Einstein's theory of special relativity can be boiled down to one observation: That perception of time varies depending on the perspective of an object in motion. This observation would have come as quite a shock to Galileo (who's principle of relativity was disproved by Einstein), however any modern parent would see this as no big surprise. The speed at which one must move to take care of a child and still accomplish all that is required to move ahead in the modern urban world necessarily skews the perception of time built upon years of experience.

Relative to professional adults, a child's life moves at a rather leisurely pace. Even accounting for the responsibilities of school, homework, and family chores, ample time is still left over for social pursuits such as pulling girls' pony-tails, launching spit wads at little sisters, dodge-ball, etc... This pace undergoes its first major change around the time a teenager leaves high-school, and his parents' house in order to attend college and live in what can be referred to as "subsidized independence." Suddenly, in addition to the familiar responsibilities of schoolwork, the student is now necessarily reliant on themselves for tasks previously dependent on his parents; tasks such as buying his own top-Ramin, paying the bills for those Christina Aguilera ring tones, and possibly part-time work at the local Chik-fil-A begin to alter his perception of time. How can he accomplish all that he would like and still find time to attend the killer kegger at I-Eta-Pi?

A more fundamental shift to the perception of time, specifically that left over for leisurely pursuits, typically occurs following college at the onset of professional life. Such mundane tasks as earning a living and making money begin to seriously alter one's ability to hone their skills at World of Warcraft. Of course, time must also be set aside to tweak one's profile at e-disHarmony.com in order to bleed even more time on a multitude of over-priced restaurants, pretentious night clubs, and haughty hotties. It is amazing most twenty-something's can manage to stay awake.

Of course, if one manages to get through all of the adolescent and young adult trials, they are still in for a rude awakening once they finally get married. Suddenly a formerly "busy" person must find time to combine his own pursuits with that of his loving spouse. Sunday morning sleeping-in and hangover nursing make way for romantic strolls to Restoration Hardware. The decorative simplicity of "it's black, I'll take it," somehow morphs into the complexities of "matching floral prints." Allowing time to nurture a relationship as well as accomplishing all of the things previously thought important, no longer seems like a challenge worthy of running the extra mile, but rather an impossibility destined to transform the former bachelor's life.

All this, however, is mere training towards the ultimate challenge awaiting the transformation of child to man: Parenthood. Think of it like trying to train for a marathon by multiple trips to the corner liquor store for cheap beer. You may think you're getting a workout, but the real thing is likely to severely maim you.

You used to wake-up, take a shower, and go to work? Now there is no need to wake-up because you likely haven't slept in the first place. Your shower is more likely to be under drool than hot water. Going to work will still happen, but not before you packed the diaper bag, changed the baby, stubbed your toe on the "Exer-saucer" left in the middle of your hallway, packed some bottles, and changed your shirt twice from curdled spit-up. When you finally get to work -- late -- your phone will inevitably ring informing you that the baby is stuffed up and in need of emergency rhino-suction. Once that crisis is resolved, you tell your boss that he needs to wait because you need to run home to switch cars with your wife because you accidentally drove to work with the only infant car-seat and she is now stuck immobile. Upon returning to work, you realize that you missed your East-Coast deadline and that the Pacific Rim is now beating down your neck to make sure that the TPS reports are being submitted on time.

Your after-work relaxation time at the gym is similarly interrupted by panicked cries that the baby might have a temperature and to please stop at the local Wrong-Aid to pick up the latest advance in rectal thermometer. Finally home at 10:00pm you find baby mischievously smiling at you as if everything preceding that moment was actually some elaborate ruse to bring you home for "play-time," and that nothing what-so-ever is actually wrong at all. After half an hour's rousing game of "peek-a-boo" you've given up on all the work you were going to do at home and even on the few minutes you were hoping to spend reading the day's news. Too tired to even watch the week's installment of American Idol's Surviving Apprentice, you decide maybe you're better off getting some sleep. Once again you begin the ritual of preparing bottles, changing the baby, preparing him for sleep so that perhaps he'll let you get some. By the time all of this is done and your teeth are brushed and ready for bed, you hear the familiar "waaaaa-aaaaahhhhh!" Rushing into his room to see if anything's wrong you again get that familiar mischievous grin, "is it play time?"

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion), then having a baby necessarily means no longer having time for anything else. Throughout your life adding more responsibility seemed to coincide with somehow moving just a little bit faster or sleeping just a little bit less and somehow managing to squeeze most everything in. Children make this careful balance a sheer impossibility. Something's got to give.

Einstein called it correctly: Time and space are relative. The faster you move through your personal space, the less time you seem to have for things you used to think were important. Thankfully, parenthood also brings with it the realization that suddenly nothing is more important that using your precious time for the development and amusement of your child.

In his state budget proposal this week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed one of the most ambitious and sweeping changes ever in the state's social welfare system by proposing universal health care coverage for everyone in California. Modeled somewhat after Governor Mitt Romney's program in Massachusetts, the California scheme similarly mandates insurance for all, but differs significantly from the Mass. model in how it will be paid for. While both governors should be lauded for bringing the problems in the health care system to the forefront of public attention, the plans need to be examined very carefully so that they don't do more harm than good.

Schwarzenegger's plan is based on three major platforms: A.) Prevention, Health Promotion, and Wellness B.) Cover All Californians C.) Affordability and Cost Containment. Each of these platforms is based on a real deficiency in the current system, however many of the proposed plans to solve these deficiencies have some major flaws that need to be addressed.

In his bid to increase prevention, health promotion, and wellness, the governor proposes "structuring benefits and providing incentives/rewards to promote prevention, wellness and healthy lifestyles" through public and private programs. He also advocates "establishing a national model for the prevention and treatment of diabetes; preventing medical errors and health care acquired infections; reversing obesity trends; and continuing the battle against tobacco use." All of these sound like good things, however his proposed budget allocates $150m in state funds to accomplish all this and expects the federal government to match the rest (a theme often repeated in the estimated budget for the proposal). Furthermore he wants insurers to be "required to offer a health benefit package that includes incentives/rewards programs, including premium reduction."

The governor's wellness programs are aimed at reducing the overall cost of health insurance by increasing the fitness of Californians, however their efficacy would take decades to determine while the costs of the programs would be borne immediately. The aim of keeping costs down to ensure the longevity of health care programs and their availability are admirable but likely highly optimistic.

The central pillar of the universal health care plan is the goal of covering all Californians. According to the UCLA health care survey, of approximately 36 million Californians, there are an estimated 6.5 million people uninsured at any one time. The same study, however claims that of these, 1.5 million people are insured within 4 months, which means that they are likely to be between jobs. Of the remaining 5 million: 2 million are those who have the financial means to purchase insurance and choose not to; 1 million are in the US illegally; and 1 million are those who are just above the state limits for Medi-Cal and cannot afford insurance on their own. The governor's plan would make health insurance mandatory, imposing penalties for those who do not purchase a plan and subsidies for those who want to but cannot otherwise afford it.

The issue of affordability and cost containment is the last major component of the plan and it is here where things get the most murky. The governor estimates that his plan will cost approximately $12 - $15 Billion dollars and will save approximately $10 Billion in costs that are already in the system but accounted for out of the general fund. This is mostly payments to hospitals for emergency services provided by law but not paid for by patients, something the governor's office calls the "hidden tax on all Californians." Even if the governor's numbers are accurate and not wildly optimistic, his tax proposals to pay for them only account for about $5.5 billion with the rest to be made up by Federal and local governments.

The problem with this plan is that in attempting to propose a "bold new initiative," many details that are either highly unrealistic or potentially disastrous have been seemingly overlooked.

The governor estimates that only about 1 million Californians are uninsured and here illegally and expects the cost of insuring them to be about $2 billion. The funds to cover this are supposed to be split evenly between Federal and local governments, neither of which have made any commitment to provide these funds. Even if the money were budgeted, it is extremely likely that far more than 1 million people would line up to take advantage of free government health care and the figure certainly doesn't take into account potential increases in the number of undocumented workers.

