of health care options in future years. It's not a given that we will.
Our society has come to accept the notion of health care as a "right," and that it should be available, at least at a basic level, for everyone regardless of their ability to pay. This principle collides, however, with the inconvenient truth that someone must pay. As a provider, I wouldn't be in business very long if I did not pay my staff and my office rent and insurance and all the other expenses associated with a medical practice, not to mention that I would like to provide for my family. The tension evident in today's system results from the fact that the users of a given service, poor or not, are largely removed from directly paying for that service. This divergence drives up the costs of care and the demand for services.
For the vast middle class in America, the linkage between a health care service and its cost is lost, and the result is greater demand at greater cost, and ultimately more limited choices. The schism that I'm talking about has come about because of the huge and intrusive role of third-party payors--insurance companies and government--that has developed over the years. I can give a multitude of examples, but I'll be brief to try to illustrate my points. For every service or good you can think of, there is a balance between supply and demand, and cost is the expression of that balance. Assuming you're not on food stamps, who pays for your groceries? You do, of course, as you do your phone bill and your car payment and whatever else you buy. Now, again assuming you are part of America's great middle class, how did you choose which car you drive? The answer is that you bought the car you wanted, that fit your needs, and that you could afford. No one expects to pay their employer or the government a monthly premium, and to be given a choice of three different cars to pick from every March. And if my absurd illustration were true, I'll assure you that not only would your car choice be limited, it would be more expensive, as well. Competition is a potent motivator, and innovation is its result.
Apart from emergency care, my illustration above is as equally applicable to health care services as it is to car purchases or haircuts or groceries. Unless our current system changes, patients will in the future have vastly greater restrictions placed on them with regard to choice of doctors, hospitals, treatments, and medicines. We are already seeing examples in physician provider panels, and in medicine formularies that pay for only one drug, if any, in a given class. The bureaucracy chooses which medicine to pay for, and which physicians to contract with, and those choices are driven by interests that are often at odds with the patient's best interests. Physicians, for their part, have little incentive to openly publish their fees or compete for patients based on convenience issues such as flexible appointment availability or timely message return. Employers, saddled with the job of picking insurance options for their employees, are left with a responsibility and cost they'd rather not have, but which has developed because of a longstanding tax loophole which favors employer-provided health insurance. Human nature can't be legislated, and those who pay the bills will always control the process. My fear is that the precious doctor-patient relationship is at risk from these outside forces.
One ridiculous and disingenuous proposal before Congress now is to have the federal government "negotiate" drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. This means price controls, and I can't think of a more effective way to dry up the basic research that leads to breakthrough treatments, which now routinely cost one billion dollars or more to bring a single drug to market. Certainly it's not fair that we are the only major Western nation without price controls, and the result is that we wind up subsidizing new drug development for these socialized countries. But the solution is not to do wrong just because everyone else is. I am armed today with a potent arsenal of drugs which are effective treatments for hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease, and many of these drugs did not exist 13 years ago when I entered private practice. Lives are being saved today because of the existence of these medicines. Instead of beating up on Big Pharma, lots of folks need to give them a word of thanks, and we should let our congressmen know how we feel, as well.
Nobody wants to hear doctors poor-mouth about money, but the truth is that primary care physician incomes are down about 9% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last 10 years, and Medicare reimbursements are on track to be reduced even more drastically in years to come. Let's say you're a doctor with a full practice, and Medicare reimburses you only about 60% of what a private insurance plan would for the same service. How anxious would you be to fill all your slots with Medicare patients? Not very, and therein lies a substantial looming problem for everyone nearing the age of 65. Reimbursement is better with private insurance than with Medicare, but the same issues are in play, just delayed a little bit.
