Do hippies really suck?

I started to think about my previous posting regarding “Crunchy Cons” and realized that a little clarification may be in order.

I’m not backpedaling off any of my rant whatsoever, mind you. It regards the title.

“Hippies suck” is a line frequently uttered by Eric Cartman of the South Park Cartman’s. It was the first thing that came into my head when I called Rod Dreher a hippie.

Do I think that hippies suck? No, not really. To each his own, I always say. Just because I would not voluntarily take on many of their lifestyle choices doesn’t mean I should denigrate their decisions.

Everything else from the post stands.

That is all.

One breath makes it a murder

Looks like the Supremes are gonna be taking up the case which overturned the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

Good.

This is one of those cases in which I think the Feds SHOULD intervene, being that SCOTUS previously killed the states’ ability to regulate this type of procedure. To be clear on the type of procedure in question:

A mother is induced to labor and the child is delivered feet first until only the head and neck remain inside the mother. The mostly delivered child is then stabbed in the back of the neck and the (functioning) brain is removed, thus ending the potential viability of said “fetus”.

It’s referred to as Partial-birth abortion or, to those who want to avoid any stigma in their terminology, “late-term abortion”.

Bullshit. It’s infanticide. Pure and simple.

In criminal cases in which teen-aged girls have been tried and convicted, the only difference between stillbirth and murder is one breath of air…and prosecutors will go to the ends of the earth to prove that the child got one breath in before it’s death.

In a partial birth abortion, you are restricting the ability of the child to get that breath in by leaving it’s head still in the mother. If you deliver the child head first, which would certainly make it a lot easier to suck out the kid’s brain, you run the risk of that child suddenly becoming viable by taking a breath. Can’t have that, can we? That’s what would make your “procedure” a “murder”.

Enough on that subject. Arguments and a decision are months away. Here’s hoping that the court does the right thing.

Clay beat me to the punch

As referenced in my previous blog posting about the incredibly stupid "Crunchy" theory of conservitism, I'd planned said that I would eventually address the port issue. Clay beat me to it.

Oddly enough, he finds himself on the same side of this issue with Bush (a little) and, accordingly, I think he may have thrown up in his mouth a little bit.

His commentary in italics and my response in bold (because it's my blog and I can be bold if I want to):

Bush faces pressure to block port deal

Lawmakers voice concerns about takeover by Dubai-based firm

Tom Ridge told CNN, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate."Ridge said, "The bottom line is, I think we need a little bit more transparency here. There are some legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing, security measures, added technology in these ports that we'll need to upgrade our security."

"So I think it's very appropriate for the administration to go to the Hill and explain why they think they have not compromised security and, in fact, as they've announced, they will enhance and improve security," he said. "It's tough to see that right now on the surface."

CNN

The world is gone mad. I am not supporting Bush but Ican understand that he did not know about this. Heck I work in a school of only about 100 employees and can't keep up with who is and isn't pregnant.

I also think that the Congress needs to be told info but national security says some things may need to remain secret. However, as this is not seemingly the case and as both sides of the aisle are now screaming perhaps the President needs to say we are going to slow this down I am personally with Congressional leaders look at this and find the solution.

Of God I am helping W. I need a shower...

posted by ClayGunter at 1:41 PM on Feb 22 2006

Big Bad Dad said...
I think you probably feel the same way I felt when I found out that Jimmy Carter and I were actually (to some extent) on the same side of this issue. It's an ookie feeling, isn't it?

Haven't been tracking this today, but when I read about it yesterday, my response was "OK. So?"

Even if Bush DID know about the deal,I'm not really upset about it at this point. Ownership of the FOREIGN company who is currently managing the ports is changing...it just so happens that it's to a Middle Eastern country.

Security for the ports will remain unchanged...Customs and the Coast Guard will be no less involved when Dubai takes over than they are now (in fact, they may even become more stringent in light of the political aspects of this). Having worked for a company which was taken over by a European powerhouse for a spell, I can tell you that the foreign takeover of a company is not going to fundamentally change the existing procedures, management, etc.

I'm also assuming that whoever greenlighted this deal did their due-diligence and is making certain that Homeland Security is addressed in this. Granted, it's an ASSUMPTION, but a pretty safe one.Besides, we're not talking about Iran here. It's DUBAI. Their extension of a "laurel...and hearty handshake" (go ahead...name the movie) to MICHAEL JACKSON should be proof positive that we're not dealing with a horrible Islamo-fascist theocracy.

The basic question is: Would we be throwing a temper-tantrum about this if Greece was buying the company? Probably not.

Yes, there is justification for doing our due-diligence and if some oversight committee wants to look at it, fine. I just think we'd be sending out a VERY bad signal if we sent out a wholesale "cease-and-desist" on this deal because a Middle Eastern country is involved.

Wow. Clay and I have a political post where we are mostly in agreement. Who'd have thunk it?
6:09 PM

I think that may be the record for fastest blog post yet.

Rod Dreher is a hippie...and hippies suck.

Been a little delinquent in posting of late. A three-day weekend in the Redneck Riviera and a return to work on Tuesday has made for a very busy Dad.

It’s certainly not for a lack of stuff going on…at least, amongst the conservative pundits. I feel it my duty as a wanna-be pundit to throw in my 1/50 of a dollar:

I’d originally thought about writing on the two big stories of the past two days: the issue with the ports and SCOTUS agreeing to hear the case on Partial Birth abortion, and probably will later on. I saw something else, however, that got my dander up just enough to make it necessary to put it at the front of the line.

Rod Dreher was previously with National Review and is now an editor at the Dallas Morning News. I agree with him on somethings, disagree with him on others, but have never been much of a fan. His writings, particularly in blogs, tends to be whiny and, in my opinion, immature (not that he’s a bad writer, he just reacts rather than responds).

A few years ago, a co-worker of his made a joke that his tendency to eat organic was “so lefty!!” That little joke has now spawned a movement and Dreher just released his book “Crunchy Cons”, in which he makes the case that there’s a new subclass of conservatives who realized that those who embrace conservative ideology have lost their way and desire a return to a more organic way of life. He’s even developed his own manifesto for this movement. His manifesto, and my point-by-point rebuttal is below:

"We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly."

