Abuse, the NFL, and Due Process

Recently, you can't go anywhere, read or watch anything, and not hear about the National Football League and its abuse scandal. Ray Rice knocking out his then-fiancé. Greg Hardy beating up a woman. Adrian Peterson accused of child abuse by disciplining with a switch.

Somehow, this has turned into a societal referendum on discipline - spanking, specifically - and safety nets for abused partners.

This has made the American people into experts on abuse lately. The cynic in me says "This is wonderful," because, in my four years of taking care of abused children that came to the hospital, we were ALWAYS woefully understaffed with people that could properly tell abuse from non-abuse, and do a good forensic exam, or forensic interview.

The civic organizations we worked with for psychiatric care for patients and parents, the police and state who prosecuted perpetrators, were always horribly underfunded.

I see roughly one patient per week in the ICU with serious injury (or death) from physical abuse. But now, we have almost an entire nation who can accurately perform a forensic interview and examination via the internet. No more CPS write-ups, forensic exams, brain death exams, worrying about serum sodiums or intracranial pressures, getting ophthalmology to come in late at night, etc., etc.

The reality is, we have no increase in experts, on another example of America's penchant for self-righteous indignation without education. I am all for the discussion, when people take the time to educate on the situation, American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations, etc.

But most people don't.

And as a doctor who sees this at least once a week, we must do our job to prove that what we see came from actions alleged. If we jump to conclusions, we do the child a disservice. I've seen more than one child come in with bruises consistent with abuse only to find underlying bleeding issues no readily apparent on a routine CBC.

So if people in positions to report or make decisions are going to highlight this, let them truly become educated too. It's better for the child and future children.

Secondly, I have serious concerns about our society over the last 1-2 weeks. "Innocent until proven guilty," must apply in ALL scenarios in this country, or we end up in the same situation the NFL is currently in - creating arbitrary punishments for crimes not properly vetted.

How many people have been exonerated from death row sentences by DNA evidence? Or new evidence? Or findings of police misconduct?

As much as we may feel certain that Ray Rice knocked out his wife, or Adrian Peterson abused his child, we must let the system play like it's supposed to.

Holding second grand juries is scary - because it's almost double jeopardy that our constitution forbids. If you are a strict constitutionalist, you should definitely oppose Adrian Peterson being tried again. Can we suspend or fire everyone in America when a crime is alleged? There are many spurious allegations out there, or ones done in good faith that still end up being wrong.

No, as much as it might hurt us to be patient, in a case like this we MUST be patient and not crucify the alleged perpetrator until the system runs its course so that the system is infallible, and justice without caveat can be served for the child and safeguarded for the next child. Otherwise, we're all just a modern mob with torches storming to Frankenstein's castle.

Finally, as an organization, the NFL has made a huge mistake with Ray Rice. In his case, the system has played out, he was convicted and given a sentence for a first time offender. Then, the NFL made it's suspension. Yes, it was woefully too lenient (IMHO), but when the video came out, you can't, as an organization, go back and produce arbitrary punishment again. That's where Goodell has major problems. he's just made his justice system COMPLETELY arbitrary. No, the NFL must stick with the punishment it doled, take egg on the face for doing it wrong, and set something correct up for the future.

My concern is not the child defended - yes! let's do that. CPS can take Peterson's child out of the home. We have a court system. Heck, it's here in Houston that it's happening. BUT, if America "educates" itself without true knowledge, then we are worse off than before. I'm glad people are talking, but the media needs to talk correctly. And due process must be observed or the next child isn't protected.

FBI Confiscates Websites

A few short weeks ago, the internet came to a stop - at least in some corners - and the very foundations of internet freedom shook because a small group of very greedy Hollywood men and women sought to keep yet another copper for themselves. SOPA became a rally cry, unleashing a firestorm of frustration by the masses who see the MPAA and other media moguls in Hollywood as out of touch, lecherous, avaricious elitists who prey on old women because their grandchildren downloaded a song or two from Pirate Bay.

Luckily, this sortie was repelled.

Prior to this, however, the FBI started a practice that has gone relatively unnoticed but is - in my opinion - just as unnerving ... it shuts down websites for illegal activity with warrants and without waiting for a verdict. A few years back, right before the super bowl, the FBI shut down ten websites that streamed live sporting events illegally. This year, it shut down 16 more.

*Now, I could go on about the morality or immorality of both the act of streaming illegally and the act of shutting them down, or the market forces and the need to evolve, but I will save that for another post...

But now, the FBI has moved to shut down file sharing websites such as megaupload.com. While the FBI used the pretense that the owners are part of “the Mega Conspiracy, a worldwide criminal organization whose members engaged in criminal copyright infringement and money laundering on a massive scale," other file-sharing sites have severely restricted their services - offering only file-hosting - showing, therefore, that they see it instead as an attack on file-sharing.

Which is truly a shame, because if the internet can be a place where the virtual storage unit is liable for what you or I place in our units, that jump to make sites liable for what we say (a la SOPA) is not too far off. And if they can regulate online before a case has even seen court, then how long before they move into the offline world? And all for what? So filmmakers can keep a few extra dollars?

Osama Bin Laden Dead!

The death of Osama Bin Laden was announced hours ago by President Obama, and of course Americans have been rejoicing since.

The story developing about a small assault team of Navy SEALs storming a mansion in the suburbs of Islamabad, Pakistan would make a great Hollywood movie. And the remembering of 9/11 and its victims is well deserved.

However, the president said some truly amazing things in his short speech tonight. First, this tip came to his desk in August 2010 - 9 months ago. Over the last year (basically) that intelligence has been checked, rechecked, and corroborated. Plans have been developed, scrapped, redrawn and practiced repeatedly. Most importantly, people didn't know about it. In a city notorious for leaks, this information didn't.

In the day of 24hr news, Twitter, and Facebook, we want real-time status updates from all our politicians, including our president, about the fate and direction of our country. When things don't happen perfectly, or we take small set backs on the road to large gains, the people (incited by CNN or not) rise up inflamed. This is what happened in the Vietnam war, before the modern US political machine had a decent idea how to deal with 24hr news. President Nixon swore we were winning the war. The North Vietnamese launch the Tet Offensive and lose almost 80% of their effective army. Our military victory is a huge political loss because all people see is massive fighting and casualties in a country halfway around the world that their president just told them was won and on the road to resolution.

This reality cost Nixon the white house, plagued President Bush during his terms in office, and forces our leaders to always caution every success story with words like "it's gonna be a long fight" or "this is one small step in a larger effort." As the election cycle heats up, and people start asking "what have you done for me lately?" we need to remember this - that sometimes (maybe most times) the president has done a lot for us lately. We just aren't allowed to know it.

Secondly, President Obama mentioned he called the president of Pakistan and apprised him of the situation. This means Pakistan had no knowledge of the assault beforehand. Reports of Pakistani presence during the assault are currently elaborated as one intelligence official. This very easily is a euphemism for "CIA contact who is Pakistani."

This confirms how inept the Pakistani government is at investigating, and how strained our relationship is with the lynch pin of South Asia. We need a Pakistan that effectively helps us find and kill terrorists, and puts pressure on China. Without that, United States presence is woefully weak in the Middle East.

The rub going forward will be to see how President Obama works and strengthens the US relationship with Pakistan, and how much leeway voters give him for military and security issues he cannot discuss.

Now, let me join in with all the cheering and revelry:

Selection Sunday 2011

Today is one of the biggest days in Sports, and few real games happen. Crazy, huh?

On that note, here's a crazy view of Selection Sunday.

Get ready to fill out your brackets!

Vietnam's Succession, Part 2

The comment on my previous post ended with,

Everybody sighs, the price is higher and higher. I hope that in the future i won't take a bag of money to buy a loaf of bread.

Quite telling, because we've seen this happen within the last hundred years in Europe and Africa ... and, to a lesser extent, Vietnam.

The price of Vietnam's mishandled and stymied growth is inflation joined with the VND weaking against the USD concurrently, all within a culture conditioned over the last 35 years to distrust banks and investment in their own economy.

"How does this hit me?" you ask.

For example, let's say you and a friend graduate college and start teaching English on this exact date last year (February 9, 2010). At that time, you and your friend are given the option to be paid in USD or VND.

(Now, you might say I'm stupid, and everyone would get paid in USD, but that partially highlights the lack of confidence the Vietnamese have for their currency which feeds into this problem.)

Your salary would be $8 USD/hr and your friend's 147,759.884 VND/hr at the exchange rate of 18469.9855 VND per USD on Feb. 9, 2010.

Now fast forward one year later. The exchange rate today (Feb 9, 2011) is 19500.0366 VND per USD. Inflated 5.6% over a 1 year period. Or, in other words, you would still be making $8 USD/hr, but your friend would now be making $7.58 USD/hr.

That slight difference ends up costing your friend about $6 million VND per 40 hour work week which is no laughing matter. Your choice 1 year ago nets you $24 million VND MORE than your friend per month.

I hope you treat your friend to a nice lunch every month ...

The real crunch comes because,
1. Businesses understand this phenomenon so they write their contracts in VND in order to take advantage of the VND weakening against the dollar, and
2. when coupled with the general inflation the country experiences as, on a whole, it gets richer, the common worker has less liquid cash than previous, and
3. 70% of GDP is in Ho Chi Minh City, so although you might survive the numbers crunch in the city, few people unlucky enough to be born/live outside TPHCM will have the money necessary to move to the city for education or a better job.

(All data from www.mataf.net)

Vietnam's succession

Recently the Wall Street Journal published a small story about the change in power taking place in Vietnam.

HANOI—Vietnam's Communist Party reappointed Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung to its elite Politburo at a secretive congress Wednesday ... indicat[ing] Vietnam will likely continue its pro-growth policies. In recent years, that has meant plowing billions of dollars into subsidizing lending programs and other state-driven spending plans to maintain rapid expansion despite bouts of inflation.

The inflation is truly incredible. While in Vietnam in April 2010, I saw a dollar strengthen against the Đồng to heights unimaginable when I first traveled to the country 6 years earlier. Currently the inflation is double digits, and a dollar that used to get you 15,000 VND now gets you almost 20,000 VND.

Worse, it's pinching the populace. A plate of rice for lunch at a street vendor was only 5000 VND in 2004. Now, with the government trying to kowtow to foreign investment and "clean up" its image, the combination of inflation and cracking down on street vendors has caused that rice dish to shoot up towards 15000 VND in many parts of Ho Chi Minh City.

So, for a 33% increase in inflation, a lunch is almost 300% more expensive.

I clearly remember driving down CMT8 towards chợ Bến Thành when a police truck pulled out from a corner alley and two police men slowly moved to meet it dragging a street vendor's cart. On the other side of the cart, pulling with all her might, was a middle aged woman in threadbare clothes, her black hair tied back, shouting curses and crying. Eventually the cops put that woman's lifeline on the back of their truck and sped away, leaving her in a heap on the side of the road.

That is an "open" economy, mismanaged due to lack of competition stemming from nepotism and a flawed philosophy by Mr. Nguyễn who

"encouraged state-owned enterprises to expand into large conglomerates to keep large parts of the economy in Vietnamese hands while the country opened up more to foreign investment. But state-directed lending bred inefficiency and reckless expansion at many state-owned companies ..."

Let's hope this round of government moves Vietnam one step closer to a more competitive government in addition to its more competitive marketplace.

Expensive Health Care

Over the last year, as we in America have been swept up in political wrangling over health care, and the inherent power struggle between democrats and republicans that is ultimately at the bottom of it all, I have had the opportunity to have a front row view. I sat on the board of trustees for the Texas Medical Association and sat through numerous conference calls and strategy sessions with doctors in Texas, the American Medical Association, and politicians in Washington DC.

For sure the problem with healthcare is multifactorial, and our solution undoubtably must be as well. However, a favorite argument thrown out by both sides is the "cost of health care." One need not look far or read many webpages to hear someone opine about needing to reign in those outrageous costs (and his or her solution). This past July, Veronica Gunn, MD, chief medical officer for the Tennessee Dept of Health spoke to us about this and other topics.

The scare tactic she used was common: put up a graph that shows $12.7B spent on healthcare in 1950 and $2400B (yes, $2.4 trillion) spent in the USA in 2008.

"Holy cow!" you say?

Yep. That's right. An almost 188-fold jump in spending. That's like going to McDonalds and wanting a $1 hamburger only to be told it now costs $188. You'd choke then & there - way before you got the hamburger! Anyone and everyone should rightly be concerned about such a jump.

"Why would the hamburger cost so much," you ask?

Well, McDonalds gives you the standard answer: yesterday we made hamburgers, but our board decided overnight to do a couple things. We now have all new state-of-the-art machines for making patties the same size every time, and a super fryer that makes our delicious fries even more so - and healthier! We've also decided that you have to buy your own buns separately - but only the ones we decide for you to buy (and write you a prescription to get) and the bun makers say they have special no-fat buns that taste good but cost a fortune to invent. Oh, and don't forget the new program to give free hamburgers and fries to everyone who comes in without the money to pay.

You see, we've decided it's immoral to refuse hamburgers to someone who doesn't have the cash on them, so we give it out free and charge you more. But don't worry. If $188 is too much, we'll allow you to pay $40 a month (whether you'd have eaten 40 burgers a monh before or not) to another company who pays us, and then you can get each dollar hamburger for $1.

Now, before we hear the cries of "Health care is a right! Eating hamburgers is not!" I want you to put aside your righteous indignation at an admittedly flawed (but I still think decently effective) parable, and follow me to the numbers.

Ms. Gunn said $12.7B spent on healthcare in 1950 and $2400B spent in 2008. If adjusting for inflation according to the consumer price index, $12.7B was really $112.4B in 2008 dollars.
Now, that's still a large gap, but the 188-fold difference that made your eyes pop out of your head has dropped to 21-fold. Crazy large? Yes. Space-time continuum splitting? No.

Now let's adjust for population. 1950 - 152,271,000 people. 2008 - 301,621,157. That increase in spending just dropped to 10-fold.

10-fold is a lot different from 188-fold.

Essentially McDonalds is saying, "Our hamburger now costs $10 a burger, from $1 in 1950. So, pay us $40 a month regardless of the amount of hamburgers you eat, and you can have your hamburgers for $1, plus, we can give free hamburgers out to people who can't pay for them."

Even if you believe ideologically that you should give free hamburgers to the poor, spending $40/month is a lot harder to stomach when the price of the hamburger is only $10 and not $188. The Democrats and certain special interest groups (including many physician organizations) understand this, so they play up the $188 burger. Health care becomes an easy way to redistribute wealth.

[+/-] read/hide the rest of this post

Health Care Reform

I haven't blogged about the health care reform bills going through Congress (nor anything else for that matter) because I've been doing what good medical students do, and have had my head in a book (or my hands inside someone's body) for the last three months now. This probably won't change.

But, as I take a five minute break from studying cardiology, I wanted to share with you this:

The New York Times (7/30, A19, Goodnough) reports that the Massachusetts legislature "failed to restore enough money to the budget to provide full benefits for 30,000 legal immigrants." But, lawmakers did "provide for partial coverage, relieving some supporters of the program, who had feared that the cuts would be deeper." The legislature had "eliminated health insurance for the immigrants, which cost about $130 million a year" in order to cover the state's budget deficit. Now, $40 million will be restored, "leaving unclear just how much care the affected immigrants would qualify for." At issue is coverage for "permanent residents who have had green cards for less than five years." Currently, "the affected immigrants are covered under Commonwealth Care, a subsidized insurance program for low-income residents." Under federal law, "the 30,000 immigrants affected by the loss of coverage do not qualify for Medicaid or other federal aid." But, "Massachusetts is one of the few states...that nonetheless provide at least some health coverage for such immigrants." [emphasis added]

The reason I point out this article is that this is what we must come to expect from any government intervention in health care. If Washington D.C. is going to draft a new health care system for America (and they are), then whether you like their plan or not, you better be ready for this to happen to you sometime down the road.

In any system where politicians decide funding, cuts will come based on what is expedient politically. In any system where funding comes from a government that also funds other sectors, cuts will come based on what is fiscally necessary at that moment. When they are together (as we see in Massachusetts and will undoubtedly see in any national plan), cuts come from either or both of those reasons.

This means that nobody is guaranteed coverage, or the same coverage, from year to year. While yes, some people who may not have any coverage now will be covered, WHAT will be covered is not guaranteed. And for those who have coverage now, the same goes. So, in a system where it's already hard enough to understand what your insurance covers and what it doesn't, how will you feel if those rules change yearly?

That may be palatable now, but wait until you get sick. Maybe this year you can get your medicine, but next year, who knows?

Tea Party Pictures

Well, it's over ... or has it only just begun? Is it begun or began? Shifting thoughts is a flight of ideas ... flight of ideas is a classic sign of bipolar disorder, manic episode. Am I manic? But I digress...

yesterday was my first protest. I guess I am no longer a virgin protester anymore. Quite the experience. I got there about 4pm (the official start time of the tea party) and police/security had already stopped letting people into the plaza. Supposedly, from information on the web, Jones Plaza has official capacity of 5000 people. After that the fire marshall closes it. My only guess is that there must have been over 5000 people there because I could not get onto the plaza.


However, the sidewalks were just as packed. Everywhere I turned people stood shoulder to shoulder, some with placards and signs, listening to the speakers and cheering. Businessmen in suits and ties and women in skirts and blouses stood side by side with rednecks in overalls holding misspelled posters. This was definitely not a one-party, one-socioeconomic class group of protesters.



Eventually my wife and son came to see what all the ruckus was about. By that time people had started to leave, and it was easier to move around the plaza and listen to the speakers. Many people had children holding posters. Organizers passed out petition lists to take roll and set up tables to sell shirts and bumper stickers. Entrepreneurs sold tea bags or buttons.

All in all, a wonderful experience, and hopefully the beginning of continued discontent. Yesterday's tea parties were the rumbles before the earthquake. Three men on the light rail heading towards the protest had a conversation about the tea party and one said,

"the American Revolution started with the Boston Tea Party and escalated to violence in the name of American liberty and values. These tea parties are the equivalent of the Boston, but are Americans ready to take the next step if necessary?"

That is an interesting question.

More pictures:
pic 1 pic 2 pic 3 pic 4 pic 5 pic 6 pic 7 pic 8 pic 9 pic 10 pic 11
pic 12 pic 13 pic 14 pic 15 pic 16

Houston Tea Party

For those of you who don't know, today is a big day. Yes, today is April 15th, tax day, but that has significance for the way we are protesting those taxes and pork.

A grassroots organization, the Tea Party Society, started organizing tea parties -- protests -- around the country in response to the wanton spending that our leaders in Washington d.c. Have done. Not just since Obama took over, but during the Bush regime as well.

Most people's boiling points were hit when the stimulus package was passed. It makes me mad (as you've heard me say) that Obama promised to have every bill wait five days before signing so the public could read and react yet he has kept his promise on NOT ONE BILL.

Also, although $787B of ''stimulus'' was passed, not a single person (not even Mr. Obama) read the bill in it's entirety before signing it into law. In addition, much, if not more than half, of the funds will not be paid out in 2009. That's quick stimulus!

So here we are, over 5000+ strong, in downtown Houston, one of hundreds of cities around the country holding these protests, to tell people that we're sick of this outrageous spending.

If you have time, come down to 601 Louisianna in Houston, Jones Plaza, and join the movement. Visit http://www.houstontps.org/ for more information. Facebook page here.

Pictures to come!
--- Sent with System SEVEN - the new generation of mobile messaging

Combo Breaker

There is sun peaking through the clouds. There is a silver lining in the tapestry of presidential politics. As the presidential race progressed, many people rightly questioned Barack Obama's pedigree, and his history.

After all, this man will be president of our country. He is known to have dealings with ACORN, a local activist organization that has decidedly un-capitalistic dreams. Yet, to be truthful, the extent of his dealings and depth of his personal connection are misrepresented by both sides, obscuring true fact for the rest of us. It's probably somewhere in between what Democrats and Republicans assert.

He also ran on a promise to expand federal housing subsidies, but in Chicago, his federal-private partnership garnered only 11 of 100 points on a federal inspection.

Lest he be outdone by such stellar managing, he made it clear that his lack of managerial experience was not a problem before applying to be the manager of the most wealthy and diverse entity the world has ever known. He has the supreme experience of being a "community organizer," where he stood before others at local civic centers and railed on the establishment, preaching change. When he effected none, he kept going up the political ladder preaching that same message of change while leaving his previous position without any.

But let's not let our president-elect's dubious relationships or lack of genuine leadership experience stop us from supporting his socialist policies as he tries to effect change to this nation!

No! Here, more than ever, we need to put aside our reservations -- genuine though they may be -- and realize that America has done a great and heretofore unthinkable thing. America has chosen an African-American president because it genuinely feels that he is the best candidate for the job.

Imagine what they'd say, if you went back in time, and told a slave on a plantation in 1858 in Georgia that one day a black man would be president of this country. Imagine what you'd hear in respose to your declaration of Obama's win outside a voting line in the 1870s, where black voters were being harassed by klansmen and turned away by an obsurdly high poll-tax. Envision the scene if you walked into a restaurant through the front, "whites only" door in Alabama in the 1950s and addressed a crowd where the blacks all sat in the back, having come through the back door, and announced this.

Granted he is half-black, and some, including your's truly, thinks he showed poor form by divorcing himself from his white side - the side he identified with his whole life until Harvard - and transformed himself into a "black man" for political expediency.

That said, he has still broken a large racial barrier, and done it on a message of hope and change that has unified the country more than anything over the last 8 years. We all, whether we voted for him or not, should do our best to make him a successful president because it will further strengthen destruction of that horrible and artificial wall of race in politics, serve as an impetus to help minority men and women strive to attain high goals (since, yes, somebody has actually done it!), and frankly bring America back to a path of solidarity that will serve it well at home and in the international community. Too much hatred lately.

Now, if only we can do this without enacting broad-based socialist "reforms"!

Does your vote count?

The most ubiquitous reason for not voting that I hear from friends, acquaintances, and CNN, is that "my vote doesn't count." It comes from Republicans and Democrats (and Libertarians) alike. Living in Texas, my fellow Democrats (yes, I am a registered Democrat) complain that Texas will always be red, so there's no point.

First, looking at it along party lines neuters the point anyways. Yes, Eugene Volokh just recently made a very cogent argument for voting straight party tickets, but I would counter that if you can educate yourself on the candidates, you should vote individually instead of straight party because people are complex entities and rarely stand with the party platform on every issue. This is incredibly prevalent today, as Republicans are a hodgepodge of Libertarians who cast their vote with a major party and conservative christians.

Instead, you should look at the elections race by race. Then your vote always matters.

Second, this feeling of voting impotence is so widespread that it feeds on itself and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Just look at Florida in 2000. Clearly, had Democrat voters not thought this, and stayed home, Gore would have taken Florida and the white house.

This year, because of the euphoria of Obama -- Obamaphoria, so to speak -- numerous democrats DID go out to the polls. The result? Let's look at Harris County, my county and one of the largest counties in the country.

5 of 6 races were separated by less than 6%

Historically, Harris county has been strongly "Red." Republicans make up most of the west of the county, in suburbs outside the Houston metropolitan area. The east part of the county is downtown Houston and some blue-collar small cities in the metroplex. It's much more Blue, but never achieves very good voter turnout -- hence the overall Red nature of the county.

In this election, besides the vote for President of the USA, there were 42 contested elections in Harris county with 2-3 challengers. I'm ignoring uncontested races or races with 4+ challengers, as the odds of receiving a majority vote is infinitely small.

Harris county went to Obama 51% to 49%.
Out of the other 42 contested elections, 34 of 42 (81% or 5 of every 6) were decided by margins 53% to 47% or closer. 7 elections were statistically 50/50, separated by mere votes, in a county where each race often garners 600k to 800k total votes. 18 races were 51%/49%, 4 were 52/48, and 4 were 53/47 (and 1 was 54/46).

Plus, all these elections were for the local leaders that impact the daily lives of voters -- arguably making these races far more important. They determined who'd try their cases in civil or criminal court, who'd determine what roads are built or repaved, and how to best lead the police force keeping the populace safe. That impacts more people on an immediate, temporal level, than whether Obama pulls troops out of Iraq in April 2009 or 2010.

So, your vote really does count. Remember this, and take pride in standing in line, clicking those boxes, and submitting your ballot. Yours could be the vote that puts one candidate over the edge.

Long Live Comrade Obama!

Clearly the American people have spoken. Most, nearly 80% purportedly, made up their minds over two months ago. Most in my county, nearly 60% I last heard, voted straight party tickets -- leading to a historically Republican county going 51% to 49% for Obama.

Obama obviously ran the best campaign, so it's no surprise he won. McCain was incredibly and inexplicably inept at streamlining his campaign's points, becoming assessable to the people, and changing direction when the hot topic moved from Foreign Affairs to the Economy.

Secondly, McCain was a very poor debater. Numerous times he had opportunities to pin Obama on vague remarks and wrong assertions. Whether done on purpose or not, McCain clearly never took advantage of these moments and hence never took advantage of the debates.

I can and will go into the interesting points of this election at a later date, but now I want to say,

"Long Live Comrade Obama!"

Presidential Debate 1 Aftermath 1

Well, the first presidential debate is over, and frankly, it stunk. Hence, I picked my butt up off the couch and took my wife out to sushi. Caught the rest of it on the late night re-runs. Glad I didn't waste my time.

In support of something political but a lot more enlightening than either the stumbling-bumbling McCain or flowery-but-without-substance Obama gave us last night, here's a link to a Wolf Blitzer interview of Lynn Forester de Rothschild.

She is a high ranking woman in the Democratic Party who was on their platform committee until recently resigning due to her open support of John McCain for president.

"Democrat Wolf in impartial journalist's clothing" Blitzer is beside himself to hear that someone could actually, logically, support a Republican. Must-watch TV.

Follow the Leader

Over the last month I have been incognito -- stuck inside a hospital learning how to cut people and stitch them up (and perhaps save a life or two). However, this has not been an unimportant month.

Last October, for the first time in history, Vietnam was elected to the United Nation's Security Council. This council has 15 members -- 5 permanent members (USA, China, Britain, France, Russia) and 10 rotating members.

The 15-member Security Council is action central at the United Nations, with the power to adopt binding resolutions, impose sanctions and send peacekeeping missions around the world.

The presidency of this council rotates monthly, and Vietnam has served as president for this month. With less than a week remaining in July, what has happened? Has Vietnam been a good president?

Over the Course of July, violence has increased in Afghanistan, including the most deadly attack in three years. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan does have UN involvement. Where is it?

Hostages were freed in Columbia ... oh wait, the UN didn't have anything to do with that, and it looks like Columbia and the USA may have bent a few international laws along the way.







I will update this as I find information. Feel free to chime in with thoughts.

Yo, Washington DC! Uphold the Second Amendment!

[Edited 26 July 2008 -- Absolute % of murders were transposed. Now corrected. The corrected error actually strengthened my argument. Sorry for the inconvenience.]

That, in effect, was what the Supreme Court said today when it ruled 5-4 that Washington D.C.'s sweeping gun ban was unconstitutional.

Two points interested me:

1. Chicago, IL was one of a few cities that have enacted gun bans similarly tough and filed amicus briefs on behalf of the defendant (Washington D.C.). Barack Obama comes from said city, and has made no qualms about his desire to limit gun ownership if he is president.

2. The writer makes the statement

City attorneys urged the high court to intervene [overturn appellate court ruling], warning, "The District of Columbia -- a densely populated urban locality where the violence caused by handguns is well-documented -- will be unable to enforce a law that its elected officials have sensibly concluded saves lives."

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted."

An astute commenter asked,

What I want to know is what point is being made by saying this statistic?

There were 143 gun-related murders in Washington last year, compared with 135 in 1976, when the handgun ban was enacted

Okay, so they had roughly the same number of murders 32 years ago before the ban as they did with it last year. Of course lets leave out the part about population change, culture change, increased drug usage, higher poverety (sic). This statisic (sic) doesn't say anything for or against guns, it's just a pointless statistic.

My sentiments at first also. However, after reading the comment, I wondered if his and my assumptions were true.

I won't tackle every variable, but I think the crux of the statistic quoted is population and murders.

Contrary to my belief, the population of Washington D.C. has actually decreased since the 1960s. In 1976, the population was 702,000 (according to these data). 188 total murders and of those, 135 gun-related murders (according to CNN). That's 1 gun-related murder per 5200 people. In 2006, D.C.'s population was about 581,530 and 169 total murders (143 gun-related last year). That's 1 per 4067 people.

So, by banning guns in 1976, gun-related murders increased from 0.0192% of the population to 0.0246% -- an absolute risk increase of 0.0054%. A small increase in murders for banning guns? For denying people a constitutional right?

Wait! Wait, you say. Total murders dropped. Isn't that a good thing? Possibly, except that 72% of murders in 1976 were gun-related and that rose to 85% last year.

In between 1976 and last year, murder rates actually ballooned (to a high of 481 in 1991) and then fell to current levels all while the population steadily declined.

My question is thus: If banning guns is so effective, why did gun-related murders rise during the succeeding 30 years? Why did the percentage of murders that were gun-related increase? Why did murders rise from 188 in 1976 to 481 in 1991 before falling to the current level? What happened in 1991 to reverse the trend?

I think the Supreme Court made the right decision today. Now let's find out what D.C. really did to cut down on crime.

The World's Conscience

"If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world, ... The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world." (Nancy Pelosi, US House Speaker, March 21, 2008)

via CNN.com

Tibet and Bjork

Where much is given, much is required

One of the comments in my last post about Tibet basically asked the cogent question, what can little old I do for something like Tibet? With so many causes out there, what do I support, or do I focus on bettering myself?

Well, the answer is not cut and dry. Obviously, circumstances dictate how you get involved and in what you involve yourself. Let's be honest, Joe Schmo no-name can write letters and give money, or educate others (and should), but his direct effect on the leaders and issues is small. His value often comes in addition to thousands of other Joes who together, make a formidable force.

Well known people -- athletes, movie stars, politicians -- occupy a different position. Where much is given, much is required. They often can use their popularity to sway public opinion, or their proximity to politicians/national leaders to change public policy.

Unfortunately, most people in that situation take their money and run. They focus on themselves. They have the luxuries -- the big house, nice cars, fancy clothes -- and give little to charities, and do even less for local or international issues. Those that do should be lauded for their actions and in the hopes that more stars will follow suit.

Bjork is an international music star. Her genre isn't incredibly popular in the United States, but she is well known world-wide, and recently played a concert in Shanghai. Beijing Wide Open relates the story of how Bjork played one of her well known singles -- Declare Independence -- and then shouted "Tibet! Tibet!" and "Raise your flag!" Go read more about it (it also has a Youtube video of her music video embedded). Now that China is putting Tibet under armed lockdown, and people are reportedly being killed, we need more of this, now.

Bjork is now one of my favorite artists, and Declare Independence has become one of my favorite songs.

Here is a video of Bjork hailing Tibet at the end of her performance:

Tibet

the United States of America is an impotent man

Many of you know me personally, and many more know me via this blog, but few -- I think -- know what I feel passionate about. Conversations I have typically revolve around American politics, Vietnam, medical school, or my new son -- those things that most interest those I associate with here in America.

However, when I'm by myself, I think and debate with my soul about other things. Over the years, I have become increasingly more libertarian, and I can explain why to any who want to listen. Most don't, so I have never elaborated. One of the core stakes on which I rest this philosophical shift, is my belief in the writings of John Locke.

It was he, the enlightenment writer, who coined the platform that holds up the scaffolding of our country. His writings were the basis for Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. In other words, John Locke justified the existence of the United States of America.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ... (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

Since 1950, China has ruled Tibet. It has not been a nice rule. Most everyone who learned about the Trail of Tears in school (America's forced relocation of Cherokee Indians from Georgia to Oklahoma) was saddened by what I think is now universally seen as a horrible move. China's occupation of Tibet has been the same. Thousands of Tibetans left their traditional homeland to live as refugees in Nepal and India, while the Chinese government forcibly relocated thousands of native Chinese into Tibet in order to "dilute" the population still remaining.

The Trail of Tears, oil on canvas by Robert Lindneux, 1942; in the Woolaroc Museum, Bartlesville, Okla., U.S. The Granger Collection, New York

Over the last couple days, to commemorate the failed revolution of 1959, Tibetans have been holding peaceful protests inside and outside Tibet, only to be met with police brutality inside, and forced opposition in India.

Photograph obtained exclusively by FRANCE 24 shows burned cars in the Tibetan capital Lhasa on March 14.

..."— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ... (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

The problem with America today is not that we dabble in the affairs of foreign countries, but that we forget our very soul, written in black and white, and ratified July 4, 1776. Instead of worrying about Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel, we should be in Sudan, Burma, and Tibet. If America supported people according to the words with which we justify our existence, instead of trying to mediate squabbles between Jews and Arabs, perhaps we would not be looked down on in the world. Perhaps we would not be seen as hypocritical. Perhaps we wouldn't have terrorist plots.

... "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (Declaration of Independence, 1776)

The problem with America today is ... that we forget our very soul

Instead the United States of America is an impotent man, and those peoples who truly need us, whose situations mirror our own just 232 years ago, struggle against odds, alone.

I encourage everyone to open your eyes. Stop being consumed with your own lives, your worries about where to eat tonight, or what shirt to buy, or why so-and-so at the office is so annoying. I know it's easy, and I get caught up in it too -- only worried about when is the next medical school test -- but awake! Become aware of the travails of your fellow brothers and sisters. Visit sites like Unseen Dharamsala, which chronicle in pictures the lives of Tibetan refugees, or Beijing Wide Open -- the blog of a Tibetan leader of Students for a Free Tibet.

Help our generation's George Washington and Thomas Jefferson realize the blessings we take for granted.

Which Primary 2

every political campaign is a year long game of Rochambeau

Well, the Texas hullabaloo is over, and so are my exams. All that means is I can give you feedback for what went down.

I picked a primary -- Democrat. Gasp! My parent's give me the look "oh really?"...my grandmother claps for joy (it's FDR's party -- the only true party).

I had to vote early because of exams. Early voting was at the Fiesta Supermarket. I got there thinking I could get in and out, and head back to studying for pharmacology, but boy, was I wrong. I was greeted with these views (see pics):

more pics:[2][3][4]

Clearly, I was in for a treat. It turned out to be a 45 minute wait for a five minute vote. Texans were taking their voting seriously.

One funny aside -- situational irony -- I grabbed a shot of an American flag over the "Hispanic" and "International" food isles, with Chinese take-out to the right, as we're all waiting to vote. ONLY in America...

more pics:[2]

For me, the choice came down to three things. First, Republicans had ballot initiatives to determine their party platform. Did I want a say in that? Second, Clinton and Obama were fighting desperately for Texas while McCain had everything pretty nearly locked up. Should I vote in the contested election? Third, most laws that affect us are local. Do I vote for the 18 contested local Democratic primaries or 16 contested local republican primaries?

The answer to the three questions were: 1) yes, 2) yes, and 3) 18 is more than 16, so 18 it is. That was 2 to 1 Democrat, and I registered Democrat.

My vote went to Clinton.

No surprise there. I did it because,

1. Clinton has MORE EXECUTIVE experience than Obama, which I think is necessary if you're going to be the most powerful executive in the world.
2. Clinton was losing to Obama, and I wanted to see her close the gap and bring the contest all the way to the national convention -- which I feel is good for the Democratic party and America as a whole.
3. Lately, with the things Obama has said, and then the stories that were retracted (NAFTA, etc), I see Obama's message of hope as more and more empty -- like a snake oil salesman.

a 45 minute wait for a five minute vote

But in reality, what I've seen is that Clinton has persisted with her "fighting words," and the bobbling-heads of the MSM have jumped all over it.

"It's very difficult to argue that the level of scrutiny of Barack Obama has been the same as the level of scrutiny of other candidates" says the Washington Post.

Will this push her to the Democratic nomination? I don't know. She waited too long to start. I have this feeling that she will pull it out, with the Superdelegates, but with the Florida/Michigan fiasco up in the air, nobody in the Democrats really knows anything right now. I do feel that Clinton is the stronger general election candidate, because I think the Republicans will go mean and dirty early and often. Look at the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Perhaps it was Rove, but I think it's more general. The Republicans play to win, and they will train all guns on the Democratic nominee. Clinton, I feel, can withstand that barrage (and dish some of her own) better than Obama would. But we'll see.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is that every political campaign is a year long game of Rochambeau. He who stands up longest wins.