New Baby

My daughter gave birth to her third child, third son, on 10/28/09, at 11:39 pm. It's still close to Halloween, but now it's 3 days away for the birthday parties. Of course, it's only one week before his big brother's birthday on 11/4. That's going to be a problem in several ways: 3 days before and 4 days after Halloween, and just one week apart. Who will have the birthday party? Will they share a party? They are 8 years apart and maybe sharing won't be as big a deal as if they were one or two years apart. We will see. It won't be my call in any event and their mom is likely to take the path of least resistance.

There was quite a crowd in the delivery room: me, my wife, Laura, of course, 2 doctors, 3 nurses, and Laura's part-time(?) one-time(?) boyfriend and father of the baby. When the time came, it seemed to come quickly. Contraction. Use it. Push. Harder. Take a breath and do it again. Lay back and wait for another contraction and start over. This time (I have been in on the delivery for all three boys) it seemed to move more quickly. I suppose that is to be expected on the third child, but what do I know? Another contraction. Push. Doing a good job - seeing the head - oh, he went back in. Again. Push. His head is out. Once more, Laura, push! He's out! Just a second or two and he is crying - making a lot of noise. Yes!

Then it came: "Papa, will you cut the cord?" I said nothing - couldn't. I took the scissors - they looked like they were gold-plated(?)! What's up with that? Do I get to keep them? This is what I was thinking. That and the fact that Laura wanted me to hold them and do the deed. It was quick - just a couple snips - but it was a big deal to me. I cut him loose from his tether and set him on his journey into our world. Seems dramatic, but that's what I thought.

He was cute right away. And he got cuter as he turned more pink and got cleaned up. When it was my turn to hold him, he felt just right. What a rush - what a thrill!

Thanks, Laura.

The Flat-Screen TV Kerfluffle

The recent kerfluffle about the flat screen tv's put into the new Moose Lake sex offender unit is pretty ridiculous. Long ago television moved from luxury item status to a necessity in the American home. Those responsible for designing the new facility and those charged with administering the treatment program both agreed that televisions were a necessity in the facility. I an imagine they tried to the televisions that would work the best for their population and for the layout of the facility. I do not believe they would have tried very hard to find traditional analog sets to put in the corner. Even if they had tried to get such a set, where would they look? There are no other kinds of televisions in the stores or available for purchase. What should they have done? Maybe they should have skipped having tv's at all. Of course, that would have been outside the treatment program and then those responsible would have been lambasted for not having television sets for the inmates.

Suddenly, because Ms. Kelliher-Anderson does not have a brand new set in her home, why should the inmates have them? Because the inmates in this controversial lock up program have some creature comfort, the rest of should be outraged. Ridiculous. The idea behind the sex offender program is that some of our citizens have what has been determined as a mental illness or defect that causes them to behave in what most civilized people call perverse ways with other more vulnerable people. Putting them in the treatment program is the alternative to the prisons and is intended to rehabilitate them. While in the program they are treated as human beings - not garbage. Providing them with basic amenities should not offend one's sensibilities.

What we should be doing is looking into the debate over whether confining citizens for indeterminate sentences is actually allowable under the US Constitution. We should be looking for ways to reduce our prison populations - both regular and sex offender facilities. We should be looking into providing basic services for the State's veterans instead of providing television hand-me-downs. We should be putting our money into education so that our citizens have opportunities other than crime and into health care so that our citizens can get adequate care for what ails them, both mental and physical.

The flat screen tv kerfluffle is unfortunately too indicative of what is wrong in Minnesota and in the US.

The Health Care Debate

There seem to be two significant debates going on right now in Congress and on the talk shows: Health Care and Torture. Here are my thoughts on health care:

The health care issue is about access to quality care. It is not about who has the best “Health Care System” in the world. One hears those on the right decrying a government takeover of the best health care system. I do not think that is the issue. It seems to me that we in this country do have the best doctors, hospitals, staffs, equipment, etc., the world has known for dealing with medical issues. The problem is that we have no system for accessing that exceptional health care.