As a member of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, Rod, you should be sensitive to the fact that, by and large, conservatives really hate being pigeon-holed into the conservative caracature by those to the left on the political spectrum. Not only are you not sensitive to it, you’ve actually swallowed that line of crap hook, line and sinker and, with it, inherited this dilusion of superiority because of your “new-found enlightenment.”

Well, Rod, those of us pierced and tattooed conservatives who have an affinity for listening to heavy metal music while canning our own pickles resent the implication.

It’s bad enough having to read and hear about how everybody who shares my political ideology is a stuffy, evangelical, pasty-white greed monger with Jerry Falwell hair when it comes from intolerant liberals. It’s doubly insulting when you hear from a self-proclaimed conservative that the stereotype is accurate, we’re just too blind to see it but, praise God, Dreher’s here to drop some knowledge on us.

"Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character."

Replace the word “conservatiism” with “man” and you may be close to the mark but to accuse conservatives of having cornered the market on greed, power and materialism is asinine. I know greedy, materialistic liberals and I know very frugal, unassuming conservatives.

Being insufficiently concerned with our character does not know a political boundary. It’s a reflection on our overall society. Wanting to be a good neighbor and good citizen has been replaced with an apathy of how we are viewed by others. I’ll even admit to being guilty of this. Of course, I want to be viewed positively by others, but I’m not going to fundamentally change myself so that everybody likes me. That has nothing to do with my political ideology but with the desire to be true to myself.

"Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government."

How ridiculously naïve.

No matter how big and evil a business can become, there is no way that it can have a fraction of the imapact that a big, evil government can. Big business is not responsible for millions of lives lost in war over the past two centuries. Big business is not responsible for holocausts or genocide. Big business is regulated and can be destroyed in the blink of an eye for any wrong doing (see “Enron”) and, despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, big business doesn’t typically execute those who would speak out against it or who have “wronged” it in some way.

Big Government deserves infinitely more skepticism than Big Business.

"Culture is more important than politics and economics."

Culture, in and of itself, does not possess the ability to take away my rights or force me to tolerate laws which are counter to my values. Culture does not possess the ability to take away my financial well-being.

"A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative."

I can probably agree with this point…to an extent. Of course, my agreement is contingent on how you would define “restraint” and “good stewardship”

"Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract."

This coming from a guy who, as recently as last week, has said that he will never buy an American car or appliance again. I guess your convictions take a back seat when small, local, old and particular are inconvenient.

Each one of these attributes has it’s advantages and disadvantages…I’m not addressing all of them. Sometimes local is great, but other times, Global is going to be better.

"Beauty is more important than efficiency."

Sitting on my desk directly in front of me are two pens. One is a beautiful, ergonomically designed stainless steel pen. Because it’s weighty and has no rubber on it anywhere, it can be used comfortably for short periods of time before your hand starts to hurt. Retail price is about $35. The other is a Papermate. It’s made of plastic and has a soft rubber ergonomically designed end. It’s very light and soft and I can write with it for hours on end. Retail price is $.55.

My beautiful pen ran out of ink the other day and I need to replace the ink cartridge…for about $2 Don’t know how I’m out of ink because I use it only a fraction of the time I use my $.55 Papermate. Be that as it may, I gently set my beautiful pen down on the desk and started writing with my Papermate. When my Papermate dies, I will throw it away and get a new one….for $.55.

Moral of the story: beautiful is fabulous but beauty doesn’t help me out much when I’m sitting in an all day meeting with a sore hand and a pen that works intermittently.

(This point is valid, however, when it comes to cars. I would much rather have a 2006 Dodge Charger R/T with a 5.7 liter Hemi than a Toyota Prius.)

"The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom."

Let’s not judge pop-culture quite so harshly. There’s a ton of authentic beauty that can be drawn from pop-culture. Personally, I find much more beauty in a photo of a scantily-clad Alyssa Milano than a painting of Whitler’s Mother. As far as truth and wisdom goes, I’ve probably learned more about science and history by watching “Who Wants To Be A Millionaire” and “Win Ben Stein’s Money” than I ever did reading boring science and history books in school.

Pop culture, if harnessed properly, could be a great educating tool AND can actually AWAKEN our senses. Leonardo DiCaprio probably sparked more interest in “Romeo and Juliet” than a nation full of English Lit teachers could do in 20 years. Realizing this, English Lit teachers actually use the movie to garner more interest in the book. Same goes with Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter”. Hell, if it hadn’t been for Bob and Doug McKenzie’s “Strange Brew”, I’d have probably never bothered trying to read “Hamlet”.


"We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”"

Unlike the rest of us conservatives who could give a rat’s ass about our wives and kids, I guess.

"Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives."

First off, this point assumes that we hit a cultural peak somewhere in history which must be preserved at all costs. Baloney. Culture is an ever-evolving concept. This is doubly true in the US because we don’t have a culture of our own. “American culture” is an amalgamation of cultures brought here from all corners of the earth and, now, with the influx of immigration and the flattening of the world (snifter clink to Friedman), our culture will continue to evolve. Does this mean that we replace the old with the new? Of course not. In fact, cultural evolution may well be a vehicle to preserve the old.

I’m sure I could go on about this ad nauseum, but I’ll stop until I’ve read the book.

I will read the book, mind you. If I can find this much to disagree with in 10 sentences, I’m sure I’ll have a blast reading 272 pages of this crap.

Bottom line: A conservative is a conservative is a conservative. We don’t need new classes of conservatives. “Compassionate Conservatism” validated the Left’s opinion that conservatives could care less about fellow man. “Crunchy” goes a step further by validating the argument that we don’t care about anything else…well…besides money, power and material riches.

You wanna become a born-again hippie? Fine. Just don't disparage an entire group of people who share political philosophy (one which you claim to embrace) in doing so.

On being pro-choice

- But not in the way you're probably thinking...

Once again, Jonah Goldberg and I are on the same page:


The wonderful thing about writing op-ed pieces is that I get ample feedback, often from people unencumbered by the niceties of interpersonal diplomacy.

Last week, I did what you might expect a conservative columnist to do. I told young orphans there is no Santa Claus.

