Category Archives: Children and families

The Weiner-ification of America

Carlos Danger -- a man ahead of his time.

Carlos Danger — a man ahead of his time.

by James A. Bacon

When I was raising my oldest offspring, now about 30 years old, a public awareness campaign would ask, “It’s 11 o’clock. Do you know where your children are?” Parents don’t seem nearly as worried where their children are these days — odds are, they’re at home. A better picture is, what are they doing?

Nancy Jo Sales, author of “American Girls,” knows. She spent two-and-a-half years investigating the online lives of teenagers, especially girls. And it’s not a pretty picture. Yes, even here in the Eden of Virginia, far from the Sodoms of California and Gamorrahs of New York City, it’s very disturbing indeed. Apparently, an entire generation of our youth has followed the path blazed by disgraced New York politician Anthony Weiner.

From the book review in the Wall Street Journal:

It turns out that one of the main uses teens make of their phones is to watch, wield and circulate naked pictures of themselves. Perhaps surprisingly, the most commonly shared pornographic images are not of the girls themselves but “dick pics,” self-portraits of the penises of teenaged boys. Texting a photo of one’s genitals would seem to be an off-road perversion, not to the taste of any boy but the odd flasher. In fact, the stories Ms. Sales presents, whether of humiliation or triumph, often turn on a plot point involving such pictures.

“Do they think we want that? Because we don’t,” Sally, a 17-year-old in Boca Raton, tells Ms. Sales. So why do boys do it? One in James City County, Va., explains: “I send them my dick, so they’ll show me something of theirs.” This is a full economy: While a nude photo of a guy is practically worthless, a nude photo of a girl can be used as currency, traded with friends for marijuana or liquor — that’s “lq” in text speak.

“If you don’t send them nudes, they say you’re a prude,” says Casssy, another Floridian teen, says of boys.

“Lord of the Flies” depicted the descent into barbarism of teenage boys marooned on a desert island with no adult rules or guidance. Beelzebub has left the island and now lives in our homes. Smart phones enable girls and boys to interact in ways that their parents could never imagine — entirely out of view. Teenagers are obsessed with sex and peer status; they always have been, and always will be. In the past adults exercised some control and reined in those instincts. Now it’s much harder to. Even if we were of a mind to spy on our their communications, our kids are more tech savvy than us, they’re willing to devote their every waking moment to thwarting us, and they will assuredly develop a work-around to anything we concoct.

Where this trend will lead us, I do not know. I just hope that my 17-year-old doesn’t do any of this stuff. Meanwhile, my wife and I will go back to watching the Victorian morals on display in “Downton Abbey.”

Time to Reform Juvenile Justice

by Chris Braunlich

If the evidence showed that taking a particular medication actually made the disease worse, would you keep on taking it?

Of course not.

But a recent paper, Juvenile Justice Reform, co-issued by Justice Fellowship, Right On Crime, and the Thomas Jefferson Institute makes the case that, when it comes to Virginia’s juvenile justice system, that’s been exactly the prescription for too many years.

In fact, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) admits in its latest guidelines that “current policies and practices are not effective in preparing juveniles to be successful citizens in the community.”

According to DJJ, “after controlling for offense and risk and protective factors … the probability of a juvenile’s re-arrest increases by 32.7 percent for every additional year” that a young person remains incarcerated in the Commonwealth.

In short, the longer someone stays in the system, the more likely they are to return to the system. Some might argue that, after all, these are hardened criminal youth who deserve to be locked away.

But are they? More than 11 percent of youthful prisoners are there on a misdemeanor offense, and more than a third are incarcerated on non-person felonies – crimes that didn’t include confrontations with another person. One of the largest such crimes is larceny.

In fact, more youths were jailed in Virginia on a primary conviction of larceny than any other offense. And while that may sound a bit frightening, consider the fact that Virginia has the lowest threshold in the nation for felony larceny: $200.