As for the majority of the plan that is to be funded by the state, Schwarzenegger proposes three new taxes (actually fees in order to avoid the 2/3 vote necessary in the legislature for new taxes) as follows: Doctors will be required to pay 2% of gross revenue (not profits), and hospitals 4% of gross revenue. Businesses with 10 employees or more will be required to offer their employees health insurance, or pay the state 4% of their total payroll in lieu of insurance. The problem here is that both the taxes on doctors and hospitals will be passed on to the health care consumer thus making the cost of care immediately higher. Businesses having to decide what to do about insurance for their employees will be faced with some difficult choices: If a company is just above the 10 person threshold, it might make sense to simply let go of a few employees rather than face exorbitant health care costs. Larger companies who pay significantly more than 4% of payroll towards better health care might find it cost effective to simply pay the tax and shift the health care burden entirely to the state. This will likely become even more attractive as health care costs continue to rise year to year. It would be ironic if in attempting to increase employee health insurance, the state actually ends up causing many California businesses to drop their insurance plans altogether.

Another potentially major draw back from this plan is the likelihood that care could be adversely affected by it. The reason for this is Economics 101: Supply and Demand. The governor's plan establishes a series of caps on insurance costs including a 15% maximum on administration, reduced premiums for those in his wellness programs, and caps on what can be charged for services. On the other hand, many of his proposals significantly increase the cost of care: Mandating that insurance companies accept everyone including the old and infirm, forcing insurers to pay more to out of network providers, and providing low-income individuals affordable coverage. This has the effect of significantly increasing demand (universal coverage) while keeping price points artificially low (caps). Any first year economic student can tell you that this would effectively reduce the amount of available supply (care providers). Rather than ensure that more hospitals will stay open and more care would be available, it is far more likely that this scheme will lead to fewer doctors practicing in the state (as their compensation would be lower) and that wait times for care in the hospitals available would likely increase significantly. Far from simply an academic exercise, this is precisely what has happened in most countries that have tried socialized health care or universal health plans.

The California plan has many positive aspects to it. Insuring all Californians increases the actuarial pool among the healthy and the sick thereby spreading the risk throughout the entire population. While this will necessarily raise the total cost of insurance, it should decrease the per capita cost significantly. Furthermore, if everyone necessarily has insurance, hospitals will be spared the enormous costs of paying for emergency care for the uninsured. Of course, these costs are already subsidized by the taxpayer so shifting the cost to insurance will simply be another way to account for the same money. The benefit will be if people actually use their insurance for preventative care and thus save on necessarily expensive emergency care.

Rather than presenting his plan as a fait-acompli, Schwarzenegger wisely stated that "My proposal is a beginning. I look forward to a vigorous and open debate. Everything will be on the table and I want to hear from everyone. If we have the will - and I believe that we do - we can heal our broken system." The plan as currently presented has some major flaws, but its goals are noble and potentially solvable. Whether or not we have the will -- or the political stomach -- to accomplish a workable universal health care system remains to be seen.

I was recently driving along one of Southern California's crowded freeways when I spotted a bumper sticker that read: "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber."  Just below that sticker, another one read "War is not the answer."  I couldn't help but admire the idealism of the driver who fastened those stickers to his car, yet rebuke the naivete that necessarily defines such a person in today's world.

I admire idealists who would allocate the vast majority of the public budget on social priorities rather than issues of war and strategic defense. I too believe it would be a great day indeed when our schools get all the money they need and bombers would no longer be a priority. The world I live in, however, is not the idealists' utopia where defense can be ignored and diverted towards education.  Sadly, the world I live in is a dangerous one where many an adversary is ready and willing to kill for a cause and undermine the values I hold dear.

War is not the answer? What, prey tell, then is the question? 

How about "should Nazism be the defining world ideology?" That was the central question in Europe in the 1930's and early 40's. Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf  "The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others."  In other words, a fanatic left unchecked will impose his will on those unable to defend themselves.  Was war not the answer then?

How about "will Communism take over the developed world?" That was the major question in the 1950's and 1960's. Joseph Stalin believed that "everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach." Clearly no one told him that war was not the answer.

How about something a little more recent? Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently had this to say on Iranian TV: "If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender." We all hope war is not the answer now, but is "bowing and surrendering" to Iran a better answer?

Of course, war should always be the answer of last resort.  A democratic people should always exhaust all conceivable alternatives before turning to war, however sometimes war is the only answer left short of surrender. As Andrew Jackson once warned, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."  Every generation of American has had to defend the Western ideals of freedom and liberty against some sort of external threat and our generation is no different.

Domestically, American politics are seemingly split down the middle, as almost all of the last decade's elections have proven.  Pacifistic idealism has been characteristically a hallmark of "the left," as have issues of increased social welfare in health care, public pensions, and assistance to the poor.  Pragmatic Individualism has been characteristically a hallmark of "the right," as have issues of increased defense spending, domestic surveillance, and an emphasis on "homeland security."  What often seems lost in the middle, however, is that neither left nor right has any monopoly on truth.

American society is growing increasingly polarized, income gaps are getting wider, and at the same time we are being increasingly threatened from abroad.  Both sides are right in focusing on these problems and neither side is right in ignoring the key issues of the other. Many believe that the lesson of the recent mid-term elections is that America is looking for centrists.  Where are the leaders who can grapple with both the idealism that defines American optimism, with the pragmatism that has kept Americans both secure and the economic envy of the world? 

I have often heard the phrase that "a man in his 20's and not a liberal has no heart, and a man in his 40's and not a conservative has no brains."  I wonder why it isn't possible to have both?  I long for the liberal ideals of pluralistic harmony while at the same time understanding the need to protect those ideals with force.  We must understand that our society can only be secure when those who threaten us recognize -- without doubt -- that we are stronger than they are.

While Democracy remains a right only to a relative few, and the four American freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly remain but a dream to much of the world, I will continue -- albeit reluctantly -- to support the vast spending on defense and weapons of war, for I know that they are what allow me to rest peacefully at night and maintain my way of life.  I will continue thus to prioritize defense while dreaming of the day that it is unnecessary and we can indeed divert our money from bombers to schools.  That day will be a great day indeed, but sadly that day is not today.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while we packed all weak and weary,
Ready for that trip tomorrow, thinking we need just a little more,
While we folded, clearly squeezing, suddenly we started seizing,
Forgot our toothpaste, floss and lotion, ambling for the bed-side drawer.
Just some shampoo, we muttered, reaching for the bed-side drawer -
Only this, and nothing more.


To the airport quickly visit, don't forget to check the ticket,
On arrival, two hours early, the line stretched clearly out the door.
Eagerly in line we waited, toward vacation we were fated.
Waiting with our bags we struggled, waiting, waiting such a bore.
Out to lunch the agents filed, leaving only one, not four.
We'll be here for ever-more!


Finally we made the counter, the agent grinned in useless banter,
Weighed our luggage just over fifty, was not that alright before?
'Sorry folks, I could not say, all I know is now you pay.'
'Wait a moment, perhaps we'll transfer,' tossing clothes all o'er the floor,
'Perhaps we'll switch the jeans and jackets,' what a mess all o'er the floor -
Quote the travelers never-more.


Somehow we made it fit; more squeezing and packing, we managed it.
The agent scowled, 'the plane is full, where you'll sit I am unsure.'
'Only middle seats?' we fume; 'In the back and near the bathroom?'
'We must board now, we do not care, hastily please,' we implore.
'Your passports please, I need ID's.' 'Hastily please, we implore.'
Said the agent, 'one thing more,'


'Slow down now don't be hasty, you still need go through security!'
Another line we spot in terror, oh this process we abhor.
Out of time we sigh defeated, much like chattel we are treated.
'Please make way our plane is leaving, leaving now' we say in horror!
'Don't you care? Been here for hours, we'll miss our flight,' we say in horror.
It's for your safety, nothing more.


Take off your jackets, belts, and shoes, what now we wonder more abuse?
Tossing out our sneakers we wonder when we'll have to show our drawers.
In our socks we await detection. Want to fly? It's for your protection!
'Hold on now you have some liquids,' 'What's that now?' The travelers roar.
'Explosives now can come in liquids,' 'Come again?' the travelers roar.
Can't carry that on no more.


Because some group was wicked, planning to explode the plane with liquid,
We can't take shampoo, make-up, or toothpaste, to carry on no more?
What happens when the next bomb's solid? The agent looked back stolid.
Perhaps then we'll ban all solids too, after all we're at war.
Better yet let's all fly naked, after all we're at war!
Careful there what you wish for.


Careful now and rather brisk, we were told we'd need a frisk;
The agent was a little too friendly, remember how things were before?
Before the terror, bombs, and jihad, all those crazy wars abroad?
We cede our precious rights, and freedoms, shouldn't we ask what for?
All the hassles, waste, and bedlam, shouldn't we ask what for?
Quote the travelers never-more!


With apologies to travelers the world over, as well as Edgar Allen Poe.

My wife recently received a letter in the mail that she is "entitled" to a part of a class action settlement reached in the case of Strugano et al v. Nextel Communications. In her case, Ms. Strugano alleged that Nextel unlawfully and without her consent changed the terms of her agreement by adding a $1.15 monthly fee and rounding the billing on her calls to the next minute instead of to the next second. Rather than litigate the case and risk the vagaries of an obscene jury award, Nextel agreed to settle the case. Nextel paid out up to $55 million to settle, from which Ms. Strugano received $5,000 as lead plaintiff; her attorneys received $2.5 million for their troubles; and my wife received a $10 phone card.

Cases such as these are becoming all too common in the American legal landscape. The tort system now awards more than $240 billion a year, most of which ends up with the lawyers who litigate the cases. The extremely large legal payoffs are not only a consequence of these suits, increasingly they are also the motive.

In May 2006, the law firm Milberg Weiss was indicted on charges of fraud in connection with 150 suspect cases. These cases, in which two of its partners, Steven Schulman and David Bershad allegedly orchestrated "a long running scheme to pay off the named lead plaintiffs in the shareholder lawsuits the firm has built its reputation in pursuing," earned the pair over $200 million in legal fees between 1991 and 2005. The indictment alleges that the firm paid these "claimants," such as Seymour Lazar, over $11 million in illegal kickbacks in order to bring claims to the firm against such well known companies as British Petroleum, Genentech, Krispy Kreme, and others.

In effect, the law firm was literally orchestrating which firms to go after and paying potential plaintiffs to file suit and retain the firm on their behalf. While the settlements of these cases netted over $45 billion in the 10 year period ending in 2005, Milberg Weiss earned $1.7 billion in legal fees and costs. In fact, almost half of the securities class action settlements awarded during this period were brought by this law firm. Far from being a vehicle of justice for wronged plaintiffs, these class action law suits are an industry in which these types of law firms excel.

Of course class action law suits are far from the only legal vehicle rife with exploitation among trial lawyers. In 2003, three California trial lawyers were forced to resign from the state bar after having been found to have violated the bar's ethics codes. According to The Press Enterprise (Riverside, Calif.) the Trevor Law Group and a one-man, for-profit enterprise named "California Watch Enforcement Corp." sued the owner of a motorcycle shop in Riverside for abbreviating the words "on approved credit" (O.A.C.) in a print advertisement. According to the owner, he got a letter from the Trevor lawyers saying they'd accept $5,000 to settle the matter out of court. In 2002, the Trevor firm filed more than 2,000 law suits against auto-repair shops in California for alleged "unfair business practices," usually based on minor technical violations of the Automotive Repair Act that appears on the Bureau of Automotive Repair's website. Most of these cases where then settled with the Trevor Law Group for small sums that the firm later acknowledged made up the vast majority of their income.

Originally designed to allow a degree of legal protection against companies whose deep pockets would otherwise make them untouchable by the average consumer, the civil legal system is now being used to extort firms and their shareholders for large payoffs. The attempt to level the playing field between consumers and corporations has created a lucrative industry for lawyers well versed in these public shake-downs. The Federal Class-Action Fairness law of 2005 attempted to correct the problem somewhat by making it significantly easier to "remove" class action law suits from more easily manipulated state courts to more conservative Federal courts. While certainly a good start, the bill does very little to provide any real disincentive to the law firms extorting millions from American industry.

Those same millions have often flowed generously to political campaigns to ensure that little is done to stem the flow of legal largess. If our politicians were willing to take a stand against some of these corrupt trial lawyers, there is quite a bit that could be done to make it more difficult for dishonest firms to exploit the system. First the system of "loser pays," in use in Britain and many other European countries could be put into place. This would ensure that the tougher Federal courts would make it very expensive for some of these firms if the merits of their cases are questionable. At the very least it would make many firms think twice about filing long expensive cases if they thought there were a possibility that at the end of the day they'd have to pay their quarry's legal fees as well as swallowing their own. Furthermore, the barriers to certification of a "class" could be set higher so that it would be more difficult for a firm to file a lawsuit on behalf of potentially millions of unnamed claimants. Lastly, if we really want to get serious about the problem, we could change the jury system for civil cases so that a professional panel of judges hears these cases instead of much more easily manipulated juries.

Much can be done to slow the rapid growth in legal abuse in the United States. Already the massive legal cost of these cases is straining the profits and in some cases the very business of many major American firms. Most of the companies are public firms owned by shareholders whose values are eroded by the huge judgments, settlements, and even threats of pending litigation. Small businesses, the heart of our economy, can rarely withstand the high price of fighting this kind of litigation. It is important to maintain the ability of consumers and individuals to seek redress for the abuses of industry, however it is also important to defend industry from the extortion and legal blackmail of lawyers who make this practice a living.

It is time to demand responsible tort reform from our politicians. To continue closing our eyes to this abuse could mean losing our jobs and having our salaries paid out instead to some unscrupulous law firm in exchange for a $10 phone card.

We have become a society of freeloaders. In an ever increasing attempt to make life better for the indigent in our communities, we have created a welfare state that has not only failed to reduce poverty, it has actually in many cases made things worse. One of the reasons for this is one of the most basic principles of economics: People respond to incentives. When you provide "money for nothing" there will always be long lines of people ready to take it.

While our economy has grown to be the envy of the world, some disturbing trends have emerged. One of the most basic is that approximately 20% of the population pays almost 80% of Federal Income Tax. Of course that statistic is only part of the story, the top 10% in the US also control almost 70% of the total wealth. Why have things become so skewed?

First the obvious: Working and earning a living is difficult. If money is offered to people so that they can survive without needing to go through the trouble of finding, keeping, and working a job then rest assured, many will do just that. Worse, the "crutch" provided by this assistance serves as a disincentive to work and serves to exacerbate the number of poor. Rather than functioning as temporary assistance, these programs become welfare for life.

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French author and statesman that famously traveled and commented on American life in 1831, wrote a "Memoir on Pauperism" arguing against "the trap" of public relief. Chief among de Tocqueville's concerns are the unforeseen consequences of the good intentions that inspire any system of large-scale state-sponsored relief to the able-bodied poor. He argued that the "entitlement" to public charity ultimately traps its claimant in a degrading system, that it produces an overweening and oppressive bureaucratic state, that it weakens the poor's incentive to work, and that it severs the essential moral ties between giver and receiver that exist in private charity.

Though de Tocqueville's work was written 175 years ago, it reads remarkably prescient today. Prior to the 1930's and the Great Depression, there was practically no expectation by an individual that "government" would step in to help if things got tough. The choices were simple: 1.) Pick yourself up, get a job and survive on your own. 2.) Rely on family to help you out 3.) Private and religious charities ran services for the poor. Either way, America had a culture of self-reliance, not a culture of entitlement. Today, it seems that many of America's urban poor believe that they do not have to work and that government will take care of them regardless of the poor choices they make.