No, no, just kidding. (Besides, I'd have gotten a better reaction closer to the holidays.)

No, I merely cataloged the troubles of the Democratic party. The infuriated response from hordes of liberal readers was, "How could you criticize the Democrats when the Republicans are in so much more trouble?" Fortunately they provided their own answers, most of which involved words such as "hack" and "shill," and phrases ill-suited to a family newspaper — or even to bars frequented by ex-cons. Angry readers recounted the long parade of GOP problems: warrantless wiretaps, the Abramoff scandal, Tom DeLay's indictment, Katrina, the revelation that President Bush is Rosemary's Baby, etc.

And that was before Vice President Dick Cheney started shooting people.

Allow me to defend myself. First, birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and conservative columnists gotta indulge their schadenfreude about the sorry plight of the Democratic party. It's what we do.

Second, of course the GOP is a mess (although I would remind liberals that it is better to be a majority party with problems than a minority party with problems). Congressmen are hanging out in K-Street warrens like addicts in 19th-century opium dens — but instead of Chinese dudes passing out pipes, there are lobbyists handing out checks, golf trips, and other prizes from behind Curtain No. 2 on Let's Make a Deal. The Contract With America that brought the Republicans to power more than ten years ago is a distant blur in the GOP's rearview mirror. Smaller, competent, and restrained government has been sacrificed to the new coalition of Republican rent-seekers.

Compassionate conservatism may have had some intellectual rigor when it was the stuff of egghead journals and think-tank conferences, but under Bush it has always been a marketing strategy designed to justify spending vast sums of money. This shattering of the GOP's at-least-nominal commitment to limited government has not only resulted in a bidding war between Congress and the White House on how "best" to expand government, it has also caused philosophical incontinence on the right.

I'm less critical of Bush's handling of the war on terror, but there, too, one certainly needn't struggle to the point of herniation to find mistakes.

Third, Republicans and conservatives aren't the same thing. This distinction seems lost on lots of people, including cable television bark-show bookers and partisan Democrats and Republicans alike. To a principled conservative, it is bad news when the Democrats lurch to the left, even if it makes the Democrats less likely to win elections. Why? Because when the Democrats move left, so do the Republicans.

In American politics, when one party moves left or right, the political center of gravity moves that way too. Bill Clinton, whatever his flaws, moved his party to the right. His triangulation infuriated Republicans because it is always vexing when someone steals your lunch. Democrats despise Bush's compassionate conservatism for similar reasons. A Republican president promising to "leave no child behind" annoys Democrats as much as Clinton's denouncing of Sista Soulja irked Republicans. When the Bush presidency is over, it will be more obvious in hindsight how much he moved the GOP to the left — by making the nanny state bipartisan.

It all boils down to what matters to you most. As a conservative, the extent I root for the GOP depends entirely on how successful it is in moving the political climate of the country toward fiscal restraint, limited government, and cultural decency. Single-issue voters understand this point best: Pro-lifers would dearly love to break the GOP monopoly on opposing abortion, just as abortion-rights supporters dream of the day when both parties are pro-choice. Many conservatives, including yours truly, would have agonized over a choice between a reliably pro-war Democrat and George W. Bush in 2004, particularly if judicial appointments weren't so important.

The point, dear liberals, is that some conservatives who criticize the Democrats or offer them advice do so not solely to salt wounds, but in the hope that someday we will have a real choice on Election Day — and not between the lesser of two evils.

— (c) 2006 Tribune Media Services

As I've tried to make clear in this here little blog, I am first and foremost, a conservative (or "reight-leaning Federalist"...whatever) which means that I disagree with the actions or the opinions of Bush and the current Republican-dominated Congress roughly 75% of the time. BUT, I agree with the the GOP about 23.5% more frequently than I do the Democrats. This is pretty much the only way that I defend my vote, sad as that may be. As suggested by Mr. Goldberg, I'm not alone

That is all.

A brief dialogue between me and my lovely wife circa 7:30 last night...

(Enter car. Dad puts Skinny Puppy’s “Mind: The Perpetual Intercourse” into the CD player. Music begins: “One Time One Place”)

Mom: Who is this?

Dad: Skinny Puppy

Mom: Hmmm. I like it. It’s a lot like Yaz.

Dad: (smiles quietly to himself...says nothing)

(Nivek Ogre’s vocals begin: “in the rain collapse cross out which way will we go…”)

Mom: WHAT THE F**K IS THAT?!?!?

Dad: Singer. Ogre.

Mom: You call that SINGING?

Dad. Nah…vocalizing.

Mom: Oh my gosh…

Dad: Think of my poor mother when I was 17 and had this blaring throughout the house.

Mom: Ugh...your poor mother

Dad: Heh heh heh…(thinks he sees daughter dancing a little in the rearview).

The End...

I’m so looking forward to corrupting my daughter’s music tastes.

If my car breaks down, can GM tell me I don't have the right to fix it?

The RIAA, the Recording Industry Association of America, is a trade group who works on behalf of the recording industry (hence the name), protecting their interests and to ensuring that the industry remains viable.

When the RIAA got it’s collective panties in a bunch over Napster and file sharing, I could see their point and pretty much sided with them. I thought that they were correct in their position that, by individuals sharing music en masse, it could potentially damage the record company and the artists ability to be paid for their art/wares/whatever. Being the lover of music that I am, I certainly wouldn’t want my ability to pick up good music at a good price to be hampered by a generation of music thieves.

As was good business, the recording industry worked together with other companies to develop the ability for file sharing, but one which would charge back the individual customer for downloading rights. Smart move. In order to remain viable, businesses must be innovative and, in the case of the music industry, needed to come up with solutions to ever-evolving technology.

Then the RIAA started going after individuals, filing lawsuits against little old grandmothers whose grandchildren had used their computers to download the latest Britney Spears tune. This is where I began to part company with the industry. Multi-billion dollar companies threatening financial ruin on 12 year-old girls and grandmas seemed to be going a little too far. If you have an ant problem, you don’t pick them off one-by-one…you kill the nest.