That $200 threshold hasn’t changed since 1980, with the result that theft of a ubiquitous cell phone or a college textbook now meets the definition of felony larceny, with a much higher potential prison sentence. If the definition had simply kept pace with inflation, that threshold would be $565 today. Put another way: That $200 had purchasing power of $63.29 in 1980. Is that really our idea of felony larceny and a community risk?

The result is that youths are jailed in Virginia for crimes that would be misdemeanors in every other state, driving up our incarceration rates and costs.

More importantly: Non-violent youths who may have simply made a mistake are put in a prison environment with more hardened criminals. Removed from their family (often hundreds of miles away) and other community support networks like their local church, they are more likely to turn to the internal “support networks” of a juvenile prison – and that frequently leads to a worsening turn, not a better one. One result: Virginia’s rearrest rate three years after release from juvenile correctional centers is 80 percent, even while recidivism rates in several other states is declining.

This process is expensive. Virginia’s two existing juvenile correctional centers cost $28-35 million each, or about $150,000 per youth per year. In other states, the daily cost of incarcerating a single youth is about $240; in Virginia, the cost soars to more than $400.

To its credit, the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice has already begun instituting reforms – closing most of the big facilities and opening wings in their remaining facilities with a high premium on workers trained in both security and rehabilitation.

But the paper issued by three center-right organizations suggests going the extra mile by decentralizing the juvenile justice system even further. A youth incarcerated in a prison that may be up to five hours away from their community is cut off from the resources most likely to aid him in rehabilitation and a return to a law-abiding life. Parental communication may be severed for disciplinary reasons, and home-based faith institutions are unable work early-on to help transition youth into jobs, school, and a better life. Continue reading

Speaking of Gay Rights…

gay_marriageLike a lot of other Americans, I have been slow to embrace the right of gays to marry. That’s because I respect the sanctity of an institution — marriage as the union between a man and a woman — that evolved over thousands of years. But, ultimately, my libertarian instincts prevailed.

As a libertarian/conservative, I espouse a win-win view of human rights. I don’t think, for example, that there is a fundamental human right to education or health care. Those so-called “rights” are derived, or subsidiary, rights. Financing one person’s “right” to health care can be achieved only by taking someone else’s property, thus harming that person. That’s not to say that society shouldn’t provide health care to all, but universal access to health care is something to be bestowed through legislation, not as a fundamental right.

What is a fundamental right? The right to vote is fundamental. Giving John the right to vote does not deprive Mary of the right to vote. Giving John the right of free speech does not deprive Mary of the right to free speech. Giving John the right to a trial by jury does not deprive Mary of the right to a trial by jury. Giving all citizens equal treatment under the law is a fundamental right.

By the same logic, giving Heather’s mommies the right to be married, along with all the privileges and appurtenances permitted under the law, does not deprive John and Mary of the right to marry.  So, while my heart tells me to support the traditional idea of marriage (not because I’m anti-gay, but because I’m pro-traditional marriage), reason tells me to support gay marriage. In this particular matter, I follow my head over my heart.

— JAB

Why Doesn’t Heather Have Two Daddies?

heatherNews from Attorney General Mark R. Herring: Virginia has issued 2,670 marriage licenses and 70 birth certificates to same-sex couples since gay marriage became legal in Virginia a year ago. So reports the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

The figure that startles me is the 70 birth certificates. Presumably, male same-sex couples are not giving birth (although I suppose it’s possible that gay men could hire surrogates like some heterosexual couples do). According to highly authoritative information I scraped off the first page of Google search results, the number of married gay females nearly equals the number of married gay males nationally. If national trends hold true in Virginia, that implies that about 1,300 gay female couples account for those 70 births. But that’s just a guess. I would be interested to see the break-down of the births by the gender of the parents.

Ignoring the ethical, religious and political dimensions of gays raising children, I’m fascinated from an anthropological perspective. Are gay women more inclined to want children than gay men? (I’m guessing that’s the case: After all, the name of the book was, “Heather Has Two Mommies,” not “Heather Has Two Daddies.”) Do gay women tend to be more nurturing than gay men, just as women are more nurturing than men in the general population? How do gay women decide which spouse bears the child? If they want more than one, do they take turns?

So many questions. This should be a fruitful field of inquiry for an aspiring young social scientist.

— JAB

Why Must Hundreds of Richmond Children Seek Medical Care Outside Richmond?

VCU Children's Pavilion -- no substitute for an, independent, free-standing children's hospital.

VCU Children’s Pavilion — no substitute for an, independent, free-standing children’s hospital.

by James A. Bacon

An excellent article in Style Weekly asks an important question: “Hundreds of local children have illnesses that send them beyond Richmond to seek pediatric care. Why can’t we treat them here?”

The answer: Because the Richmond region is one of the few in the country not to have a dedicated, free-standing children’s hospital. And why doesn’t Richmond have a children’s hospital? Well, you’ll have to read the article, written by former Bacon’s Rebellion contributor Peter Galuszka, to find out. While Peter refrains from tarring and feathering the Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, evidence in his article points to VCU’s desire to hang on to its own pediatric business as a major obstacle.

As it happens, I’ve been poking around the edges of this story, which I may or may not have time to pursue. One angle among many that are worth investigating would be to document just how many families must seek medical treatment outside Richmond because specialized pediatric services are not available locally.

I recently chatted with two prominent pediatricians. They cited a report that said about 750 children each year seek medical attention outside the Richmond area, in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania. That doesn’t include many hundreds of others who seek care, say, at Duke University in North Carolina, or any number of other hospitals around the country.

The problem is that Richmond divides the pediatric practice between three hospital systems: VCU, Bon Secours and HCA. A children’s hospital, advocates say, would create a volume and scale of operation that none of those institutions can achieve on their own. A higher volume would enable a children’s hospital to recruit more pediatric specialists to Richmond. Instead of seeking care outside the region, with all the added costs of travel, overnight stays and time off from work that entails, many families could find that treatment available here in town. There will always be some rarefied specialties that the local medical marketplace can’t support, but a children’s hospital would alleviate the problem to a significant degree.

VCU President countered that logic with vague statements regarding the continued instability and uncertainty in the health care industry and the argument that “collaborative care” was a better approach than a stand-alone hospital. What do they mean by collaborative care? Who knows? Writes Galuszka: “Rao and [Bon Secours CEO Toni] Ardabell declined interviews to elaborate on their positions.”

Beware the Cultural Totalitarians

Brad Avakian, closet totalitarian

Brad Avakian, Oregon’s closet totalitarian

by James A. Bacon

Among my less useful accomplishments in life, I earned a Masters degree in African history at the Johns Hopkins University, an interdisciplinary program merging history and anthropology. Among the few useful perspectives I gained was an appreciation of the extraordinary plasticity of family forms throughout history and across the world. There are patrilineal societies (which are organized around the father’s kinship group) and matrilineal societies (organized around the mother’s). There are patrilocal societies (in which the wife moves in with the husband’s family), matrilocal societies (the husband moves in with the wife’s family), avunculocal societies (newlyweds move into the residence of the wife’s uncle) and neolocal societies (in which the newly married set up their own abode).

Don’t even get me started about polygamy (marriage between a man and multiple women) and polyandry (one wife, more than one husband). You get the idea. The traditional American family in which couples trace descent through the parents of both spouses and form their own residence is far from universal, and it is hardly the only form of marriage that is capable of raising children to become productive members of society. That’s why, as much as I revere my cultural heritage of marriage between a man and a woman, I don’t see gay marriage as leading to social disintegration. If you fear social disintegration, a far bigger threat is the American welfare state, which has substituted the nexus of government entitlements for the bonds uniting man and woman.

Unlike my conservative peers, I don’t get exercised about gay marriage, at least if it evolves organically from changes in social norms as played out in the legislative process. I do have a problem with gay marriage being imposed nationally by judicial decree by five Supreme Court justices. And I have a huge problem in which the proponents of gay marriage harness the power of government to squelch those who fail to truckle to the new orthodoxy. The political Left has a totalitarian instinct that is a far greater threat to the American way of life than gay marriage ever will be.

