VCAP BLOG ADDRESS CHANGE

Our new blog site is http://blog.vcap.org. Please go there!

Thanks so much to Scott White of Scott’s Morning Brew blog for making this possible. Now we are able to host our own blog. You rock Scott!

Do we have a right to our income?

Here’s a great Op Ed: 

I tend to be on the libertarian side of things, and I have to say this is one of the best articles I’ve seen: it argues against limiting government but it actual helps make the case for limiting government.  The Times-Dispatch blogisphere is full of comments about natural property rights and all sorts of philosophy.  Good and interesting stuff all, and I love this esoteric stuff, personally.  But practically, I don’t care.  I’m an Economist by trade, and I work for a living, and what interests me are passages like this from the original Op-Ed: 

“What would the American economy look like without roads and public infrastructure, public education, homeowner subsidies, government support for research and development, federal insurance for bank deposits, unemployment insurance, regulation of securities trading, and, lest we forget, national defense and enforcement of laws protecting persons and property?” 

The presumption is that only the government can or will provide these goods and services.

 This is the real crux of the issue, isn’t it?  I am willing to concede that there is some role for government in our society, and I can enjoy the natural debate just for sport.  But then, what is the role of government? What services are truly ‘public goods’ in an economic sense and really require some level of government administration to the benefit of all of us? 

Let’s go item by item through the list from the Op-Ed piece, starting with the first two: roads and public infrastructure.  What would happen if the government didn’t provide these goods?  Well - as a for instance – what happens now when a residential property developer wants to build a housing development?  They have to promise to build infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, sewer lines, electricity, cable, high speed internet, etc.) and to ‘proffer’ (read: pay) some large amounts of cash to the local government to offset the costs of other ‘public’ infrastructure (schools, more roads, more police, etc.)  Any reason to believe it is not in the developer’s self interest to invest in the roads and infrastructure his buyers desire, if not compelled by the government (and if the public expectation isn’t that government buys a few rounds for the house)?  The only reason to argue in favor of the government providing these services, rather than the market, is that government can do them more cheaply, or can organize across large infrastructure projects more cheaply.  Some people believe that is true.  I don’t.    

What would
America look like if the market provided these goods?  Fewer taxes and more expensive homes (and more choice of infrastructure).  If the market is more efficient than the government in allocating capital, the savings in the reduced cost of government would be greater than the additional house expense. 

What about public education and homeowner subsidies?  Without them, we’d have lower taxes, but more people would rent rather than own homes, and fewer people would have formal educations.  Some studies suggest higher levels of homeownership are associated with social benefits – less crime, for instance.  This is called a ‘positive externality’ in economic-speak.  And it is widely believed that a higher overall level of education in a society results in a better overall quality of life (less crime, better overall economic performance – also positive externalities).  This means that there are benefits not directly attributable to the buyer and seller that do not get reflected in the price for these services.  In this case, it means that the price of housing to buyers is too high, because it doesn’t reflect public benefits, and so the market ‘purchases’ less owner occupied housing than most benefits society as a whole.  And the same for education – without public education the market would produce and consume too little education, to the detriment of the economy and society as a whole. 

Federal insurance for bank deposits and unemployment insurance?  Certainly insurance like this would be provided by the market.  Taxes would be lower, but you’d pay out of pocket for insurance premiums.  If the market is more efficient, again the tax savings would be greater than the cost of the premiums.  Not everyone would buy this insurance, and the market is cold in this regard.  One reason often cited for government intervention into the economy is a social ‘safety net.’  What this means in practice is that taxpayers are compelled to pay for a service to be provided by government (such as unemployment insurance) and our less fortunate compatriots are compelled to benefit for the benefit of our compassion.  I don’t disagree, but how does the government know what is the right amount to provide?  It’s a ‘good’ and so  by definition more is always better at a given price, but without true market price signals, how can the government know whow much to purchase?   

Regulation of securities trading?  Given the recent history one might expect that this is a necessary function of government.  But these recent failures happened on the government watch.  Government regulation both creates the arcane rules that provide the loopholes that are often exploited to the detriment of shareholders, and provides a level of complacency in the market that hinders private market regulation.   

Finally, national defense and police.  These are generally considered public goods in the economic sense because of what is called a “free rider” problem.  If the homeland has to be defended, you have to pay to defend my house if you defend yours.  In a voluntary market, I can elect not to pay, but still get the benefit of national or civic defense.  I can ‘free ride’ on your purchase, so in the end the society does not purchase enough ‘defense’. 

So, what does this mean to a libertarian? 

Government has a role in providing national and civic defense, to avoid the free rider problem.  Government  has a role in encouraging the purchase of education and housing assistance, to the extent that we all benefit indirectly in greater proportion to the expense, but the absence of market controls and price signals makes this more complicated.  And, to the extent that we are a compassionate people, the government should provide some help to protect the less fortunate from the consequences of their circumstances.   

So I don’t care, in a practical sense, whether property rights are naturally ’self-evident’, or even whether I have a moral right to my pre-tax income.  I care about what it is beneficial that the government provide.  And where does the market make improvements.  Some of these areas are not clean cut, and that is where the discussion should reside.  How much education and housing is enough?  How much social safety net is enough, and when does it become an unshakeable crutch?   And even for things we might concede have a government role, it is up to us, through the vote and civil activism, to influence the boundaries.  In the end, government spending is just a collective political negotiation among our needs, beliefs, and compassionate priorities.   We can keep raising taxes, and having the government buy more goods and services on our behalf.  Or we can decide to have government focus on the few core market inefficiencies the government can best address, and we can decide ourselves on all the rest.

Joe Blackburn and Senator Stosch Square Off-Part I (Panelist Questions)

I attended a debate between Senator Walter Stosch and challenger Joe Blackburn last week. It was hosted by the Henrico Republican Committee and the James River Republican Women’s Group. Dr. Bob Holsworth was the moderator. The two panelist were Deborah Cox from WRIC TV6 and Tom Lappas from The Henrico Citizen.

The format was that each candidate had a 3 minutes opening statement. Following open statements, each panelist asked four questions, alternating between Stosch and Blackburn. They were questions prepared by the panelists themselves. Once the questions were completed by the panelist, Dr. Holsworth asked questions he had chosen that were submitted over the last week by Henrico citizens. Concluding remarks were 3 minutes.

They did not allow for any audio or video. My colleague and I wrote as feverishly as possible to try and capture as much of the debate as possible. Here is the blow by blow. None of these are direct quotes unless stated. I have closely paraphased all the questions and responses. I am confident in saying this is a pretty accurate representation of the evening.

Opening statement by Joe Blackburn: Joe focused on the complete lack of budgetary constraint by Senator Stosch these last four years, pointing to the 2004 $1.4 billion tax increase and the 2006 proposed motor fuels tax of $.05, which would have amounted to gas prices of approximately $3.15. He stated that Senator Stosch is the Senate Majority Leader, member of the Finance Committee, and budget conferee participant and that all these powerful positions have only resulted increased spending and tax increases.

Opening statement by Walter Stosch: Walter was excited for the opportunity to set the record straight on his voting record. He commented that he has voted 33 times to cut taxes. He is proud of his record. He also stated that the audience would be hearing a perspective through “Joe Blackburn’s kaleidoscope” this evening, but that it would not an accurate representation of his senate tenure.

Panelist Questions:

1. In light of the Virginia Tech shootings, should we have a stronger review process for gun purchases? [Lappas asks Blackburn] Both candidates agreed that it is too soon to speculate and they thought it was too early to start pointing fingers. They thought it would be more appropriate to see the findings of the commission being put together by Governor Kaine to examine where things might have broken down.
2. Governor Kaine stated that he is considering an Executive Order to make access to mental health records more accessible and extensive for gun purchases. Do you think the Governor has the power to do that? Do you think it is a good idea? [Cox to Stosch] Both candidates deferred to the the commission being assembled by the Governor. They both agreed that it appears that the process broke down but that more needs to be done to determine what steps need to be taken.
3. Do you support the smoking ban statewide proposed by Governor Kaine in his amendments this session? [Cox to Blackburn]

   Blackburn reply: No. I think that businesses should determine what is in their best interest. I believe in strong property rights. If a restaurant wants to have smoking that should be their prerogrative. They should be able to ban smoking if they prefer as well. Customers should have the choice to eat wherever it suits them as well. A perfect example is my favorite restaurant, Melito’s, just implemented a smoking ban. The is the decision of business.

   Stosch response: The Governor broadened that bill so much that there was fear that it would include a ban on any public place, whether outdoor restaurant seating, sporting events, clubs, or restaurants. [A few questions later Blackburn had time leftover from one of his answers and went back to this question and said he was VERY concerned that Senator Stosch dodged this question and did not answer it. He stated that Stosch should be forthright with his constituent and tell them where he stands on this important issue. Senator Stosch did not reply.]

4. What are the critical issues that are facing Henrico and its citizens? [Lappas to Stosch]

   Stosch reply: It is important that Virginia have a good educational system, a comfortable lifestyle and amenities. That is also important in Henrico as well.

   Blackburn response: When I go knocking on doors the one thing I constantly hear is the rising real estate taxes. This is a big problem in Henrico going unaddressed.

5. What portion of the state budget is most wasteful? [Lappas to Blackburn]

   Blackburn reply: There are many non-core government agencies with double digit growth rates. That needs to be reigned in when we have a $73 billion budget. There are also many state agencies that I think could be merged, for example there are multiple agencies that deal with family life/planning. Another example: the Governor’s executive office budget grew 32% in one year. That is ridiculous.

   Stosch response: The state budget is only $37 billion.

6. Are you satisfied with the transportation plan and its amendments? Should the surplus go back to the constituents? [Cox to Stosch]

   Stosch reply: We did the best we could with what was possible. I am the one that required that half of the General Fund surplus be dedicated to transportation. I am very proud of this bill and the amount of support we received from all legislators, including those here in Henrico and Goochland.

   Blackburn response: This bill did nothing for Henrico. The only two counties that service their own roads are Arlington and Henrico. In the original plan it would have brought Henrico up to parity with Arlington. Henrico gets reimbursed $8 million per lane mile and Arlington gets reimbursed $14 million per lane mile. During budget negotations, of which Stosch was an instrumental part, this section was taken out. This is why Delegate Jack Reid did not vote for the final version of the bill.

7. Do you agree with the U.S. Supreme Courts decision to uphold the ban on partial birth abortion? [Cox to Blackburn]

   Blackburn reply: I am pro-life. I think that PBA is infanticide. I agree with the Supreme Court ruling.

   Stosch response: I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. I have a 100% voting record with VHSL.

8. Joe Blackburn has made a proposal that traffic tickets for minors be moved from the juvenile courts to the general district court. He has also proposed increasing the education dollars that actually reach the classroom. What do you think of his proposals? [Lappas to Stosch]

   Stosch reply: I think it is worthwhile to look at how to improve the courts and the backlog. I believe I have heard that Joe would like 65% of educations dollars to make it to the classroom. Currently 70% make it into the Henrico classroom, so no, I would not be in favor of that proposal.

   Blackburn response: We have so many cops sitting in court waiting for the case to be called up rather than out on our streets protecting us. As an attorney I see this all the time. I think if a 17 year old gets pulled over for speeding, he should have to go to the same place I go…General District Court. The Juvenile and Family courts are the most overloaded and we should be looking at ways to unburden the court without adding another layer of courts. I also think we need to be auditing the school system, to make sure the dollars are making it to the classroom and aren’t top heavy on administration.

Emmett Hanger’s big insult

Senator Emmett Hanger delivered the ultimate insult to his district by stating in the New Dominion:

“A lot of attention has been paid to the fact that there are individuals within the Republican Party in leadership positions who are not supporting me. I’ve gone to the community leaders [elected officials] because I think they’re more significant than the members of local parties who find themselves in offices at any particular point in time – because those are somewhat thankless jobs that we kind of hand over to anybody who says they want them.“

So he has insulted all Republican activists in his district who work to get Republicans elected into office. The only people that count in his book are other important legislators like himself!

My big question is this: If he thinks that volunteers are worthless, who exactly will be helping him on his campaign? I don’t think his fellow politicians will be knocking doors! This could be great for Sayre since Hanger wants no part of the hard working volunteers in his District. Could he tee it up any better for Scott Sayre?

SWAC Girl has an excellent analysis of this story that I highly encourage you to read. She really breaks it down for you.

Joe Blackburn Firmly Dominates Debate

[Here is the press release I just received from the campaign]

Joe Blackburn for State Senate
Press Release
April 26, 2007
For Immediate Release
Contact: Richard Crouse 804-852-8341
rjcrouse@comcast.net

Joe Blackburn Firmly Dominates Debate
~Stosch claims no $1.4 billion tax increase happened in 2004~

Richmond, VA—Tonight Joe Blackburn and Senator Walter Stosch participated in a debate sponsored by the James River Republican Women’s Club and the Henrico County Republican Committee at Pocahontas Middle School. The debate was moderated by Dr. Bob Holsworth with Deborah Cox of WRIC 6 and Tom Lappas of the Henrico Citizen as panelists.

Joe Blackburn firmly dominated the debate taking Senator Stosch to task on his over 40 votes to increase taxes and fees as a state senator. Blackburn emphasized the “serious lack of budgetary restrain on behalf of the Senator Majority Leader, Finance Committee member and budget conferee” these last four years in office which have only resulted in massive tax increases for Henrico citizens.

Senator Walter Stosch claimed that “it was not a $1.4 billion tax increase in 2004,” although the media reports and budget conclusively prove otherwise and Stosch also claimed cutting taxes 33 times as a senator. Blackburn replied that, “If you put a dime in my left pocket and take a dollar out of my right pocket, that is a tax increase. You must have to be a CPA to say that is a tax cut.”

Stosch emphasized his important role as being a consensus builder and working to get a 21 vote majority as Senate Majority Leader. Blackburn replied that the only consensus building Senator Stosch has accomplished is with the Senate Democrats and a few liberal Republicans. Blackburn also reiterated that four years have lapsed with no caucusing between the House and Senate, a crowning achievement of his consensus building.

In closing, Stosch emphasized the need for affordable tuition and stated, “and yes, that will require and investment.” This is simple codeword for another imminent tax increase.

Blackburn concluded, “It is time for a change. You want someone who will vote your way all four years of his term, not just the one year when he is being challenged. Our delegates voted against the 2004 and 2006 increases and we need a senator who will do the same.”

# # #

Senator Stosch states “it wasn’t a $1.4 billion tax increase!”

Ok, I fully intend on transcribing for you the debate tonight between Senator Stosch and challenger Joe Blackburn. I can tell you that I thought Joe Blackburn handily won the debate tonight. However, before I sit down and write out the entire debate in a new post, I have to tell you the three most astonishing statements Senator Stosch had the audacity to make.

1. “It wasn’t a $1.4 billion tax increase in 2004.” That is a direct quote! I haven’t met a RINO yet that is dumb enough to try and make this argument. Most legislators say something like “I voted for it because we had to ensure our AAA bond rating”. In other words, they try and defend their vote. NOT SENATOR STOSCH.

   He actually tried to claim it never even happened! Do I really need to pull the hundreds of articles that state otherwise? Geez. You know, maybe he is right. I do believe he joined with Senator Chichester in trying to secure a $1.8 billion tax increase, only to have a Democrat Governor negotiate a $1.4 billion tax increase…to the disappointment of the Senate. Maybe he was trying to make an argument that it was too low!

2. Stosch claimed the budget was not $73 billion. We all know that budget has grown to $73 billion. Stosch thought he would be sneaky and just claim half the budget and pretend the other half didn’t exist. He actually tried to state that Joe was being misleading with the numbers by claiming a $73 billion budget. I think even Jeff Schapiro would agree the budget is $73 billion.
3. In his closing remarks Stosch was discussing what he would like to do these next four years if elected. He stated that he would like to make college tuition more affordable and then stated very emphatically, “and yes, that will require an investment!” Let me just decode that one for you. Senator Stosch has now promised more tax increases if you return him to office. Unbelievable!

I will transcribe the entire debate in the next post, but had to highlight these ridiculous statements.

Can the thought police be far behind?

Lately I’ve been hearing a lot about the new hate crime legislation making its way through Congress. HR 1592 adds gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals to the list of those protected under the definition of a hate crime. The bill will allow for harsher sentences for individuals whose offenses fall under the hate crime definition. HR 1592 will also provide federal money to help with the prosecution of hate crimes, and will allow for federal intervention if the state or locality is unwilling to move forward with prosecution.

 

This type of legislation leaves me scratching my head. The bill deals with violent crimes—the types of crimes that will be prosecuted whether “hate” is involved or not. Actually, if we’re talking about assault or murder I’m pretty sure hate is involved. Does it really matter exactly what kind of hate? The argument seems to be that in a hate crime, a specific community feels targeted and terrorized. I’ve also heard that perpetrators of hate crimes pose a more long-term threat than perpetrators of other violent crimes. Somehow a *regular* murderer isn’t as likely to kill again as one motivated by ‘hate’? I’m not really interested in testing out that theory.

 

There have been many comments on the concepts behind this legislation, and most have said it better than I can. Violent crimes should be punished regardless of the motivation, and people can be terrorized just as easily by a crime that is not motivated out of hate–the Virginia Tech massacre comes to mind.

 

The current fear is that this legislation will lead to encroachment on our right to free speech, and in particular might be used to curtail Christians from speaking out against homosexuality. HR 1592 clearly refers to violent crimes, and not speech. However, the intent is certainly to criminalize thought. What exactly makes a hate crime worse than some other violent crime? The thought behind it. And once the state starts imposing harsher sentences because of the thoughts surrounding the crime it does not seem a great leap to prevent the hate crime by prosecuting the thoughts that lead to it.  Maybe we should start making our tin foil hats.

Delegates Reid and Janis endorse Joe Blackburn

(Please see the YouTube videos below of the press conference endorsement of Joe Blackburn by Delegates Jack Reid and Bill Janis)

Delegate Jack Reid and Delegate Bill Janis announced today their support and endorsement of Joe Blackburn, who is challenging Senator Walter Stosch in the 12th Senate District.

I was able to videotape their statements for you to view, which are just a couple of minutes long so it won’t take you much time to watch. In addition to his endorsement, Delegate Reid gave Joe Blackburn a check for $5,000. Delegate Janis also plans on providing Joe Blackburn with financial support.

More importantly, both delegates stated that they would be personally encouraging all their constituents to vote for Joe Blackburn in the June 12th primary. It is amazing that two delegates in Stosch’s own senate district would be endorsing his challenger. This is not historically typical of primaries in the past.

Here is a portion of Delegate Jack Reid’s statement:

The vote in the Senate on the 2007 Transportation plan is revealing. Senators Potts and Chichester, while joining the Democrats in opposition to the plan, announced that they would not be seeking reelection. Mr. Stosch and several Republican Senators who have advocated higher taxes in the past all voted for the new transportation plan because, in my opinion, they face reelection this year….

….Joe Blackburn believes that the budget is constructed with funds entrusted to the legislature by the people of Virginia, and that to seek to raise taxes when the state has taken in over a billion dollars in revenue above projections is not only wrong, but unconscionable.

We agree that Virginia has a spending problem, not a funding problem and he [Joe Blackburn] is committed to prioritize those legitimate responsibilities of state government so that we do them well and return support of non-essential areas to the private sector.

It is therefore, my privilege to offer my endorsement of Joe Blackburn, and to invite those who have supported me over the years to do the same.

I wasn’t able to get all of Delegate Janis’ endorsement statement because I made the novice error of running out of tape. However, I did get some good parts on video. In addition, here was a good quote from Delegate Bill Janis:

Delegate Bill Janis said “I want to encourage my constituents who live in the 56th House District in Henrico and Goochland to support Joe and to vote for him. On two separate occasions we have come to the brink of shutting down state government because the leadership in the Senate would not allow us to pass a bi-annual budget unless the House of Delegates acquiesced to their demands for over a billion dollars in new spending. I need a Senator like Joe Blackburn in the 12th District who I can work with and make sure that we can keep taxes low on our constituents.”

Why the debate?

After the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban last week, I was curious how the pro-abortion faction would spin things. The partial-birth abortion is such a barbarous act that *most* reasonable people, even those in favor of abortion, have a difficult time defending it.

How silly of me to think the activists would pause for even a second before beginning their shrill defense. The response of choice is that this decision is a set-back for women’s health. According to Nancy Pelosi,

“This isn’t really an abortion issue. This is about a procedure that any parent would want her daughter to have access to if she needed it. And to frame it as an abortion issue is doing a disservice to medicine and to our young women and our country…This Supreme Court is deciding what medical procedures are necessary for child-bearing women.”

An appeal to women’s health is always good for votes, but in this case, as so often happens, Pelosi has the facts all wrong.

According to the AMA, “There does not appear to be any identified situation in which [it] is the only appropriate procedure.” And Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education, Dept. of Ob-Gyn at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, has stated: “There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which would require partial- birth abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother.” Dr. Smith also notes several serious risks and complications that can result from the procedure. And another clear statement by Dr. Boehm of Vanderbilt University Medical Center, “There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative.”

The evidence is clear that this procedure is not medically necessary, nor necessarily “safe”. Consider also that while the partial-birth (D&X) procedure is now banned, the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) is still allowed. Justice Ginsburg herself alluded to this when she noted that not a single fetus would be saved by this ban.

So what are we arguing about? From the pro-life side, any movement against abortion is good. The partial-birth procedure was banned because it truly is not medically necessary, but also because it went too far–killing a baby that is entirely out of the womb except for the last few inches is just too much for most reasonable human beings. The debate might rage about when exactly the fetus becomes a person, but most people agree that at the point of birth at least it is a life.

It is this point that makes the pro-abortion side so angry. They might be screaming about women’s health issues, but what really upsets them is the idea that people are willing to draw a line and declare something a life. They aren’t truly that upset that an unnecessary procedure has been eliminated, but they are furious that anyone would view a *technically* unborn child as a life.

What we see is an angry defense of anything abortion related. Even from the days of the ghastly portraits of back alley coat hanger abortions the argument has never been about health. It has always been about defending the indefensible. The greatest lie of the abortion debate is that the baby is not a life, but the second lie, almost as big as the first, is that abortion doesn’t hurt women. Abortion does hurt women, and deeply hurt individuals often respond in anger. Behind the angry response of the pro-abort side, I believe, there is an army of hurting women, desperately seeking to believe they did the right thing and hysterically trying to justify their actions by promoting abortion at all cost.

Joe Blackburn Receives Key Endorsements

On Tuesday, April 24th at 11am in the General Assembly Briefing Room, a press conference will be held to announce two key endorsements for Joe Blackburn. Joe Blackburn is challenging incumbent Senator Walter Stosch in a Republican Primary on June 12.

Senator Stosch is being challenged because of his historical tendencies to increase taxes and increase the size of government spending by double digits on an annual basis.

VCAP would like to encourage as many of you as possible to turn out in support of this great announcement on Tuesday.

If you have any questions, you can contact the campaign directly at 804-304-5227.

Senator Hanger’s finance report shows problems for his campaign

Well, the numbers don’t lie. Campaign finance reports were filed on Monday and the numbers are absolutely astonishing. It really shows the difference between being the man of the people versus a man of special interests. It also demonstrates the extreme lack of support within his own district.

There is some good analysis on Hanger’s campaign finance report called, “The Facts Don’t Lie.” I encourage you to check it out.

Senator Emmett Hanger raised $68,450. Only 16% of his donations came from within his District. That’s right, you hear me correctly. Only 5 out of the 30 donations came from his district. You realize that means that 84% of his money came from special interest groups?

Senator Hanger is certainly not demonstrating any strength as an incumbent. He should easily have the competitive advantage. However, he ONLY had 30 total contributions to report for the entire reporting period and ONLY 2 individual contributions from his district. It is worth repeating…Senator Hanger only had 2 individual donations from his district.

Hanger’s weakness is certainly Sayre’s gain. Scott Sayre raised penny-for-penny against an entrench incumbent raising $67,202.95. Mind you that Scott Sayre would have beaten the pants off of Senator Hanger had it not been for the Leadership for Virginia PAC dumping $25,000 into his campaign the day before the filing deadline to help him save face.

Furthermore, Scott Sayre had 94 cash contributions, of which 67 were from within his district. I think it is obvious to see who is the man of the people and who is gaining the support and trust of the District. I think it is also easy to see who has the loyalties of special interest.

The numbers don’t lie. The Emmett Hanger campaign is off to a very rough start.

Hokie Nation

I received the following graphic from a VCAP Partner, Howie Lind, and thought it was completely inspiring. You can click on the image to enlarge it. Please continue to pray for the friends, family, faculty, and campus.

I think the nation is so desperate to make sense out of a senseless act that they feel compelled to place blame anywhere, as a means of therapy. As a result, they start to point fingers at police, faculty, roommates, gun policies, etc. It is so easy to critique in hindsight. The killer is fully to blame for these atrocious acts. He clearly was psychotic and I am very disturbed by all the attention and acknowledgement he is receiving in the press. I don’t want to see his pictures, crazy rants, or psycho babble video. I find it incredibly offensive and think it gives him the final say. The last thing we need is his garbage in the media so another deranged individual can glorify and emmulate him.

I think the mental health arena could stand for some scrutiny. I had an adult friend who was suicidal and depressed and had made some superficial cuts on her wrists as a plea for help. When I tried to get her immediate help that day and get her admitted at Henrico Health (we started off at the ER), they could not compel her to stay and get help. It was “up to her” whether she felt like staying and getting help.

Now, does anyone really think that she was in a state of mind to make a sound and appropriate decision? After hours of begging and pleading she stayed overnight and came home 12 hours later with absolutely nothing accomplished. It was a very frustrating process and my first glimpse at how difficult it is to get someone psychological help and intervention if they are not a willing participant.