Around this same time, the major companies had to settle price-fixing cases brought on by a whole bunch of states. Price-fixing is something I certainly can’t abide by both in theory AND it’s impact on my wallet. I lost sympathy for the RIAA and most of the big record companies (and, no, this is not contradictory to my belief that gas stations having the same price on a gallon of gas does not constitute price fixing.)

Now, based on the newest reports, the RIAA and the industry-at-large believes that I may not rip CDs which I purchased onto an iPOD, nor may I make back-up copies of them for my own personal use.

As this blog tends to be relatively family friendly, I will limit my remarks to the following:

Each one of you “John Brown” “maternal-figure copulating” ”linguistically stroking a rooster” “male offspring of a female dog [plural]” may politely kiss my “heavyset” “hirsute” “pigmentally-deficient” “donkey”.

Phew…

So, by your logic, the thousands of dollars that I have spent over the years on your product will go to waste when the CD player goes the way of the turn-table and eight track, despite the fact that the techonogy exists to ensure that I don’t have to replace that commodity (the music) which I already OWN?

Also, by your logic, I shouldn’t be able to “back-up” your product that I purchased, onto a new, identical format if the disk I purchased becomes scratched (which, invariably, they do)?

“No, Mr. Big Bad Dad, because we’ve made the cost of CDs affordable enough for you to be able to purchase a new copy!” (No kidding…this was actually the logic they used in their filing).

Well, to that I say “”Copulate” you and the horse you rode in on. Go to “Hades””

Even if I didn’t think that logic was so incredibly offensive, it’s flawed. Many of the CDs I have are no longer in print…therefore I CAN’T replace them. Which leads me to my next issue.

Any financial losses the industry might be experiencing are not because of people pirating music, it’s because, by and large, the product you have been putting out over the past few years is “excrement”. There are some outstanding bands out there but, if they’re not pretty enough, or if their music is too complex, or if they’re not willing to sell their souls in order to get a record contract, they don’t stand a chance. Now, the world is inundated with tired, unoriginal pap by hack performers (not musicians, mind you…PERFORMERS) like Kanye West, Britney Spears and (ugh) Nickelback.

This is why people like me, who used to spend in excess of $100 a month on CDs, now don’t spend $100 over a full year. I’ve spent more on computer software in the past 6 weeks than I have on CDs in the past 18 months. Why? Because there have been less than 10 CDs released in the past 18 months which are worth owning.

Message to the recording industry: If you want to survive, go out and sign some decent musicians who put out some original product. Pay no attention to how they look and offer them a fair deal for their work. You may bring people like me back into the fold.

But as long as you keep catering to teenagers with a little babysitting cash, you’re going to lose music lovers like me who can actually have a positive impact on your revenues.

I’m going home to upload my CD collection onto my computer now in advance of purchasing a new iPOD. I’ll probably burn them onto CD as well…before it becomes illegal.

“Puckered end of the digestive tract [plural]”

Isn't it ironic? Do ya think?

In an article regarding the Cheney shooting, Hillary Clinton was quoted:

The former first lady continued: "The refusal of this administration to level with the American people on matters large and small is very disturbing, because it goes counter to the way our constitutional democracy ... is supposed to work."

Hmmmm...

Whitewater;
Top-Secret Hillarycare Committees;
Filegate (subsequent to the Foster suicide);
Obstruction of Travelgate investigation;
Lewinsky/Jones, et.al.
etc...

Please understand that this post is not intended to argue the merits of any of the above-referenced Clinton Administrations scandals (nor is it inclusive of all of the alledged scandals).

I am curious, however, how someone who spent so many years on the receiving end of accusations of lies, cover-ups and scandals, big or small, warranted or not, can make a statement such as this without so much as cracking a smile.

Political grandstanding, perhaps?

A thought for the day

I thought about doing a post on this myself, but because Jonah Goldberg expresses what I was thinking so succinctly, there's really no point in me re-inventing the wheel.

Warrantless searches, Katrina fingerpointing, $7.8 trillion budget, Abramoff spin: these were the stories buffetting the White House last week. This week, it's Dick Cheney's hunting accident. Regardless of the merits of any of these issues and the criticisms they raise, one would think the Democrats would understand that it will be difficult to return to many of these themes once we finally "get to the bottom" of the Cheney story (quotation marks are necessary because I think we hit bottom awhile ago but the media has brought out their earth-boring equipment and will keep digging for a while). After a few days, the press will take a "been there done that" attitude to the wiretap story and, barring some new revelation, will not want to bother re-educating the public about it. This is not a partisan point, but mere media analysis. Does no one remember how effectively the Clinton's used the refrain "that's old news" to beat down stories? That worked, because even whispering something is old news in the current media culture is enough to get reporters to "move on." Indeed, that's pretty much where MoveOn.org got its name -- from the widespread liberal effort to move on from a story liberals didn't want to talk about anymore. Cindy Sheehan's rage at the elements was well placed during hurricanes Rita and Katrina because she understood that once the media starts ignoring you, it's unlikely to come back again, never mind pick up where it left off.

I agree with the editors that Cheney should come clean and all that in an interview, indeed I wrote it first here in the Corner. But I still think there's room for a lot of political upside for Cheney, so long as the usual pattern of media over-reaction and Democratic over-reach plays itself out. And so far, that's certainly the way to bet.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.

By the way, Cheney is giving an interview tonight. Smart move.

Smarter still would have been for him to do it yesterday, but, I'm not his PR guy.

Cheney's Chappaquiddick

I truly planned on leaving this Dick Cheney thing alone after my one post. Unfortunately, I have problems keeping my mouth (or typing fingers) quiet when I read the most monumentally stupid conspiracy theories espoused by people who are truly educated beyond their own intelligence (hat tip to Jerry Clower).

An excerpt from “Cheney’s Chappaquiddick”

“Why do I say Chappaquiddick? After all, the wingers will shriek, nobody died at the Armstrong Ranch. Of course, that's just dumb luck. If a pellet had gone into Whittington's eye, straight to his brain ... And however much they spin it, the guy's still in intensive care on the third day after being "peppered" and "sprayed."

The reason Chappaquiddick haunts Ted Kennedy thirty-plus years later is because he covered up. He hid out and didn't file a police report, instead of doing the right thing immediately and reporting the accident. People have speculated since then that he was hoping the incident would never come out, or that he could pin the blame on someone else, or that he just needed time to sober up.

Hmmm ... here's a multiple-choice question: which of these explanations might also apply to the Cheney shooting? And let's not leave out "D," all of the above. Sure, Cheney supposedly quit drinking after those multiple drunk driving convictions, but then so did his boss, and questions have been raised with him, too ... "

Let’s do a quick compare and contrast:

Cheney accidentally shot a hunting partner who managed to forget the basic rules of a group hunt. Upon realizing what happened, Cheney, his Secret Service Detail and traveling Medical Team immediately went to render aid to the injured party while waiting for EMS to show-up. It is inferred in some accounts that the Sheriff’s department accompanied the ambulance to the hospital. The Sheriff’s office has reviewed the case, determined that this was truly an accident and has closed the investigation. All accounts have also confirmed that Mr. Cheney spent a good part of Sunday with the Mr. Whittington in the hospital. All accounts also indicate that Cheney was extremely apologetic. Medical experts expect him to make a "full recovery."

Kennedy accidentally drove his car into a body of water. He managed to escape, but the woman in the car with him did not. After Kennedy was unsuccessful with his alledged attempt to rescue the woman, he went and told his friends about it who alledgedly went back to the car but were unable to free her. The next morning, he called the authorities to advise them of the accident. Of course, the authorities were already aware of the accident as it had been called in some time before Kennedy ever called them. The investigators were able to determine that the victim had survived in an air pocket for some period of time which may have been long enough to ensure that she survived the accident. Of course, the one fact we are aware of is that whatever air pocket there was wasn’t sufficient to support her for 8.5 hours between the time of the accident and the time the authorities were able to get to her out of the car.

DAMN! The similarities are striking, aren’t they?

How Cheney’s actions constitute hiding out and not doing the right thing is beyond me. His biggest (and, perhaps, ONLY) sin in this situation was waiting to tell the press about it (the bastard!). Cheney's "cover-up" didn't result in a young woman's death...it just pissed off the press corps.

And don't be fooled. They're not really mad...they're just showing a little self-righteous "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW" indignation. I promise...the press is THRILLED about this.

I do like how, once again, this is pinned on Rove. It’s a conspiracy to divert attention from Plamegate and to allow the White House a more comfortable opportunity to push Cheney out, they say.

Ehhh…maybe.

A confession

I ordinarily avoid heavy confessions in my writings, but I beg you to bear with me as I feel so many young parents can learn from my heartbreaking story.

When my wife and I decided several years ago to bring a child into this world, I did so knowing that, at some point in my baby’s life, I would feel as though I’ve failed her. Such a close bond between two people, one that lasts a lifetime, makes failure an inevitability. Would my failure be the result of too much or not enough discipline? Would I fail her by broken promises? Would certain aspects of my lifestyle…my taste in music and affinity for brown liquors… prove to be so negatively influential on her that it would lead her to a life of alcoholism, devoid of a positive spiritual ideal?

Yes, I knew that it was never a question of “IF” I would fail her but “when…and how badly?” I just never expected to have failed as a parent before my daughter turned 3.

But fail her I did. I allowed “Curious George” books in my house.

I truly believed that these books were the story of a friendship between a monkey and a man in a yellow hat. How could I have been so blind???

It was my blindness…nay, my WILLFUL IGNORANCE…to the obvious themes of animal slavery and western imperialism which have caused me to screw up the most important role that I will ever play…that of a Daddy. I have infected my daughter’s brain with the belief that it is OK to oppress our animal friends.

I’ve seen the error of my ways. I now know that “…not only does the story reveal the sinister side of a corrupt wildlife trade with perilous roots in Western imperialism, but recent ethical, legal and scientific considerations on the personhood of primates makes a traditional reading of Curious George both impossible and irresponsible.”

Tonight, before I take all of my daughter’s books to the backyard for burning, I will draw her close to me, look deep into her eyes and say, “Honey, I know I’m asking a lot, but I beg you to forgive me for the damage I’ve caused you. From now on, I promise that I will not expose you to such horrendous ideals and beliefs. As God is my witness, I will consult with the experts before I ever read you another book again.”

And as a single tear falls down my cheek, she will respond, “Daddy, can I have a fruit snack?”

LOOK OUT, NED! IT'S COMING RIGHT AT US!!

As you may be aware, our old pal, Dick Cheney accidentally shot somebody over the weekend during a quail hunting trip. The 78 year-old lawyer is, apparently going to be alright. Accordingly, a couple jokes may be appropriate:

“Since wholesale Social Security reform failed, Cheney is taking a retail approach”;

and,

“Afterwards, Cheney said three words: “tort reform, bitch!”

I’m sure there are tons more out there, but I’m not going out looking for them. They’ll make their way to me, I’m certain.

By eyewitness accounts, he who was shot left and, subsequently, rejoined the hunting party without announcing himself (big no-no) just about the time the Veep was taking a shot. Based on my limited bird hunting (maybe a half-dozen times in my life) and skeet shooting, it is extremely understandable how easily something like this can happen. You don’t just stand still and wait for a target to make its way into your line of fire, you track it until you have a good shot. This means you are leading a small bird which is capable of flying at over 30 miles per hour. It’s a pretty quick process and you’re covering a lot of real estate.

But, don’t allow any understanding of the dynamics of quail hunting to get in the way of political grandstanding or personal attacks.

Give me a freaking break.

And, of course, the moonbats over at Democratic Underground are losing their minds. Always fun to see a group of people so passionate in their ignorance.

Good luck and Godspeed to Mr. Whittington for a swift recovery.

Somebody scuffed my crystal ball...

Back in December, I made my list of predictions as to who would win various Grammy awards in the 2 genres of music I actually care a little about. While I like Jazz, I know nothing about it. As far as country, hip-hop and R&B, I could give a rats butt. So, Pop and Rock it was.

And HOLY CRAP was I off my game…

Let’s see how I did.

Record of the Year: I predicted Kanye, I wanted Gwen. Green Day won it and I’m actually quite disappointed in that. It’s a horrible song by a horrible band.