I'm a board-certified internal medicine specialist, and I deliver what I believe to be excellent care for my patients. Yet, I'm only a participant in three of the four available Blue Cross plans in the area, for example. Why am I not part of the fourth? It has nothing to do with my qualifications, but is because I was unwilling to provide my services at the price Blue Cross offered for that particular insurance plan. Meanwhile, I provide exactly the same services for Blue Cross patients in the other three plans, for a fee that I find acceptable. Blue Cross, and employers, you see, are driven by different motivations than patients themselves might be. Why should the employer or the insuror determine whether a patient can see me? I submit that the cost, quality, and choice available to patients would be greatly improved if the patients were more directly responsible for the cost of their care.
How might this be accomplished? One solution is being implemented now in the form of high-deductible health insurance plans coupled with health savings accounts. These programs are relatively new but are already transforming the health care delivery dynamic. The problem is that these plans are not nearly available enough to make a dent in the overall system. If these plans were more widely used, patients would likely become much more savvy consumers of health care dollars, and doctors would ultimately be forced to compete for patients much more directly in terms of transparency of cost, availability and convenience of services, and patient satisfaction indices. In my own new solo practice, I'm trying to implement some of these protocols, but in many ways I'm swimming upstream with my efforts. In any case, it's not just my solution, or anyone else's solution, but a multitude of solutions that will fit the needs of a diverse America. This is the vision I have for health care in America, with the patients and their doctors driving innovation.
Sure, patients may not immediately see the problems with third-party payors as I see them, and indeed these problems have developed gradually over the last 50 years. Nevertheless, the predicament is real and worsening, and I pray for wise leadership to bring us to sustainable long-term solutions. The surest path to success will be one in which the individual patient maintains maximal control over his own health care decisions, and that recognizes that it is the payor who has the control. I've chosen to be a solo practitioner for the freedom and flexibility that are its fruit, both for me and for my patients. I believe that people will value what I have to offer. On a broader scale, I hope Americans will continue to have a rich array of health care options in future years. It's not a given that we will.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
A Crucial Victory, By A Hair
Today's Supreme Court decision backing limits on partial birth abortion represents the first fruits of the Bush judicial realignment, and marks a watershed moment in the battle for recognition of the rights of the unborn. With a vote of 5 to 4, the decision also illustrates the tenuous and precarious character of the hard-won battles over conservative judicial nominees. Make no mistake, the liberal Left recognizes the stakes, and today's result reinforces their strategy of delay, delay, and delay, in hopes that President Bush will tire of the fight, and that he will be replaced by a Democrat. No issue personifies the distinction between the two national parties more than that of abortion, and the evidence of that can be seen in the responses of the candidates of the two parties for the Presidential nomination. To a man, the Republican candidates were supportive of the decision, even Giuliani, who is no friend of the pro-life movement. Conversely, every Democratic contender was critical of the decision. The amalgamation of interest groups that is the national Democratic party has no unifying philosophy, apart from Bush hatred, unless it is the absolute right of a woman to abort her baby, down to the very last birth contraction, or even beyond. That today's victory has been so long in coming speaks to the success of the abortion industry's tactics, yet even so our focus today should be one of exultation in the sweet aroma of long-awaited judicial victory.
The ruling marks the first restriction on abortion that has passed constitutional muster since Roe (apart from those with exceptions for "health of the mother," which are deceptive smokescreens emasculating the intent of the restrictions). Today's decision has no such exception, and is therefore landmark in its scope. It seems likely to me that future Roberts Court decisions on abortion will focus on building a constitutional bulwark of judgments that gives legitimacy to abortion restrictions, and I think it is unlikely that the votes will exist on the Supreme Court in the foreseeable future to flatly overturn the travesty that is Roe v. Wade. Given the politics and the personalities of the players involved, I suspect Chief Justice Roberts has wisely opted to aim for base hits, to use a baseball metaphor, rather than shooting for the fence with a home run overturning Roe. I believe Roberts has chosen the wiser course, and one that will most likely yield long term success for the pro-life movement.