One of the most egregious examples of people becoming dependent on government handouts is the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s Section 8 rental assistance program. In 1996, Section 8 made up 26 percent of HUD's budget. By 2004, it accounted for 55 percent, a growth rate of 18% a year!" Today, HUD subsidizes nearly 5 million housing units, of which 1.4 million are through section 8. If this trend continues unabated, HUD will very soon simply be an agency that only pays rent and will no longer have any resources to achieve its goal of making housing more affordable throughout the country.

So what can be done to reduce "entitlement" and dependence on government charity without giving up on the poor? The answer is simple, even if its implementation would be complex: We must require certain responsibilities in exchange for assistance. We simply must change the culture of entitlement to a culture of service.

Imagine how things might look different if anyone receiving a dollar from the government was required in turn, to give something back to society? In exchange for assistance during a tough time in one's life we could require a period of military or civil service. Need help with this month's rent? No longer can you rely on Section 8 for the rest of your life, instead you'll need to spend 15 hours a month volunteering as a local fire fighter. Need help with the groceries? Here are some foodstamps, and please sign up for your 10 hours of volunteer teacher's assistance.

We already have successful examples of incentive structures that work this way. The Army's GI bill grants money for college in exchange for military service. Why not extend this principle to many other forms of federal grants?

John F. Kennedy famously asked at the end of his inaugural address "Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country." If we change the incentive structure of government transfer payments, we could achieve the dual goal of reducing dependence on transfer programs while at the same time creating more involvement within our communities. Why not change the system so that getting public money is no longer an entitlement? Why not demand that able-bodied people receiving assistance provide some assistance back to society?

Currently the only "price" associated with public assistance is the price paid by the taxpayer to fund it -- a price paid by fewer and fewer in order to support larger and larger groups of relatively unproductive citizens. By putting a price on this assistance directly to the recipient in the form of required service, we effectively shift the incentive structure and no longer provide "money for nothing." It is time to change our culture of "rights" and "entitlement" to a culture of "service" and "responsibility" and we will surely see the income gap shrink as more of society is welcomed into the ranks of the productive.

How many of us heard our parents utter the phrase "While I pay the bills, you live by my rules?" This basic trade off of freedom vs. responsibility is de rigueur growing up in the United States. A child is expected not to have the basic freedoms of an adult because a child does not yet have the basic responsibilities of an adult. While this is a normal and essential part of adult maturation, it appears that a similar relationship is taking hold between our government, our businesses, and ourselves.

More and more we are abdicating our freedom to make decisions affecting our households to legislatures who are trying to protect us from each other, and increasingly from ourselves. One case in point in California is the 1992 motorcycle helmet law. The state legislature mandated that anyone operating a motorcycle must use a helmet or risk paying a fine or losing their license. This might seem like an obvious (and innocuous) safety issue, however prior to 1992, many bikers considered it a "right" to ride as they wished without government interference. Of course, driving is considered a privilege -- not a right -- and therefore its regulation is not subject to the same constitutional protections. More broadly, however, the legislature made the case that because society ultimately bears financial responsibility if a helmet-less biker injures themselves and ends up in a hospital, society is entitled to require use of the helmet. In other words, "While I pay the bills, you live by my rules!"

The principal of "I pay, so I must have a say" is deeply rooted in the US. Remember the Boston tea party and "No taxation without representation?" As our tax money is being used for programs that invariably encompass larger and larger segments of society, society is demanding a larger and larger say into personal decision making in order to look after that money.

Once upon a time it would have been an unthinkable affront to personal liberty to demand that a person sitting on a park bench stop smoking. Yet in Calabasas, California it is now a right. The city council decided that second hand smoke poses enough danger to the citizenry that you can no longer light up in public. These rules are not only limited to small municipalities.

In late 2005, a Michigan insurance consulting firm fired two of its employees for smoking. The owner, Howard Weyers, said "I pay the bills around here. So, I'm going to set the expectations." Weyers made the case that smokers cost more to insure and as he was paying for his employees' health care, he has the right to keep his costs down and a Michigan court agreed. The problem is that many factors can contribute to higher premiums including drinking, junk food, extreme sports, and especially obesity. Med ical costs for obese employees are 77 percent more than for normal-sized workers, according to the RAND consulting firm. Can someone be legally fired for simply being fat? Believe it or not, that turns out to be a little tricky. Many states allow the firing of an individual in private business for almost any reason, but a number of recent lawsuits by obese employees have succeeded in claiming protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That's right, according to this definition, 2/3 of Texas adults are now disabled.

The desire to craft policy around minimizing financial liability extends to many seemingly unrelated issues. The battle throughout the Southwest over illegal immigration is often framed in terms of the services provided to illegals from the public treasury. Increased pressure on local hospitals, schools, and prisons is squeezing budgets throughout many states causing many citizens to cry foul. In California, there is currently an uproar over tuition grants for high school dropouts. Many students who are unable to pass the recently reinstated high school exit exam have worried that they would no longer qualify for tuition grants from the state that require a diploma. State Senator Deborah Ortiz has proposed legislation to get rid of the diploma requirement further eroding any significance that certificate may have still had. Of course many California parents are demanding precisely the opposite, stricter standards and fewer benefits for those that don't meet them; once again, "if I'm paying the bills, you had better play by the rules."

This conflict between personal liberty and acceptance of limitations for the sake of financial assistance has been with us since the birth of the nation. Jefferson warned that "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." Technology and increased urbanization have brought us closer together and with that the need to protect ourselves from poverty and one another. As we consider ever more social programs to try and alleviate poverty, we must not forget that with every dollar we spend we are tempted to restrain the liberties of our neighbors and ourselves. In building a welfare state, we truly run this risk of becoming our brother's keepers.

One of my favorite childhood series was Douglas Adams' hilarious satire "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Besides the uproarious storyline and sublime wisdom mottled throughout, Adams manages to capture many of the nonsensical aspects of every day life in a way that really puts things in perspective. One of the characters, the aptly named "Wonko the Sane" at one point remarks: "It seemed to me, that any civilization that had so far lost its head as to need to include a set of detailed instructions for use in a package of toothpicks, was no longer a civilization in which I could live and stay sane." Adams' observation that instructions such as "Hold stick near center of its length. Moisten pointed end in mouth. Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion," could signal the decline of Western civilization now seem strangely prescient.

Trial lawyers, of course, have brought us such extremely important warnings as "Caution, Contents Hot" on McDonald's Coffee; "Do not insert curling iron into any bodily orifice;" even "CAUTION! - Do not swallow nails. May cause irritation!" Warning labels, despite often being so obvious as to be insulting, are mostly a defense mechanism for corporations to stave off lawsuits. The real problems begin when, like Douglas Adams pointed out, manufacturers need to assume that their customers are really imbeciles. Do American Airlines peanuts need "Instructions: open packet, eat nuts?" If you enjoy doing your own gardening and are enterprising enough to buy your own chainsaw, must you be told "Do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals?" Does a packet of gum need to remind you that you should "Put one or two pieces into your mouth and chew?"

Are we, as a society, really becoming so stupid that these sorts of instructions are necessary (or worse, helpful)? The answer, at least in California, is "yes, increasingly, we are."

On May 12, 2006, Alameda Superior Court judge Robert Freedman struck down California's high school exit exam clearing the way for 46,700 seniors who were unable to pass the test to receive a high school diploma anyway. The exit exam, designed to test students at an 8th grade proficiency in math and a 9th grade proficiency in English had been postponed from going into effect since 2004 due to low passing rates. The plaintiffs in the case, 10 students who failed to pass the exit exam, argued that the exam discriminates against poor students and those who are learning English. You mean an English exam discriminates against those who don't know English? Does a driving exam similarly discriminate against those who can't drive?

