Why there are 50 states

There is a good op-ed in the Wall Street Jornal today by Arnold Kling entitled "Bill of Health." Massachusetts has made national news this week by enacting a bill that forces everyone in the state to have health insurance, one way or the other. Through a collection of subsides and tax incentives the Commonwealth believes it solved the state's health care issues.

I'll let you read Mr. Kling's discussion, as his explaination of why this bill is completely silly is far better than I would do. Essentially, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay for all of this health care, and it appears to me that Massachusetts has just decided to shift even more of the burden to we taxpayers.

What I actually like about this whole issue instead had to do with the role of State government and illustrates just one reason that the United States is great. Last summer I had a rollicking conversation with several friends about the purpose of State Government vs. Federal government. My point is that people at a macro level move to wear conditions are best for them. I tried to illustrate by pointing out that people moving to an area often choose the neighborhood to move into based on the quality of a school system. They didn't buy that (bewildering to me to this day) they belived people don't move based on econmics (again, bewildering, no wonder they don't "get it." ;-)

At any rate, this health care issue is a great example of why we have fifty states rather than one big country. Massachusetts has chosen, through self government to go in one direction. It might be right, it might be wrong - only time will tell. My guess is that Masshchusetts insurance and or tax rates are about to go much higher, but we'll see. The good news is that in a free country with fifty different systems of state government, we are free to move among these different systems as we choose, and still be bound together by a larger whole, and enjoy the protections it affords. Competition almost always serves the consumer!

New Hampshire anyone?

Rosie's Family Cruise

I think sometimes I get a bad rap from some of my Liberal friends because we always end up spending time arguing about issues we disagree on. Well, every so often I'll freak out one of my Liberal friends by agreeing with them on an issue traditionally "owned" by the left. One of these is gay marriage. Honestly, it has nothing to do with any liberal leanings of my own, but more due to my Libertarian streak. What's funny is that this issue is so decisive in some circles that people who call themselves Libertarian (advocates of freedom) come out against it. I'm thinking specifically of Jay Severin, on of my favortie radio talk show hosts. To be honest, Jay strikes me as a bit homophobic (I could be wrong); however, to his credit, his arguments against gay marrige are based on logic, and the premise that gay people should not be granted rights the rest of us don't enjoy. For the record, I think he should get over it.

The thing that popped this issue into my mind was actually Rosie O'Donnell's appearance tonight on Hardball. Usually, I can't stand Rosie O'Donnell. She typically typifies (at least for me) the screeching, wild-eyed liberals that seem to be so angry that they're totally unwilling to "come to the table" to discuss anything in a reasonable manner. But despite my own knee-jerk feelings about Rosie, the focus of Chris Mattews interview was something that I think is really noble use of her personal resources.

Rosie is the subject of a new HBO documentary entitled "All Aboard," which depicts a new venture she has started called "Rosie's Family Cruise." It wasn't clear whether this is a for profit or a service venture, but either way it's a good cause. Rosie's family Cruise is a cruise ship vacation that provides a friendly environement for gay familys with children. The idea is based on the reality noticed by many gay couples -- it can be really tough to be the child of gay parents. The family cruise is a vacation that gay families can take their children on and be around other families "like their own." I think this is a great idea, and an opportunity for a great positive experience for children who may not feel like the rest of the kids at school.

As for gay marriage, my message for all conservatives is that they should "get over it." The "high ground" on this one is grounded in liberty. This is the land of the free, meaning as long as you're not infringing on other people's rights, we'll take embrace you into our culture. Of course, the flip side of this is gay people respecting the right of others to disagree based on their religion. You don't need to disagree, but those fringe players looking to "stick it" to the religeous types by dancing in chaps in the St. Paddy's day parade....well, you're not helping anyone's cause.

Do you know who *I* am?

Those whacky Democrats! The party who always lays claim to “protecting the little guy,” apparently doesn’t apply that spirit of public service to those who wear a uniform and get paid by the hour. Normally I wouldn’t pick on all of the Democrats for Georgia Representative Cynthia McKinney’s preposterous, but singularly executed behavior toward a Capitol Policeman this week. However Representative McKinney’s pulling of the race card in what is so obviously a case of hubris run wild is so typical of the left these days.

When asked about the incident with the Capitol security officer, Representative McKinney insisted the reason she was pulled aside was racial profiling adding, “"Let me first say this has become much ado about a hairdo." The really sad part of the political correctness movement is that it’s put the scare of the “r” word so deep in American society that it has become permissible for the atom bomb of political insults to be dropped on even the most innocuous of events. Don’t get me wrong, disobeying and even overtly disrespecting a uniformed police officer is pretty heinous behavior.

This Conservative Republican will go on the record and say this little incident certainly doesn’t warrant the time of the Justice Department or the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. I mean honestly, we’re going to waste the time of a Grand Jury on this incident? What I would say is that with all the real negative effect of true acts of racism in the world today, are you, the people of Georgia’s 4th Congressional District really happy being represented by someone who screams “racism” to cover up her own bad behavior?

Lord of War

I've just watched the most disturbing movie. I'm a big Nicholas Cage fan. He often plays either the likable everyman or the quirky but somehow empathetic misfit. In Lord of War, Nichloas Cage plays an arms dealer. His character, Yuri, sells arms to buyers all over the world, all the while telling himself that he is not responsible for the carnage and genocide the weapons he sells cause.

Throughout the movie, Yuri sells arms, especially the AK-47, to countless armies around the world, but especially in Africa. Yuri is thoughtful, even philospohic about his profession, and the havoc it brings to the world. His character is almost "Tony Soprano-ish" in that he is sympathetic and yet horrible. He lives the life we all live, wishing for success, and loving the unatainable beauty queen from afar. He gets her, but squanders the life he's built becuase the one thing he is good at is evil, and fueled by his own greed. The movie is good, because Nicolas Cage is able to humanize the character, but even still you end up absolutely hating this sublime character, and understanding that the world actually does contain people just like him.

This is a thoughtful movie. Especially for someone like myself who fancies himself a "constitutionalist," and supporter of the second amendement. You can't watch this movie and still tell yourself "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Gun ownership is something I admit I am completely conflicted on. It's a genie I wish that the United States could put back in its bottle. In reality you can't though. In our society, if you banned guns, only the criminals would own them. On the other hand, organizations like the NRA which oppose simple checks and balances like waiting periods to purchase firearms are short-sighted. Sportsman and citizens looking to defend themselves will happily comply with controls like waiting periods, because they are honest citizens who believe in the law. Opposition seems nothing more of an opposition sponsored by the corporate gun lobby. There may be points of view i'm not yet considering (yes, that's a hedge). Still, that's the kind of comment you can feel free to hold me to someday when i run for office on a conservative ticket. Guns aren't black and white - they a hard issue that good men and women must make thoughtful, educated decisions on.