While we must always remember that our ultimate purpose is to honor and protect the lives of unborn babies, today's ruling also has a secondary and very interesting side benefit. Occurring as it has in the hotbed of Presidential primary politicking, the decision has focused attention on the nuances of the various Republican candidates' abortion rights stances. The decision does not have the same tactical implications for Democratic candidates since their positions are all in lockstep with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. For the Republicans, however, obfuscation and deflection will be more difficult as a result of the new legal landscape, and greater clarity in their positions will be required. This is certainly to our benefit as voters.
I await with interest how all today's events shake out with Republican primary voters. I've previously posted my opinion that none of the top tier GOP candidates have completely sound pro-life credentials, and I hope one result of the renewed focus on abortion will be to cement the pro-life platform of whoever is the Republican nominee. While I can respect Giuliani for at least his consistency regarding his position on abortion rights, I'm convinced both McCain and Romney will perform whatever contortions are necessary to win the Presidency, and that the pro-life worldview is not foundational for them. Meanwhile, I'm amazed at the descriptions I've read of Fred Thompson's pro-life record. I do understand the attractiveness of, and could even support, a Fred Thompson candidacy, but he is most assuredly not a bedrock pro-life partisan.
Fred is, however, a states' rights federalist, and it is on that basis that I could support him. I believe he would indeed appoint strict judicial constructionists to the federal bench, and the end result for pro-lifers would be the same, since Roe is itself such a perversion of constitutional law. I believe Fred would justify his position, not on principles of Divinely-authored respect for life, but instead on the improper usurpation by the courts of an issue more properly decided in the political arena. Either argument is intellectually sound and achieves the same goal.
Notwithstanding all of the above, President Bush has been correct in saying that the larger task for pro-lifers is to engage with mainstream America to promote a "culture of life." Without success in that arena we will never achieve the political victory that we are seeking. Let us busy ourselves about that task as we savor today's nugget of triumph.
The ruling marks the first restriction on abortion that has passed constitutional muster since Roe (apart from those with exceptions for "health of the mother," which are deceptive smokescreens emasculating the intent of the restrictions). Today's decision has no such exception, and is therefore landmark in its scope. It seems likely to me that future Roberts Court decisions on abortion will focus on building a constitutional bulwark of judgments that gives legitimacy to abortion restrictions, and I think it is unlikely that the votes will exist on the Supreme Court in the foreseeable future to flatly overturn the travesty that is Roe v. Wade. Given the politics and the personalities of the players involved, I suspect Chief Justice Roberts has wisely opted to aim for base hits, to use a baseball metaphor, rather than shooting for the fence with a home run overturning Roe. I believe Roberts has chosen the wiser course, and one that will most likely yield long term success for the pro-life movement.
While we must always remember that our ultimate purpose is to honor and protect the lives of unborn babies, today's ruling also has a secondary and very interesting side benefit. Occurring as it has in the hotbed of Presidential primary politicking, the decision has focused attention on the nuances of the various Republican candidates' abortion rights stances. The decision does not have the same tactical implications for Democratic candidates since their positions are all in lockstep with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. For the Republicans, however, obfuscation and deflection will be more difficult as a result of the new legal landscape, and greater clarity in their positions will be required. This is certainly to our benefit as voters.
I await with interest how all today's events shake out with Republican primary voters. I've previously posted my opinion that none of the top tier GOP candidates have completely sound pro-life credentials, and I hope one result of the renewed focus on abortion will be to cement the pro-life platform of whoever is the Republican nominee. While I can respect Giuliani for at least his consistency regarding his position on abortion rights, I'm convinced both McCain and Romney will perform whatever contortions are necessary to win the Presidency, and that the pro-life worldview is not foundational for them. Meanwhile, I'm amazed at the descriptions I've read of Fred Thompson's pro-life record. I do understand the attractiveness of, and could even support, a Fred Thompson candidacy, but he is most assuredly not a bedrock pro-life partisan.