Judge Freedman remarked that to deny diplomas to students who have otherwise completed high school coursework but haven't passed the exit exam would subject them to "the emotional toll attendant to the resulting disadvantages and stigma." In other words, a California high school diploma is more of a certificate of attendance than any certification of achievement. Of course, if "emotional toll" is now the criteria for judicial intervention, perhaps the assignment of grades should now be ruled unconstitutional as well as it's clear that the "emotional toll attendant" to the receipt of an "F" would result in disadvantages and stigma. Perhaps California diplomas should now come with their own warning label: "The contents herein are not indicative of any measurable intelligence."

Instead of teaching to the highest common denominator, identifying talent, and encouraging excellence in students, the public education system is increasingly doing precisely the opposite. By postponing exit exams due to low passing rates, reducing the required level of proficiency for a graduating senior to 8th grade math, and then finally throwing out the exam as discriminatory, we are effectively surrendering any expectation of performance from our children and society. Rather than demanding the highest scholastic aptitude as the only way to effectively advance in an increasingly competitive global market, we cater to the lowest common denominator. We are more concerned that sophomoric students who fail to grasp the basic concepts of a secondary education not suffer "resulting disadvantages and stigma," then we are that our schools will produce the next generation of global leaders.

If we continue to lower the bar and squander the talent of our brightest to appease the fragile self-esteem of our dimmest, we really might as well surrender and start designing a whole host of new instructions and warning labels. Perhaps your next toilet brush should read "Do not use for personal hygiene," or your thermometer should say "Once used rectally, the thermometer should not be used orally." Wait, sadly those warnings already exist. Perhaps if we continue this "race to the bottom," we'll still be designing stupid warnings, we'll simply be writing them in Chinese.

After an all too short tropical vacation in the Caribbean, this column and its author are back. As I wiled away the week, watching the impossibly turquoise water lap at the fine white sandy beaches of San Salvador, I could not help but wonder "what life would be like if it were run by Club Med?"

Every morning would begin with a dilemma: Wake up early and catch the morning SCUBA boat or sleep in and try to catch a late breakfast by the beach?

Your house could only be built within a few yards of the water and remarkable ocean views would be mandated by law.

Everywhere you go others would smile in greeting and staff would be waiting to cheerily offer their services solely to improve your day.

Luxurious meals would be awaiting your every hunger, offering bountiful variety and favorite staples to tempt any mood. You'd never have to cook in advance, nor clean afterwards. Of course everything would be "all you can eat" and all drinks would always be included.

Every day would offer the possibility of an afternoon nap. Not sleepy? No problem.  Tennis courts, sail boats, kayaks, or archery lessons await your arrival instead.

Evenings would always include an after-dinner show, followed by dancing or a moonlit walk on the beach.

There would be no traffic save the occasional catamaran hurrying off to catch a regatta.

Political parties take note, there are some winning ideas here!

Sadly, real-life can never be like Club Med, however Club Med is increasingly taking on aspects of real-life.

Those of you who have visited one of the illustrious French organization's quaint tropical villages will probably remember a myriad of customs and traditions designed to make guests interact with one another. After all, it wouldn't be "Club Med" without the strange line dancing known as "Crazy Signs." Meals would always offer the promise of new friendships as strangers were necessarily seated together and introduced by effervescent "Gentil Organisateurs" (GO's). You would never know when your poolside slumber might be interrupted by a plastic spider dangling from the fishing pole of an animator provocateur simply out for a laugh. Disturbingly, many of these things that made Club Med the social experience that it was are now only fading memories.

A number of years ago while on vacation in the Turks and Caicos islands I found myself alone at lunch as I had returned late from a dive trip. I was seated at a table that included members of the Paris Opera Ballet company. After some interesting conversation about a lifestyle very different than my own, we all left the restaurant and proceeded to an afternoon trapeze lesson. What sounds seemingly bizarre by the standards of mundane corporate America seemed perfectly normal by Club Med standards.

Club Med has since abandoned many of the hokey yet beloved traditions of its past in favor of a more exclusive and luxurious persona. Many vacationers, Americans in particular, have been demanding more privacy, more luxury, and less forced interaction in their vacations. Reacting to market forces and the wishes of its customers, the organization is refurbishing its villages and offering previously unheard of amenities such as wireless Internet and flat screen televisions.

As we increasingly pack ourselves into denser and denser urban living, are we subconsciously turning away our neighbors and spurning social interaction? Is our over-stimulated modern lifestyle paradoxically causing a retreat into ourselves and yearning for privacy?

Greater than one in eight Americans now live behind private walls in gated communities, as chronicled in "Behi nd the Gates: Life, Security and the Pursuit of Happiness in Fortress America". As Americans continue their hundred year long trend towards greater urbanization, we are finding that we can only afford to live in smaller and smaller spaces in ever denser developments. Gone are many of the homesteads of the rural West. Gone are many of the ranch houses and villas that used to be common outside of the largest of cities. Instead we are seeing the growth of tract-home communities with back yards the size of our parents' porch. Luxury condominiums and town homes have become the new status symbol of the young urban professional replacing the "land dreams" of previous generations.

Much like our home lives are ever more separated from one another, so too are we demanding of our vacations. Instead of desiring the company of friendly strangers to share in the celebration of leisure, we view our own privacy as paramount and company as bothersome. In desiring the imperturbation of solitude however, we lose one of the simple joys of life: the frivolity and shared experience with those around us. Not only do we lose out on sharing some of the happiest moments of our lives, we also lose the perspective of others' opinions and backgrounds. Without each other's interaction we forget that strangers once meant fascination rather then trepidation.

I, for one, would like to see the old Club Med return and with it a renewed desire to meet and learn from those around us. Every day life could use a little "Club Med" in it instead of endless political-correctness and fear of offense. Our society could use a little bit more intermingling and animation and a little less of fences and suburban fortresses. After all, wouldn't it be boring if by secluding ourselves we never have the chance to converse with a prima-ballerina?

"Enjoy life. Slow down. Kick back. Relax now. Let our minds drift away, a time to rest or a time to play..."

Though this column delves into topics as varied as society, economics, and politics, on occasion topics of entertainment sufficiently bleed into the issues of the day as to warrant comment. One such work is the recently released film, "V for Vendetta." Though somewhat flawed, "V" presents issues from terror, factionalism, and repression to the dangers of liberal democracy devolving into authoritarian fascism. Presented in a near-futuristic dystopian genre, the film consistently entertains, offering a thrill ride of drama, subterfuge, action and as the title suggests, vendetta.

After an almost hopeless year in film in 2005 that offered virtually no reason to go to the movie theater (let alone view a cloyingly depressing Oscar slate), "V" finally provides a reason to go to the movies again. Released in both the standard 35mm format, as well as a stunning 70mm IMAX cut, the movie quickly draws you in to its Orwellian world of governmental dominance. Produced by the same Wachowski brothers that brought us the Matrix series of films, you know you're in for some stunning sights and sounds.

"V for Vendetta" is, at its heart, a revenge thriller based loosely on "The Count of Monte Christo." It is set in a post-apocalyptic London, sometime in the 2020's. The title character "V," played by a fabulously masked Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith from the Matrix) sets out to exact vengeance on senior members of a repressive government regime while in the process, setting the people of England free from a tyranny of their own creation.

The film begins with the nursery rhyme "Remember remember the fifth of November gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason should ever be forgot." As a frightened Natalie Portman is preyed upon by government enforcers known as fingermen, the Guy Fawkes masked "V," comes to her rescue, instantly sealing his hero credentials. We soon learn that "V" likes to set things on fire, and like his historical alter-ego, plots to destroy the houses of parliament with large amounts of gunpowder. While the new "gunpowder plot" makes up one of the film's primary threads, we seem to forget that Guy Fawkes was not the hero of November 5th, but rather the villain. The original Fawkes was a 17th Century Catholic mercenary hired to kill the protestant English King James I and his assembled parliament. His capture and execution are celebrated on November 5th, not the gunpowder plot itself.

Much like depression-stricken Weimar Germany of the 1930's voting for Hitler, a terror ravaged Britain voted for its own brand of fascists vowing to restore "order and security." The protagonist "V," soon to be joined by the ever talented Natalie Portman as "Evie" remind us how quickly we can lose the freedoms and liberties we enjoy if we fall prey to fear and mistrust. Unfortunately, the Wachowski brothers chose to put the source of the fear and mistrust that drove Britain to fascist madness as -- have you guessed it yet? -- the United States. America is shown (briefly) in the film to be in the midst of a bloody civil war rendering us impotent to do anything for our erstwhile cousins in Britain. The reason for all this global uneasiness? "America's War," mentioned as background images of the US Military in Iraq flash by, created a world of utter chaos and terror causing Western society to all but fall apart.

"V's" vendetta against the government for what they have done to him personally, as well as society at large, turns him into a rather likable terrorist. Therein lies the other problem with this film. As the New York Times wonders, "Is the man in the mask who wants to make Parliament go boom Osama bin Laden or Patrick Henry?" The audience find themselves rooting for "V" as he kills and maims both the guilty alongside the innocent in plenty of wanton violence designed to "wake up" the people at large. One man's terrorist has always been another man's freedom fighter, however the distinction always lies in the guilt of the targeted. The film, originally slated for a November 5th release, was ironically delayed because of the London tube bombings of the time.

Despite its obvious political overtones, "V for Vendetta" is recommended for its thought provoking themes, clever dialog, and stunning visuals. It is unfortunate, however, that the film's themes are often paradoxical and only serve to reinforce a uniquely Western self-loathing introspection. Following the movie I couldn't help but think that it was important for them to make the point that America was immobilized by civil war and therefore unable to come to the rescue. After all, the America of today would never stand idly by and allow Europe to fall into totalitarian chaos. Three times in the twentieth century we intervened to prevent just that.

One of the aspects that sets Western societies apart from the rest of the world is that we are able to look at our own faults and learn from them. To us, this is an integral part of our political and sociological heritage. To many others, notably in the Islamic world, admitting fault or internal problems is a loss of face and thus tantamount to suicide and loss of power. Let us not forget that combating intolerance and fighting for liberal pluralism is precisely how we must defend our way of life. "V for Vendetta" rightly points out that eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty (Thomas Jefferson), but gets lost in not recognizing that that is precisely what America is doing today.

According to the California Association of Realtors (CAR), California ranks last in the US in housing affordability.  Read differently, this means that California has the highest housing prices -- on average -- of anywhere in the United States. This is certainly no surprise if you are a resident of California.  CAR reports that "as a whole, only 18% of California residents could afford to purchase the median-priced $495,400 home, down 3% from a year earlier, and buyers had to earn $115,910 annually to qualify for a standard mortgage loan."

Using some quick, back-of-the-envelope type calculations: A couple earning $115,910 (the figure CAR says is needed to buy the Median home in California) takes home about $6,300 per month after taxes. A $400,000 mortgage, fixed at 6% for 30 years would require a monthly payment of approximately $2,400. Add to that the roughly 1.8% in property taxes and Mello-Roos that most new home buyers have to pay and you need an additional $800 per month.

This means that a couple earning $115k per year would be spending about half their income on mortgage and property taxes. But wait a second, according to the California Dept. of Finance, the median California household income is $49,320 or 42% of what is necessary to buy the median California house.  In fact, according to The Hoover Digest, if your household makes more then $100,000 in California, you're in the top 11% of income earners!  Of course, this is also assuming that you can come up with the $100,000 or so you need for a down payment.

Few first time buyers have the $100,000 necessary for a down payment for a traditional 80% mortgage.  What can a family in this position do?  If you listen to the mortgage advertisements you find out that you can take a 0% down loan!  What does this mean?  Essentially that you take a traditional loan for 80% of your home's value and a "second" mortgage for the remaining 20%.  Of course, interest rates for "seconds" run about 2 points higher than firsts and tend to amortize over 15 years, not 30. Therefore, taking a "second" for that $100,000 you need approximately an additional $1,000 a month.  This brings the monthly maintenance for mortgages and prop. taxes for a "median home" up to about $4,000 before the family even begins to spend money on utilities, food, fuel, cars, HOA's, etc...

So a family in the top 11% of income earners in the state needs to spend about two thirds of their income on housing in California?  No wonder housing is completely unaffordable to most in this state.  Worse, as more and more families take 0% down loans, or interest-only loans (where principal is never paid back) the risk of default increases dramatically.

Imagine if interest rates go up a mere 2%. Short-Term interest rates are already 2% higher then their lows and mortgage rates must "catch-up" eventually.  The same family who needed $4,000 in maintenance a month, now needs more than $5,000 a month.  What was already a "stretch" to begin with suddenly becomes completely unaffordable and many families may begin returning their homes to the banks.  If this happens en masse, it will make the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980's seem like small potatoes (and that cost about $1.5 trillion).

Unfortunately, the real effects of the housing problem are much harder to measure.  Young people are living with their parents longer.  Couples are waiting much later to have their first children.  Mothers are increasingly unable to stay at home, needing to provide a critical second income.  Fathers often have to work two jobs to make ends meet having less and less time to spend with their children.  Society increasingly has to foot the bill in programs such as Section 8 (housing assistance) which accounted for a full two thirds of the entire Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) budget in 2005.

So what can be done about this problem?

First, California tax codes need to be reexamined.  Although a savior for many, California's famed Proposition 13 is having the unintended consequence of forcing young home buyers (who can least afford it) to subsidize the property taxes of older residents who have owned their homes longer.  Taxes on builders and Mello-Roos are passed on to homeowner's dramatically increasing the cost of home ownership.

Second, examine housing regulations that markedly increase the cost of homes.  According to a UC Berkeley study, average housing regulation in California adds over $40,000 to the cost of each home. In my neighborhood, the installation of "methane monitoring and diffusion" systems which were mostly a political compromise rather than a necessary safety issue, added approximately $25,000 per unit to the cost.  Many of these regulations are wasteful and unnecessary.

Third, build according to reality, not fantasy.  Housing development is not keeping up with demand in California.  This is by far the biggest reason for the run-up in housing costs as supply and demand dictate price.  There are many reasons to block housing development on environmental, overcrowding, quality of life, traffic and other grounds.  While the nuisances of development are all valid, the net result is that not enough building is occurring and that is causing prices to soar.  In places like Los Angeles, some higher density neighborhoods are starting to appear, but many more will be necessary to keep up with demand and curtail urban sprawl.

These steps may begin to reverse a trend of un-affordability that has grown steadily since the 1980's but really taken off in the 2000's.  We don't have a choice.  The alternative is to see California get older and older as young people are priced out of the market and to other states.  The only people owning homes will be those who managed to "get in" before the huge run ups and protected by Prop. 13.  The high-tech and entertainment businesses that California's economy depends on will find it increasingly more difficult to retain qualified young people as they simply cannot afford to live anywhere near their jobs (or commute on the countries most congested roads).  In short, if California doesn't start paying more attention to our "Housing Crisis," it may soon have a whole host of new crises we can scarcely afford.

When it comes to protecting the environment, I've been called a Democrat. When it comes to protecting the country, I've been called a Republican. When it comes to protecting ourselves from an overreaching government, I've been called a Libertarian. I mention all of this, in the interest of full disclosure, because if we are ever going to begin to solve the immensely complicated problem of health care in this country we are going to have to overcome all of these labels and ideologies and get back to reality.

Before we get into what can be done, first we need to break through a few myths:

1.) The U.S. doesn't have socialized medicine

Medicare and Medicaid account for almost a third of our tax spending on the Federal and State levels (see previous column, Health Carelessness for statistics.) While covering approximately 24% of the population, they amount for almost half of the health care dollars spent in this country. Established to cover the elderly and the poor, Medicare and Medicaid necessarily take the least desirable patients (from an actuarial perspective), leaving the less expensive young and able-bodied to the private sector. In essence we already have socialized medicine, but only for a quarter of the population and operating in one of the least financially expedient ways.