An argument frequently trotted out is that if our system is so bad, how come people from all over the world come here for health care? The answer is they don’t. The people that come from other parts of the world are those from countries that do not have adequate health care. And the people that come here to the Mayo Clinic are among the wealthiest people in the world. Those who have a public plan such as most of Europe, do not come here. The Canadians do not come here. Wait! Isn’t Canada where everyone hates their plan because they have to wait in lines and can’t get good care? Then why are they not coming here?

The other side of that coin is why are our citizens traveling to India and other exotic locations for surgery? That is becoming a big business for India and the care is outstanding and the cost is reasonable.

Those against reform say that the government will only screw it up - that the government cannot manage anything well. These same people acknowledge that In America, we can do anything. I believe that is correct and that if there are significant flaws in the British or Canadian systems, we can learn from them and work around them.

I hear people complaining about putting a government bureaucrat between me and my doctor. I don’t want that any more than the next person. I also don’t want an insurance bureaucrat between me and my doctor. I want my doctor to decide what health care I should have. Right now the insurance company decides if I can get a procedure done, or take a certain medication, or see a certain specialist. My doctor recommends my health care to the insurance company and they decide if I am going to get what my doctor recommends.

The insurance company is in business to make money. Everyone wants health care and most of the people working full time jobs pay the insurance company for coverage. Small businesses and large also pay for this coverage. According to a study done by the Commonwealth Fund, Minnesota is among the states with the highest average premiums, topping out at $13,500 per year for family coverage. The CEO of United Health, based in Minnesota, is among the highest paid CEO’s in the country. The point is that the insurance company does not want to pay for anything that can be obtained at a lower price from someone else, or that can be simply put off. Again, the insurance company clerk is reviewing my doctor’s health plan for me and deciding if I can have the care my doctor thinks is best. And the clerk’s decision is based on profit, not expert medical advice.

How many drugs does we see advertised on television, in magazines, on billboards and on the radio? More than I care to watch. The costs are enormous. The drug companies say that drugs cost so much because of research and development. But many of these drugs are expensive because of advertising and lobbying. I switched from a brand name drug that cost the insurance company $176 per month to a generic drug that cost $10 per month. My doctor said they are both the same thing. And these companies lobbied Congress and paid enough that even Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices on drugs, sticking it to our parents and us.

Many people do not have access to a doctor for preventive care because they cannot afford the coverage. They can’t afford it because they are not working or the contributory premiums charged by the carrier are just too much. It becomes a choice of eating or going to the doctor.

The government has a public option available now to many citizens: Medicare. No one wants to lose their Medicare coverage, yet these same people are manipulated into believing that a public option is a bad thing. In Minnesota, we have MinnesotaCare for those people of low income who would not otherwise have access to adequate coverage. These programs work. And they cost money. But I can’t imagine they cost more than taking care of these people in emergency rooms and operating rooms if they did not have coverage. Our tax dollars are going to pay for these people one way or another. Let’s make it the most cost efficient way, rather than the most expensive way.

Bottom line: The current debate is not about a government takeover of the health care system. It is a debate about a government takeover (or reform) of the insurance system and making adequate health care available to all.

Minnesota Senate Election, 2008

In November and December, I was a volunteer lawyer working on the Minnesota Senate Election Recount in Ramsey County. It was a great experience that required very little of me in terms of expertise. I was told at a training session that I was not there to interpret the law or make rulings about the law. I was not there to make decisions of any kind. I was there to lend gravitas to the room – a presence that was watching what the counters were actually doing. A side effect of participating in the recount is that I feel somewhat of an ownership interest in the result. I have been following the court battle and paid attention to the various rulings that were issued.

The final ruling from the three-judge panel was issued on April 13, 2009, and, yes, I read it. I found it to be quite interesting and well done. Whenever I read court rulings, I learn something and this was certainly no exception. Election law is not my area of expertise, so there was a lot to learn in this opinion.

One of the more interesting issues that the court addressed was the broad issue of absentee voting. We have always assumed that voting is a right to be enjoyed by all citizens eligible to vote. That is still true, but the court pointed out that absentee voting is a privilege and not a right. In other words, everyone is still entitled to vote, but the legislature made it easier for some who were unable or simply unwilling to go to the polls themselves. (Personally, I prefer going to the polls and casting the ballot among the hubbub and getting my “I voted” sticker.) The Minnesota Supreme Court noted in 1988 that “Since the privilege of absentee voting is granted by the legislature, the legislature may mandate the conditions and procedures for such voting.”

Viewing the process as a privilege allows the legislature and the courts to place more restrictions on this than on in-person voting. That is, one must meet the threshold requirements for absentee voting, and if one does not, for whatever reason, then that person’s vote should not count. The court stated that the individual voter was personally responsible for ensuring that the requirements were met. In other words, the voter could have appeared personally and made sure all was done correctly, but, for various reasons, did not and therefore casts a ballot that may or may not meet the requirements. If the ballot or the voter does not meet all the requirements, then that vote does not get counted – even if the error was on the part of the election official and not the voter.

The issue of absentee voting is addressed by the court more fully in the context of the equal protection argument raised by the Coleman camp. The court stated, “…neither the Equal Protection clause nor the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v Gore compel this court to order the opening and counting of ballots cast by individuals who failed to comply with the basic eligibility requirements codified in Minnesota law.” They effectively dismissed all of Norm’s arguments and lauded Minnesota’s election system, the Secretary of State’s office and the hard-working individuals who conduct the elections as volunteers and paid staffers.

If you would like to read the entire opinion, it can be found on the Minnesota Courts Website under "Minnesota Senate Seat '08 Election."

The freedom to steal act?

Today's Star Tribune had an article with the unfortunate subtitle of The Freedom to Steal Act. Senator Mee Moua, DFL-St. Paul, is proposing that it is time to start talking about a realistic approach to criminal justice. Some, including the reporters for the Strib, seem to think this is funny. They suggest that criminals will adapt to the new legislation and modify their modus operandi such that they will get off with less punishment for the same crime that the current legislation had so far deterred them from committing. Really?! My Criminal Law professor pointed out to a class of lawyer-wannabe's that virtually no one knew the penalty for speeding at more than 15 miles over the speed limit. Everyone in class, however, agreed that they automatically slowed down at the sight of a State Trooper or police vehicle. The point is that those who are planning on violating the law rarely change their behavior by thinking of how much time they will do; rather, they modify their behavior according to the likelihood of being caught. Continuing to ramp up penalties does not deter crime. If it did, wouldn't our prison population be lower instead of growing at an unprecedented rate?

It is time to talk seriously about how we deal with offenders. (See also this article from the New York Times: Albany Reaches Deal to Repeal ’70s Drug Laws) It is also time to start looking at reinstating the Parole Board in Minnesota. It is time to return to the rehabilitation philosophy and turn away from the vengeance mode of the last several decades. We can no longer afford to lose our young people to mandatory sentencing with no plan of what to do with felons released from prison at an arbitrary time with no regard to what they are to do when released. A judge could review the facts of each case before sentencing and impose a fair sentence instead of a mandatory one. A Parole Board could effectively and efficiently review each case upon the petition of the offender. If that offender has reformed, learned a trade, has a support system and likelihood of gainful employment upon release, why not gain a productive tax-paying citizen instead of continuing to pay taxes to keep him locked up for nothing more than vengeance?

MSNBC appreciation of my photography!

The Editors at MSNBC.com have selected this picture I took on Lake Superior's North Shore as an "Editor's Pick" in their First Person display of Fall Foliage. We spent a long October weekend in Grand Marais, MN, and thoroughly enjoyed the colors along the North Shore, particulary at the mouths of the Cascade and Temperance Rivers. Even though these spots are right on Highway 61, they appear to be very insulated from civilization. A truly beautiful part of the state.

MSNBC.com has notified me that they have selected one of my photos as an "Editor's Pick" in the First Person report of "Gorgeous Fall Foliage." This is the one they selected: