HR 550 IMMUNIZATION INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION

RE: HR 550, which authorized "IMMUNIZATION INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION."

Thank you for your reply via email on January 4^th to my inquiry as to why you voted “yea” on HR 550. In that response you stated:

“Let me begin by saying that this bill does not create a federal vaccine database or give the government access to patient vaccination records. In fact, H.R. 550 does the opposite. It makes Americans’ immunizations more secure by ensuring all data is confidential and deidentified so that it cannot be accessed by any government entity. It also enhances and modernizes immunization information systems already run by state and local governments to ensure the information in them is secured and kept private. As you can see, H.R. 550 will protect Americans by prohibiting the government from viewing their vaccination status. Additionally, this legislation establishes guardrails so that funds appropriated in the bill cannot be used to enforce vaccine mandates." 

I am now even more concerned that you assert HR 550 “does not create a federal vaccine database” and that the $400 million dollars (nearly ½ a billion, or $783 for every person residing in Lancaster County) “cannot be used to enforce vaccine mandates” when the bill itself contains this definition:

SEC 2824.a.1.f Definition.—In this section, the term ‘immunization information system’ means a confidential, population-based, computerized database that records immunization doses administered by any health care provider to persons within the geographic area covered by that database.

I have some knowledge of government systems and how legal “safeguards” can be circumvented. I am also very familiar with how “data sharing” can link disparate datasets. While you may think “This bill doesn’t create a single federal database...” quite frankly, that does not matter. If the data is federated (e.g., maintained in separate databases but linked via interfaces) then it is a de facto centralized database.

The first paragraph of the bill contains clauses that make the intent clear. The IMMUNIZATION INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA MODERNIZATION AND EXPANSION act authorizes the secretary to “conduct activities (including with respect to interoperability, population reporting, and bidirectional reporting) to expand, enhance, and improve immunization information systems.” In paragraph 1.iv the bill authorizes “... improving the secure bidirectional exchange of immunization record data among Federal, State, local, Tribal, and territorial governmental entities and non-governmental entities...”

While the language is mildly technical, “bidirectional exchange” of data enables centralization. It’s rather disingenuous to claim that the bill “does not create a federal vaccine database.” Of course not – who does that anymore? Monolithic databases are being migrated to clouds and similar decentralized platforms as fast as anyone can afford. Monoliths are being replaced by layered compute and data storage.

If publication and subscription of data were somehow constrained, there might be some support for your contention that it’s not a “database,” however there is no such constraining language in the bill. In fact, the bill states:

"(viii) supporting real-time immunization record data exchange and reporting, to support rapid identification of immunization coverage gaps;”

Why would it need "real-time data exchange"?

It's obvious that this capability does more than limited queries for forensic analysis.

Further, the bill authorizes “(v) supporting the standardization of immunization information systems to accelerate interoperability with health information technology, including with health information technology certified under section 3001(c)(5) or with health information networks;”

While the $400 million does not authorize yet another Oracle database, it does far, far more – it opens up every dataset at every level to real-time exchange and access by the federal government.

The intent and result are the same: a single pane of glass can have access to all records at all data repositories. It doesn’t require a degree in data science to predict what can be done with this federated data. You assert that the act “cannot be used to enforce vaccine mandates,” and yet the bill authorizes “(ix) improving completeness of data by facilitating the capability of immunization information systems to exchange data, directly or indirectly, with immunization information systems in other jurisdictions...”

It’s curious that the “other jurisdictions” are not defined. If they were, then the database connectivity could be constrained. It is not, and so there are no constraints.

I read the bill through several times and have yet to determine what “guardrails” were established to prevent the use of the federated data for vaccine status tracking. Yet even if the data is anonymized, it’s not a stretch to deduce the location, occupation, age, sex, and health care system interaction frequency of who is or is not complying with a mandate. And while the data accessible within this particular system may be anonymized, at some point there is a linkage between record and aggregated data. Are you absolutely certain that the resultant federated dataset cannot be used that the anonymity is a mere chimera?

Like tens of thousands of others, my DoD security clearance investigation data in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) database was hacked by the Chinese in 2013. They accessed Social Security numbers, names of relatives, place of birth, every address I’ve ever lived at, every employer, every trip to a foreign country -- everything about my background that the US Government required to process my clearance. 

You were unable to protect the most private personal information of thousands of people with top-secret security clearances from being downloaded to servers in China. OPM did not admit this until 2015.