2.) We can never afford to insure the entire population

The U.S. spends over 15% of GDP on health care and yet approximately 14% of the population is uninsured. Most European countries with socialized systems spend between 7-12% of GDP to insure their entire populations. It is true that current Medicare and Medicaid spending are growing faster than our economy and as such are unsustainable. As designed, Medicare and Medicaid take the least economically desirable people thereby ensuring long term financial problems.

3.) Universal health care would create a massive new Federal bureaucracy

We already have a massive federal bureaucracy that administers Medicare and Medicaid. Even so, it is estimated that most HMO's spend 12-15 cents of every dollar in administration costs while Medicare and Medicaid spend less than 5 cents.

In order to solve the health care problem, much of the current system needs to be broken up and reorganized. This means no less than the moth-balling of Medicare and Medicaid, which are unsustainable anyway in favor of a system that can work for everyone. Some basic principles of a new national health care framework can look like this:

1.) National health insurance should compete with the private sector.

Instead of Medicare and Medicaid, we should establish a single government insurance plan that will compete in the marketplace. In order to prevent the current problem that the government insurance only receives the least desirable enrollees, we can pass a law making it illegal for insurances to "skim." By mandating that insurance companies must take anyone who wants to enroll we'll be eliminating the disadvantage that government insurance currently faces. Consumers would then be able to choose between government insurance and private insurance, and competition will ensure that the highest quality of care is being offered so as not to lose membership.

2.) Keep employer funding of health care.

Most health insurance in the U.S. is currently provided by employers to their employees. While many people are unhappy with their health coverage, some people are not. Employees should have the option of sticking with their company's plan or opting for the national system. Some companies have recently been gaining competitive advantage by hiring part time workers and not paying them benefits. Congress should pass a law similar to the "pay or play" proposals being offered in some states. The playing field needs to be leveled so that the burden of health care is borne by the entire economy and not by part. In this way companies who are happy with their health insurance can choose to keep things as is, while being offered a government sanctioned alternative. Companies who choose not to offer health insurance will "pay in" to the government insurance who will then cover their employees. The unemployed will be covered by the government insurance by default through the current tax system. No longer will we have so many "health care" bankruptcies that people are forced into so that they can qualify for Medicaid by losing everything they have.

3.) Keep health care providers private.

The U.S. health care network is, in many ways, the envy of the world. We have some of the best hospitals and some of the best doctors. Nothing should be done to jeopardize the quality of care. The government health insurance will be more insurance, less HMO. Furthermore, people will always have the option of paying more to receive care outside of the system, just as they do now.

4.) Tort reform - Reign in the lawyers

Besides huge administrative expenses, one of the biggest problems with our health care system is the massive cost of litigation. Laws must be passed to shield doctors and hospitals in what is, at best, the inexact science of medicine. Too many doctors' choices are influenced by a fear of lawsuits and not by good medicine. Removing some of that fear will not only bring down costs but allow for universal information systems and other good ideas that don't see the light of day in today's lawsuit crazed environment.

5.) Emergency Care

Some of the most expensive care offered by hospitals is care in the emergency room. Under our current system, emergency rooms are prohibited by law from turning patients away. With a national health insurance we can change that so that emergency rooms can take in those with insurance (which will be the vast majority since all will be covered in some way). In order to deal with the small number who are not covered (illegal immigrants, foreign uninsured, etc.) we can certify "authorized clinics" that can receive these patients at a fraction of the cost of our emergency rooms, thus lowering overall costs and significantly decreasing emergency wait times.

It can be possible to provide Universal Health Insurance to all Americans. Doing so, however, would require breaking through some sacred myths and cherished programs. Unfortunately most people when offered the possibility of change and uncertainty opt instead for continuity despite the problems. As Clinton's failed health initiative proved, it will be impossible to enact such a sweeping change in our system of government without very strong bi-partisan support. Health reform cannot be a pet project of one party or it is doomed to failure. Only together can we break through the entrenched bureaucracy and create a better system for all of us.

Only the rare director or producer in Hollywood carries the weight necessary to be able to create the works he wants without a studio executive vetoing the prospect. One of the few, Steven Spielberg, struck a bargain years ago with Universal whereby he directed 'Jurassic Park' in order to be given the green light to make 'Schindler's List.' Twelve years later, in the last hurrah for his own Dreamworks studio, he does it again, with 'Munich.'

Munich, West Germany was host to the 1972 Olympics; an event best remembered not for great feats of human performance and achievement, rather for the depths of inhuman brutality and depravity. On the morning of Sept. 5, with six days remaining in the games, Eight Palestinian Black September terrorists infiltrated the Olympic athletes' village and killed two Israeli team members, seizing nine more as hostages. Germany had attempted to host an "Olympics of Peace and Joy" (ironically to differentiate it from the last German Olympics, Hitler's 1936 Berlin games) and found itself mounting a hostage rescue operation that ended in disaster. Those old enough may remember ABC news' Jim McKay uttered his infamous words "They're all gone," proclaiming to the world what the terrorists had accomplished.

Spielberg's 'Munich' is not about the terrorist attack on the games, rather the controversial (and unconfirmed) decision by Israel to launch a covert International operation to bring those responsible for the Munich massacre to justice. Based on George Jonas' book 'Vengeance' the story is about a young father who is asked to give up his identity and nationality in order to lead a team that will track and kill the leadership of Black September*.

The film, one of Spielberg's most gripping, is at once as disturbing as it is engaging. The central question in the movie is first brought up by Prime Minister Golda Meir when she states that "every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values." Unable to go after Black September and bring them to trial in Israel, she decides to send special covert groups to hunt and kill them. You watch her wrestle with the decision and eventually decide that the terrorists can not go unpunished for the horrors at Munich. This central equivocation resurfaces often in the main character, Avner, who at first enthusiastically embraces his mission only to later question his actions and their inevitable results.

Spielberg famously stated, in the only interview he gave prior to the opening of Munich, that "We don't demonize our targets, they're individuals. They have families." Therein lies the central quandary of both the director and the film itself, a quandary that mirrors itself on the International stage as responses to terrorism continue, whether the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York on Sept. 11, 2001 or the bombing of a Passover Seder at the Netanya hotel in Israel on Mar. 27 2002. If we try and understand the perpetrators of terror, view them as human with families, and try to understand their causes, all we are doing is legitimizing their tactics and that is something we can not afford to do.

It is a peculiarly Western trait to agonize over one's actions and debate the effect on one's soul. This particularly Judeo-Christian value system rears itself often among the central characters of the Israeli hit team in Munich. Interestingly, the same self reflection, the lamentation of losing one's soul over the potential immorality of one's action is absent from Spielberg's "humanized" terrorists. The Palestinians lament the loss of "home" often, but never seem troubled that their actions might bring about the loss of soul or morality. If Western society is to overcome the current "Age of terror" then it is imperative that we delegitimize terror in whatever form it embodies. We must make clear that for a cause to be legitimate, its proponents must be non-violent; anything less will only propagate terror. Moral Equivalence between terrorism and justice, bomber and soldier can not be tolerated. This is the point that Spielberg's film seemingly misses as it struggles with the righteousness of its cause.

Perhaps the only terrorist planner of Munich not to make it onto the assassination lists is none other then Yassir Arafat, whose group Al-Fatah (the same Fatah that runs the Palestinian Authority to this day) provided both the funding and the orders to Black September. Can Arafat be blamed for continuing the tactic of terror until his dying day? After all the embattled Palestine he lead was no more then a dream until terror made it a reality. While terror continues to be an effective way of propelling a cause onto the world stage it will forever tempt those who wish to die for what they believe.

Perhaps Spielberg should have used another famous Golda Meir quote: "We will someday forgive the Palestinians for killing our children, but we will never forgive ourselves for killing their children."

Munich is a well done film that holds its audience spellbound throughout its 148 minutes, leaving your neck and shoulders sore with non-stop tension. The film is worth seeing as the questions it asks are some of the most poignant of our times. While watching, it is worth asking yourself however what kind of a world we would be living in if terrorists were not brought to justice.

-------------------------

*Black September was named for the events of September 1970 in which Jordan's King Hussein decided to once and for all end the Palestinian violence in his country and brutally expel the PLO, killing 10,000 to 20,000 Palestinians in the process. Prior to this event, Palestinians were fond of remembering the Palestine of the British mandate of 1922 which encompassed the whole of what is today Jordan and Israel. Following Black September, the Hashemite king proclaimed once and for all a separate Jordanian identity that would hear nothing of "Palestine" and sent the problem to exile in Lebanon, thereby exacerbating that Civil war. Only in the 1995 Oslo accords was a resurgence of the idea of "Palestine" brought back to the world stage when Israel agreed to let the Arab refugees of 1948 rule themselves in parts of the West bank and Gaza.

The health care system in the United States is broken. Most who receive care in hospitals cannot pay. Those who can, suffer outrageously inflated bills. Increasingly unprofitable hospitals and doctors' offices have been closing. Even the prestigious field of medicine is drawing fewer and fewer candidates to our nation's universities. How can the wealthiest country the world has ever known have gotten to such a distressing state?

Hospitals in California routinely mark up their services by 500-1,000%. The reason for this outrageous markup is simple: 80% of those being treated at those hospitals can't pay for the services provided. Still, the hospital needs to be able to cover its costs, and in most cases earn a profit. The obvious question therefore, is where does the money come from?

In almost all cases the answer is ultimately the same: "We, the American workers, and taxpayers." How that money gets from us to that hospital, however, is at the heart of the health care problem in the United States. Most health care bills are paid from three sources: 1.) Health Insurance (either paid for by employers, or increasingly privately purchased) 2.) Federal and State governments (predominantly through Medicare, Medicaid and reimbursements for some non-paying patients). 3.) The patients directly. No matter how you look at it, that means we're paying, either through 1.) Less pay 2.) Taxes 3.) Our wallets.

According to the Dept. of Health and Human Services, about $1.7 trillion was spent in the US on health care in 2003, accounting for about 15.3% of GDP. This cost was born almost equally between the private sector (insurance and individuals) and the public sector (both state and federal). Our entire Federal budget in 2003 was approximately $2.2 trillion. This means that, very roughly, we are spending about a third of our budget on health care, ostensibly only for the elderly and the poor. This provides an important safety net for approximately 24% of the population. (39 million people from Medicare and 32 million from Medicaid). An additional 41.2 million people (13.8%) are estimated to be uninsured in the US, leaving about 186 million (~ 62%) insured privately. Put differently, the average American accounts for approximately $5,700 per capita in health spending!

Health insurance is perhaps the most basic of benefits that most American employees expect when accepting a job. The government agrees, providing tax breaks to corporations for offering insurance. Increasingly, however, corporations are hiring workers without this basic benefit. The reason is that health insurance is increasingly becoming a serious distortion to the economies of US companies.

Take General Motors, as a particularly famous example. The company has been losing billions of dollars and recently announced that they will be cutting 30,000 jobs. According to A.T. Kearney, last year General Motors spent $1,500 per vehicle on health care. Toyota, in contrast, spent just $201 per vehicle in North America and $97 in Japan. In short, benefit obligations (which also include high pensions) have made it impossible for GM to compete in the global car market.

On the other side of the corporate spectrum is a company that has been able to compete remarkably well: Wal-Mart. How much does Wal-Mart pay per employee on healthcare? For the vast majority of its workers: $0. Wal-Mart is one of the pioneers of the practice of hiring "Part-Time" work, so that they will not need to pay benefits to their employees. In essence, transferring the burden of benefits back to the government, making it possible to offer its goods cheaper and its profits higher.

In an increasingly globalized economy, the lessons from these two examples are obvious: The traditional American system of employer financed healthcare leaves those companies that generously take care of their workers at a severe disadvantage vis-a-vis International competitors, who have the equivalent benefit costs financed by national health care systems. Companies like Wal-Mart are actually at a significant advantage as they are burdened even less than their competition as they pay very few benefits themselves and bear little responsibility for healthcare through taxation. Their workers often fall either into the social safety net of Medicaid or are forced to purchase insurance individually.

Canada spends approximately 22% of its budget on universal health care or about 10% of GDP. The UK spends approximately 8% of GDP on its universal health care system. In fact most European countries spend between 7-12% of GDP on their health care systems. Most Americans regard Europe's "welfare states" as extravagant. In terms of health care, however, Europe pays far less than the 15% of GDP spent in the US where nearly 14% of the population is not insured at all. This is not to say that the American system is inferior. Quite the opposite: Medical technology and access to expensive state-of-the-art tests are better in the US than anywhere in the world. Ask a Canadian who has waited 2 years in line for surgery which system he prefers and he's likely to cry. Americans pay more for a superior level of service, the problem is that the way we pay is increasingly disjointed.

Whether we like it or not, we must compete globally. In order to ensure that our corporations, and with them our economy, will continue to be competitive in the 21st century, we must level the playing field by removing the disadvantages of our outdated health care system. Our companies will have a serious burden (partially) lifted from them, and an increasingly anxious American workforce will be able to worry a little bit less about where to go when they get sick. This does not mean that the US need enact a massive new Federal health care bureaucracy, or adopt Universal coverage systems like those in Europe. It means that we need to fundamentally reform our system so that it is no longer a patchwork of different payers, leaving so many of us without any coverage at all. After all, we're already paying about a third of our taxes into the healthcare system in the US anyway!

Some suggestions on how to tackle solutions to this immense problem in a future column.

S. Tookie's "Trapped on Death Row"

Sung (poorly) to the the tune of R. Kelly's
"Trapped in the Closet."
Original Lyrics available here.

Four o'clock in the morning
And the smoke from my 'shrooms takes me
I'm stretchin' and yawnin' 'cause I'm about to go on a murder spree.
And a voice yells, "Take everything you want," from the parking out back
Then that SOB disses me
And I shot two rounds into his back.

Now I've got this dumb look on my face
Like, what have I done?
How could I be so stupid to have been here til the morning sun?
Must of lost the track of time
Oh, what was that on my mind?
From the 7-Eleven, went back to my home
Laughed with my friends about it on the telephone

Here I am, quickly tryin' to eat my hamburger
Searching for my french fries
Tryin' to get on up out the door
Then I thought about it some more
Said, "Now what do I do, pray tell?"
Called up my Crips on the phone
Said, "How about the Brookhaven Motel?"
Said, "I think maybe we'll get stoned"
Can you bring your weapons please?
Damn, I've got to get stoned
Hey isn't that the place with all those Taiwanese?

Bang, Bang, shells rang
First I aimed and shot at Yen-I-Yang
Then I turned and smashed the door
Homies aks me what that for?
I said, "What you care about those Buddhaheads?"
Another crack and Yang's wife and kid fell dead.
That's when I laughed as I heard their dying hollers
And now I'm in this dark ass motel, tryin' to figure out
Just how to spend the hundred dollars?

Suddenly I wake up in jail.
It's been twenty-five years of hell
Six years I spent in solitary
I Came out and had an epiphany
Now I wanna work for peace
So I began writing books for children
I'm tellin' them how not to join gangs, please.

Oh hey but wait,
I still say I'm innocent
Dozens of courts have unfairly decided my fate
What have those eye witnesses
got to do with anything, it's blacks they hate
I wrote "Tookie speaks out" to atone for my sins
Which is for founding the crips, not bein' willin'
to use that shotgun. I didn't do no killin'
These judges never cease to make me more irate
I'm gonna walk I figure
Call the Governor, too bad it's up to Schwarzenegger

I'm trapped here on Death Row
No place that I can go
San Quentin is no place for me
They want to quell my speech
I have reformed a bit, I think
If they put me to death
Who will those kids look to for help
It almost is too late for me
Where is that clemency?
I feel really bad about
Those crimes I did not commit
I hear footsteps coming down the hall
I've run out of ways to stall
I think I'm gonna be sick
I've used up my last trick
Ouch, watch out that needle sticks.