President Bill Clinton: Lessons for 2008

I hope that you did not see the title of this post and roll your eye's. I would have if this was on someone else's blog. I am already sick of the primaries, and they have barely begun to gather steam. However, I am a citizen of a Democracy; I am morally obligated to inform myself of the issues and vote with my intellect, heart, and conscience.

You are also morally obligated to do the same, by the way. If you are one of the majority of Americans who votes rarely and ignorantly, then shame on you. Americans who do not make an effort to analyze the issues and candidates, and vote on a regular basis, are more responsible for our society's problems than the corrupt and inept politicians we point our fingers at. Whether you hate G.W. Bush or Hillary and Teddy, you can place the blame of their re-elections solely on the fact that most Americans are not informed and/or do not vote regularly.

Okay, I'll promise to quit preaching if you promise to read and vote prior to the elections this year. Deal? I am off my soapbox.

Why I am already sick of the Presidential Primaries: I am sick of the mudslinging. I am sick of the lack of information and the overabundance of hot air. I am sick of real issues being ignored in favor of safer topics, dumbed-down for public consumption. I am really sick of sound-bites and long for one person to speak clearly, earnestly, and intelligently on a regular basis. I detest anything that appears fake or misleading, and that is the feel I get from every candidate in every election. Of course I am over-cynical; but I blame that on the system.

Even so, I have to pick through the B.S. and make some decisions. "None of the above" is not a ballot option, and would not improve our democracy. So I wince, I pinch my nose, and I make an effort to trudge into the mire of 2008 candidates to find one that can do the least damage at least. I hope I will be pleasantly surprised and find someone who I passionately believe will lead our nation to prosperity, freedom, and peace without compromising our strength, integrity, values, or history.

This morning, I was researching a topic for my MBA class and stumbled on an interesting concept called Baumol's Disease. This is not a medical term but an economic term. Dr. William Baumol (PhD) is an NYU economist who, in 1966, defined Baumol's Disease as the fact that labor-intensive industries do not benefit from technological advances. This is important to point out because we expect that as technology advances, we will become more productive and our costs will go down. We see this in manufacturing the most: robots, engineering, and statistical analysis allows up to build more widgets for less cost.

However, as Dr. Baumol pointed out, some industries and professions cannot benefit from technological advances. No matter what media you use, it will always take the same amount of time to play a piece of music. For my research, the author (Bobby Newbell, M.D.) was pointing out that regardless of technology, it still takes the same amount of time for a Family Physician to examine you. There are computers, tools, books, theories, and various devices to assist a doctor today that did not exist 50 years ago; however, the doctor is still limited by one pair of eyes and one pair of hands. In the same vein, as Dr. Newbell points out, it still takes a nurse the same amount of time to change a dressing as it did 50 years ago. The dressing material and chemicals used may be more advanced, but you still have the same nurse cutting, pealing, wiping, and tying.

Baumol's Disease should be kept in mind when we analyze any issue preceded by a dollar sign. Not all costs can be reduced by technology. Dr. Newbell touched on, and Dr. Baumol wrote at length on, the effects of Baumol's Disease on health care costs. They have to rise because we live in an inflationary economy. Doctors and Nurses require more money every year to treat you in order for them to afford the rising costs around them. Health Care can increase the quality of their care through technology, and may be able to reduce administrative costs by using more databases and less clerks. However, it is not possible to reduce the labor costs of health care professionals with our current technology.

Dr. Baumol's professional opinion based on his research (as I understand it from my limited reading) is that the increase of health care costs is inevitable. As long as we insist on humane and scientific treatment of our health, we will have to expect our health care costs to rise. Of course, how we pay for these rising costs is just as confounding as how we may decrease the costs.

This election cycle has brought up the issue of health care again. If you hear a politician promise to lower health-care costs, you can now automatically assume that they are lying based on your understanding of Baumol's Disease. More often, we are hearing talk from the candidates on how we may health care for those who are not provided insurance through their employer. Too many Americans are forced to suffer with ailments that are easily treated but cost too much to afford without insurance. This is especially true due to the fact that most people without insurance are too poor to afford anything, especially medical treatment and medicine.

Perhaps you are callous enough to write off working-age adults without health insurance, and say that if they want to be treated then they can get off their butt and get a job like everyone else. However, many of those without insurance also have children who are uninsured. Are you callous enough to say that such children should suffer without the same fundamental medical treatment that your own children receive? If you say yes, then be prepared for a future of defective Americans.

Children who did not get their broken arms set properly, their cavities treated, anti-biotic for common infections, and their cavities filled will become adults who are less-than 100%. Be prepared that they will tend to work less and be sick more. They may also be more prone to acts of passive-aggression, blatant aggression, crime, and other anti-social activities. Never mind the potential they may have have held given the chance to grow up healthy and educated.

I was looking deeper into Baumol's disease to ensure I understood it well, and perhaps gain an additional perspective of the issue. In doing so, I stumbled on an old article that introduced another interesting concept and provided a prophetic message to the candidates of 2008. The article was published in the 6/20/94 issue of U.S. News and World Report by Michael Barone, and addressed Bill Clinton's 1994 budget, in light of his budget in 1993.

Barone introduces the concept of Norquist's Law. Norquist's Law was developed by Milwaukee Mayor John Norquist and stipulates that a healthy government budget should hold not increase spending faster than the rate of inflation. In this manner, Norquist demonstrates that the government would reduce the amount of the economy that they take in taxes every year.

What? Less taxes? Less spending? Fiscal responsibility and an ear to the voter's desire? Reducing the burden that we pay to the government for them to waste on pork and ineffective programs? Enabling us to spend more of our own money on our own interests? That's crazy talk!

Seriously, the first politician to mention anything close to Norquist's law has my vote. This is the prophetic message that I mentioned. The political candidates are having difficulty distinguishing themselves or finding a hot-button topic that fires up the grass-roots support. Here it is. A proven method for politicians to follow that will improve our government and our economy simultaneously: reduced government spending will bolster corporate and consumer spending while it forces our politicians to seek more effective programs and less wasteful spending.

The only way this Law could be effective, however, is if we also balance our budget. Norquist's Law would automatically balance the budget in the future theoretically: Assuming that we increase our spending at a lower rate than inflation and that revenues rise at historical rates, those line would have to cross at some point in the future, resulting in revenues exceeding expenditures.

In other words, if both of those assumptions hold firm, we could guarantee a budget surplus in the future, reducing our national debt. Reducing our debt would reduce our national expenses, further increasing our surplus. Long-term, we could pay off our debt and either drop our tax burden to a minuscule level or free up budget money for all the crazy schemes that our current politicians cook up.

I haven't done the math and I am not a trained economist, so I may be off base here. Having said that, I believe that we cannot assume that our revenues will rise or that we can contain our government's costs enough to remain under the rate of inflation if we do not find a way to balance the budget first. If our deficit continues to grow, the cost of maintaining a government will continue to skyrocket. If the institutions and nations that loan us money every lose faith in our ability to repay, they are going to make it very expensive and miserable to be an American. That point was inconceivable twenty years ago, today it is a fact that is not to distant if we do not make changes drastically and soon.

Several years ago, it was speculated that Hillary may run for President and in so doing would amass a powerful force of supporters just based on her gender. Now that she is a candidate, we do find some people who are supporting her based on gender, but not enough to turn the tide.

Obama is the first Black candidate who is not considered an extremist like Alan Keyes, Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton (don't those names look out of place in the same sentence?) However, race has not been enough for Obama to separate himself from the pack. In fact, you would have thought that Oprah's support would have drawn enough of Hillary's voters over to make the difference, but such is not the case yet.

Here we are with a war that is not exactly as popular as World War II. We have a president who has alienated many conservatives with his decisions on budgets, staff, and ethics. We have China eating our lunch, Russia is light on debt while heavy on cash and marketable commodities, the Muslim world continues to be a dangerous tinderbox, and atrocities continue daily in places like Burma and Darfur. At home, we could use some good news, economically. How hard can it be to get people fired up in this kind of environment?

I have always voted Republican; I cannot think of a single Democrat on any ballot I have had an opportunity to hold that I supported. That is not to say that there have not been Democrat's in other districts or time periods that I supported, I just couldn't vote for them. I am willing to vote for a Democrat, but it is less likely that I would vote for a Democrat than I would for a third-party candidate.

People who know this about me have asked me who I like for the Republican primary. I honestly do not know. I am a registered Independent (I'll write about that some other time) so perhaps the point is moot. I cannot say that any Republican gets me fired up to open up my checkbook, or to place a yard sign, or to even acknowledge public support. I could live with any of them, I guess. I could live with any of the Democrats, frankly. As long as Theresa Heinz-Kerry is not involved in the decision, I am fine with whatever will be.

If you are a presidential candidate reading this (hey, it could happen), then let me tell you this: if you make your primary promise to me that you will fight to the death for a balanced budget and something like Norquist's Law, you have my vote. I have charitable contribution to make for 2008's tax deductions: you will receive the entire amount. I am looking to start volunteering on some weekends; I will spend as much time as possible at your local campaign headquarters doing whatever it takes to get you elected. I will place a sign in my yard, wear your buttons on my shirt, stick your bumper sticker on my cars, and mention you on a daily basis in my sphere of influence. I will dedicate the rest of the election season on this blog to daily posts about you. I will tattoo your name on my forehead if it would help.

Seriously, we have a lot of problems to face. If you are a liberal, you have one perspective on our nation's problems. If you are conservative, you have another. There are also the perspectives of libertarians and others. The fact of the matter is that regardless of your perspective, you will have to agree with me on one thing if you look at the matter sincerely and do the math: every act of our government is is useless without a sustainable financial policy.

What effect did the word "sustainable" have on you as you read it? That is how I can tell your current political affiliation. If if made you perk up and read a little closer, then you are leaning left and Democratic. If it made you roll your eyes and think of Al Gore in a sickening way, then you are a right-leaning Republican. If you had to look it up in a dictionary, then you are not paying attention.

"Sustainable" is a part of a global discussion taking place, mostly concerning environmentalism or Third World economics. It refers to the ability of a system to continue without outside intervention. Sustainable models can reduce dependence on foreign aid, reduce damaging practices, and and raise the quality of life and standard of living from everyone involved. In addition, sustainability can reduce political instability, terrorism, and crime. Sustainability is, unfortunately, a buzz-word used to drum-up political support, acquire grants, and shout down opposing ideas.

I wish to point out that, like so many other things, sustainability begins at home. To be succinct, it begins with out financial policy. We cannot sustain our current budgetary system indefinitely; eventually this system will implode under the weight of debt. Believe me, I have been there personally. If you have a mortgage, car, student loan, and a high standard of living, you will find it quickly becomes uncomfortable if you lose your source of income, even if temporarily. What is true at the micro-economic level is usually true at the macro-level.

Our nation has a lot of debt and expenses. We also have a trade deficit, a war, and a recession. What would it take to cut-off the flow of money into our country? Now much, apparently. When foreign investors began to perceive that Americans would be less likely to payoff their mortgages, they made less Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) to our mortgage industry. Suddenly, there was less cash to give. Couple that with other economic factors such as stalled-job growth and adjustable-rate mortgages coming due, and you have the making for a "Sub-prime loan fiasco."

That was just a warning shot. China has more cash in the bank than any other nation, and they have more money flowing into their country through exports than any other nation. They control their currency, keeping it artificially weak so that their exports are more affordable while imports to China are cost-prohibitive to the Chinese consumer. America's affluence is due in large part to FDI; foreigners expected that they would get a larger rate of return with less risk and volatility if they invested in various American industries.

Nowadays, that expectation is reduced. Russian commodities are proving highly lucrative and Chinese manufacturing is both stable and rewarding. With less money from outside, we will have to foot the bill for more of our luxuries from internal sources. Alternatively, we may consider doing without luxuries that we take for granted today, like interstates, parks, bridges, jobs, research, arts, and utilities.

What every American, and especially our policy makers, should do more of is to view our nation through the eyes of a Foreign Investor. This is a flat world, and we need to receive as much or more than we give in order to sustain our standard of living. Currently, we spend more on imports than we make off our exports. That means we pay more money to foreign nations than we make. If you added up the money possessed by every American citizen and every American corporation, that sum would be our economy. That sum is a smaller number every year; we send money out more money to buy stuff than we receive by selling our stuff to other nations.

Today, we can sustain this trade deficit. However, we cannot expect to do so indefinetly; eventually, we will not have enough money to spend on stuff because we did not replenish our resources. This is an implosion because we will not be able to afford to maintain the export business at that point, eliminating future revenue. You go from living in the lap of luxury to catastrophic depression almost overnight.

A similar principle applies to our federal net-worth. Currently, we owe over 9 trillion dollars. Trillion, with a "t". Yeah.

But we are fabulously wealthy, right? We can pay for that debt because we innovative, ingenuitive, well-invested, well-connected, and in control of so many resources...right? Sure, we have sustained a sick amount of debt for decades now. If that was our only problem, we would be okay. We can make the payment on $9 trillion.

The thing is, we are spending more money than we take in. Every year, we have to borrow money to remain in business as a nation. Therefore, next year we will owe more, not less. That raises the minimum payment on the national debt. We can afford a $9 trillion dollar debt load, but can we afford $10 trillion? How about $15 trillion?

The fact of the matter is that eventually the final bill arrives. If you, personally, continue to aquire new credit cards to pay for the existing credit cards, at some time your minumum monthly payment will be too large to borrow. At that point, you will find that you cannot even borrow money from the check-cashing place. Vinny the loan-shark would even touch you. Congratulations, you are no longer solvent. You can file for bankruptcy and start all over again.

Nations cannot file bankruptcy. When they scare off investors and lenders, they cause panic. Businesses shutdown, roads crumble, corruption spreads, crime runs rampant, self-abuse and neglect replace health-care. That can't happen to America? Tell that to the Roman Empire. Tell that to the Incan Empire. Tell that to any predator that has eaten its prey faster than it could multiply.

I agree, it seems unlikely that we couldn't prevent total insolvency as a nation. However, it is a possibility. The more likely occurrence is a generation-long recession. Or worse, a financial and cultural recession measured in centuries. Ask the Chinese about that, or just look it up on Wikipedia. Today, the Chinese are a fearsome economic power. In the 1930's, they were dominated by a tiny little island named Japan. You have to go pretty far back to locate the last time that China enjoyed this level of power and prosperity.

I would like to spend my retirement years in comfort and peace. I would like to know that my grandchildren can enjoy the same or greater nation that I have enjoyed. I would like to live longer than my ancestors, and get more out of my final years; by this, I mean that I want to enjoy cutting-edge health-care that keeps me alive and active as long as possible.

The labor costs of health care are only going to go up, according to Baumol's disease. At what point will those costs become prohibitive? Well, that depends on how much money Americans have available to them to spend on health care. Our available money is dependent on the national economy. If our taxes are at 50% in order to afford our national debt, which may be over twenty trillion dollars, and our local businesses are less prosperous, then influenza-exposure at 80 years old may not be a survivable experience.

That is why I am making a pledge of support to any politician who can convince me that they can and will do something about our financial sustainability. I am not looking for sound-bytes among your other "issues"; I am looking for someone who truly realizes that our national policy of financial irresponsiblity is our greatest threat to our future, and will make that their primary focus.

You can argue that Iraq has something to do with our future. Whether you think that we need to finish the fight to get out of Iraq, you would have have to agree that your reasons are moot in the future if we cannot pay our bills. Winning the Global War on Terrorism is meaningless if it contributes to our insolvency; withdrawing from Iraq will not do any good if the returning vets settle into a life that leads to higher taxes, less prosperity, and a national decline.

You can argue about the importance of health care, especially for children near or below the poverty line. I would say that whatever good intentions you have will cause bounced checks an unmet expectations in the near future if we do not fix our financial irresponsibility. In fact, the same can be said of any social program you mention: it all costs money that we did not have yesterday, do not have today, and surely will not be able to borrow in the future.

You can complain about China and India, and scream about tarrifs and the trade deficit all you want. The fact is, even if those jobs were being sent here and we enjoyed a trade surplus, we would still face a catastrophe in the future based on the current irresponsibility of the people who we have entrusted with spending our taxes. If we had more coming in, we would have more going out. In fact, it may be even worse.

Establish financial sustainability as a policy. Balance the budget. Reduce the national debt. Control government spending, and do not increase it faster than the rate of inflation. See what happens.

Spoiler alert! If you follow the simple steps outlined in the paragraph above, or at least operate the federal budget in a manner similiar to financially successful citizens and companies, the other problems will become more manageable. Many problems will take care of themselves.

Economics is all about psychology. Think about it: what makes that green piece of paper valuable to other people? You could write anything you want on that piece of paper in any color you want with watermarks and embedded technologies unheard of, but it will never have value until the other person is convinced of its value. We have all agreed that the dollar can be exchanged for goods; that is what makes the dollar valuable. Cultivating that thought is the fact that we know so many other people find it valuable. We know that we can use our dollar am millions of places all over the world to buiy whatever our heart desires. If we believed otherwise, that same piece of paper would become worthless, without changing form.

We need to cultivate a belief in the value of the dollar. We can do that by making our nation financially sustainable, like China and Russia and so many other nations who we once looked down on as economic-midgets. By righting our ship, we will be forced to pay a fee right now in the form of inconvenience. Believe me when I say this: that fee has to paid sometime, and it compunds over time. If you leave it for your children to pay, you have committed a fomr of child abuse that is beyond evil. It is horrible to abuse your own children, but to abuse all future generations with one policy is beyond evil.

Clinton and Greenspan demonstrated the effects of balanced budgets and solvency on American prosperity. If you look back on the 90's, you can see how balanced budgets and news of surpluses affected the markets. When we bailed out Mexico, it not only prevented a catastrophe and generated a trunaround in their nation, we too saw increases in market activity. When Clinton reduced spending and deficits in his budget, Greenspan at the Fed with statements and moves in the interest rates. Greenspan's actions make the financial markets turn backflips of joy. And when the financial markets are happy, almost everybody is happy. Even the poorest Americans can benefit during a bull market in most cases.

I didn't like Bill Clinton, personally. As a Marine, I was forced to salute him but I disagreed with many policies and philosophies that he held. However, I miss the days where someone challenged congress over their pork-barrell spending. I miss the days when a President earnestly sought for balanced-budgets and reduced debt. I wuoldn't say that Clinton had the right idea about how to trim the budget, but at least he tried. Most of all, though, I liked how cocky and secure our financial markets felt when Clinton and Greenspan were working together to lay the fundamentals for a healthy economy.

Wow, I didn't know I had that much to say on the subject of Baumol's Disease and Norquist's Law (which is what lead me to start this post.)

Every Presidential Candidate right now is spinning their tires. I don't see anyone really striking a chorus. Try this: focus on the root of the problem. Focus on the heart of the matter. Don't pull on my heart-strings, pull on wallet: at the end of the day, that's what will fire me up. Everthing else is just a subcategory; money is what makes the world go 'round.

Here are a few articles you can look up in EbscoHost or Proquest (head to your local library for assistance if you are unfamiliar with these databases--they are a fantastic way to find exactly what you need to know without leaving your desk):

-Baumol WJ. Do health care costs matter? New Republic. Nov. 22, 1993:16-18.

-Bobby J. Newbell, MD, November/December 2007, www.aafp.org/fpm, FAMILY PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, pg. 11.

-Jackson JR. Is technology displacing the art of medicine? Physician Exec. March/April 2004:46-50.

-Government gets a shrink. By: Barone, Michael, U.S. News & World Report, 00415537, 6/20/94, Vol. 116, Issue 24.

Corporal Jason L. Dunham, USMC

Back in 2004, my dad clipped an article out of the Wall Street Journal that he thought I would find interesting. It was the story of a Marine who had a theory: there may be a way to jump on a grenade and not only save other Marine's lives but also perhaps retain your own life. That Marine was then presented with an opportunity to test his theory in combat with lives on the line.

Normally, a grenade explodes and sprays metal (shrapnel) in every direction, effectively killing everything within 15 meters. If you are inside of that 15-meter kill zone, you may have your life saved if you wear body armor made of Kevlar or can take cover behind something armored.

It is well established that if a human body lays on the grenade at detonation, that body will absorb most of the blast and contain, deflect, or retard the lethality of the shrapnel. This action is the ultimate sacrifice: knowing that you will die to save your fellow Marines (or sailors, soldiers, police officers, etc...) This action usually results in a post-humous award of the Medal of Honor (MOH) when engaged in battle.

There are many medals and ribbons you can earn in the military. None of them rank as high as the MOH. Normally, enlisted personnel with the rank of Private through Sergeant Major do not rate a sulte from anybody; that is an honor reserved for Officers who are warranted or commissioned. However, anyone who wears the MOH rates a salute according to tradition. According to this tradition, if the lowest ranking private wearing an MOH were to be approached by the highest ranking General, they would salute each other out of mutual respect.

Some medals and ribbons have a reputation of being given away easily, more for political reasons than heroism. The MOH has never been accused of such. Most people who are awarded the MOH had to die in the process; the act of sacrificing one's life to save many others is a hallmark of MOH awards. In addition, refusing medical treatment while continuing the fight, or performing superhuman acts that turn the tide of battle, are common on MOH citations.

p>

Corporal Jason L. Dunham was a squad leader with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines in 2004. He extended his enlistment contract in order to make his second deployment to Iraq with his unit, demonstrating his devotion to his fellow Marines. On April 14, 2004, Cpl. Dunham's squad was engaged in operations in Iraq. While enroute to support his battalion commander's convoy, which had been ambushed, he came upon a group of Iraqi vehicles. He and his squad began to stop and search the vehicles. One of the insurgents rolled a grenade nonchalantly, to avoid it being noticed. Cpl. Dunham saw it and, thinking quickly, threw his helmet and himself on the grenade to shield the balst from two nearby Marines.

Cpl. Dunham was issued his helmet to protect him from shrapnel and other projectiles. I wore a similiar helmet and held similiar conversations regarding its usefulness when I served back in the early 1990's. Luckily, my peers and I never had to test any of our theories. We knew that it was not bullet-proof; we also knew that projectiles do funny things when they detonate and it is impossible to predict what trajectory a projectile may take.

There is a common story of a Marine who was shot while wearing a kevlar helmet: the bullet entered one side, followed the interior of the helmet for some reason, and exited on the other side. You can try to explain it with nano-physics or you can blame it on guardian angels. The fact is that any effort you can take to contain or deflect a projectile is worth the effort.

There was no reason to believe that his helmet would contain the blast and save his life--or anyone else's life. One tiny projectile could find an opening or soft-spot and prove to be fatal. When Cpl. Dunham threw his helmet and himself on the grenade, I am sure that the only thing important to him was to save his squad members. I did not know Cpl. Dunham, but I have known men like him. They may be rare to find in the civilian world but they are fairly common among Marines.

This act of bravery was simply the final and most heroic act in a short but accomplished life. He was respected and loved for many character traits and accomplishments. Therefore, though this act was his final one, it was not out of character. According to everyone who knew him, Jason Dunham was not the kind of guy who stepped up occasionally when people were watching; he lived a life of service, heroism, and accomplishment every day.

We lost more than a Marine when we lost Jason Dunham; we lost potential. America's future, bright though it may be, is a little poorer without Jason Dunham. Who knows what else Jason had to offer this world. On the other hand, his example and the spirit he left behind will inspire many in current and future generations.

Cpl. Dunham's family and friends have established a memorial in his honor, to include a Scholarship fund. I believe in this scholarship fund, which is awarded to Marines and FMF Corpsman who "...demonstrate the core values of leadership, service, sacrifice, and a sense of other(s) that were the characteristics of Corporal Jason L. Dunham." (Quoted from the scholarship website.) I believe that this scholarship will encourage other men and women in our armed forces to act with integrity and honor, courage and conviction. For those of us who are donors rather than applicants, it is a reminder to us of what makes a person rise above the common character and inspire others to give more than they receive. The scholarship promotes the traits that make our nation great, and it elevates the people who aspire to such greatness.

I am not really known for quoting the bible, but I believe that there is a verse that applies here and means more than words can fully describe: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:12-14 NIV) There is also a great quote that speaks volumes from one of Cpl. Dunham's leaders, on the Memorial website: "All that we have, has been given to us. What we do with what has been given is how we honor those who gave." (Kilo 3 Bravo Gunnery Sergeant Adam Walker)

It is difficult to argue with the importance of education, and how giving money to a scholarship fund is an investment in the future of our society. There are many worthy scholarships and other charities, but today I want to highlight The Jason L. Dunham Memorial Scholarship Foundation. They are still in the process of earning 501(c)3 status, so a donation is not yet eligible for IRS deductions. I am taking a chance that any money I donate this year will be eligible for deduction by the end of the year. Failing that, the cause outweighs my need for a deduction. What I really need is a nation full of Jason Dunham's, or at least more people who aspire to his example of leadership, service, sacrifice, and a sense of others.

If you can fit it into your giving budget, please consider sending a donation to establish The Corporal Jason L. Dunham Scholarship Foundation.

Checks payable to: CPL Jason L. Dunham Scholarship Mailing address: Corporal Jason L. Dunham Memorial Scholarship Foundation Inc. 187 Pinehurst Avenue Suite 1-B New York, New York 10033

Here are a few interesting links for more information:

Corporal Dunham's Memorial and information on his scholarship.

Corporal Jason L.Dunham's Medal Of Honor Citation.

A fantastic short film from MarineTV that describes who Jason Dunham was, in the words of the people who knew him:

A video of President Bush Awarding Cpl. Jason Dunham's family with the Medal Of Honor:

Watch D.O.G.S.

I have been looking for an opportunity to donate some of my time, in addition to donating money like I talked about last time. Of course, finding a place to donate your time is easier than finding a job. However, I have found it twice as hard to find an opportunity that matches my skills, passion, and time.

Recently, I found an opportunity that was a perfect match. At my daughter's school, they have a program called Watch D.O.G.S., which stands for Dads Of Great Students. The idea is to have a dad, grandfather, uncle, or stepfather spend a day at the school, and their presence both adds to the educational experience and increases the security of the school. According to the official website:

WATCH D.O.G.S.® is the safe school initiative of the National Center for Fathering that was founded by Jim Moore, a concerned father who chose to take action in response to a 1998 middle-school shooting in Jonesboro, AR.

My day as a Watchdog Dad was fantastic, and I will be doing it again soon. Let me just say now that if you have any kind of fatherly influence on a middle school child, you should look into joining or starting a Watch D.O.G.S. group. Every man who participates will have more fun than they could imagine, the kids have a great time and receive a new perspective, and the teachers and administrators benefit from the extra eyes, ears, mouth, and hands to both educate the kids and keep them safe.

I began my day by receiving an official vest that identified my role. I was then asked to stand out in the parking lot to observe the kids arriving. I have been a parent dropping off and felt the frustration of having to queue and move slower than I'd like. I have also wished there were more adults, preferably police, present at the beginning and end of the day when kids are most likely to be shot, run-over, or kidnapped. It was gratifying to be a part of the safety net that keeps the kids safe.

After morning announcements, my daughter and I had our picture taken for the WatchD.O.G.S. board, and the girl got to wear a T-shirt all day to identify her as the kid of a Watchdog Dad. She then went about her day and I was given an itinerary to follow.

My first stop of the day was in a kindergarten classroom. The teacher was previously my daughter's teacher, so we knew each other. She sent the kids with me one at a time to the hall where they read a little book to me. It was interesting to me to see who had the book memorized, including the teacher's voice inflections and gestures. Some of the kids could sound out the words that they were unsure of. The best was one child who would recite the memorized sentence in the book and then offer her own commentary on the story. I was laughing, which only encouraged her embellishment. I can't wait to read her first novel.

Most of the kids were a little standoff-ish because I was a stranger, but they warmed up a little and read the book. However, there were two kids that were unwilling to read to me. They didn't look at me, and they either did not respond to my questions or they mumbled an answer. I wondered if they have more anxiety with strangers than most people do, or if they are used to dangerous and abusive men. It was difficult to see kids with so much to deal with at such a young age. I can't imagine how teachers who see that thing everyday are able to deal with the sadness and frustration that these kids made me feel.

And that reminds me of the kids I saw coming in after the first bell. A teacher was stationed at the front door to sternly announce to each tardy child that they were late and they needed to hurry to their classroom. The oldest kids coming in were in sixth grade and the youngest were kindergartners. I like the idea of teaching kids to be responsible and punctual, but I wonder how much responsibility a sixth-grader can take for their transportation to school, let alone a kindergartner.

More than one of the kids coming in were crying, and many of them looked unkempt or disheveled, indicating to me that the parents have issues of their own. I wondered if making these kids feel bad about their tardiness was productive, but I also see the value in making the tardiness an undesirable condition to be avoided. It is too bad the school can't do more to punish parents for tardy children, and hold parents responsible for more of their child's education.

Teaching my children to read, write, add, subtract, and act with morality and responsibility is a no-brainer for me and my better-half. Unfortunately, my wife and I find that many of our child's peers have been left without any training or worse, they have learned about sex and violence at a young age without learning how to spell their name, hold a pencil, or count to ten. A few of the children are left with not only a lack of fundamental skills but also a lack of English. They arrive in school with only as much English as they can learn from T.V., which makes the teacher's job that much harder.

My daughter was ready to read in kindergarten, but her teacher was prevented from spending time cultivating that skill because she was still teaching the alphabet to kids who apparently received more than enough calories at home, but not enough Sesame Street or parental tutoring. They could recite the lyrics to Snoop-Dogg compositions, but couldn't remember what came after t-u-v in the alphabet. I understand that there are all kinds of issues out there and I have experienced a few of them. However, I can't imagine how having kids wouldn't cause you to find a way to rise above your issues and give them a better future than you had.

After a long, hard day, I had an hour or two that I could spend with my daughter and a book. On the other hand, the teacher had my daughter for several hours (she also had the education and experience to more effectively teach reading skills.) I know that she would have loved to help the best students go farther, but she was limited by the weakest link in the chain. I certainly wouldn't want any child to be seperated as "slow" or "dumb" at such a young age, but I also can't help but wonder how much farther along my daughter would be if she had been challenged more, rather than waiting for the other kids to catch up.

Just to be clear, I don't want to paint my daughter as the star pupil. There were several students like her who had the skills and willingness to do more than was asked of them. A clear divide existed between the students who had been worked with, and those who had been left without instruction. Perhaps we need to increase access to quality pre-school, or just start slapping sense into some parents. I know, the former idea is more acceptable but the second option would be more satisfying.

Anyhow, back to the story: After kindergarten, I headed to fourth-grade where I was read to again. The kids were bigger and more skilled at reading, and the books were much more interesting. I could ask the kids about the books they were reading to test their comprehension, and I could explain concepts and definitions to help them comprehend more. It was very interesting to experience the contrast and see how much a kid learns in just a few years.

Throughout the day, I was greeted warmly and enthusiastically by many kids and adults, which is a great change from my usual day. In my career, I usually meet people who expect me to either fix sopmething or try to sell them something, and usually both. I work in an industry full of gruff, bitter, and burned-out people. Needless-to-say, it was a fantastic change to have everyone happy to greet me without any expectations.

After fourth-grade, I spent 30 minutes observing a kid use a computer to enhance his learning. This was a child who was obviously below his age-group's reading level and was working on phonics. I do not know if anyone is to blame for his difficulties, and it is none of my business. I am just glad that his condition was diagnosed and that he is receiving the extra attention he needs. In other school districts he may have slipped through the cracks, but here he is taken out of the class and brought up to speed with special attention by literacy specialists. Even better is the use of techonology; with a moderately-priced computer and internet access, these kids are getting opportunities that were previously unavailable. Using computers to take the place of instructors, you can get more attention and instruction to more kids who need it.

I got to go out for recess for the first time since I was in grade-school. It is still awesome to run free on a muddy field and play football with the boys, even when it is 30 degrees. I think more adults should experience recess again and be reminded of how exhilerating and liberating it can feel. If we could incorporate recess into our work day, like Spain incorporates the siesta, we would have more productivity and less heart-attacks I am sure. Rush-hour would be less tense everyday as well; we would be too tired and happy to honk or flip eachother off.

I got to eat lunch with my daughter and her friends, and that was waaaaaaay better than eating lunch with my friends. I was grossed-out just as often, but the topics of conversation were much more fun and uplifting. When you are in grade-school, everything is fun, funny, or new. Burps are great, trading carrots for a cookie is the bomb, and no one cares who Hillary Clinton is or whether gas prices will break $3. I wish I could eat at her school everyday; I am sure it would make my life more satisfying and I may squeeze a little more productivity into my afternoon.

When I drop-off or pick-up my kids from school, I will be more patient now that I have seen how hard it is to control the chaos. I have been critical of teachers in the past; now that I have seen a full day and all the issues that need to be addressed, I will be unable to criticize these heros. It is too bad that our society does not value our teachers more; we have no idea what we could get out of them if we spent more time encouraging and enabling our teachers, rather than criticizing and cost-cutting. Shame on us.

Originally, Watch D.O.G.S. was started to increase safety in our schools. As a Marine, I can confidently report that my presence made the school safer that day; luckily, that safety was not tested. Perhaps, just knowing that there is a dad at school everyday will prevent many unsafe thoughts from occurring to desperate minds. Failing that, it is good to know that there will be more eyes, ears, and muscle to prevent bad situations from being worse.

This is a program that everyone should be aware of. If you are a fatherly figure, you really should get involved. If you know a fatherly figure, please pass on this program. If the school does not already have a Watch D.O.G.S. program, it can be easily started-up by clicking here. This is a fantastic opportunity to give back to your community, spend more time with your kid, and have as much fun as a grade-schooler. If nothing else, it gets you out of work for a day, and that is always a good thing!

Selfish Charity

How has your 2008 been so far? Mine has been busy. Not the good kind of busy, but the kind of busy that makes you wonder if 2008 is going to be worth the effort. The kind of busy that makes you wish it was 2009 already. Several other people I know have had the same complaint. Isn't the recession and the political primary season enough pain, do I really have to work hard on top of all that?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today I would like to discuss charity. This is something that I have been considering for a while, and I have found an interesting way to give that you should be aware of. Charity is our way of improving our community. It not only makes the world a little better, it makes you better as well. By giving money away, you help mold a generous spirit within you that others will find attractive. Charity also communicates to the universe that you can be trusted with money, and that you are ready for more.

I was once a stingy person. I felt that I was already giving enough through my taxes, and that I didn't need to be charitable when I was just a few paychecks away from poverty. If I was really creative, I would rationalize that instead of being charitable, I can invest in myself and ensure that I have more to give in the future. I was selfish; I was only looking to benefit myself. I still am, but I have found I can benefit myself through charity.