Emboldened by their success in legalizing gay marriage, the American Left has moved way beyond the proposition of equal rights for gays. Progressives are moving to impose their views on dissenters, including those who, for reasons of religious conviction, decline to provide floral, catering or other services to gay weddings.

The latest case in point comes from Oregon. According to the Daily Signal, a publication of the conservative Heritage Foundation, Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian finalized a preliminary ruling ordering Aaron and Melissa Klein to pay $135,000 in emotional damages to a gay couple. Their crime: refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake. His justification: “This case … is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.” Moreover:

In the ruling, Avakian placed an effective gag order on the Kleins, ordering them to “cease and desist” from speaking publicly about not wanting to bake cakes for same-sex weddings based on their Christian beliefs. …

“The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries hereby orders [Aaron and Melissa Klein] to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” Avakian wrote.

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

Thus, gay rights trump freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Avakian’s action is a national outlier now. But I fear it will become the norm. Many progressives, like Avakian, are closet totalitarians. They will not be satisfied simply to allow gays to marry — they will not rest until dissenting views are driven underground.

Could such a thing happen in Virginia? I hope not. But I can tell you this: While I support gay marriage, I will oppose with every fiber of my being any effort to extinguish the freedoms of religion and speech of Americans who oppose it.

Richmond’s Pathetic Leadership

At the Diamond

At the Diamond

By Peter Galuszka

Richmond is going through an existential crisis. Its “leadership” can’t get anything done after wasting the public’s time and attention on the supposed possibilities of this so-called “Capital of Creativity.”

Two examples come to mind. One is the city’s and region’s utter failure to do anything about its crumbling ballpark. The other is wasting everyone’s time on pushing an independent children’s hospital and then having VCU Health and Bon Secours pull the rug out from everyone.

Mind you, you hear ramblings out the wazoo about how Richmond is all about “regionalism” and how the “River City” is just a dandy place to live. One of the worst offenders is Bacon’s Rebellion, which shamelessly crams Richmond boosterism down readers’ throats.

But what really sets me off is a full page and unabashedly revisionist editorial in this morning’s Richmond Times-Dispatch titled “Ballpark in the Bottom? Definitely not.” The writers claim they “having listened carefully, and at great length, to all sides, we have become convinced a proposal that seemed promising at first is fatally flawed.”

Yipes! This comes after a couple years of the newspaper’s flacking Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ dubious plan to put a new $67 million stadium in historic Shockoe Bottom for the city’s Minor League AA team, the Flying Squirrels, rather than refurbishing or replacing the crumbling Diamond on the Boulevard near the strategic intersections of Interstates 64 and 95.

TD Publisher Thomas A. (TAS) Silvestri, the one-time and obviously conflicted chair of the local chamber of commerce, pushed the Shockoe idea because that was the flavor of the month with parts of the Richmond elite, including some developers, the Timmons engineering group, the Jones regime and others.

It was a bad idea from the start and had been shot down before. The Bottom has no parking and is too cramped. Even worse, it would disturb graves of slaves and other reminders of the city’s darker past such as being the nation’s No. 2 slave trading capital (this is before the “creativity” part).

The AAA Richmond Braves hated the Diamond so much that they bolted to a new stadium in Gwinnett County outside of Atlanta in 2009. A new team associated with the San Francisco Giants decided to move in. The Flying Squirrels have been an outstanding success and in the five years they have been here, their team has drawn more fans than any other in the Eastern League. In fact, their stats place them among the best draws in all of minor league baseball.

But the Squirrels had been led to believe they would get new or greatly improved digs. Instead of focusing on the Diamond (which has ONE elevator for the sick and elderly and it often doesn’t work). A couple of weeks ago, Lou DiBella wrote an open letter to the community noting that nothing has happened. Their deal with the city end next year, raising the issue of whether they will bolt as the Braves did.