As a big fan of The Sex Pistols, The Ramones, Iggy Pop, and other 70s and 80s Punk, someone thought I’d really get into Green Day when they came out in the early 90s. “It’s a Punk Revival, dude!”. The first song I heard by them opened with the line “Do you have the time/to listen to me whine?”

Uh…no. Turned them off and they’ve never redeemed themselves in my eyes.

Album of the Year: I predicted McCartney, I wanted U2. U2 won it.

Song of the Year: I predicted Springsteen, wanted U2. U2 got it.

New Artist: Had no prediction, nor a favorite. John Legend won it…which is fine. He’s pretty decent. Now we’ll see how he fares. Best New Artist winners either become the biggest names in music (i.e. Mariah Carey, Christina Aguilerra) or they vanish into obsurity (Paula Cole, Marc Cohn). There’s little middle ground.

Female Pop Vocal Performance: I predicted Crowe, wanted Clarkson. Clarkson won.

Male Pop Vocal Performance: Predicted Stevie Wonder, had no favorite in the category Stevie won.

Pop Performance by a Duo or Group With Vocal: Predicted Black-Eyed Peas, wanted The Killers. The award went to Maroon 5.

Maroon 5? Ugh…

I don’t get the Maroon 5 thing. Their music is pap and their lead singer sounds like he’s doing a bad imitation of Jay Kay from Jamiroquai.

Pop Vocal Album: Predicted Crow, wanted Clarkson. Clarkson won.

I’m very happy about being wrong on this award. I really like Kelly Clarkson and really can’t stand Sheryl Crow. Crow got shut out by an American Idol. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Actually, the American Idol comment is a little unfair. Kelly Clarkson has definitely broken out of the “A.I.” mold. For a “pop/rock” tune, “Since U Been Gone” had some pretty serious…uh…guts and shows that she has a range way beyond the vocal gymnastics crap that she won A.I. with. Good for her.

Solo Rock Vocal Performance: Predicted Clapton…wanted none of them because none of the nominees should have been up for the category.

Springsteen won. My previous argument stands. All horrible choices.

Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal: Predicted Coldplay, wanted U2. U2 won again.

Hard Rock Performance: Predicted Robert Plant using the “Which of these things is not like the other” theory, wanted System of a Down. SOD won. Metal Performance: Predicted and wanted Ministry for nostalgia reasons (they still rock but they’re OLD). Slipknot won it. Good (and appropriate) choice.

Rock Song: Predicted Foo Fighters or Weezer. Wanted U2. U2 wins.

Rock Album: Predicted the Stones. Wanted none of them because there were 547 better rock albums released than the ones nominated. U2 won again. I can handle that.

So, as far as my predictions go, I was 1 for 13 and I was 7 for 13 on who I wanted to win. I’ll never make it as a handicapper.

A couple brief notes:

I hate to admit it, but I like the song Madonna opened the show with.

Gwen Stefani is even cuter pregnant.

When McCartney took the stage, I remarked to the wife how sad it was that one-half of the one of the greatest songwriting duos in rock history was putting out crap like his newest offering. Then he followed it up with “Helter Skelter” and my sadness disappeared.

I wish I’d not fallen asleep before the Sly and the Family Stone tribute and I’m really disappointed I missed McCartney joining Linkin Park and Jay-Z singing “Yesterday”.

Finally, even though I disagree with some of the awards they were nominated for, I'm glad that U2 is still proving to be relevent 20+ years later. They are truly one of those bands who started off great and keeps getting better with age.

That is all of my Larry King style commentary for now.

Lost post found

I'm not sure if I just made a mistake and deleted a very well-written post or if there's something afoul in blogger land, but I saw that a post I wrote on Saturday disappeared. I found a cached copy and am re-attaching it here.

It's just like losing one of your babies, I tell ya.

Originally here:

I'm BAAAAACK! I'm back in the saddle again...

Actually, that's partially true. Still have a nasty headache but I'm not as fuzzy as I was all day yesterday. Acccordingly, I can respond to one of Clay's questions:

"Regarding state rights my question is this if we are strict constitutionalist how can any state deny marriage to anyone?"

Amendment XIV - Citizenship rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

After reading this question, my first thought was about the constitutionality of marriage itself. By definition, it’s a deprivation of liberty, so it seems that the institution itself is unconstitutional. By issuing a license, the state ipso facto bestows the ability to individuals to deprive the other party of liberties they enjoyed when they were single.

I joke, I joke, I keed, I keed.

Next, I thought about the possibility of arguing that marriage, in and of itself, does not bestow any rights on you…other laws at state and federal levels do. Because there are no rights granted, there are no rights denied. But that’s a somewhat slippery (and entirely too time-consuming) argument, so I abandoned it.

Then, I thought about going the “Original Meaning Theory” route. If we, as a much more enlightened society, so vehemently oppose same-sex marriage, it’s a pretty safe bet that the drafters of the 14th Amendment, did not mean to allow homosexuals to “bastardize” the institution of marriage…especially since some states had statutes on the books which specifically outlawed homosexuality. Those laws were not overturned until 2003 by the Lawrence case. More on Lawrence later.

Finally, I just decided to see if this had ever been before the courts. No need for me to argue a case that the Supreme Court has already decided. Sure enough, it was.

In Baker v. Nelson, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a law restricting same-sex marriage “does not offend the First, Eighth, Ninth or Fourteenth Amendments” because “in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex".

When the plaintiff tried to appeal, the US Supreme Court refused to hear it “for want of a substantial Federal question” The “dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a decision on the merits of the case, and as such, is binding precedent on all lower Federal Courts.” This is a binding precedent until such time as the Supreme Court overrules it.

Of course, Lawrence v. Texas slightly opens the door to the possibility that the court may decide to overrule this precedent. In fact, it can be argued that the decision opens the door to striking down statutes which prohibit many things you and I may find distasteful and immoral in the name of “sexual liberty”.

Of course, I don’t see that happening any time soon. The majority opinion tried to limit the decision to criminal penalty for engaging in homosexual acts, but who’s to say that Lawrence won’t be significantly broadened in the future to accommodate all sorts of "deviant behavior"?