Over a year later I received a letter informing me I would be given “free identity theft protection” for three years. 

Pardon me if assurances from the same government that “guardrails” will protect medical records are met with skepticism. 

Therefore, I am still disappointed that you voted to approve this bill, both for its unconstrained scope and for its huge price tag. But of more concern is the inexorable march towards centralization which only ends up with more control for a few and fewer liberties for the many.

My Thoughts on the .45 caliber Model 1911 Handgun

The M1911 .45 caliber was (and remains) one of the finest handguns ever designed, produced, and carried. The problem for most folks firing a 1911 isn’t the firearm or the .45 caliber round - it's training.

My first experience with a 1911 was in the Army National Guard. I barely hit anything, found it cumbersome and heavy and was bitterly disappointed. I rejected the .45 and eventually settled on 9mm. What I didn’t realize at the time was that I was searching for a tool that would minimize my deficiencies.

First, Army training for sidearms was (and likely remains) woefully inadequate. I was a recently minted lieutenant (after ten years as an enlisted soldier and NCO). For my introduction to the 1911 I was instructed to head to the range and “qualify.” The training consisted of a short review on loading, unloading, and reloading (all tasks required on the course of fire). There was no zero, no practice runs, no instruction on proper grip, stance, or recoil control.

Second, Army training was inadequate because the thinking was “If you need a handgun you’re screwed anyway.” I was a tank platoon leader — what tanker would exchange a 105mm main gun, .50 caliber machine gun, a pair of 7.62 machine gun, and 60 tons of mass for a pitiful handgun in any situation?

Third, just about every soldier I encountered (officer, enlisted, and NCO) treated the handgun as a birthright: “Of course I can shoot this — point and click, right?”

Thus, there’s no surprise people have bad experiences and chalked it up to the “recoil” of the mighty .45.

In fact, the M1911 is an all-steel weapon with plenty of mass. While the round is a bit larger than a 9mm (the .”45” refers to a fraction of an inch — thus less than 1/2” inch wide), the mass of the firing platform helps dampen felt-recoil. The standard .45 issue FMJ round is also a rather slow projectile (around 900 FPS, whereas a rifle fires 1700 and more FPS). Since Force = mass X velocity squared (F=mv2) (thanks for the correction), a heavy, slow thing might have the same felt recoil of a fast, small thing (all other factors being equal).

It wasn’t until several years passed I decided to get serious about handguns. I took some training, shot a lot, and settled on the 9mm as the default choice. More time passed, but I kept running into serious shooters who swore by the .45. After encountering enough of these fans of John Browning I decided to give the M1911 another look.

It was eye-opening. After more training and more focus on proper grip, stance, and overall engagement I learned how to properly fire a handgun.

I found the 1911 trigger was sublime. The recoil was actually less. My ability to put 7 rounds on target in a short amount of time improved. I bought a “Commander” size .45 and that has become my primary carry firearm.

I went from “Yeah, those things are a piece of junk” to “John Browning was a genius for the ages.” And now, I suppose, I’m also one of those old guys that shoots a .45 at the range and other shooters with plastic guns look over and think, “He’s so behind the times.”

Words Matter

Words such as “slow” and “massive” are relative. The difference in muzzle velocity between a 9mm, .40, and .45 is a few hundred FPS. While a .45 round can be traveling as “slowly” as 850 FPS, it’s still fast enough to arrive at a target within handgun range far more quickly than any living target can move to avoid impact.

As far as impact energy being “massive” — the assertion suffers from three problems:

1) No handgun round imparts “massive” energy. Even the stupid calibers (e.g. .50) barely exert enough force to move a grown adult (the full force of any bullet is transmitted to the shooter as recoil. A gun you can hold and fire in one hand). While it might hurt your hands, it’s not as “massive” a force as being struck by a 10 lb sledge swung by gorilla.

2) “Impact energy” isn’t what slows or stops a person or animal. Rather, it’s the amount of damage imparted to an essential component of movement, thought, and/or will. Movement can be degraded by damage to bone, nerves, or muscle. Thought can be degraded by damage to the central nervous system. The Will can be degraded as the recipient of the bullet reconsiders the action that resulted in a bullet impact.

3) Handgun bullets are small — they penetrate and pass through muscle and/or organs, and are sometimes stopped by or shatter bones. The “impact” is a small part of the equation of damage and incapacitation. If we could design a handgun that fired the head of a ten-pound sledgehammer at Gorilla-capable velocity, we would be carrying those. But the size of the magazine would make the handgun unwieldy and inconvenient. So we carry little guns with little projectiles because they have proven reasonably effective at slowing and sometimes stopping threats. Line up all the popular handgun rounds according to size and you will see there’s not much difference.

A (very late) Review of Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Devoted readers of the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O'Brien (“The canon” written by “POB” for those in the club) have read (and listened to Patrick Tull read) the entire 21-book series several times. Given Hollywood’s record of Disneyfying beloved novels, one can be excused for being less than enthusiastic about a film.

Thus, like every other POB aficionado, I approached Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World with trepidation. What film could convey even a hint of the rich depths of the novels? How many "screen adaptations" have fallen short by trivializing the characters, or oversimplifying the relationships, situations, and resolutions?

First, it’s important to understand that while the setting of the canon is the Royal Navy in the Napoleonic era, the human condition is the true subject. O'Brien charts Aubrey and Maturin's lives through the vagaries of fortune, friendships, difficult families, poverty and wealth, honor and shame, success and failure. The relationship between Captain Jack Aubrey and Doctor Stephen Maturin remains the core of the work and is what makes the books so compelling.

Second, novels are meant to be read, and the reader must create in his or her mind the circumstances, the tone of voice, the time of day, and all the other factors that come to mind as we read. Very often the author will use vague yet evocative language. Maturin’s love interest Diana is often described as “dashing” – which may evoke a very particular physical presence in one reader and not another. And so, each reader brings a host of memories that are either confirmed in film or –- more likely – contradicted. This is no way to make friends.

The first time I watched I was happily surprised by the way actors Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany portrayed Jack and Stephen. While Bettany does not look Spanish and doesn’t sound Irish, is not “slight” or have "reptilian eyes,” his mannerisms and deep well of inner life and competence are apparent. Other roles are also somewhat miscast, such as Bonden (who O'Brien described a strapping bare-knuckle prizefighter), yet others seem spot-on (Killick, Aubrey’s perpetually put-out foremast jack steward). But Crowe is absolutely convincing as Lucky Jack and commands the screen as Jack commanded a quarterdeck.

The storyline is a rather simple chase using vignettes culled from plots across several books. (Master and Commander was the first book of the series, early in Jack’s career when he was not yet a Captain and did not yet have Surprise). Nevertheless, the care and dedication to the accuracy of the period were apparent from the opening montage. Every scene is perfectly framed. There is no sequence that seems out of place, awkward, or gratuitous. Even the hard, grizzled, superstitious seamen display moments of tenderness, solicitude, and grace.

On each successive viewing, I do less comparing and more appreciating. Peter Weir’s film artfully conveys the spirit of the books while avoiding any single book. The film ignores Jack and Stephen’s life ashore, espionage, romance and dalliances, rambunctious family, scheming admirals, political intrigue, churlish mother-in-law, dashing Diana, the horrible old Leopard, and the murderous Dutch 74 Waakzaamheid. We readers know the tapestry of situations and relationships, failures and triumphs behind the characters portrayed on film, and nothing the actors do contradicts our consciousness of these old friends. Nothing they do or say is anomalous to the people we have come to know.

And that may be the film’s greatest achievement. For while the film is masterfully shot with convincing action scenes and perfect framing; directed so that the actor’s glance speaks volumes; edited so that every ambient sound supports the narrative; scored masterfully using both period and modern music to lovingly capture the mood. The film’s greatest accomplishment is what it does not do: it never panders, and it never breaks the trust of the loyal fan of the best historical novels yet written. 

"What should I do...?"

"What should I do if I catch an intruder in my house and am holding him at gunpoint?"

This is a question every gun owner should think about and plan ahead of time. Because if you don't, you will be so amped on adrenaline you will likely make a mistake.

If you are alone you will have your hands full, but the best advice is to have the perpetrator face away from you (on his face hands behind his back) while you make the 911 call on speakerphone. Tell the operator your location, what is happening, and what you’re wearing (“I’m a male, 45, 6′, average build, wearing a blue bathrobe. I have a shotgun pointed at the intruder’s head — he’s laying on the floor in front of me.”) This will help responding officers.

Unfortunately, 911 operators are trained to extract as much information from you as possible during the call. However, your first priority is keeping the intruder covered! DO NOT be distracted by this call!

Once you provide the basic information, put down the phone (still on speaker), and remind the perp that you have a shotgun pointed directly at the back of his head. Remind him that any moves will be taken as aggression and that you fear for your life. Tell him you will shoot him if he moves (It’s fine to say this several times).

Do not debate, argue, negotiate, talk with the intruder. You aren’t a psychologist, priest, lawyer, or buddy. Ignore the crying, pleas of innocence, promises to never be bad again — the rest of the schtick. Too late.

Think like a soldier: you are holding a prisoner until relieved.

The responding officers will know that you are holding the perp at gunpoint. Once you see flashing lights stay on task. Wait until you are instructed by the responding officers before setting the shotgun on safe and relinquishing control (keep in mind they may approach from behind or through a window — don’t turn to face them — keep your focus where it needs to be — on the perpetrator.)

Once you are relieved, do NOT engage with lengthy descriptions with the responding officers. Immediately point out any evidence (such as broken glass where the perp broke in, a dropped tire iron or knife, whatever) and witnesses. Then say “I plan to be as helpful as possible but any further conversations will be in the presence of my attorney.”

Now it’s time to ignore the “You have nothing to worry about…” talk from the cops. You have no idea who the perp is or who his attorney might be, so don’t gamble your freedom and finances on the word of a cop who just wants to write up a report and end his shift. Any further discussion needs to be met with a firm but polite, “I’m happy to help in any way, but I will not talk about this except in the presence of my attorney.”

Is this a lot to think about and remember? Yes, yes it is. This is why you need to think very carefully about what you will do if you ever find yourself in this situation. If you don’t, it’s likely you’ll make a mistake that can cost you your freedom, your fortune, or your life.

History Lessons

Lately, it seems one cannot mention “Nazis” without being banned or accused of being a Nazi. Nearly as bad is the response of those who laugh and claim that any mention of Nazis belies a misunderstanding of present reality: “That was a unique moment in time – that can never happen again.”

This should be expected from dimwitted, reactionary, and context-free minds.

A group of angry, dim witted, reactionary, and context-free minds

Slightly wiser people are interested in avoiding the errors of the past by learning from them. This requires the study of history. This study is not the mere collecting of antiquities as decorative trivia (the domain of the “history buff”).

The study of history is a continuous examination of the unvarnished record of past events, many of which can only be appreciated after significant study, exposure to many viewpoints, and confrontation with evidence and logic that may or may not align to presuppositions and conclusions.

In other words – it’s work. 

The Tragedy of the Silent Church

The church* is under assault, yet remains silent. The prevailing mode seems to be "stay out of sight" and hope for the best.

The church in America (and throughout the Western world) is facing direct challenges to its most basic ministries. While health risks are widely recognized, less visible -- and in the long term, more deadly risks -- are threats to the teaching and disciple-making efforts of the church.

The lack of exposure to regular teaching, the increased tolerance for missing church activities, the move to parachurch online sources, the lack of continuity, and breaking bonds that encourage disciple-making are threats that show no sign of abating anytime soon.

The longer shutdown orders last the more likely fissures will arise between those that differ on the mitigations, the mandates, and the efficacy of government dictates (especially when so many outspoken politicians have been caught contradicting their official decrees).

Some may choose to break fellowship to attend other churches that more closely aligned with their understanding of the severity of the threat posed by the virus. While this may seem a less than compelling reason to leave, it must be considered, because the underlying assumptions are not trivial: Does the church answer to the state when the state's directives contradict the clear teaching of scripture? Do we believe God is still in control during a pandemic? Do we place fellowship and ministry high enough to risk exposure to this disease? Are those who cannot wear a mask de facto less loving, concerned, or "spiritual?" What of the tens of thousands of elderly and ill who have been isolated for months? What about the grieving families who are forbidden from seeing loved ones left to die alone? Can weddings and funerals and special events such as Easter, Christmas, and Thanksgiving be postponed or even canceled indefinitely?

Alone: No Visitors, No Advocates

Despite these valid concerns, many Christians have appealed to Romans 13:1-2 to buttress the argument that Christians must abide by all government decrees:

13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 

The current lockdowns, constraints, limits, and marginalization of anyone who does not subscribe fully to unproven mitigation strategies raises anew the paradox of the relationship of church and individual believers to the state.

Re-Open Protests

The church has wrestled with this relationship since Pentecost. Peter and John were arrested because the Jewish authorities were “greatly disturbed because they were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead.”

This was not mere squabble over religion — this was a significant social, economic, and political challenge to the status quo. This “new teaching” threatened the temple economy and the uneasy tolerance of Rome, challenged the established social order, pit the educated against the uneducated, suborned tradition, and exposed the injustice of a system under which Jesus had been tried and convicted:

Acts 4: 18 And when they had summoned them, they commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; 20 for we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” 21 When they had threatened them further, they let them go (finding no basis on which to punish them) on account of the people, because they were all glorifying God for what had happened;

In many regions of the world today Christianity is an oppressed minority. In those areas, the relationship is clearly delineated, making the choice simple: survive. In most of the West, churches are still open, and Christians gather and practice the norms, traditions, and rites of the faith.

Mass Arrest of Christians in China

Augustine described this relationship in his City of God, where he described differing domains of interest. Sometimes those domains overlap: an example would be the state’s interest in buildings that meet certain standards of access and safety. In other areas the domains are clearly separate: the pastor preaches the truth of the Word no matter the “officially acceptable guidance” from the state.

Thus, it is clear that There will be tension between the commands of the state and the mission of the church.

Further, various levels of government have issued contradictory mandates. Recently several counties determined to open ahead of the state governor’s timetables. The Federal government defers on some topics to the states but contradicts state guidance on others. A clear example of inconsistency is the mandatory mask rules imposed by many states. The CDC’s guidance reads: “CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain...” Yet the Pennsylvania Department of Health has decreed masks are required.[1]

"Wear a Mask! (Except when you don't need to)"

What is the message if we disregard a law? (We’ll concede for sake of argument that the orders have been deemed “lawful” by the state). Proponents of a “quiet witness” approach will argue that it is our duty to obey the government (Titus 3:1), that governments are ordained by God (Romans 13:1) and upholds the good of all (1 Pet. 2:14), and that Christians should respect and honor those in authority (Romans 13:4). Further, we are commanded “...to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you...” (1 Thessalonians 4:11).

Peter before the Sanhedrin

These verses are aspirational, but not necessarily normative. Jesus, Peter, Paul, and others contradicted edicts when the state overstepped its bounds.

Contradiction to illegal orders has been an essential component of Christian witness. In fact, this principle has carried through to most western legal systems, reinforced by Principal 4 of the Nuremberg Trials:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

The appeal that "I was simply following orders" is rejected. Any agent of the state who carries out illegal orders is guilty of a crime.

Thus the principle of conscience is invoked as an axiom of law: recall Hus before the Council of Constance, Luther before the Diet of Worms, Wilberforce and the Slave trade, Marin Luther King against separate but equal, and the March for Life protests against abortion.

In each case Christian-molded conscience rejected authority and appealed to a higher law.

Confrontation has been a critical element of the salt and light aspect of Christian testimony since the beginning.

Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, April 17, 1521: "I can not and will not recant anything, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against the conscience."

Christians have been at the forefront of many changes to society, culture, and laws. These changes include the establishment of hospitals, orphanages, and universities; the promotion of art, literature, and music academies; outlawing infanticide, pedophilia, child abandonment, and abortion; instituting humane prison reforms; granting property rights and suffrage to women; banning polygamy; advancing universal education; abolishing slavery, and the insistence that every person is equal before the law and before God. In every case, these efforts were opposed by some elements of the established order.

William Wilberforce, British Prime Minister, Abolished Slavery

The promotion of justice, the sanctity of life, the individual as an image of God, the defense of the oppressed all reflect the Christian understanding of the Gospel. The history of the relationship between church and state in the west ranges from tolerance to symbiosis to adversarial.

It is certainly within the realm of Christian testimony to challenge infringements on religious freedom.[2] This confrontation need not be acrimonious, but it must be unambiguous. As citizens of the United States we can appeal to the law in the same way Paul was able to appeal to Caesar as a citizen of Rome. There is no guarantee the appeal will be successful, but it must always be an option lest it becomes meaningless.

There are many risks in life and one of the dangers of freedom is that we need to assess risk and then determine our level of tolerance. Ignoring risk does not make it go away. There is no time when all risk is eliminated. We may do everything possible and still fail miserably. Or we may continually –and unknowingly -- fail but no threat ever manifests. In either case, we can’t claim success. We are charged to do the best we can with the resources available. Anything beyond that is in God’s hands.

---

*"Church" here being defined as the church universal of all those who confess that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

[1] “Cloth face coverings fashioned from household items or made at home from common materials at low cost can be used as an additional, voluntary public health measure.” https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover.html

[2] The US Constitution is unequivocal: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Pennsylvania Constitution is equally clear in Section 3: “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.”