Squirrels owner DiBella

Squirrels owner DiBella

I did a Q&A with DiBella for Style. Here’s how he put it:

“We have been a great asset for the whole Richmond region. Where am I looking? I’m not trying to look. You want me to look, tell me. I want to create a dialogue. I want people to be honest and open and candid right now. If you’re going to screw around with us the same way you did with the Braves, the way Richmond did under false pretenses, and there’s no chance of any regional participation or the city being creative in building a stadium — let me know now because I do have to start thinking about the future.”

He has a point. Richmond did screw around with him. Chesterfield and Henrico Counties did, too. The Squirrels get most of their spectators from the suburbs but their political leaders don’t want to spend anything to help. They neatly got off the hook when they conveyed the Diamond from the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, of which they are members, to the city exclusively.

The Jones administration, meanwhile, wasted everyone’s time (except that of the Richmond Times-Dispatch) by pushing the Bottom idea. The business elite sponsored trips for so-called local leaders to fly around the country and look at other stadiums.

Then, nothing. A development firm called the Rebkee Co. came up with a plan to build a new stadium near the Diamond with private funds. But the city refused to even review the plan. They did not accept formal written copies of the idea.

The Jones team did manage to come up with a summer practice area for the Washington Redskins that is used about two or three weeks a year. It hardly draws anything close to what the Squirrels do, but they had little problem pushing with their idea.

Bill Goodwin

Bill Goodwin

Next up is a stand-alone children’s hospital, an idea backed by a group of pediatricians and Bill Goodwin, a wealthy philanthropist and one of the most powerful men in Richmond. He and his wife pledged $150 million for the project and many, including the RTD, talked about it to death. Goodwin’s idea would be to create a world class hospital on the level of the famous Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia.

Then, without warning, non-profits VCU and Bon Secours health system pulled the rug out from under Goodwin and everyone else. They said an independent children’s hospital wasn’t needed, there was no market for it and pediatric care is moving more towards out-patient service, anyway.

The real reason, says Goodwin, is that a stand-alone children’s hospital would mean that other local hospitals would have to scale back their money-making pediatric units.

Also for Style, I asked Goodwin for his thoughts. He was flabbergasted at shutting down the idea without warning. He said:

“We were planning for an independent children’s hospital that was regional and would provide more comprehensive coverage than what VCU and Bon Secours are currently providing. This effort would have been a heck of an economic driver for our community and would provide significantly better medical care for children. Better medical education and research were also planned. We would be creating something that was creating good jobs, and it would be something that the community would be proud of, which we haven’t had recently.”

So there you have it, sports fans – a moment of truth. With its current leadership, Richmond couldn’t strike water if it fell out of a boat. You know it when the editorial writers on Franklin Street start revising history.

Richmond's Pathetic Leadership

At the Diamond

At the Diamond

By Peter Galuszka

Richmond is going through an existential crisis. Its “leadership” can’t get anything done after wasting the public’s time and attention on the supposed possibilities of this so-called “Capital of Creativity.”

Two examples come to mind. One is the city’s and region’s utter failure to do anything about its crumbling ballpark. The other is wasting everyone’s time on pushing an independent children’s hospital and then having VCU Health and Bon Secours pull the rug out from everyone.

Mind you, you hear ramblings out the wazoo about how Richmond is all about “regionalism” and how the “River City” is just a dandy place to live. One of the worst offenders is Bacon’s Rebellion, which shamelessly crams Richmond boosterism down readers’ throats.

But what really sets me off is a full page and unabashedly revisionist editorial in this morning’s Richmond Times-Dispatch titled “Ballpark in the Bottom? Definitely not.” The writers claim they “having listened carefully, and at great length, to all sides, we have become convinced a proposal that seemed promising at first is fatally flawed.”

Yipes! This comes after a couple years of the newspaper’s flacking Mayor Dwight C. Jones’ dubious plan to put a new $67 million stadium in historic Shockoe Bottom for the city’s Minor League AA team, the Flying Squirrels, rather than refurbishing or replacing the crumbling Diamond on the Boulevard near the strategic intersections of Interstates 64 and 95.

TD Publisher Thomas A. (TAS) Silvestri, the one-time and obviously conflicted chair of the local chamber of commerce, pushed the Shockoe idea because that was the flavor of the month with parts of the Richmond elite, including some developers, the Timmons engineering group, the Jones regime and others.

It was a bad idea from the start and had been shot down before. The Bottom has no parking and is too cramped. Even worse, it would disturb graves of slaves and other reminders of the city’s darker past such as being the nation’s No. 2 slave trading capital (this is before the “creativity” part).

The AAA Richmond Braves hated the Diamond so much that they bolted to a new stadium in Gwinnett County outside of Atlanta in 2009. A new team associated with the San Francisco Giants decided to move in. The Flying Squirrels have been an outstanding success and in the five years they have been here, their team has drawn more fans than any other in the Eastern League. In fact, their stats place them among the best draws in all of minor league baseball.

But the Squirrels had been led to believe they would get new or greatly improved digs. Instead of focusing on the Diamond (which has ONE elevator for the sick and elderly and it often doesn’t work). A couple of weeks ago, Lou DiBella wrote an open letter to the community noting that nothing has happened. Their deal with the city end next year, raising the issue of whether they will bolt as the Braves did.

Squirrels owner DiBella

Squirrels owner DiBella

I did a Q&A with DiBella for Style. Here’s how he put it:

“We have been a great asset for the whole Richmond region. Where am I looking? I’m not trying to look. You want me to look, tell me. I want to create a dialogue. I want people to be honest and open and candid right now. If you’re going to screw around with us the same way you did with the Braves, the way Richmond did under false pretenses, and there’s no chance of any regional participation or the city being creative in building a stadium — let me know now because I do have to start thinking about the future.”

He has a point. Richmond did screw around with him. Chesterfield and Henrico Counties did, too. The Squirrels get most of their spectators from the suburbs but their political leaders don’t want to spend anything to help. They neatly got off the hook when they conveyed the Diamond from the Richmond Metropolitan Authority, of which they are members, to the city exclusively.

The Jones administration, meanwhile, wasted everyone’s time (except that of the Richmond Times-Dispatch) by pushing the Bottom idea. The business elite sponsored trips for so-called local leaders to fly around the country and look at other stadiums.

Then, nothing. A development firm called the Rebkee Co. came up with a plan to build a new stadium near the Diamond with private funds. But the city refused to even review the plan. They did not accept formal written copies of the idea.

The Jones team did manage to come up with a summer practice area for the Washington Redskins that is used about two or three weeks a year. It hardly draws anything close to what the Squirrels do, but they had little problem pushing with their idea.

Bill Goodwin

Bill Goodwin

Next up is a stand-alone children’s hospital, an idea backed by a group of pediatricians and Bill Goodwin, a wealthy philanthropist and one of the most powerful men in Richmond. He and his wife pledged $150 million for the project and many, including the RTD, talked about it to death. Goodwin’s idea would be to create a world class hospital on the level of the famous Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia.

Then, without warning, non-profits VCU and Bon Secours health system pulled the rug out from under Goodwin and everyone else. They said an independent children’s hospital wasn’t needed, there was no market for it and pediatric care is moving more towards out-patient service, anyway.

The real reason, says Goodwin, is that a stand-alone children’s hospital would mean that other local hospitals would have to scale back their money-making pediatric units.

Also for Style, I asked Goodwin for his thoughts. He was flabbergasted at shutting down the idea without warning. He said:

“We were planning for an independent children’s hospital that was regional and would provide more comprehensive coverage than what VCU and Bon Secours are currently providing. This effort would have been a heck of an economic driver for our community and would provide significantly better medical care for children. Better medical education and research were also planned. We would be creating something that was creating good jobs, and it would be something that the community would be proud of, which we haven’t had recently.”

So there you have it, sports fans – a moment of truth. With its current leadership, Richmond couldn’t strike water if it fell out of a boat. You know it when the editorial writers on Franklin Street start revising history.

Is SEAL Team 6 Out of Control?

Seal_Team_Six_old_insigniaBy Peter Galuszka

Dam Neck Annex is a forgettable piece of beachfront landscape amidst the strip malls of Virginia Beach. F-18s Hornet jets roar past from nearby Oceana Naval Air Station and the traffic is typical for the area: vans with soccer moms, bikers’ choppers and sedans with families headed for the sand.

Surrounded by thousands of yards of barbed wire and other protections, the annex which consists of shooting ranges and blocky buildings is home to SEAL Team 6, one of the most celebrated covert warrior groups in the world. Despite their fame and penchant for grabbing publicity, there’s evidence that SEAL Team 6 is out of control – in more ways than one.

On Sunday, The New York Times printed an extensive investigation showing that TEAM 6 has been serving as a covert hit-job unit in Afghanistan and other parts of South Asia and the Middle East. The highly-trained unit has been involved with many high risk missions but one stands out, according to the Times. It is “Operation Omega,” started by former Army commander Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal who was concerned in 2006 that the U.S. did not have sufficient troops in Afghanistan to beat back an increasingly aggressive insurgency by the Taliban.

The Times says that Operation Omega was modeled after the infamous Phoenix Program in South Vietnam that was designed to identify and eliminate, often by assassination, members and supporters of the Viet Cong. From 1965 until 1972, up to 41,000 people were killed in the process.

It isn’t know what Seal Team 6’s death count was, but the Times reports that from 2006 to 2008, there were weeks at a time “when their unit logged 10 to 15 kills on many nights, and sometimes up to 25.”

These, apparently, are not traditional night raids or return-fire situations when an American patrol is ambushed. These were surgical, precision strikes including kidnappings and at times, apparently, assassinations.

One issue is that because of their intense secrecy and worries about security there is not much oversight into the Team’s activities. The Times says that Team 6 by passes usual military judicial processes and is overseen by the secretive Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

The Virginia-based SEAL time had been tasked with special, high-risk missions such as the highly-acclaimed rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips, a commercial sea captain, who had been kidnapped by pirates off of East Africa when his ship had been taken by pirates in 2009. One concern in the Times is that such special missions were subverted as TEAM 6 was pushed into using its special snatch and grab or kill expertise in a more routine basis in Afghanistan and other countries.

Another strange issue is that for what is purported to be a highly covert unit, Team 6 gets a ton of publicity, some of it sleazy, and some of its members tend to get into trouble when they get back home.

For example, when Tom Hanks made a movie in which he portray the rescued cargo ship captain, the Navy willingly laid on a small fleet of ships and helicopters to help.

Book publishers have been inundated by supposedly non-fiction tomes about Team 6’s heroics. A couple involved who actually nailed Osama bin Laden. Robert O’Neill penned one claiming it fired the last fatal shot. Matt Bissonette, writing ‘No Easy Day,” under the nom de ’guerre Mark Own, said he did. Both SEALS drew criticism for violating security and going after big bucks.

The hands-down worst case involves “American Sniper” about the famed shooter Chris Kyle who was the subject a best-selling (two million copes) book and a box-office smash movie directed by Clint Eastwood. The book made $6 million and the movie hit the $400 million mark. But strangely, Kyle’s family didn’t see much of it after Kyle was murdered at a Texas shooting range two years ago.

The Virginian-Pilot reported recently that the family has seen none of the funds raised to help Kyle’s family by some so-called military help funds.

So, it seems you have two serious questions. Has Seal Team 6– and other SEAL units –morphed into an assassination team that has little accountability. If this is so, why are so many trying to cash in on it, especially, it seems, the United States Navy.

I’ve not been in the military service but I have known a few people who have been, including covert operators. Many tend to operate within strict rules and they don’t say anything about what happened.

Richmond Childrens Hospital Deal Collapses

Did VCU's commitment to  its new $168 million childrens' pavilion kill plans for a consolidated Richmond regional childrens' hospital?

Did VCU’s commitment to its new $168 million childrens’ pavilion kill plans for a consolidated Richmond regional childrens’ hospital?

by James A. Bacon

To be sure, building a new, free-standing childrens’ hospital for the Richmond region would be an expensive proposition — on the order of $600 million. But when mega-philanthropists Alice and William H. Goodwin are willing to kick in $150 million, a fund-raising campaign has been organized to raise another $100 million to $150 million, and dozens of pediatric physicians in the region are backing the project, one would think that community leaders could find a way to make it happen.

But all bets are off now that two key participants, Virginia Commonwealth University and Bon Secours Richmond Health System announced yesterday that they had pulled out of the deal. Goodwin, who with his wife has worked on the idea for eight years, said he would be willing to resume talks if the hospitals were, but otherwise, “I don’t need another couple of years of discussions.”

The collapse of the Childrens’ Hospital in the Richmond region stands in stark contrast to the announcement in Febuary by Inova Health Systems in Fairfax County that it would purchase the old Exxon-Mobil headquarters facility, assessed at $193 million in value, in order to house a world-class facility dedicated to genomics and personalized medicine.  The big difference is that Inova did not have to balance competing interests in the same way that promoters of the Richmond childrens’ facility do.

The argument in favor of consolidating patient care for children in a single state-of-the-art facility is that a specialized facility can provide superior care and better medical outcomes for children than a system that is fragmented between three major health systems, VCU, Bons Secours and HCA. (For-profit HCA was not a party to the childrens’ hospital negotiations.) It is a truism of medical economics that the greater the number of medical procedures performed by a medical practice and its physicians, the more efficient the operations, the lower the cost and the better the outcomes. Another advantage of a dedicated childrens’ facility is that combining pediatric practices would create a larger volume that could support more specialties, saving many patients and their families from traveling outside the region for their medical care.

Against those advantages is the hard business reality that neither VCU nor Bon Secours is willing to give up their significant pediatric practices out of the goodness of their hearts. Both health systems would lose major revenue streams during a time of great uncertainty caused by the legal challenge to Obamacare subsidies, the refusal of the General Assembly to expand Virginia’s Medicaid program and federal funding issues regarding the training of new physicians.

“This particular model that was proposed was a free-standing hospital with no ownership by VCU or Bon Secours,” said Tony R. Ardabell, CEO of Bon Secours Richmond, as quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. “That would have been a tremendous negative impact to the bottom line, and we were worried about the sustainability of our ministry at St. Mary’s Hospital for the whole population of Richmond.”

“As a safety-net hospital we are headed into a very, very serious set of storms that are not totally predictable but you can see them out into the future being difficult periods,” said VCU President Michael Rao.

Goodwin’s reaction: Those are short-term problems. He is looking at a 50-year time horizon.

While the financial environment for the health care industry undoubtedly is cloudy, Bon Secours and VCU are staggeringly profitable. At least they were in 2013, according to data reported to Virginia Health Information; it is possible that the Obamacare roll-out and other factors have impacted profits negatively since then. Here is the data:

Note: The Bon Secours data is a composite of the four Bon Secours hospitals in the Richmond region; it is not clear from the VHI profiles if Bon Secours Richmond regional administrative overhead is included. Also note: The definition of "operating income" is profit before interest and taxes.

Note: The Bon Secours data is a composite of the four Bon Secours hospitals in the Richmond region; it is not clear from the VHI profiles if Bon Secours Richmond regional administrative overhead is included. Also note: The definition of “operating income” is profit before interest and taxes.

For all the benefits it would offer the community, a new children’s hospital would create problems for VCU and Bon Secours, which would stand to lose tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of dollars of pediatric business, saddling them with tremendous stranded costs in existing facilities, staff and equipment. The problem would be all the more acute for VCU, which is building a $168 million Children’s Pavilion on Broad Street to consolidate pediatrics services across the downtown campus.

But questions arise about the responsibility that these two not-for-profit enterprises have toward the public good. One could argue that the primary responsibility of VCU and Bon Secours should be to the health of the community, not their highly profitable bottom lines. If a consolidated, state-of-the-art childrens’ facility would provide superior health care to the region’s young people, the VCU and Bon Secours boards of directors have some serious soul searching to do.