Wikipedia has a pretty good write-up on the case.

Personally, I hope that marriage continues to be the union between a man and a woman and I acknowledge that this is based on my personal feelings and not on a well-thought-out logical position. As far as civil unions go, I’m going to let Dick Cheney speak for me:

“…people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard...The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these relationships should be treated the same as a conventional marriage is. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. I think the fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe [Lieberman], I’m also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."

I’ve had quite a few gay friends over the years and consider myself to be very tolerant of their lifestyle (even though I think it's ookie). Do I believe that we should ensure that gay couples enjoy the rights conferred on married couples as it relates to inheritances, hospital visitations, last wishes, etc.? Sure.

Do I believe that we should completely re-define the institution of marriage? No.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH....YEAH, BOY...

- Just watch what you say...

Posting with no real comment...mostly due to laziness...

Big Bad Dad on Sabbatical

Prior to departing the house this morning, my lovely and talented wife doped me up with Tylenol Allergy to combat a nasty little allergy. While this has certainly resulted in a marked improvement in my breathing ability, it has left my poor brain feeling like it's coming down off a real cheap vodka bender.

Sad. I haven't even wanted to READ any political or social commentary today, let alone write any.

Fortunately, I'm at a point in my project where I can dedicate the remainder of the business day to brainless, repetitive crap, so I've got that going for me...which is nice.

UNfortunately, I'm still committed to joining a co-worker for beers after work...which I'm NOT all that thrilled about. Oh well.

Tune in later for more scintillating commentary, scathing indictments and witty banter from your host. In the meantime, you can waste a little time here.

Signed,

Ignatius
Your Working Boy

Good News for My Wife and Clay

Now where are y'all's raises and promotions???

My problem is that my job is fairly self-contained and, those women I work the closest with are 650 miles away.

Guess I need to find me a new local b!+(h...

The Big 3 of Evil: Bush, Alito and Exxon

From the Comments section:


"My concern with the theory that Alito espoused for the Reagan Administration is that it seems to be his own view. We opposed one King George and now seem to be creating another"

Let’s say you’re right and Alito is going to give Bush a blank check to do whatever he wants. Look at the bright side: You only have to deal with the tyranny of King Chimpy Mc. Hitlerburton for less than 3 more years. His evil reign will be over on January 20, 2009. Halleluia.

Now, all the Democrats need to do is field an electible candidate to run against whoever gets the Republican nod, thus ending the Republican monarchy. It’ll be the Storming of the Bastille all over again.

Of course, that’s probably easier said than done.

"My only hope is that when the tide turns we will use the same wiretapping on the terrorists of Chevron, Halibuburton, and Exxon who in a time of national crisis and war have screwed America with their use of cronyism and price fixing schemes. And yes I do believe that."

As a stockholder of Exxon-Mobil (XOM on the old stock ticker), I must take exception of the terrorist tag you’re placing on them, if only because my portfolio got a SWEET bump. Of course, I guess that makes me a profiteer. Oh well. Pity.

All kidding aside, you call it cronyism and price-fixing, I call it "Economics 101: Supply and Demand."

Along comes Katrina, which caused a disruption of the ability of Big Oil to supply and transport gasoline. This resulted in wide-spread panic and demand for gasoline skyrocketed. You live around Towne Lake…almost every gas station within 15 miles of us was sucked dry in HOURS.

How do you best deflate demand? Jack up the price.

Had the prices been left as is with increased demand (exponentially) and diminished supply, there would have been a serious risk of long-term shortages and it’s entirely possible you’d still be paying over $3 a gallon…that is, if you could find a gas station that had a consistent supply. As it was, $3 a gallon lasted only a few weeks, instead of months or more. Now, gasoline is back to a much more reasonable price.

Could Bush have placed cost controls on gasoline in order to keep the American Public from getting “gouged”? Sure. Nixon did it in 1973…THAT worked well.

Were Exxon and others “unduly enriched” by this potential energy crisis? Probably.

Should they be deemed criminals because of this? No.

Do I, as a stockholder, hope that Exxon at least contributes some of their profits to some great cause as a show of good will? Sure, I'm game.

Do I, as a stockholder, hope that Exxon will utilize a larger portion of the profits for research and development AND to trying to figure out ways to avert another scare like this for future hurricane seasons? ABSOLUTELY.

Finally, am I, as a stockholder, conflicted about having profited off of this situation? Absolutely not. I bought this stock at $39 four years ago and saw it lose 25% of it’s value overnight. I took a beating on it for the first 2 years. Glad it’s moving the other direction. ;-)

"Harriet Miers did get screwed. Was she the best choice. Probably not but after getting selected and touted as the best choice the White House ran hard from her as soon as the extreme right yelled. The concern for me is either you have a best choice or not. Is Alito the second best? If he is... God help us for the 3rd. "

I’m sympathetic to Ms. Miers…if I’d have been nominated by my old running buddy to a high profile, monumentally important position that I was completely unqualified for, I’m sure my feelings would’ve been hurt when the rug got pulled out from under me.

She was not the best choice for the position and Uncle George knew that all along. I also feel pretty confident that Ms. Miers herself was aware of that fact.

Bush didn’t start running when the extreme right yelled…he’d already been running when the rest of the right (excluding those who believe he can do no wrong, which is legion), threw a temper tantrum about him nominating an unqualified attorney for the highest bench in the company purely on the basis of their friendship. Of course, I’ve already addressed that several times…no need to be redundant.

“Screwed” is such a harsh word though. She lost the brass ring, but she still managed to keep her job (and her proximity to her old buddy GWB), while avoiding what would have been a VERY ugly confirmation battle. Her hurt feelings must have gone away, though, as she was very actively involved in the Alito prep team. Looks like she’s not holding a grudge, so why all the grudges on her behalf??

Well...

I DO have a theory as to why Democrats are so torn up over Mier’s withdraw. Had Bush thumbed his nose at his base and proceeded with the nomination, it would have caused a terrible rift within the Republican Party and a huge division of the various factions would have occurred, destroying any appearance of a unified party, making the Republicans look like…well…the Democrats.

I’ll get back on the other comments/questions a little later. This “brief post” turned out to be way too long.