Many lessons and examples along the way have lead me away from stingy thinking. Of course, I have more money today than I did a few years ago. However, I am nowhere near any of my financial goals. Every penny I give away today is money that could have sent my kids to school, helped me get through retirement, or at least paid off my mortgage. It is also money that I have worked hard to earn and have every right to spend on a vacation or a new car.

I am happy to be charitable. By pooling my money with others, I am improving the world around me and raising the standard of living for people less fortunate than me. The key to my transformation from stingy to charity was the acceptance that I am fortunate. I may not be as fortunate as some people I run into, but I do not have to travel far to find people with less love, opportunity, and possessions than myself. Realizing my fortune has allowed me to share it with those around me.

Even though I am grateful for my good fortune, I am still a selfish person. I can't help. Maybe I am less selfish than I was, but I cannot stop looking our for number one. That's okay, though. There is such a thing as Selfish Charity.

Charity also allows me to share my passion, interests, and personality--like this blog. I think that most of us enjoy anything that strokes our ego. When someone asks you about your job, kids, or hobby and seem interested in your answer, that can be like a drug. Expressing your personal interests through bumper-stickers, t-shirts, email-signatures, and well-placed comments in conversation are as natural as breathing. With charity, you express your passion with your most valued object: your money. Giving to a cause that supports your passion feels great; it feels even better when it gives you an opportunity to talk to someone about why you give and why you feel passionate about the subject.

I am passionate about education. I can see that missing educational opportunities has affected me personally and financially. I can also see how my studies have both expanded the quality of my life and my earning potential. When I look around me, I see the same principal at work in the lives of those around me. Therefore, I think that any charity that raises the quality of education or increases educational opportunities for people is worthy of my money.

I am also passionate about children. If you want to prevent a societal ill, you start with children. If you want to improve the potential of a society, you start with children. If you want to laugh or feel energized, spend some time with kids. If you want a fresh perspective on an issue, ask a child. Therefore, almost any opportunity that will benefit children is a worthy cause.

This has led me to be charitable to my local library. The library has provided me with a collection of jazz CDs to import to my iTunes, it had provided me with a collection of audiobooks for my long drives throughout the midwest, and it has answered every question I ever posed there. Moreover, it is a constant source of education and entertainment for my kids through borrowed books and videos. Charitable giving to my library can be seen as a very selfish act since I get so much use from the library.

However, it is not entirely selfish. My local library branch is always full of people who I would not normally run into: people too poor to afford a computer so they go to the library to get online. There are also people taking classes ESL and GED classes to improve their earning potential--and their internal lives. There are programs for children in every age-group and demographic. The library doesn't just make people smarter, it makes them feel better and provides tangible benefits.

I get frustrated when I try to communicate with someone in Kansas who cannot speak English. The library not only improves that person's earning potential and quality-of-life, it lowers my potential for communication breakdown. The library raises the earning potential of those around me, which directly improves the economy, lowers crime, and makes for a more pleasant society. The library teaches people to use computers, which means I will have more computers, servers, and routers to sell, install, and support over time. The library also teaches people to help themselves, to seek information, and to indulge curiosity--those benefits may be intangible, but they improve society all the same.

I have also given to Hospice in memory of people who passed away. Some may think that Hospice is the least likely source of selfish-charity. I once thought that it was tacky to beg for Hospice donations during a funeral. "Don't give flowers, give money to Hospice." I wish I could remember who it was that changed my perspective, but it was so simple: they made me realize that I may need Hospice some day. Or, God forbid, someone I really love.

In that event, I will want Hospice to be well-funded and able to meet every need. When I thought about how I could benefit from Hospice, I realized how important it really is. Now, I feel good giving to Hospice knowing that it helps a family transition during the most painful time of their life. I also know that if I should ever need it, Hospice will be there for me, too.

Charitable giving to political campaigns and committees is more transparently selfish, but it is important nonetheless. It is not enough to vote nowadays, unfortunately. Campaigns are media-driven and very expensive. If you believe in a cause, you can improve its chances of being heard, presented intelligently, and being accepted if you provide funding. It doesn't matter how rational your cause is or how much evidence you have to support it; if your cause is underfunded it will be drowned out by ignorant causes run by evil people with more money. That is a fact, whether you are a Democrat or Republican. By the way, is there a charitable cause that brings the two parties closer together? I will pledge my vacation fund for that cause.

Ayn Rand tried to teach us that there is nothing wrong with being selfish; in fact, it is unavoidable. Perhaps her philosophy went too far and ignored many important factors, but the essence is true: Being selfish is not inherently evil and can make the world a better place.

There is an episode of the TV show "Friends" where the hippy-ish character Phoebe tries to prove that unselfish acts exist. She found that everytime she tried to be unselfish, she benefitted in some way--despite her best efforts to avoid personal benefits. It is hard to develop a character over 30 minutes once a week, with commercial breaks, but I inferred that she embraced her selfish charity and used her selfishness to improve the lives of others.

If you are already charitable, then I thank you. Moreover, I encourage you to pimp your favorite charitable cause in the comments below! If you are not already charitable, I hope that you begin to consider ways that you can benefit yourself through charity. If nothing else, do it to lower your taxes.