Fred is, however, a states' rights federalist, and it is on that basis that I could support him. I believe he would indeed appoint strict judicial constructionists to the federal bench, and the end result for pro-lifers would be the same, since Roe is itself such a perversion of constitutional law. I believe Fred would justify his position, not on principles of Divinely-authored respect for life, but instead on the improper usurpation by the courts of an issue more properly decided in the political arena. Either argument is intellectually sound and achieves the same goal.
Notwithstanding all of the above, President Bush has been correct in saying that the larger task for pro-lifers is to engage with mainstream America to promote a "culture of life." Without success in that arena we will never achieve the political victory that we are seeking. Let us busy ourselves about that task as we savor today's nugget of triumph.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
A Day of Tragedy
What a tragic and sobering drama yesterday at Virginia Tech. My family and I are away on vacation this week, so I didn't learn of the shootings until late yesterday afternoon. Since then, I've purposefully not watched television accounts, partly because it feels somehow unseemly or gawkish, and partly to protect my children from this horrible example of man's vile potential. For similar reasons, I've also curbed my natural inclination to follow the trial of Mary Winkler, going on now in my hometown. The picture of their nine year old daughter testifying yesterday is heartrending and pitiful.
With regard to the Viginia Tech nightmare, one wonders how someone who was apparently recognized as potentially dangerous could have the opportunity to wreak harm of such magnitude. No, I don't know the details, and it's premature to draw conclusions, but major warning signs were evident. I'm curious as to what degree university officials were aware of the shooter's problems. It may be that they did everything right, and I know from my own experience that it is hard to quantify a disturbed person's risk of harming self or others, but I suspect we'll ultimately see evidence of administrative bureaucratic inaction and inertia.
Undoubtedly and unfortunately, opportunists with an agenda will attempt to capitalize on the national sense of outrage over the campus shootings to advance their efforts at gun control. How easy and naive are their proposals, how innocuous and reasonable do they sound, and how I wish life were indeed as simple as these misguided folks believe. Regrettably, the truth is that violent criminals and sociopaths will find ways to do violently criminal and sociopathic acts, and on April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech had too few guns on campus, not too many.
As horrendous as the campus murders are, it is the magnitude of the violence and the youth of the victims and the backdrop of a campus setting that transfixes the nation. The motive is sadly all too familiar. The Winkler tragedy, on the other hand, is so mesmerizing precisely because the motive is so mysterious. The Winklers could have easily been neighbors or friends of ours, and my nagging fear is that they could've been US. What went so terribly wrong in that marriage? Disturbingly, we'll never know. We grieve for Matthew and the children and the other relatives, and even for Mary, but for me personally, there is more. What led this family, so like my own in background and belief, to such an end? Are there other wives as desperate as Mary amongst our friends? Are there lessons for Mary Kaye and me to apply to our own lives? I have no answers, beyond the reinforcement that sin is real, that Satan is on the prowl, and that my marriage and my family are fragile and precious and to be treasured and protected.
With regard to the Viginia Tech nightmare, one wonders how someone who was apparently recognized as potentially dangerous could have the opportunity to wreak harm of such magnitude. No, I don't know the details, and it's premature to draw conclusions, but major warning signs were evident. I'm curious as to what degree university officials were aware of the shooter's problems. It may be that they did everything right, and I know from my own experience that it is hard to quantify a disturbed person's risk of harming self or others, but I suspect we'll ultimately see evidence of administrative bureaucratic inaction and inertia.
Undoubtedly and unfortunately, opportunists with an agenda will attempt to capitalize on the national sense of outrage over the campus shootings to advance their efforts at gun control. How easy and naive are their proposals, how innocuous and reasonable do they sound, and how I wish life were indeed as simple as these misguided folks believe. Regrettably, the truth is that violent criminals and sociopaths will find ways to do violently criminal and sociopathic acts, and on April 16, 2007, Virginia Tech had too few guns on campus, not too many.
As horrendous as the campus murders are, it is the magnitude of the violence and the youth of the victims and the backdrop of a campus setting that transfixes the nation. The motive is sadly all too familiar. The Winkler tragedy, on the other hand, is so mesmerizing precisely because the motive is so mysterious. The Winklers could have easily been neighbors or friends of ours, and my nagging fear is that they could've been US. What went so terribly wrong in that marriage? Disturbingly, we'll never know. We grieve for Matthew and the children and the other relatives, and even for Mary, but for me personally, there is more. What led this family, so like my own in background and belief, to such an end? Are there other wives as desperate as Mary amongst our friends? Are there lessons for Mary Kaye and me to apply to our own lives? I have no answers, beyond the reinforcement that sin is real, that Satan is on the prowl, and that my marriage and my family are fragile and precious and to be treasured and protected.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Al Gore's Environmental Brass
A fill-in preacher at the little country church I grew up in once used a phrase during a sermon that has become part of Woods family lore. Referring to someone's brazen, shameless, and arrogant behavior, Brother Wayne exclaimed, "It takes a lot of brass on your face...," to do such and such activity--the details as to the particular behavior in question escape my memory, but the point was that this behavior was worthy of shame, yet the perpetrator felt no such shame. As I sit here on a blustery spring day, having posted last week about the wonder of springtime, the pastor's words come back to me when I consider the silliness of the current debate over global warming.
Indeed, it does take a lot of brass on Al Gore's face to promote his Chicken Little global warming hysteria, all the while consuming more fossil fuels for his own extravagant lifestyle in a month than most of us consume in a year. His behavior is typical of liberal elitists quick to impose limits on others that they themselves feel free to flaunt. Prince Albert wants to force me to drive an electric golf cart to work, while he travels with a fleet of SUVs. Rosie O'Donnell wants to take away my right to own a firearm, while employing an armed bodyguard for herself. Supreme Court Justice David Souter thinks it's fine for local government to condemn private property for the benefit of politically-connected developers, unless it is his own home in question. Hillary Clinton opposes all school choice legislation, while choosing Sidwell Friends for her own daughter's education. These liberals are so compassionate they're willing to give the shirt off SOMEONE ELSE'S back.
When I reflect, either from empirical observation or from a Biblical perspective, on the ability of man to alter and mold the world, then the breathtaking arrogance of global warming fanatics becomes painfully obvious. I remember well a 1970s National Geographic cover article on "The Coming Ice Age," and it wasn't so long ago that the cataclysm du jour was fear of "nuclear winter." These poor souls lack a sense of context and perspective of our place in the cosmos, and they can't even be intellectually honest over the course of a generation. The truth is that the sum total of all the energy produced and used by mankind since the time of Christ is less than the energy production of the sun in one year's time. To think that the nuances of man's interaction with his environment can compare in the least with the magnitude of the titanic forces at work in the universe is absolutely ludicrous.
Consider the energy required to produce the rotation of the earth and other planets in the solar system. I've never read any research expressing such energy in quantifiable terms, but I do know, for example, that all the nuclear test explosions ever done, both atmospheric and underground, have never managed to measurably affect the earth's rotation one iota. Likewise, the routine pattern of the ocean's currents and tides causes barrier islands on the East Coast to constantly erode and shift, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Corps of Engineers to alter Nature's course. Lots of folks in Jackson can attest to Nature's ability to beat down the handiwork of man.
Meanwhile, the anarchists and nihilists and mindless pop culture followers praise the culture of pre-Industrial Age civilization, willingly paying extra for "organic" foods and avoiding vaccinations for their children. What a wasteful and foolish and intellectually inconsistent practice! If not for the advances of Western society, infant mortality would be 40%, folks would die from appendicitis and strep throat, and untold human sorrow, suffering, poverty, and squalor would be the order of the day. These people have discarded a foundational human absolute truth--the supremacy of the value of human life. It is the abandonment of that principle which allows for the foolishness of the liberal elite. Notice, for instance, the emphasis of their propaganda, not on lives, but on "Mother Earth," and the use of such words as "protect" and "delicate" and "balance" to indicate how precarious is our plight. Such folks would be laughable if they did not pose such a danger to our culture. In fact, it is not our earth which is in need of our protection, but rather it is the Western society that has nurtured the incredible progress of the last three hundred years. This society has been the cradle of boundless advances in public health, as well as individual freedom and liberty, and it is under attack.
I've used a couple of empirical observations to make my points above, but there is also a Scriptural basis for my position. It is from Scripture that we derive our emphasis on the absolute value of human life. Life is so precious that our Deity sacrificed Himself for ours. Moreover, from Genesis mankind was given dominion over and stewardship of the earth. The Apostle Paul admonishes us in Colossians 3:2 to "Set your minds on things above, not earthly things."
None of this is to diminish the wonder, beauty, and value of the earth, and all of Creation is indeed "good." We are without doubt responsible to be good stewards of the world and its resources. However, today's cultural elites are leading us down a dangerous path that threatens, in its emphasis, to erode those institutions which have improved countless human lives. Let us stand up with loving and reasoned opposition to the misguided cultural elites who indeed have "a lot of brass" on their faces.
Indeed, it does take a lot of brass on Al Gore's face to promote his Chicken Little global warming hysteria, all the while consuming more fossil fuels for his own extravagant lifestyle in a month than most of us consume in a year. His behavior is typical of liberal elitists quick to impose limits on others that they themselves feel free to flaunt. Prince Albert wants to force me to drive an electric golf cart to work, while he travels with a fleet of SUVs. Rosie O'Donnell wants to take away my right to own a firearm, while employing an armed bodyguard for herself. Supreme Court Justice David Souter thinks it's fine for local government to condemn private property for the benefit of politically-connected developers, unless it is his own home in question. Hillary Clinton opposes all school choice legislation, while choosing Sidwell Friends for her own daughter's education. These liberals are so compassionate they're willing to give the shirt off SOMEONE ELSE'S back.
When I reflect, either from empirical observation or from a Biblical perspective, on the ability of man to alter and mold the world, then the breathtaking arrogance of global warming fanatics becomes painfully obvious. I remember well a 1970s National Geographic cover article on "The Coming Ice Age," and it wasn't so long ago that the cataclysm du jour was fear of "nuclear winter." These poor souls lack a sense of context and perspective of our place in the cosmos, and they can't even be intellectually honest over the course of a generation. The truth is that the sum total of all the energy produced and used by mankind since the time of Christ is less than the energy production of the sun in one year's time. To think that the nuances of man's interaction with his environment can compare in the least with the magnitude of the titanic forces at work in the universe is absolutely ludicrous.
Consider the energy required to produce the rotation of the earth and other planets in the solar system. I've never read any research expressing such energy in quantifiable terms, but I do know, for example, that all the nuclear test explosions ever done, both atmospheric and underground, have never managed to measurably affect the earth's rotation one iota. Likewise, the routine pattern of the ocean's currents and tides causes barrier islands on the East Coast to constantly erode and shift, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Corps of Engineers to alter Nature's course. Lots of folks in Jackson can attest to Nature's ability to beat down the handiwork of man.
Meanwhile, the anarchists and nihilists and mindless pop culture followers praise the culture of pre-Industrial Age civilization, willingly paying extra for "organic" foods and avoiding vaccinations for their children. What a wasteful and foolish and intellectually inconsistent practice! If not for the advances of Western society, infant mortality would be 40%, folks would die from appendicitis and strep throat, and untold human sorrow, suffering, poverty, and squalor would be the order of the day. These people have discarded a foundational human absolute truth--the supremacy of the value of human life. It is the abandonment of that principle which allows for the foolishness of the liberal elite. Notice, for instance, the emphasis of their propaganda, not on lives, but on "Mother Earth," and the use of such words as "protect" and "delicate" and "balance" to indicate how precarious is our plight. Such folks would be laughable if they did not pose such a danger to our culture. In fact, it is not our earth which is in need of our protection, but rather it is the Western society that has nurtured the incredible progress of the last three hundred years. This society has been the cradle of boundless advances in public health, as well as individual freedom and liberty, and it is under attack.
I've used a couple of empirical observations to make my points above, but there is also a Scriptural basis for my position. It is from Scripture that we derive our emphasis on the absolute value of human life. Life is so precious that our Deity sacrificed Himself for ours. Moreover, from Genesis mankind was given dominion over and stewardship of the earth. The Apostle Paul admonishes us in Colossians 3:2 to "Set your minds on things above, not earthly things."
None of this is to diminish the wonder, beauty, and value of the earth, and all of Creation is indeed "good." We are without doubt responsible to be good stewards of the world and its resources. However, today's cultural elites are leading us down a dangerous path that threatens, in its emphasis, to erode those institutions which have improved countless human lives. Let us stand up with loving and reasoned opposition to the misguided cultural elites who indeed have "a lot of brass" on their faces.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Refreshed
I love springtime. It's always a time of renewed energy and optimism, and with the coming of warm weather and fresh flowers I always seem to feel better about the future. My outlook on life and society seems brighter this month, after several months of "funk." Maybe it's that my new practice seems to be going well and I've developed a sense of comfort in my new medical practice, and maybe I've gotten over the disappointment of last fall's election results.
Another positive is that the two bedroom beach condo we co-own with friends in Orange Beach, Alabama, is almost ready for habitation again after a two-and-a-half year hiatus due to damage from Hurricane Ivan. Mary Kaye went down last week to oversee some repairs, and she returned encouraged about our building and about our unit and about Orange Beach in general. We had only owned the unit for three months before Ivan struck, and I'm so excited about having a place where we can build memories over time with our kids. We hope to have a family vacation down there (for only the second time ever) in about six weeks. The kids are beside themselves with anticipation: "How many nights will we stay there, Daddy?" I can't wait to share the experience with them.
I've been watching the presidential primary process from a distance, but the critical summer fund-raising season is coming like a freight train, and my interest level is picking up. I view the primary process as really the time when I'm most free to examine candidates and their positions. Practically speaking, with the national Democrats in bed with the pro-abortion lobby, as well as for a multitude of other reasons, the result is that I'll likely vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. There is no GOP candidate with whom I have full concordance of views, but I'm most impressed with Mike Huckabee, the recent governor of Arkansas. Amazingly, he is a former Southern Baptist pastor who entered politics, and came to the governorship after the previous governor resigned when he was convicted of a felony in the wake of the Whitewater scandal.
Huckabee is socially conservative, as I would hope and expect him to be. I'm slightly concerned that he might not fully share my views on the desirability of a smaller and less intrusive government, and I'm afraid he might increase government spending under the false assumption that such spending equates with "compassion." In my experience, government represents the ultimate in depersonalized bureaucracy, and is the antithesis of "compassionate." Unfortunately, it's very difficult to promote that viewpoint in today's society without being personally vilified, and it is the rare politician who can withstand a charge of being intolerant, mean-spirited, or lacking in compassion. Nonetheless, Huckabee is an excellent speaker, a given with his pulpit experience, and he has an engaging and dynamic personality. I'm also impressed that, after being diagnosed as a Type II diabetic a few years ago, Huckabee implemented dramatic lifestyle changes, lost over 100 lbs, and has taken control of his own health. Most folks aren't that disciplined. None of the top tier candidates are true conservatives, and Giuliani has squandered the tolerance of conservatives to his candidacy with his recent comments on public funding of abortion. A Fred Thompson candidacy would be attractive, but Fred is a former trial lawyer and not really a true believer regarding the pro-life cause.
Having wandered through the topics above, I now come to the most important topic of all, and the real reason I'm refreshed. This weekend comes the most important holiday of the year for Christians, when we celebrate the miraculous resurrection of Jesus and His triumph over sin and death. I am refreshed anew as I contemplate His sacrifice for me, and I take comfort in His words in John 16:33: "Take heart. I have overcome the world." If you've been out of church for a while, this Sunday is a great time to get back in the habit. You won't find a perfect church, and if you're inclined you'll be able to find fault wherever you go, but you'll be blessed if you allow yourself to fellowship in a Bible-believing, Jesus-proclaiming church. I'll be going to West Jackson Baptist Church Saturday night for their first ever Saturday night worship service, and you're invited to join me there. Have a wonderful Easter!
Another positive is that the two bedroom beach condo we co-own with friends in Orange Beach, Alabama, is almost ready for habitation again after a two-and-a-half year hiatus due to damage from Hurricane Ivan. Mary Kaye went down last week to oversee some repairs, and she returned encouraged about our building and about our unit and about Orange Beach in general. We had only owned the unit for three months before Ivan struck, and I'm so excited about having a place where we can build memories over time with our kids. We hope to have a family vacation down there (for only the second time ever) in about six weeks. The kids are beside themselves with anticipation: "How many nights will we stay there, Daddy?" I can't wait to share the experience with them.
I've been watching the presidential primary process from a distance, but the critical summer fund-raising season is coming like a freight train, and my interest level is picking up. I view the primary process as really the time when I'm most free to examine candidates and their positions. Practically speaking, with the national Democrats in bed with the pro-abortion lobby, as well as for a multitude of other reasons, the result is that I'll likely vote for whoever is the Republican nominee. There is no GOP candidate with whom I have full concordance of views, but I'm most impressed with Mike Huckabee, the recent governor of Arkansas. Amazingly, he is a former Southern Baptist pastor who entered politics, and came to the governorship after the previous governor resigned when he was convicted of a felony in the wake of the Whitewater scandal.
Huckabee is socially conservative, as I would hope and expect him to be. I'm slightly concerned that he might not fully share my views on the desirability of a smaller and less intrusive government, and I'm afraid he might increase government spending under the false assumption that such spending equates with "compassion." In my experience, government represents the ultimate in depersonalized bureaucracy, and is the antithesis of "compassionate." Unfortunately, it's very difficult to promote that viewpoint in today's society without being personally vilified, and it is the rare politician who can withstand a charge of being intolerant, mean-spirited, or lacking in compassion. Nonetheless, Huckabee is an excellent speaker, a given with his pulpit experience, and he has an engaging and dynamic personality. I'm also impressed that, after being diagnosed as a Type II diabetic a few years ago, Huckabee implemented dramatic lifestyle changes, lost over 100 lbs, and has taken control of his own health. Most folks aren't that disciplined. None of the top tier candidates are true conservatives, and Giuliani has squandered the tolerance of conservatives to his candidacy with his recent comments on public funding of abortion. A Fred Thompson candidacy would be attractive, but Fred is a former trial lawyer and not really a true believer regarding the pro-life cause.
Having wandered through the topics above, I now come to the most important topic of all, and the real reason I'm refreshed. This weekend comes the most important holiday of the year for Christians, when we celebrate the miraculous resurrection of Jesus and His triumph over sin and death. I am refreshed anew as I contemplate His sacrifice for me, and I take comfort in His words in John 16:33: "Take heart. I have overcome the world." If you've been out of church for a while, this Sunday is a great time to get back in the habit. You won't find a perfect church, and if you're inclined you'll be able to find fault wherever you go, but you'll be blessed if you allow yourself to fellowship in a Bible-believing, Jesus-proclaiming church. I'll be going to West Jackson Baptist Church Saturday night for their first ever Saturday night worship service, and you're invited to join me there. Have a wonderful Easter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