Pandora's box has been opened

- Did Clay really intend to goad me into a defense of INSURANCE???

Clay responds to my comments about Hillary Clinton and "Hillarycare"

I loved Hillary because of Health Care coverage. I can't get medicine or surgery I need because of the insurance I am forced to carry. The company chooses who lives or dies who lives pain free or suffers. My grandfather a WWII vet who worked hard for 40+ years has no medication coveraged. My mom and dad both have specific medications that work inspite of other meds attempted but as these arew not covered its out of pocket inspite of insurance and there premiums. Several student I teach have one medication theat works for ADD but of course since its not on the formulary they either deal with bad side effects or suffer academically. Government Health Care as an option for folks is required to truly make private companies competitive.

Quoting Jules from Pulp Fiction: "Well allow me to retort..."


I’m just going to venture a guess, but there’s probably a common thread here: you, your parents and your grandfather are currently covered under a group health insurance policy customized and, to some extent, paid for, by a governmental agency.

When an employer purchases a group health insurance program, they are allowed to customize their policy by itilizing components they feel would be most beneficial to the overall population AND would be the most affordable for the employer and the employee. Because governmental agencies are held to such tight budgets (Congress and the White House, of course, excluded), they essentially are required to purchase an insurance policy which will fit within their budget constraints (read: “cheap”).

Even “cheap” health insurance policies cost, in most cases, thousands of dollars a year for a small family. Thousands of dollars per family, multiplied by millions of families in this country…that means the Health Insurance Industry is raking in money hand over fist, right? Of course it does. They’re sitting on a significant potion of the US GDP.

Except they’re not. In 2005, the profit margin for the entire US Health Insurance Industry was a whopping 4.6%.

Did the insurance company manage to make that 4.6% profit because they cheated their insureds out of services the insured is entitled to? No. In many cases, total claims payments are pretty close to the total premium the insurance company has taken in…give or take a couple points. No insurance company in it’s right mind is going to willfully deny claims that are rightfully due in order to enhance their profit margins. Doing so can result in major legal exposure, huge fines, loss of certificates of authority and even jail time for choice insurance executives. Once one state uncovers wrongdoing, all the rest start investigating too. (This is why I wasn’t a big fan of the book or movie “The Rainmaker.” Required entirely too much suspension of disbelief)

They managed to keep that 4.6% is for a few different reasons:

1. Insurance companies are also notoriously cheap when it comes to administrative costs, meaning that they do as much as possible with as little as possible. This is why your average insurance industry worker makes a fair salary but, in many cases is doing the job of more than one person.

2. Underwriting practices are integral to the viability of an insurance company. They do their best to make sure that they’re insuring low and medium-low insurance risks only. In the case of Group Policies, there’s no way to weed out every high-risk employee, so they depend on the law of averages to ensure that the program won’t go down in flames. In the event that it does, the company reserves the right to cancel the policy. Of course, when the employer goes out to shop for a new policy, the premiums are going to be significantly higher than the previous policy.

3. Insurance companies are major investors and invests pretty much every penny they don’t have to pay out or keep in reserves. Much of their income comes from their investments. Investment capital is not only good for the insurance company, it’s good for the economy overall.

Now, I said all that to say this:

Hillary’s health care idea was to allow the government to take over the entire health insurance industry and create a 300 million person strong HMO. It goes a little something like this:

“All employers will pay for this health care coverage for their employees. Can’t afford it? Too bad.” (I kinda liken this to the “F^($ you, pay me!” monologue in GoodFellas.).

“You don’t have a job and no way to pay the premium? Don’t worry. We’ll pick up the check. There are plenty of people out there who can pay some additional taxes to cover it.

“To all of you folks who DO have jobs, well, we’ll be taxing you. Don’t worry, though. It’s a
“progressive tax” We’ll try to keep it affordable. Hey, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right??”

“So, after you’ve paid all your taxes, you can still afford to pay for better healthcare for yourself? Tough. Free-choice is gone. In fact, if you even TRY to pay cash for superior services, we’re going to toss you AND your Dr. in jail. We’re the US Government and we’re here to take care of all of you equally.”

“To all you health insurance companies out there,uhh…we won’t be needing you. We’ll be “contracting” with a couple HMOs. OF COURSE, they’ll be non-government entities…they’ll just be completely under our oversight. Maybe, though, we can give some of those millions of employees you’re going to have to can civil service jobs! They can do the dirty work! We’re talking about the largest expansion of Federal Government in the history of the planet so we’ll have some openings.”

“To all of you med students out there with $250K in student loans, you should be able to get a fine salaried position with some governm…uhhh.…HMO owned-and-operated hospital or association group. Now, don’t go getting these silly notions in your pretty little head about “private practice”. We’ve done away with that. We’ll try to make sure that your salary is sufficient to have your loans paid off before you’ve hit retirement age.”

“To the rest of our new HMO subscribers: WELCOME! We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that you’re getting equal healthcare, regardless of financial status. All you welfare cases…uh…make that ”economically-challenged” families, all you middle-classers and all of you horrible wealthy people can count on the same sub-par service HMOs have been providing for years. We’re looking forward to a long-term partnership with you. We know some of you are concerned about this, but Canada’s been doing this for years and look how successful they’ve been!”

“Oh, that reminds me: To all you Canadians who’ve regularly crossed the border into the US to pay cash for better health care than what your government is capable of providing, well, uh…sorry. We’re closed. Thanks for all your past business, though!”

I’m the first person who says that there needs to be some sort of health care reform but a complete federal takeover of 14% of the US economy isn’t the way to do it. Apparently, I’m not alone in this opinion because this little idea of Hillary’s cost the Democratic Party a majority status for the past 11 years (with the exception of that little Jeffords defection in 2001 to 2002).

How do you reform health care? Who knows? Maybe you look at the two most expensive aspects of being a doctor: education and lawsuits. If you pass tort reform (thereby lowering malpractice insurance premiums) and maybe try to reduce the cost of a med school education (via grants, tax incentives etc.), you stand a better chance at lowering health care expenses.

Lowering expenses is the ONLY way you can lower health care insurance costs.

But, of course, that’s just ONE opinion: