The Half-Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Tort reform is a big issue in North Carolina. Attempts to introduce medical liability reform legislation patterned after the MICRA legislation in California resulted in bills being tabled and subsequently killed. Following this there was a truly awful bill introduced, no doubt under the direction of the trial lawyers association, that fortunately did not pass that would have meant the end of liability insurance in the state. The trial lawyers in NC have a very successful lobby and donate heavily to political campaigns in the state, and they have a history of considerable success - witness John Edwards. Our local OB/GYNs have been very proactive in this election by doing such things as meeting with the individual local representatives to make their needs and concerns known and then going into the community and doing such things as meeting for lunch with the local cosmetologists and discussing the future impact on women's healthcare if changes are not made - a very ingenious way to let every woman in the community in on the problem. It has become very clear that change here is going to take individual, personal, involvement both financially and by investment of time.
from an anonymous N.C. physician.

A poster showing what is really happening with the "draft." Also check out their main website, http://collegegop.org.

Here in its entirety is an email conversation sent to me by a college student. She is tired of being accused of being stupid and warmongering because she supports W.


Alright, XXX
1. There is not one aspect of W's administration that has not been magnified
and portrayed in the worst possible light by the liberal media.
2. The military does not want a draft. They like having professional soldiers,
and as the commander-in-chief of our military George W. Bush does not want an
inefficient, poorly-trained army.
3. Republicans do not want a draft: Vietnam: Johnson, Democrat. Korea: Truman,
Democrat. WWII: Roosevelt, Democrat. WWI; Wilson, Democrat.
4. Democrats started these rumors to scare college kids. Democrats introduced
the Draft bill into the House; Rangel, NY I think, was a sponsor. Republicans
called for a vote; it lost 402-2.
5. We don't need a draft. Large, sweeping wars with tons of manpower on the
ground are a thing of the past. But the liberal media would rather the
American people see the worst possible face on this war. The military is
having no problem meeting recruitment goals, and incidentally military voters
are 3:1 in favor of W.
Keep in mind that we have defeated the 4th-largest standing army in the world
with fewer than 1,000 casualties. The American military does not dispose of
their soldiers lightly. We are very good at staying alive. It took 10 years to
create functioning democracies in Japan and Germany, and we lost tens of
thousands of troops there.
It is a war and soldiers die in wars. It is horrible and no decent human being
on this planet is pro-war, including me and all of those other people you
think are out of their minds for being happy that the President of this
country is protecting our well-being. I also think that it's silly to vote
against someone for something he has not done, has not suggested doing, and
has no reason for doing.
I'm guessing that the RNC "asked Rock the Vote to stop bringing up the draft"
(IF that happeneed, because we tend to respect free speech, even when it's
untrue) because it is a lie. It is a cheap scare tactic intended to make
students think that their lives are on the line when no such thing is even
remotely true. I would not vote for Kerry because my life is on the line, and
I do not think that he would defend our country, YOUR life, and my life, as
well as George W. has.
I completely understand why the rumor of a draft is terrifying to you, as a
college-aged man. I would be terrified too, and my father was terrified when
he was in college and there was a REAL danger of a draft. Understand that our
military has realized that a draft is stupid. This is a horrible, cheap, panic- inducing scare tactic, and I hate that it is putting these thoughts in the
backs of my friend's heads. You shouldn't have to be worried about something
that won't happen.
I hope you know that I respect your opinions, in politics and everything else,
and I hope you feel the same for me and my politics. If there's ever anything
else you want to chat about, just let me know.
YYY

>
> Hey YYY,
>
> It scared me today when you thought that a draft was out of the realm
> of possibility and that it was just "hype". It's clear that nobody
> wants a draft, whether left or right, democrat or republican. So, it
> stands to reason that neither side wants to talk about it, because
> it's political suicide. Who would vote for a guy who admits that a
> draft may be in the future?
>
> However, our military is stretched dangerously thin. The threat
> isn't so much just from the Middle East, as it is from other
> threatening areas, like North Korea. We can't maintain our current
> levels if things keep going the way they are. This isn't news...stop-
> loss has been integrated into Army policy since last December. And
> this isn't just effecting like 3 soldiers, like you thought. Try
> 40,000. That's about 1/3 of our tropps in Iraq alone.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
> pagename=article&contentId=A36979-2003Dec28&notFound=true
>
> And recently, the chairman of the RNC sent a "cease-and-desist"
> letter to Rock the Vote, demanding that they stop discussing the
> draft. Why do you think that is? Because people don't like it hear
> it, and it hurts W's administration, who promised the Amercian people
> to have significantly decreased our military involvement by the
> beginning of '04. We had 120,000 troops in Iraq in 2003 -- now we
> have 138,000.
>
> To get informed, check out this in-depth analysis of the situation,
> filled with tons of verifiable links:
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/wiggins/wiggins7.html
>

Interesting article in this month's First Things. It analyzes the controversy over global warming in understandable terms.

We are told this century is the hottest on record, and it's due to greenhouse gases from human activity.
but there are no temperature records from previous centuries!
Tree rings, ice cores, and historical records show that medieval Europe was warmer than it is now, it cooled into a "mini Ice Age" that lasted until the 18th century, and it has been warming back up.
Most of the warming in this century occurred BEFORE emissions of greenhouse gases.
Many scientists believe the warming is part of a solar cycle.
Global warming is not all bad: some studies show it may lead to more rain, better crop yields, longer growing seasons, milder winters, decreased heating costs (and less oil burned...).

So why don't we hear about the controversy?
Bad news draws more listeners than good news.
Some climate scientists use bad news to sensationalize their findings.
Stopping some countries from using energy gives a competitive advantage to other countries--Kyoto, for example, would force the US to cut energy use by 25% which would destroy our economy. China would be unaffected and will be the biggest producer of carbon dioxide in a few years.
Intellectual pride and academic fighting is another problem; when you can't refute the facts, attack the messenger.
The priests of the new environmental religion find global warming a useful propaganda item in their quest to destroy modern technological society.

So follow the link and read this article. Fascinating and you won't find it anywhere else.

If you want a thorough scientific coverage of this issue, try Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

Try this one on for size, a blog entirely devoted to abuse of the legal system. It has a great name, too--OverLawyered.com.

American Kestrel does it again. This story is about Asbestos lawsuits. Amazing. I wonder if John Edwards ever did Asbestos suits? Come on, folks. The Europeans want to be able to compete with us, and can't, so we're going to hamstring ourselves with lawsuits. Another example: the breast implant lawsuits. I attended another national meeting a few years back where a well known University immunologist said, flat out, "There is no evidence that silicon implants cause autoimmune disease. None." But that didn't stop enterprising Trial Lawyers from bankrupting a big employer.

An interesting point in the American Kestrel blog. Seems that 15 years ago there were plenty of companies making vaccines. If one of twenty has a contamination problem, so what? But if one of TWO does, big trouble. I would rather have twenty, but price fixing by a lawyer (Clinton) and liability lawsuits by other lawyers have made it risky and difficult to make vaccines.

I went to a national medical meeting one month after 9-11. A senator spoke to our House of Delegates. One well-meaning physician asked, "Senator, why don't you guys pass a law protecting the vaccine manufacturers so we can get smallpox vaccine produced quickly?" The senator told a story about trying to get a liability law passed protecting restaurants that donate excess food to food banks. He said the Trial Lawyers, who had never sued a restaurant, tried to derail his law. Only a threat to go to 60 minutes stopped them.

There is no prayer of Tort Reform while the Trial Lawyers own one of our political parties. Send money to the Republicans, now, so the other party gets the message that you cannot allow the special interests to run the country.

From my brother...

Anonymous Source
I don't know war. I'm not worthy to question John Kerry's war record. Because I don't have one.
I spent the Vietnam War in elementary school. And the four years I was in the Army were all behind a desk. My fort was unofficially known as "Uncle Ben's Rest Home."So I don't know anything about war. Though I do know a little bit about men who've been to war. I've been around plenty of those. Like my step-father.
He got bunged up pretty bad in France. I know that because I saw him in a swimming suit once. But he never talked about it. Not once.If you asked him about the war he'd tell hilarious stories about basic training, or where the guys he served with were from, or how fun it was learning to fly the gliders, or the time they stole the ambulance to go into town and get drunk in France, or a few of the phrases in German he learned. But he'd never actually talk about the war. Unless he was really drunk.
In which case he still wouldn't talk about it. He'd cry about it. He'd put his head in his arms in the wee hours of the morning and sob to himself about how the men around him were broken and torn when the gliders crash landed into the French countryside. But that was only once or twice, and that was never about him. And the little box of medals at the bottom of his footlocker never came out.
It was kind of the same way at the Legion and the VFW. Every day he'd check in at both places, to sign the book and to have a beer, and I would tag along. All those men had been in the service, and most had been in combat, but I never heard a war story.
Lots of Army stories, and Navy stories, sure. About guys they knew and leaves they were on and officers they messed with. But nothing about the war.It was the same way in the Army. In my day, it seemed like everybody above staff sergeant or captain had been in Vietnam. I went in 10 years after the war ended but the guys on the second half of their careers had all gone.
You could tell when they wore their dress uniforms. But that was the only time. Men didn't talk about what they'd done in the war. They didn't boast of their accomplishments. They didn't brag about their medals. But if you chanced to see them in their dress uniforms, with the rows of service ribbons, you could read their history there. You could see that those who'd done the most spoke of it the least.
Like one of our drill sergeants in basic training. Buffing the floor in his office one day we saw the service ribbons pinned to his Class A uniform on the coat rack. Comparing them to the poster in the company day room we learned he'd gotten the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. We asked about them and he made us do push-ups for being nosey.
The night before graduation, when he welcomed us as fellow soldiers, we asked him again, we almost pestered him. Finally he relented and gave us two sentences: "I was in a war. I got hurt." And that's all he'd say.
Kind of like a man I know, who received the Medal of Honor. One night he stood in a long line to shake hands with Colin Powell. The man, because of the nature of the event, wore his medal around his neck.
As he came to Colin Powell the man said, "General, it's an honor to meet you."And Colin Powell responded, "No, sir - it's an honor to meet you."Anyway, I know this man, and he's often asked to tell his story, of how he earned the Medal of Honor. And he never does. Oh, he answers, and he talks, and he inspires, and he talks about the war.But he neglects the part about the lives he saved and the courage he showed, and, instead, talks about a young Vietnamese man who helped him to safety when his legs were too shot through to hold him anymore.

I don't know anything about war. But I do know a little bit about men who've gone to war. And none of them act the way John Kerry does. None of them brag about, boast of, talk about or otherwise try to benefit from their service. They don't prostitute their time in uniform for personal gain and ambition.They all modestly and insistently say that they "didn't do anything." They minimize their contributions and put them in the context of the similarly courageous and noble service provided by their comrades.A true hero doesn't boast. In fact, he kind of keeps his deeds to himself. Which is what makes John Kerry so different. I don't know war. But I do know war heroes. And John Kerry's damn sure not one of them.

Here is a new TV ad about being indecisive, pretty funny.

Here is the link. I'm also going to submit this to Hugh Hewitt's blog-o-rama. The newspaper says they will discontinue the link on Oct 27th, so here is the text:

Election determines fate of nation

Published in the Daily Record on Oct. 6
By Mathew ManwellerDue to the high demand for this column, the Daily Record has decided to post it online. It is normally not the paper's policy to post opinion columns or editorials online. This column will remain on the site until Oct. 27. Should you want to purchase a print copy of it, please call (509) 925-1414. The opinions stated on this page do not reflect the opinions held by the Daily Record. This content is owned by the Daily Record.

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high.

This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence.

Down the other lies a nation that is aware of it's past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big of a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations.

The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from whom we are.

Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well-learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four-hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grisly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

Mathew Manweller is a Central Washington University political science professor.

Kerry keeps accusing us of "losing Osama" due to "outsourcing the job" in Afganistan. Wall Street Journal addresses all of this garbage. Kerry is thinking like a former prosecutor, not a warrior. He seems to think that if we can get Osama, global terrorism will melt away.

A friend of mine is from the Middle East. Back in 2001, he said "Osama is nothing. If we kill him, others will rise up to take his place." Prescient words indeed.

Of course I'd like to know what happened to him. But when we killed Admiral Yamamoto, the man who planned Pearl Harbor, world war II did not come to a screeching halt. The Japanese military was much more hierarchical than al Quaeda or any of the other shadowy terror organizations.

And if you think Osama bin Laden got away and is running free somewhere, why are there no videos thumbing his nose at Bush? I strongly suspect he is toast.

A reader send this post analyzing the news coverage between 1996 and 2004. Economic recoveries were similar in number of jobs created and unemployment rates. News stories were positive about the economy in 1996 (Clinton years) and negative in 2004. Not to mention the total news blackout on the economic recovery beginning at the end of Bush I's presidency and the beginning of the stock market drop and recession during the end of Big Bill's presidency. The only way you can consider the media conservative is if you are a far left radical--then I guess they are to your right. I am glad to see some data. The usual argument is "The media lean left!" "No they don't." And that's it.

Here's an analogy for you. Who is the best person to ask about racism: a white middle class person or an african american or hispanic? So why would you NOT ask a conservative about anti-conservative bias in the news?

Democrats put out a truly bad campaign poster, showing President Bush's face plastered over a kid running in the Special Olympics. It implies that Bush and/or his supporters are "retarded."

The first time I saw this particular hypocrisy was back in the Ford days. President Ford, a gifted athlete, happened to trip a couple of times and the news was ruthless. My girlfriend at the time said, "Well, I can't vote for a klutz." Hm. After he had lost to Carter, I saw two guys on TV discussing this. "Well, I just don't understand what happened. Those of us who followed the President [Ford] around were always struck by how poised and graceful he was." Too late, too late.

So the people who canonize Christopher Reeve, who support the Americans with Disabilities Act, who lionize Franklin Roosevelt (who was in a wheelchair his entire presidency), make fun of kids with Down's Syndrome and a guy who happened to trip. Guess they must think Steven Hawking is a real idiot--he can't talk OR walk! Maybe Dick Cheney is really doing all that astrophysics research for him behind the scenes.

A new blogger has the same heartache I have about Iraq and the mass graves.

So why was it OK to bomb Serbia without a UN mandate (no mass graves found...) but NOT ok to go to Iraq which was even telling its own generals it had WMD and was mass murdering hundreds of thousands or millions?

I can't think of a better laugh-out-loud Conservative writer than P.J. O'Rourke. Here are his sixteen debate points for GWB.

Well, that was interesting. Let me try again.

David Horowitz starts this post out as follows:
In 200 years of this nation's political history, there has never been a hate campaign as massive, as nasty, and as personally vicious as the one directed against President Bush.

My father tells me he has never seen such a vicious smear campaign and he's 75 and a former Stevenson Democrat. Where has the venom come from? Unbelievable. Another civil war may be brewing.

And I love this one. The trial lawyer claiming that people with spinal cord injuries will walk again with stem cell research. This would be a howler if it wasn't such a mean-spirited exploitation of the disabled. Regenerating entire nerve trunks to a spinal cord injured patient is an incredibly complex goal; don't hold your breath, it will take decades.

I used to be a believer in sanctions. I used to believe that the countries of the world could stand together and isolate the bad guys without firing a shot in anger. I think I was wrong.

Sanctions fail for reasons that I should have been smart enough to see. People are people, greedy and self serving at times. Sanctions are just as bad as bullets in some environments, and finally, sanctions hurt the wrong people.

People are indeed greedy and self serving. Lenin is supposed to have said that the capitalists will sell me the rope to hang them with; the real quote is much longer and more turgid but says the same thing. Sadam Hussein gives us a modern example. He basically bought three votes in the Security Council, in the vain hope that this would protect him. But for the resolve of the United States, he would probably be making Anthrax and Nerve gas today.

Sanctions hurt people. Lots of Iraqi's died in the 90's, making the Oil for Food program necessary. Would you rather starve to death or be blown up? A Hobson's choice if ever there were one. In theory, if you punish the populace enough maybe they'll rise up and overthrow the tyrant. Give me one example.

Sanctions hurt the WRONG people. Sadam never went hungry. He didn't even lose much money as far as I can tell. He blamed us, the UN, told the people that he would defeat the enemy that was starving them, and since he controlled the press what else would they believe?

Perhaps you are still naive like I was. Perhaps you believe that starving the innocents and hoping that they will rise up and defeat a vicious dictator is a moral strategy. I don't any more. Sanctions don't work, are unlikely EVER to work in the world I live in, and hurt the wrong people. I can't live with UN sanctions ever again.

"He didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but he could have reconstituted his programs in a matter of months."

From the Mudville Gazette. As a PhD in microbiology, I'm reasonably certain that with the amount of money Sadam siphoned out of the Oil for Bribes..er..Food program for his military I could produce a veritable bucket of anthrax or botulism. It might take me a few weeks to assemble the equipment.

The above is a great soundbite.

A new study by the Cato Institute argues that overregulation in health care is costing us lives every year. And one of the biggest potential savings is tort reform, which the Duke University study says costs $113 billion per year but only benefits us $33 billion. I went to Duke and can guarantee you that it is not part of the Half Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. It is, however, in Johnny Edwards' home state where he sucked millions out of health care and then has the...uh...gall? to complain about health care costs. How many kids could have gotten immunized with the millions of dollars he got paid?

Today a friend sent my wife a scary email about how her kids are all going to be drafted and there is an evil Pentagon plan to conscript America's youth. Sigh. See the post below; Congress killed this deader than a doornail, 402-2! My wife's comment? "Can you believe it?? Even defeating the bills doesn't stop the propaganda!!!"

I remember my Vietnam war-era days. My draft number came up 125, which was over a hundred and probably fairly safe but not high enough to be a guarantee. It never even crossed my mind to go to Canada and chicken out. Yes, chicken out. I would never have been able to look in the mirror. Fortunately for me it was 1972, the war was winding down, they didn't need me. People like Big John took advantage of our government's inability to gather public support and we fled Vietnam. Hundreds of thousands died after we left, or fled the country, or were put in "re-education" camps, and Russia invaded Afganistan. Probably a coincidence, though.

Here's one sent to me by a friend; it is animated with sound. Very touching.

And one of those internet chain letters, too:
I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe.
Let me see; have I got this straight?Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good.. Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Thought you would find this interesting. Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day." This is the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991. It's latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame). Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own. Pass this on. Only 28 days until the election.

I wish I could write with this passion and energy, but second best is linking to this ex-liberal as he analyzes history and the current situation. A must read. Part 2 is available at the top after you read part 1.

Well, the Republicans have finally done it. They brought up for a vote a proposal to reinstate the Draft. Surely it must have been the warmongering Republicans who proposed this, right? The kids who got the Dem campaign flyers sure thought so. Our family friend who dropped our 14 year friendship because she thought our Republican leanings threatened the lives of her two sons also was hoodwinked by this. The truth?

The bill's sponsor was Charles Rangel, liberal democrat. The military doesn't want draftees, they like their committed, professional soldiers. The President doesn't want a draft. Republicans don't want a draft. We don't need a draft. It's just another dishonest trick to scare people into voting for dems.

Oh, it was defeated, 402 to 2. A close vote I guess.

My company's newsletter just arrived. This is the third year in a row of double digit increases in malpractice premiums. Interesting points:
1. The increase is NOT due to "bad investments in stock market." This is a trial lawyer myth.
2. Frequency of claims has not changed much. Doctors are not getting "worse."
3. Severity is rising steeply, from $90K/closed suit in 2000 to $150K/closed suit in 2003. 50% of claims are dismissed, dropped, or abandoned, but still incur costs. Doctors win 90% of the cases that go to trial (so much for the "epidemic of malpractice.") Severity explains 1/3 of the premium increases.
4. Our illustrious Supreme Court tried to nibble away at our tort reforms. Fortunately our Legislature fixed it rather quickly, but there is a window of opportunity for the lawyers until the statute of limitations kicks in; this is another 1/3 of our increase. (Preston v. Dupont 2001 and Russell v. Pediatric Neurosurgery 2002.)
5. The cap on noneconomic damages rose to $300,000 during negotiations to restore limits. That is most of the rest of the premium increase.

Even in Colorado, with a favorable legislature and excellent history, the trial lawyers never rest. Vote Republican, vote Coors, vote Bush if you want to continue to practice quality medicine.

Here is the text of a speech that Bush gave recently in Pennsylvania. I happen to agree with most of it. But rather than getting my sound bites, why not take five minutes to read it yourself?

I just love reading the "instant polls" that various networks put out. It's a sad statement on our educational system. Back when she was in high school, I told one of my daughters that taking statistics was important to her being a good citizen. To understand polls, you have to understand the questions and the sample. If the sample is NOT randomly chosen, the poll is biased and invalid. Period. ANY poll where you log in or call a 900 number is NOT VALID, period. It only measures the energy level of people who are willing to spend their time calling or logging in. Such "polls" emphasize the extremists at the expense of the parents and busy people who make our country run.

The questions are also very important. If you ask people, "Would you support a new treatment that saves 19 out of twenty victims of a disease?" most will answer Yes, of course. But if you ask, "Would you support a new treatment that kills 5% of the victims of a disease?" most will answer "No."

I know polls are influential and it makes me fear for democracy. It's the game show theory of politics, you feel good if your opinions are like those of the "majority." Grown-ups don't really care, don't make their decisions based on peer pressure.

Watched some of the debate last night, although like any good Republican the needs of my family came first as my daughter and I studied the aftermath of World War I and nomenclature of binary ionic compunds for Chemistry. (She at first called them "Bionic" which makes a certain semantic sense.)

My thoughts? Cheney was sort of like Bentsen in the Bentsen-Quayle debates, in that he clearly outclassed the trial lawyer. Also see Hugh Hewitt for a blow-by-blow scorecard, question by question, and Powerline for their analysis.

Edwards said they had a plan for tort reform with "screening panels." Yes, that would be nice. But several states have already piloted the reforms that have come up repeatedly before Congress, passed by the House, and blocked by Tom Daschle and the democratic elite in the Senate. Note that Tom's support comes mainly from trial lawyers. What is known to work? California'a MICRA provisions, that's what. You limit non-economic awards to $250,000. That does NOT reduce someone's right to collect on real damages, but it stops the trial lawyers from inflating the bill with inflammatory acting so they can collect 35-40-50% of the total. Crazy.

By the way, MICRA and similar provisions have actually worked. California and Colorado are not in terrible shape malpractice-wise (although we are under attack here, see below.) North Carolina, on the other hand, home of John Edwards Esq., is in critical condition, especially in OB-GYN. If you or your wife are pregnant, don't travel there!

Today in my mail my malpractice insuror announced that my annual premium is going up 16.5%. This is due to "loss experience" (i.e., judgments and defense costs), legislative/judicial developments (Trial lawyers are attacking Colorado's malpractice reforms) and other smaller things. And Colorado is one of the protected states.

At the same time I got a letter from some physicians who support electing a Democrat majority in Colorado. Don't you guys get it? The Trial Lawyers are lobbying to take over. I think they may really believe that they have the right idea for improving medicine, and for some reason think that sucking 40% of the benefits out of the hands of the victim is justified. I won't be sending any money to the House Majority Project, by the way!

I watched the Debate last thursday night (like many of us) and felt uneasy about the "results." Kerry seemed smoother to me, Bush rougher. Dennis Prager has done a great service by analyzing Kerry's points, and comes to an ominous conclusion: Kerry was on all sides of issues within just a few minutes Thursday night. Read this column.

Today I went around the Blogs. Like usual, I started with Hugh Hewitt. He thinks that Kerry sank his candidacy with several misstatements that will come back to haunt him. Interesting. Also he mentions that 73% of American troops supported Bush in a recent poll and that an ABC Tracking poll shows no change in Bush v Kerry. The polls are chaotic this year and I don't really know (or frankly care much) what do make of it. Since when did what everyone else thinks matter to how I should vote? If it DOES matter, I don't deserve to vote.

So next stop Powerline. These three lawyers write well (and more important short). They are conservative but they investigate stories. First stop, Sunni Triangle victories. Hopefully more soon. Next, repeat of Military poll. Then an interesting one, "cybercast news service" claims to have documents confirming Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda connections and bad weapons. Breaking. Commentary ongoing at bottom, various blogs who agree and disagree. Can't get any disagreement on ABC...

the discussion led to an interesting blog called MuD and PHuD. Since I happen to have an MD and a PhD, and we used to call ourselves MudPhuds back at Mr. Duke's, this seemed too good to be true. Sure enough, it is an interesting blog. One area I lingered over was a debate about Intelligent Design theory vs. Evolutionary theory. Something a lot of people put a lot of heat and not much light into, I'm afraid. As a Christian I think my major duty is to my God and my neighbor, not to discerning what might or might not have happened millions to billions of years ago!

Then on to another link from the MudPhud, called JunkYardBlog of all things. I think I need a better name for mine. This one claims that the Dems this year have "poisoned the well" and made it impossible for anyone to do anything to defend the US for years. Hm. Difficult. I don't want anyone to feel they can't speak freely (that First Amendment thing) but some talk frankly is destructive and dangerous.

I was just reading an interesting book, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, written about 1907. In it he addresses just the current controversy! There is no new thing under the sun, indeed.

"A man who says that no patriot should attack the Boer War until it is over is not worth answering intelligently; he is saying that no good son should warn his mother off a cliff until she has fallen over it. But there is an anti-patriot who honestly angers honest men...the man who says, 'I am sorry to say we are ruined,' and is not sorry at all...granted that he states only facts, it is still essential to know what are his emotions, what is his motive..." (Orthodoxy, chapter V, "The Flag of the World", by G. K. Chesterton. Page 74 of the Ignatius Press edition.

And there's the rub. Are people who attack the Iraq war truly concerned or are they only using the attacks to gain political power? What is their motive...

Well, day is done, gone the sun...until later.