Rock on French Lawyer Lady.

It's not often I like a French person or a lawyer, much less a French Lawyer, but in this case I'll make an exception Rock on French Lawyer Lady.

Drunken Sailors

The Government is not spending money like a drunken sailor.

Drunken sailors quit spending when they run out of money.

Snort.

From Howie Carr.

"Which of the following two groups contains the most former grand dragons of the Ku Klux Klan - the first 59 Tea Party people you run into this morning, or the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus?"

The morality of the state.

In Junior High, I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein. In it Heinlein asks, through the character of Prof, "when is it morally permissible for the state to commit an act that would be immoral for an individual?" (I paraphrase.) Over the years, I have tried to draw that line in my mind, but so far have failed to do so to my own satisfaction. Sometimes I feel the answer should be "never", but that doesn't really work in the real world. So where is the line?

What a Deal

My understanding of current law: If you think you are healthy and want to take a risk, you can avoid several thousand dollars in insurance premiums and pay a yearly fine of $750. If you are wrong and contract some dreadful disease, you can then sign up for "insurance" and the "pre-existing condition" will be covered. Add a medical rider to your car insurance to cover the initial medical expenses of a car wreck and you are good.


I'm sure no one will do that.

Health Care

AARGHH !!!!!

Ban recounts

I think we should ban recounts. Hold an election. Count the votes. Declare a winner. The end. You lost by one vote out 20,000,000 cast? Sucks to be you.

I came to this conclusion the other day as I was reading a book on probability ("The Drunkard's Walk" by Leonard Mlodinow). In it he discusses briefly the 2005 governor's election in Washington. After 2 recounts the Democrat was declared the winner. The first count had the Republican up by 261 votes out of 3,000,000 cast. The second had the Republican up by 41. The third had the Democrat up by 10. Then 700 "lost votes" were found which brought the Democrat up by 129 votes.

In reality, a swing of 399 votes out of three million is little more than statistical noise. Assuming that the first count and all of the recounts are done scrupulously and impartially, then there is no reason to think that any of the recounts is more accurate than the first count. All counts of large numbers are approximate.

In the modern world, however, there is actually reason to think that recounts may be less accurate than the original count. Since 2000, at least, both sides "lawyer up" for recounts. Ballots are found, ballots are disqualified. Local and state elected officials must make decisions, giving rise to the real threat of partisan tampering. lawyers for a campaign will argue with a straight face that certain ballots from areas dominated by the opposing party should not be counted while identical ballots from their strongholds should be. Tempers rise and accusations come from both parties that the other party is trying to steal the election. The final result may well be governed by which side had the better lawyers and the partisan sympathies of state and local officials (including judges.) One thing is certain though, bitterness will ensue.

I see two alternate possibilities. The first is to call any contest within certain statistical parameters a tie and settle the election by random means. (Preferably Bear, Ninja, Cowboy). The downside here, is that the party that had the "most" votes will feel cheated. The second is just accept the result. Since in very close elections who actually has the most votes is a random matter, there really is no need to add another random test. Just declare the person who had the most votes the winner and move on.

Indivdual Mandates

Some, though not all, of the health plans floating around Washington feature what is called an "individual mandate". The basic idea is to require every person to carry some form of health insurance. Without an individual mandate, some of the other "reforms" being proposed such as requiring insurers to cover preexisting conditions simply won't work. (If no one was required to carry insurance, and insurers had to cover preexisting conditions, why would any one have insurance coverage before they got sick?) Individual mandates were a big issue in the early stages of the Democratic presidential primaries last year. Strangely, Hillary was for them and the President was against them. Things have changed.

One question that isn't asked much, is this "Would an individual mandate be constitutional?" So far as I know, this idea is actually completely unprecedented. Never in the history of this country, has the government required, by law, that every citizen buy a particular type of product. Auto insurance comes closest, but I have two adult siblings who don't have auto insurance. One is a life-long pedestrian and the other lives in New York City and doesn't have a car.

The only possible place in the Constitution that would give Congress this authority is the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Now, the Supreme Court has stretched to Commerce Clause so much that growing wheat or marijuana for your own personal use constitutes engaging in interstate commerce and therefore subject to regulation by Congress. The Court, however, has also ruled that the Commerce Clause is not infinitely elastic, ruling that a federal law mandating gun-free zones around schools could not come under the Commerce Clause. So the question is, Does refusing to engage in an economic activity - that is, refusing to buy health insurance - constitute engaging in interstate commerce?. I would argue that, quite obviously, it doesn't, and that Congress does not have the authority to order me to do so.

It is also obvious that if this is found to be constitutional, it will not be the last "individual mandate" to come out of Washington.

Nobel

Trivia question: Who has won the most Nobel Peace
Prizes?

Answer: Iam Notbush.

Carter was faintly plausible, Gore was an obvious slap, Obama was just silly.

It seems that nominations for the Nobel close on Feb 1. 10 days after THE ONE was inaugurated. I don't know when final voting was.

I predict an Emmy for his role as himself at one his many press conferences.

Nobel Effort?

I’m not going to make any long rants about the Nobel committee being taken over by the far left loons. Too easy. Nor will I comment on how the Nobel committee is more committed to influencing the simple minded rather than honoring achievement. After Carter I thought the Nobel committee had fallen a step or two. Honoring a noble (pardon the pun), yet failed effort. There is no doubt they had definitely over reached in the Gore episode.

But Obama? What has this man done? What has he achieved other than not being named Bush or Clinton? This is like giving out the Heisman Trophy at the end of August workouts. The promise is there, but promise is what gets you beat in November.

How do I view this “award”? This is the Nobel version on the NOW / Paula Corbin Jones affair. A group that started with high ideals and genuine purpose has descended into parody and any destroyed their own credibility. So bent on political ideology they have completely lost sight of the founding mission. In three years the Nobel committee will wonder why their prestige is down and people are ignoring them. I just wonder how they are going to blame it all on Bush.

Acorn, Peanuts, and Pecans

I have heard on at least two TV shows, three radio programs, and numerous blogs that Acorn is dead. That the undercover reporting and evidence of corruption and malfeasance have finally force Congress to move and funding will be cut. Conservatives are jumping with joy, laughing, and back-slapping; reveling in the failure of Acorn and acting as if a major victory has been achieved.

Has a major blow been dealt? The Acorn is dead, long live the oak. How many people are part of the Acorn structure? 1000? 5000? 10,000? Doesn’t matter. The entire downfall will affect only about 15-25 people. All these people were hired and given titular titles, chosen for their loyalty and dedication to the cause. The intelligence and power of the organization do not appear on org charts or show up at the offices. The rest of the group, the rank and file worker bees, will remain anonymous and unindicted.

What will happen in the end? Simple, the power will start Seeding, Pecan, or Hopychange; complete with a title to fit the acronym, and the rank worker bees will be hired and resume the same duties in roughly the same buildings and all will continue as it always has.
This is a pyrrhic victory for conservatives.

There is one way to change this nothing into a small win. Snatch a tie from the jaws of stupidity. The only way is to leverage all the current public sentiment into stopping Federal funding of ALL these type of sham do-gooder groups. No Federal money, no corruption. The people who will then actually have to work to raise the funds will make practical and reasonable efforts to ensure that it goes to the purported ends. The true believers: left, right, and center, will still work to achieve their political ends. That is fine with me. I just don’t see why it is up to Congress to continue funding these types of organizations.

Holy Crap!

This has been identified as this is B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington Township, NJ by Michelle Malkin. This is a public school.

Note the lyrics:

"He said "Red, yellow, black, or white, all are equal in his sight"
Mm mm mm...Barack Hussein Obama!"

Now note the lyrics to "Jesus Loves the Little Children":

"Black and yellow, red and white, They are precious in His sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world"

I am so glad we homeschool.

Modern Men.

Real men take swords into battle. And longbows. And bagpipes. Even during World War II.

We are wimps. Every damn one of us.

Human?

Although I despise the fact some less-then-esteemed members of the fourth estate violated the conditions of "off-the-record", I have to admit I enjoyed the Presidents off the cuff remark about Kanye West. Calling Mr. West a "Jackass" is both accurate and appropriate.

As for Mr. West, his force field (to protect from criticism) defense of "I'm upset at my mothers death" given new meaning to the term lame-excuse.

As a populace we have spent so much time being politically correct, we have forgotten how to criticize and condemn. As a society we are needy of being non-judgemental and being quick to forgive. We are petrified that our condemnation will offend.

So, lets get the party started: Kanye West is a jackass! (Oh how offensive)!. I"m sorry (apology), but my Grandmother's husband is very sick and not expected to make it. (Force field).

To paraphrase the First Lady: For the first time I'm proud of President Obama.

Will He or Won't He

Just wondering; if health care reform, aka Obamacare, fails, will the President still attempt to realize the $500 million in saving due to graft, fraud, waste, and corruption in Medicare?

Health Care and Rights

A key component to the ongoing debate on health care is the claim by some proponents that all people have or should have a right to health care. I do not believe that this is so. My belief comes from under my understanding of the nature of rights and of the right to property in particular.

Many philosophers draw a distinction between two types of rights, negative and positive rights. A negative right does not require anyone to do anything, merely refrain from acting in a way that would violate that right. My right to life does not require you to do anything, it merely requires you to refrain from killing me. All basic rights, including the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to free speech and press, the right to bear arms, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to assembly, the right to property, and others, are negative rights. Negative rights, in and of themselves, do not, however, require action on the part of others. I can watch you be murdered, and not lift a hand to defend you, without violating your rights.

Positive rights require others to do things. My right to vote requires that the government and its representatives hold elections. It is difficult for me to hold a positive right without infringing on the negative rights of others. Many libertarian thinkers hold that positive rights can only be acquired through contract. In this view, only those people with whom you have contracted have a positive duty to provide the services needed for you exercise your positive rights. I, for the most part, agree with this, with the important caveat that some contracts are not explicit, but rather implicit. Some implicit contracts are woven into the fabric of society and by participating in society you are agreeing to these implicit contrracts. Although these societal contracts can create duties, since these duties will, by their nature, impinge on the rights of the members of society, societal contracts should be no more extensive than absolutely necessary.

The right to property is, as I see it, a basic right. I am entitled to the fruits of my labor, and no one else is. Since I own the fruits of my labor, I may do with it what I will. I may choose give others the fruits of my labor either out of the goodness of my heart, or in as part of a contract into which I have freely entered. To deprive me of the fruits of my labor against my consent is tyranny. The right to property can actually be seen as one of the most fundamental of rights. The right to a free press is nothing more than the right to do whatever I want with my printing press. The rights of assembly, of free exercise, to bear arms, and other rights are, in a similar way, derived from the right to property. Even the rights to life and liberty are in way property rights. I own my self, and to deprive me of my life or freedom is deprive me of the enjoyment of my property.

All of this is pretty theoretical, and none of it is original with me, but they really are the views that my political decisions are rise from. Now to apply them to the health care debate. A right to health care, if such a thing were to exist, would obviously be a positive right. It would impose on medical providers on obligation to treat without payment or an obligation for others to pay for the services. This is an impingement on basic rights, which should only be done with great fear and trepidation. Even if I were happy to provide free health care or pay so that others could get health care, I do not have the right to impose that on others. I may do what I want with my property, but not with yours. (As it happens, I have provided health care for free, and payed for other's health care outside of the usual taxes and cost shifting by which every paying patient pays for other's health care.)

In addition to the theoretical reasons to oppose the establishment of health care as a right, there are practical ones, which I will discuss later.

Health Care Notes

Some random thoughts on health care, and the reform there of.

This is an old story but it bears some examination. In October, 2008, then-Senator Obama's grandmother was reported as having broken her hip. She had "hip replacement" surgery. She died about a week later.

On April 14 of this year, President Obama gave an interview about health care reform to the New York Times, in which he said:

"THE PRESIDENT: I don't know how much that hip replacement cost. I would have paid out of pocket for that hip replacement just because she's my grandmother. Whether, sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question. If somebody told me that my grandmother couldn't have a hip replacement and she had to lie there in misery in the waning days of her life -- that would be pretty upsetting.

NYT: And it's going to be hard for people who don't have the option of paying for it.

THE PRESIDENT: So that's where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that's also a huge driver of cost, right?

I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.

NYT: So how do you -- how do we deal with it?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that's part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It's not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that's part of what I suspect you'll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now." [The New York Times Magazine, 4/28/09]

There's a lot here that needs to be unpacked. Let's start with the term "hip replacement". First some anatomy. The hip is basically a ball and socket joint. The ball is the end of the femur (the large bone between the hip and knee). The ball is known as the "head of the femur". The head of the femur is joined the the rest of the femur by a column of bone known as "the neck". The socket of the joint is in the pelvis and is known as the "acetabulum". Normally bone gets its blood supply from the tissue surrounding it know as "periosteum". However, because the head of the femur rotates within the acetabulum blood can not get to it from surrounding tissues. So the head gets its blood supply from the periosteum of the neck of the femur. Without blood supply a bone will die.

When most people hear the term "hip replacement" what comes to mind is what is known as a "total hip arthroplasty", or simply "total hip". Total hips are usually done for patients with hip pain from arthritis. In it the head of the femur is replaced, and the a new socket lining is placed in the acetabulum. It is essentially an elective, quality of life surgery.

This is not what was done for the President's grandmother. She broke her hip. What is done for a broken hip depends on the nature on location of the break. If the break is below the neck, then a variety of plates, screws and other hardware can be used to hold the bone in place until it heals naturally. If the break is across the neck and the head has not moved in relation to the neck, then some screws can be placed across the break, and the bone will usually heal naturally. If, however, the head has moved in relation to the neck, then the blood supply through the neck to the head has been disrupted. The head is going to die, so it must be replaced. Until it is, the patient must be kept in traction to reduce the movement of the joint, because every time the joint moves the ends of the broken bone will grind together, which is very painful. Traction reduces, but does not eliminate movement of the joint.

This, then, is the surgery that the President's grandmother received. She did not receive the hip replacement that the nice old man down the block got so that he could continue to play golf. She got the hip replacement that people get to relieve the constant pain from a broken bone. Unless a patient is within hours of death, it is cruel to not perform this procedure. This is the procedure that the President feels that society should consider denying to the terminally ill.

Let's talk about the other issues. The President clearly sees a two-tier system here. HE would pay for the procedure out of pocket, because he loves his grandmother, and he is rich. My grandmother? Sucks to be me.

Now let's talk about the last paragraph. "Not determinative", but "guidance". Congress did not act in a determinative manner when it wanted a 55 mph speed limit. The states were free to choose any speed limit they wanted, but Congress offered "guidance", along with consequences for not following that guidance. Guidance from the body that holds the purse strings is determinative.

Let's also discuss the term "terminally ill". Ted Kennedy was terminally ill for over a year. If he had broken his hip on the same day as the President's grandmother, should he have been denied treatment?

Here's another interesting tidbit. "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here." Oh, he means sick people. Turns out that sick people use most of the health care resources. Who would have thought that? If we could just keep from spending health care resources on sick people, the health care crisis would be over.

In short, what the President seems to be saying is that there should be some sort of "independent group" that operates outside of the normal political process, that offers guidance. This group would consider whether, in the aggregate, certain treatments are appropriate in certain circumstances. These guidelines will not be "determinative", but they will be guidelines and they will be pushed by those with the purse strings. Part of the goal will be to reduce the cost of sick people to the health care system. But there will be no Death Panels.

The Left, the CIA, and the DMV

The last few weeks have had several breaking news stories about how the CIA poorly handled the entire process of recruiting and training ‘interrogators’. (Ok, everyone knows that they were really torturers, but that pesky liability law keeps getting in the way). These stories also appeared to magically precede the Obama administration announcement for more oversight on the issue but I’m sure that is a coincidence and good journalism, not collusion. (We all know the national media is simply a detached arbiter and treats the Obama administration with the same professional reserve with which it treated the Bush administration).

The basic premise of these articles was the CIA was unorganized and inept in their attempts to train interrogators (torturers) for Gitmo and other dens of inequity during the misguided attempt to thwart international terrorism. What was found is the CIA had no real training program and very little idea as to what it was doing. The media (I would say leftist media, but is there another kind?) appear to think this is a huge story. But, hey, anyone who has ever been to the DMV would be shocked if it were any other way. All government agencies eventually descend to befuddled incompetence over time.

The real issue is the lefts perception of the CIA. The left has spent years and dedicated millions to portraying the CIA as this huge spy machine, capable of chasing Jason Bourne across the world from a lap-top in New York. Equipment so sophisticate it can hack into and use an image from a surveillance camera three blocks away and, in seconds, come up with 3D images and assign motivations to continue to track its prey. When, in fact, they are just another group of people hamstrung by too much regulation, petty bureaucrats, and budget constraints. Every real world example of the CIA shows a group of people with no more skills or power to read minds then the people at GM, Proctor and Gamble or IBM. These real world examples also show a group that has the additions burdens of Congressional oversight and government red tape that ends up making them look like the Marx Brothers instead of the Tom Clancy warriors they are so often feared to be.

The articles also said a whole lot more then they intended. Between the lines, if the vaulted CIA, terrors of the world and, according to people who also support Nancy Pelosi, the only true and viable threat to world peace are truly befuddled incompetents what does that say about the ability of a government bureaucracy to run anything effectively and efficiently? Ok, I actually believer the CIA are hard working people who make do with what they have, and more importantly the bureaucratic constraints the must operate within.

The real problems within the CIA, the DMV, the IRS, the Post Office, or any other government agency are the very nature of governments. In non-governmental organizations rules are advisable set of conditions that are altered when needed or broken when necessary. Rules within these organizations are more like guidelines. Discretion and performance can lead to a rule breaker being celebrated for a great idea or exceptional service. Within government organizations rules are laws and any rule violation, no matter how necessary or practical, are dealt with harshly (up to and including jail time) and subject to oversight. Once Congress gets involved it is the end of progress.

Why do I discuss this small news event in such detail? One simple question: do we really want the same people applying the same rules to our health care system?

Un-American or Patriot?

Why was it an act of Patriotism under the Bush administration to protest the Iraq war; yet under the Obama administration it is un-American, according to Nancy Pelosi, to question anything Obama proposes?

This of course pertains to the hotly debated Obamacare Plan.

How much more spending can we as Americans tolerate?!?

Why is Obamacare acceptable for the Plebians; yet, Congress maintains a separate plan?!?

Some day no one will march there at all.

The last World War I veteran in Britain, and the last man to have fought in the trenches, was laid to rest today. Harry Patch was a private in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry. He arrived in France in June of 1917, and was wounded on September 22 by an artillery shell, which killed three of his comrades. His funeral was in Wells Cathedral in front of a crowd of 14oo, including the Duchess of Cornwall and the Duchess of Gloucester. Thousands more watched on big screens on the cathedral green. His pallbearers were, at his request, privates from the The Rifles, the successor unit to the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry. The pallbearers were all about 19 years old, the age Patch was when he was wounded. His coffin was followed by soldiers from the armies of France, Belgium and Germany. A lesson was read by Dr Eckhard Lubkemeier, charge d'affaires at the German Embassy. An extract from Patch's biography, was read by the Belgian charge d'affaires, Marie-France Andre.

As the coffin left the cathedral, it paused and Last Post was played. An old friend of Patch read from the Ode of Remembrance: They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: / Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. and then read three names "Jack, Jill and Maudy." These were the nicknames of the three comrades killed by the shell that wounded Patch.

Patch selected the music for his funeral. In addition to his favorite hymns, the congregation sang "Where have all the flowers gone."

"Where have all the soldiers gone? Gone to graveyards every one.

Harry Patch Requiescat in Pace