Bright idea

Whereas the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution leaves to the states and people issues not found within the U.S. Constitution such as light bulbs, CO2 emissions and global warming, and...

Whereas the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit states from regulating commerce within their own borders, and...

Whereas the "supreme law of the land" clause of the U.S. Constitution only applies to laws made in pursuance thereof, and...

Whereas the incandescent light bulb has served the world well since its invention by Edison in 1879 as a safe, cheap and reliable source of light and heat, and...

Whereas the fluorescent light bulb contains mercury which is harmful to human health and would be released if broken, and...

Whereas the fluorescent light bulb when used in traffic lights will ice over in snow and ice storms, and...

Whereas the light from fluorescent light bulbs causes eye strain, headaches and frustration for adolescents and self-conscious women, and...

Whereas fluorescent light bulbs, while using less energy, cost more to produce and dispose of, then...

Be it resolved that Texas House Bill 2510, which would allow the manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs within the state of Texas and exempt them from efficiency standards as mandated in the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act signed by President Bush, should be signed by Governor Rick Perry.

Real Social Security

Have you ever wondered how much money is sitting in your Social Security retirement account within the SS trust fund in West Virginia? You get monthly, quarterly or annual balance statements from your other private retirement accounts as required by law although sometimes I would rather not see them. When was the last time you got a statement from the SSA other than the one showing how much your monthly benefit will be when you retire?

Citing a poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research of 1,000 likely voters, The Hill online newspaper posted today the following:

"Thirty-six percent of likely voters believe diverting payroll taxes to personal accounts should not be permitted at all, while 37 percent backed being able to invest either 25 percent or 50 percent. Sixteen percent supported the ability to invest three-fourths or all of one's Social Security taxes."

While 36% oppose any privatization of SS, 53% favor partial to full privatization. Privatization appears to have the green light. Even if the undecided 11% eventually oppose it, there is still a slim majority in favor of it. While women more than men, old more than young, black more than white and Dem more than GOP oppose privatization, the overall group favors it and each sub-group admits the program is in dire straits. More people favor restructuring our broken retirement system than our broken healthcare system which recently realized a major overhaul.

I would actually like to thank the President for floating the idea and signing into law the partial privatization of the program. He essentially did as much by reducing the historical 6.2% payroll tax to 4.2%. I will set aside that extra 2% in my personal retirement account, and I highly recommend everyone do so for two reasons. First, this tax cut is slated to expire at the end of the year, so if you are spending it, you will have to readjust your lifestyle. Second, depending on your age, it may be the only portion of that "tax" you ever get to spend in your retirement because all trust fund "profits", when there were any, were spent in the general budget in exchange for I.O.U.'s, and, as the same article noted, that same trust fund was in the red last year for the first time. By the way, those I.O.U.'s, or unfunded liabilities, amount to $17.5 trillion as of 2009 according to its trustees.

Yes. Private accounts do run the risk of losing money; many people were reminded of that 2-3 years ago in the crash of 2008. If you were less than 5 years from retirement, that was financially devastating. However, all ideas put forth so far plan to privatize accounts, even partially, only for those 55 or younger.

Private account balances may rise and fall, but at least that money really exists and will belong to you, not to your children and grandchildren who have yet to earn it.

Oldy but goody

Which of the following legally-binding statements is easier to understand?

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press."

or

"Conditions Based on Health Status Factor.-If any of the conditions for obtaining a premium discount or rebate or other reward for participation in a wellness program is based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health status factor, such wellness program shall not violate this section if the requirements of paragraph (3) are complied with."

The first statement is from the Constitution, specifically the first amendment. It was transmitted to the states by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified effective December 15, 1791, nearly 2 years and 3 months later. The people and their elected representatives had plenty of time to understand this new law.

The second statement is from Part 1, Subpart 1, Section 2705(j)(1)(C) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or H.R. 3590. It was introduced in the House on September 17, 2009, passed in the House on October 8, 2009, passed in the Senate on December 24, 2009 and signed into law on March 23, 2010, slightly over 6 months later. The people and their elected representatives had little time to understand this new law.

While the latter statement is not impossible to understand, new terms are introduced such as wellness program and health status factor. Where are these terms defined? Does the definition change with the times or at the secretary's discretion? What are the requirements of paragraph (3)? Given enough time and some legal aid, I could understand what the latter means to me, my neighbor, the insurance industry and/or my state, but I immediately understand the plain language of the former.

According to Washington Post's Ezra Klein, however, "nobody understands what it (Constitution) means because it's over 100 years old". What does age have to do with it? Is he not implying that because of its age it no longer has any applicability to modern society? I contend that no matter when it was written the Constitution, along with its amendments, the most recent of which was ratified on May 7, 1992, is still a modern document because we the people can change it whenever we so desire. We even added one banning booze in 1919 then repealed it nearly 15 years later. It is not up to the courts to modernize it at their whim; it is up to us. If we take no action to change it, then we believe it still applies to modern society.

Yes. The oldest part of the Constitution was written over 223 years ago, but it's not the age of the law that matters; it's how many lawyers you need to understand it. The 200+ companies getting waivers from certain sections of H.R 3590 are the ones big enough to have lawyers dedicated to understanding those sections affecting them. Small businesses, and individuals, without a legion of lawyers will find out the hard way. The beauty of the Constitution is that it was written in such a way that the common person can understand it all by him or herself.

The Anti-bullying Wave

On Thursday November 18th, the Dallas Independent School District expanded their anti-bullying policy to include gays, lesbians and transgenders. That policy already applied to the characteristics of national origin, family background, religious and political beliefs. Although there was no particular incident at DISD that led to this policy amendment, the school board felt compelled to do something in the wake of recent bullying incidents in other parts of the country that even led to suicide. They were smart enough to change the policy before something happened. Punishment ranges from counseling to expulsion.

1. The intent of this anti-bullying policy is to protect students from other students. Fair enough, but what about protecting students from teachers or other staff? The latest case in point is an incident at Howell Public School District in Howell, Michigan on October 20 which features an economics teacher, Jay McDowell, and one of his students, Daniel Glowacki, discussing various issues completely unrelated to economics. It started when another student wearing a Confederate flag belt buckle was told by McDowell to remove it, but Glowacki defended it on free-speech grounds. McDowell then called Glowacki a racist. McDowell, who wore a shirt highlighting one of these recent gay-student suicides, also asked Glowacki for his opinion on gays. After responding that he opposes that lifestyle on religious beliefs, he was ejected from class.

After reviewing statements from all parties, the district suspended McDowell for one day without pay and determined Glowacki had not engaged in any bullying or hate speech. First, I tend to believe the students' story since the district is standing by their decision despite intense pressure from the teacher's union of which McDowell is president. Second, I am quite surprised that the district has not "buckled". The big question is...would they would have stood by the student if their anti-bullying policy had been as explicitly worded as DISDs? Verbal harassment based on sexual orientation is found in the Howell policy, but apparently this did not rise to the level of bullying. What happens when bullying is both someone speaking against the gay lifestyle on religious beliefs and someone who is gay or supports the gay lifestyle criticizing those same religious beliefs? Who is the greater victim?

While the gay lifestyle seems to be more palatable to society, issues of religion and faith are not a buffet. We do not follow a God of our own making; He did not give us the Ten Suggestions. Does the clay have any right to question the Potter?

2. Apparently bullying has morphed from just hitting, or physical abuse, to hitting and intimidation, or emotional abuse. I did on a few occasions endure some physical abuse in my K-12 years. Nobody then could question that those incidents were bullying. I assumed this was just part of life; some people have to physically dominate you to elevate their egos. I did not lodge complaints with the administration but "rolled with the punches" so to speak. If intimidation now also qualifies as bullying, then I spent the better part of K-12 being bullied. While I make no apologies for it, I don't feel any worse off for it 17-30 years later. Perhaps I could wear the victim mantle and use it as an excuse for my many failures in life, but will my boss, wife or kids give me a pass because of it? Is it at least a lesson to do unto others as you would have them do unto you and teach my children the same?

Changes

As I finish my last day as president of the University Kiwanis Club of Wichita Falls, I reflect on this and other interesting things happening in my life and that of my family. I certainly enjoyed leading this club which focuses on improving the lives of the citizens of Wichita Falls, particularly its children.

The club started one new project in December while continuing existing projects. That new project was a Christmas party at one of the poorest elementary schools in town. The students and staff were overwhelmed so much so that the staff helped us at our big fundraiser. We continued existing projects of monthly bingo at the state hospital and concessions for YMCA spring baseball games at Kiwanis Park. We served a record crowd of 12,000+ people and almost a world-record number of pancakes at our annual Pancake Festival in January despite icy weather just across the border in Oklahoma. We also formally approved new by-laws that will guide our club. While I received many thanks for my service, the club is full of self-motivated people that are fully capable of seeking and serving. I thank them for allowing me to lead them for a year.

Another big change is that our church is finally completely replacing the HVAC system in the sanctuary. That work has been needed for at least the past seven years. We elders discussed how we would adjust the worship setting at our meeting earlier this month thinking it would be much later in the year. Well, the contractors had an opportunity to start in the middle of this month to which the building committee agreed. Where we formerly had an early service, Sunday school and a late service, we decided on a two-week trial of one service with a mid-service Sunday school break. After two weeks, we elders have been pleased with the congregation's response to this change which Lutherans tend to resist. Before any of these changes were even considered though, I agreed to lead a new adult Bible class, now one of three from which adults may choose. However, it is now in the rotation on this new Sunday school break which hosted a crowd of 100 people last Sunday. I was a little nervous, but I really enjoyed leading the discussion on the topic of faith and reason.

Last but not least on the list of big recent changes is that my youngest child, Reagan, turned one year old on September 21st. It seems that I enjoyed her company during her first year more than I did Nick or Jenna during their first years. It's not that I love her more than the other two. I simply see how fast they grow, and I don't want to miss a moment. We had a great party for her on the 18th with her sponsors and grandma and on the 21st with her grandpa. These grandparents drove half to full days to be here with her.

Despite these changes, good or bad, we can count on the Lord to stay the same, perfect.

Debbie Specht

Our congregation today formally celebrated the reward of eternal life in heaven bestowed on our dear friend Debbie Specht who passed away a little over a week ago after an 18 month battle with brain cancer. While I reflect on how fully she lived her relatively short 48 year life, the last six years of which I witnessed, I will best remember her enduring faith to which her works testified.

Debbie and her husband Bruce were regular fixtures in Pastor Snyder's Sunday morning Bible class. While Bruce probably commented less than the average attendee, Debbie was not shy in discussing how the Bible verses at hand applied to a past or current phase of her life. One story that stands out is one of her father, Ken Walton, who had not accepted Christ as his Savior. It was her earnest desire that he come to that faith. I always enjoyed hearing her talk because I generally like to hear about the struggles and victories of my fellow followers of Christ. I think everyone has a witness story, but she particularly stands out in my mind as someone willing to share hers and thereby strengthen and encourage me and others.

Debbie always seemed genuinely happy to see me and my family which grew from three to five while we knew her. Everyone knows when someone really cares about you and what you say. Debbie was one of those people. Some people may be more inclined to do so, but it takes discipline to focus on others before yourself as our sinful nature wants to do. This testifies to the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit and her love of Christ.

Debbie also stepped up to be a co-director of our church's early childhood program, Sonshine Learning Center, in its waning months. I think it would be easy to lead something that is growing and successful, but she helped direct a program that had suffered from previous corrupt directors and an ever-increasing regulatory state. While that program was soon closed down, she worked diligently to make the best of it. I remember her specifically telling me that the Lord told her to take this position. While I did not press her on whether or not she literally heard His voice, I was still impressed with the mature level of communication between her and her Lord. It was a great example for me.

Finally, Debbie continued to lend her musical talent to the vocal and bell choirs as much as she physically could well into her cancer treatments sometimes beyond reason. She had every right to stand down and be served rather than serve as her cancer prognoses worsened. We "healthy" members of the body of Christ are without excuse.

See you on the other side, Debbie, and may the Lord bless and comfort your husband, Bruce, and your daughters, Katie and Kayla.

Nanny state

McDonald's is coming under fire for its inclusion of toys, specifically Shrek toys, in their Happy Meals. It's as if they think kids wouldn't want and parents wouldn't buy Happy Meals, and their supposedly obesity-causing food items, unless they included toys.

Although further intrusions of federal, state or local government into the affairs of a private business should raise eyebrows and objections, it's the following paragraph from the June 23rd L.A. Times story that bothers me.

"In April, Santa Clara County supervisors won praise from nutrition advocates but ridicule from many conservatives when they voted to ban toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county. The supervisors gave fast food chains 90 days to voluntarily comply before the ordinance became effective."

Do I conclude from this paragraph that conservatives are not nutrition advocates or that nutrition advocates are liberals? Conservatives do care about nutrition; we just don't care for government bans on Happy Meal toys. Conservatives stand for choice. If McDonald's thinks they can increase sales by including toys in their Happy Meals, then they should be free to do so. Are they forcing parents to buy their Happy Meals or even their food? So far at least not in Wichita Falls. McDonald's can't force anyone to do anything; the state however can force people or businesses to do things or face fines and/or jail time. Conservatives oppose this type of state action.