To hear Mitt Romney backers (chief among them Hugh Hewitt) tell it, Romney is the GOP candidate with the best chance to defeat either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general election. From the time I first heard that Romney was considering throwing his hat in the ring up to and including today, I've never bought this notion of Romney's electability. None of the arguments that Romney supporters (including Hugh and National Review) have made on this matter have given me any reason to doubt my position.
If you point out pesky polls like these from Rasmussen in Pennsylvania:
In the most recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Pennsylvania voters, John McCain leads Hillary Clinton 48% to 42% and Barack Obama 46% to 38%. No other Republican fares so well against the Democratic frontrunners.
Clinton leads Romney 49% to 39% in the Keystone State while Obama leads the former Massachusetts Governor 43% to 38%.
They say that such projected head to head matchups don't matter at this point, that Romney's not well known enough yet.
When you point to other polls that show that 1 Out of 6 Americans Won't Vote for A Mormon President:
Seventeen percent of Americans, including similar proportions of Republicans and Democrats, responded they were unwilling to vote for a Mormon presidential candidate even if the person was "generally well-qualified" for the position, according to The Gallup Poll released Tuesday.
The Dec. 6-9 survey showed that Americans’ opinion on voting for a Mormon candidate for president has changed little since this question was asked by Gallup in 1967.
They decry religious bigotry and say there shouldn't be any religious tests in politics. Well, whether there should be or not, there clearly is for at least 17% of the American electorate.
When you ask them why Romney is the most electable, they usually don't make positive arguments for their man, but point out that John McCain is too old or that Mike Huckabee has too many ethical skeletons in his closet that would damage him in the general election. Points well taken.
However, if that is true, then how do they explain that Romney--the one that we're to believe is the most electable--lost to Huckabee in Iowa and McCain in New Hampshire despite spending millions of dollars and thousands of hours in those states? At some point, doesn't your allegedly electability mean that, you know, you actually have to WIN AN ELECTION!
Hugh has been trying to dismiss this by saying that the only reason McCain won in New Hampshire was because of independents, but that just further weakens the argument that Romney is the most electable in the general election. A Republican who can not get votes from independents (and even a few Democrats) has no chance of winning the Presidency.
Hence the critical question for Romney supporters: if Romney isn't electable in the caucuses and primaries against opponents whose weaknesses you love to point out, why should we believe that he will be any more electable come November against a Democrat who will be riding a wave of change, voter discontent, and overwhelming media support? I'm still waiting for that answer.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Stillwater Crime Watch
From the Pioneer Press round up of 2007 police blotter items:
Police received an anonymous call about 1:15 p.m. June 25 that a male wearing a thong and a top hat was running in a ditch along the southbound lanes of Interstate 694 near Stillwater Boulevard. A Minnesota State Patrol camera caught the male jumping over a fence on the west side of the interstate. He was not found.
Let the record show my marriage was not for another two months and there was no plausible other reason for me to be wearing a top hat in 2007. The defense rests.
Police received an anonymous call about 1:15 p.m. June 25 that a male wearing a thong and a top hat was running in a ditch along the southbound lanes of Interstate 694 near Stillwater Boulevard. A Minnesota State Patrol camera caught the male jumping over a fence on the west side of the interstate. He was not found.
Let the record show my marriage was not for another two months and there was no plausible other reason for me to be wearing a top hat in 2007. The defense rests.
You Spin Me Right Round
When contemplating Hugh Hewitt's ability to turn any news on any subject into good news for Mitt Romney, I realized that his approach is similar to the one employed by some global warming activists who will attribute any change in weather to global warming. If it rains too much, it's global warming. If it's too dry, global warming. Too hot? Global warming. Too cold? Yes, that's global warming too.
In Hugh's world, Romney's rising is like anthropogenic global warming: everything and anything that can possibly occur is evidence to support it.
In Hugh's world, Romney's rising is like anthropogenic global warming: everything and anything that can possibly occur is evidence to support it.
No Super Man
While it's still too early to tell what the impact of the results from New Hampshire will have on all the candidates, it does seem likely that John Edwards third place finish has for all practical purposes knocked him out of the race. Which is a very good thing.
Monday's Wall Street Journal had a front page article on Edwards' shameful efforts to use a family's personal tragedy for political gain (sub req):
John Edwards has been bashing big health insurers in recent days with the story of a girl who died waiting for a liver transplant. But the details of the case suggest the Democratic presidential candidate may be oversimplifying the tale.
Nataline Sarkisyan had been battling leukemia for three years. Insurer Cigna Corp. rejected coverage for a liver transplant, then reversed its decision and said it would pay. The 17-year-old died before the operation could take place.
By pushing the case so hard on the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards is raising the emotional tone of the debate on health care, which has already emerged as perhaps the leading domestic issue in the campaign. Mr. Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton are among the Democratic candidates attacking health insurers.
"We need a president who will take these people on," Mr. Edwards said at the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night. He said Nataline "lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver-transplant operation."
He mentioned this particular case again in his concession speech last night. She lost her life because she had leukemia, not because of her insurance company.
Nataline's case could provide fuel to both sides of the argument about whether insurance companies generally do a good job covering Americans. The day before Thanksgiving, she received a bone-marrow transplant from her brother. Soon after, her liver failed, and she went into a coma. Her doctors at the medical center of the University of California, Los Angeles, recommended a liver transplant, saying that patients in such situations would have a 65% chance of living another six months.
Cigna said both its own medical experts as well as an outside transplant surgeon and a cancer doctor with transplant expertise concluded there wasn't enough evidence that the procedure would be safe or effective. But after the denial got press coverage, the company reversed the decision on Dec. 20 "out of empathy for the family." Nataline died later the same day.
To hear Edwards tell it, this is just another case of greedy heartless insurance companies willing to let a girl die just to save a few bucks. Oh wait...
Cigna said it wouldn't have benefited financially from denying the transplant because it only administered the health plan of Nataline's father's employer. In reversing the decision, it said it would pay for the transplant itself.
You can debate the way that Cigna handled the matter and whether they made the right decision in the first place or whether they should have reversed their original decision. But the bottom line is that in the best case situation the transplant may have extended her life for a few months.
Nonetheless, the case has found a natural fit with Mr. Edwards's pitch. The candidate is an experienced practitioner in the modern political art of putting an ordinary person's face on policy prescriptions. At yesterday's rally in New Hampshire, Mr. Edwards turned the microphone over to the family of Nataline. Her father, mother and brother emotionally spoke of her death and their anger at Cigna.
Her father, Grigor Sarkisyan, spoke in raw terms about his loss before a packed crowd of more than 500 people at the Franco-American Center in Manchester, N.H. He said he had promised to buy his daughter a white car when she got her driver's license. "After she passed away, I bought a coffin for her because Cigna -- they killed my daughter. I don't have a daughter any more."
In no way do I blame the parents for their reaction. Losing a child is one of the worst experiences anyone can go through. They're grieving their daughter and are emotionally devastated.
But it is truly cynical and despicable for John Edwards to take advantage of their grief and anger for his own political ends. Especially since he knows that no matter what outlandish promises he makes on the campaign trail, there is nothing in his universal health care plans that would have changed the outcome in this case. Unless he wants to cover everything for everyone in every circumstance (I guess that would be truly universal coverage)--which would drive health care costs to levels impossible to support for even a short period of time--there will always be cases like this. Every country that has government provided health care has rationing of some sort to control costs. And Edwards full well knows this.
That's why he's the most dishonest, demagogic candidate to come down the pike for some time. Remember when he promised that Christopher Reeves would walk again if John Kerry was elected? I'm surprised that he hasn't tried to combine the two tall tales:
"And if President Bush had only supported government financed fetal stem cell research Superman could have gotten out of his wheelchair and saved Nataline from the evil clutches of Cigna..."
Unfortunately, I think this tendency to blame someone for everything bad that happens and promise pie in the sky solutions to every single problem in life goes far beyond the rhetoric of John Edwards and as has afflicted much of our society.
Bret Stephens nailed this in a piece in Tuesday's OpinionJournal (free for all):
There is great virtue in the American way, which expects CEOs to perform on a quarterly basis, presidents and Congresses to reinvent politics in 100 days, generals to wipe out opponents in 100 hours without taking significant casualties, doctors to save life and limb every time, search engines to yield a million results in less than a second, and so on. There is also great virtue in the belief that what is bad can be made good, and that what is good can be made great, and that what is fractionally less than great is downright awful.
But these virtues can spawn vices. One is impatience. Another is a culture of chronic complaint. A third is the belief that every problem has a solution, that trial is possible without error, that risks must always be zero, that every inconvenience is an outrage, every setback a disaster and every mishap a plausible basis for a lawsuit.
Bingo. This may be a stretch, but I wonder how much of this stems from the secularization of American culture. I don't mean secular as in not having at least a nominal belief in God (however watered down that belief may be), but secular in not recognizing that we live in a fallen world. A world of suffering. A world of pain. A world where people are not inherently good. A world where trying to build a utopian society is not only doomed to fail, but often more likely to spawn evil and far worse suffering.
If you really don't believe that there is something better waiting on the other side--something that transcends this world and is beyond our human understanding--and that this vale of tears is all there is, it would seem to follow that you would then not only seek to maximize safety, comfort, and security in this life, but that you would also believe that you were somehow entitled to such things and that if you are denied them in any way, then someone or something must be to blame.
Again, that may be a stretch. All I know is that hoping for a Superman to make everything better a prescription for disappointment. Super Man does not exist.
Monday's Wall Street Journal had a front page article on Edwards' shameful efforts to use a family's personal tragedy for political gain (sub req):
John Edwards has been bashing big health insurers in recent days with the story of a girl who died waiting for a liver transplant. But the details of the case suggest the Democratic presidential candidate may be oversimplifying the tale.
Nataline Sarkisyan had been battling leukemia for three years. Insurer Cigna Corp. rejected coverage for a liver transplant, then reversed its decision and said it would pay. The 17-year-old died before the operation could take place.
By pushing the case so hard on the campaign trail, Mr. Edwards is raising the emotional tone of the debate on health care, which has already emerged as perhaps the leading domestic issue in the campaign. Mr. Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton are among the Democratic candidates attacking health insurers.
"We need a president who will take these people on," Mr. Edwards said at the Democratic presidential debate Saturday night. He said Nataline "lost her life a couple of weeks ago because her insurance company would not pay for a liver-transplant operation."
He mentioned this particular case again in his concession speech last night. She lost her life because she had leukemia, not because of her insurance company.
Nataline's case could provide fuel to both sides of the argument about whether insurance companies generally do a good job covering Americans. The day before Thanksgiving, she received a bone-marrow transplant from her brother. Soon after, her liver failed, and she went into a coma. Her doctors at the medical center of the University of California, Los Angeles, recommended a liver transplant, saying that patients in such situations would have a 65% chance of living another six months.
Cigna said both its own medical experts as well as an outside transplant surgeon and a cancer doctor with transplant expertise concluded there wasn't enough evidence that the procedure would be safe or effective. But after the denial got press coverage, the company reversed the decision on Dec. 20 "out of empathy for the family." Nataline died later the same day.
To hear Edwards tell it, this is just another case of greedy heartless insurance companies willing to let a girl die just to save a few bucks. Oh wait...
Cigna said it wouldn't have benefited financially from denying the transplant because it only administered the health plan of Nataline's father's employer. In reversing the decision, it said it would pay for the transplant itself.
You can debate the way that Cigna handled the matter and whether they made the right decision in the first place or whether they should have reversed their original decision. But the bottom line is that in the best case situation the transplant may have extended her life for a few months.
Nonetheless, the case has found a natural fit with Mr. Edwards's pitch. The candidate is an experienced practitioner in the modern political art of putting an ordinary person's face on policy prescriptions. At yesterday's rally in New Hampshire, Mr. Edwards turned the microphone over to the family of Nataline. Her father, mother and brother emotionally spoke of her death and their anger at Cigna.
Her father, Grigor Sarkisyan, spoke in raw terms about his loss before a packed crowd of more than 500 people at the Franco-American Center in Manchester, N.H. He said he had promised to buy his daughter a white car when she got her driver's license. "After she passed away, I bought a coffin for her because Cigna -- they killed my daughter. I don't have a daughter any more."
In no way do I blame the parents for their reaction. Losing a child is one of the worst experiences anyone can go through. They're grieving their daughter and are emotionally devastated.
But it is truly cynical and despicable for John Edwards to take advantage of their grief and anger for his own political ends. Especially since he knows that no matter what outlandish promises he makes on the campaign trail, there is nothing in his universal health care plans that would have changed the outcome in this case. Unless he wants to cover everything for everyone in every circumstance (I guess that would be truly universal coverage)--which would drive health care costs to levels impossible to support for even a short period of time--there will always be cases like this. Every country that has government provided health care has rationing of some sort to control costs. And Edwards full well knows this.
That's why he's the most dishonest, demagogic candidate to come down the pike for some time. Remember when he promised that Christopher Reeves would walk again if John Kerry was elected? I'm surprised that he hasn't tried to combine the two tall tales:
"And if President Bush had only supported government financed fetal stem cell research Superman could have gotten out of his wheelchair and saved Nataline from the evil clutches of Cigna..."
Unfortunately, I think this tendency to blame someone for everything bad that happens and promise pie in the sky solutions to every single problem in life goes far beyond the rhetoric of John Edwards and as has afflicted much of our society.
Bret Stephens nailed this in a piece in Tuesday's OpinionJournal (free for all):
There is great virtue in the American way, which expects CEOs to perform on a quarterly basis, presidents and Congresses to reinvent politics in 100 days, generals to wipe out opponents in 100 hours without taking significant casualties, doctors to save life and limb every time, search engines to yield a million results in less than a second, and so on. There is also great virtue in the belief that what is bad can be made good, and that what is good can be made great, and that what is fractionally less than great is downright awful.
But these virtues can spawn vices. One is impatience. Another is a culture of chronic complaint. A third is the belief that every problem has a solution, that trial is possible without error, that risks must always be zero, that every inconvenience is an outrage, every setback a disaster and every mishap a plausible basis for a lawsuit.
Bingo. This may be a stretch, but I wonder how much of this stems from the secularization of American culture. I don't mean secular as in not having at least a nominal belief in God (however watered down that belief may be), but secular in not recognizing that we live in a fallen world. A world of suffering. A world of pain. A world where people are not inherently good. A world where trying to build a utopian society is not only doomed to fail, but often more likely to spawn evil and far worse suffering.
If you really don't believe that there is something better waiting on the other side--something that transcends this world and is beyond our human understanding--and that this vale of tears is all there is, it would seem to follow that you would then not only seek to maximize safety, comfort, and security in this life, but that you would also believe that you were somehow entitled to such things and that if you are denied them in any way, then someone or something must be to blame.
Again, that may be a stretch. All I know is that hoping for a Superman to make everything better a prescription for disappointment. Super Man does not exist.
Primary Night Drinking Game
While we don't know how much longer we'll have John Edwards to kick around, while he's still in the race you can make his or his wife's speeches a whole lot more fun by taking a swig every time they mention the mill (pronounced "meel") where his father worked. I don't think either of them can go more than two or three sentences without referencing it.
I would have suggested that you drink when you hear Clinton, Obama, or now Romney mention the word "change," but that would be encouraging abuse.
For what it's worth, here's my rankings of the candidates' post-result speeches last night:
Obama
Huckabee
Romney
Clinton
McCain
Edwards
I would have suggested that you drink when you hear Clinton, Obama, or now Romney mention the word "change," but that would be encouraging abuse.
For what it's worth, here's my rankings of the candidates' post-result speeches last night:
Obama
Huckabee
Romney
Clinton
McCain
Edwards
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Orange Alert
The folks at Impeach for Peace are organizing a Close Guantanamo Orange Day:
Meet Friday, January 11, 2008@11:30am.
Hennepin & Lagoon Ave in Uptown, in front of the Library.
The ACLU of Minnesota and Impeach for Peace are coordinating a protest on the 6 year anniversary of the first prisoners from Afghanistan arriving at Guantanamo.
Bring Signs, tell your friends, bring your friends, wear orange! Impeach for Peace will have members wearing Guantanamo Bay Orange Jumpsuits and Black Hoods.
UPDATE: Tim from Colorado e-mails to ask:
Wow! The ACLU and Impeach For Peace are really pulling out all the stops to bring attention to Gitmo prisoners marking their 6th year of residency. Castro is coming up on his 50th anniversary in a couple years. I can't wait to see the plans the ACLU and IFP have for that "celebration".
Maybe if we stressed the literacy rates and universal medical care available at Gitmo, they'd lighten up.
Meet Friday, January 11, 2008@11:30am.
Hennepin & Lagoon Ave in Uptown, in front of the Library.
The ACLU of Minnesota and Impeach for Peace are coordinating a protest on the 6 year anniversary of the first prisoners from Afghanistan arriving at Guantanamo.
Bring Signs, tell your friends, bring your friends, wear orange! Impeach for Peace will have members wearing Guantanamo Bay Orange Jumpsuits and Black Hoods.
UPDATE: Tim from Colorado e-mails to ask:
Wow! The ACLU and Impeach For Peace are really pulling out all the stops to bring attention to Gitmo prisoners marking their 6th year of residency. Castro is coming up on his 50th anniversary in a couple years. I can't wait to see the plans the ACLU and IFP have for that "celebration".
Maybe if we stressed the literacy rates and universal medical care available at Gitmo, they'd lighten up.
You're All Saints In Our Eyes
On behalf of all of the staff here at Fraters Libertas (especially Atomizer), we officially issue a belated and long overdue Thank You to the good people of Utah. We wouldn't be where we are (or aren't) now without you.
Looking For The SILVER Lining
You know sometimes the suffering of others reaches a point where it doesn't even really seam fair to engage in some good ol' fashioned Schadenball. But since in this particular case that other has never missed an opportunity to mercilessly needle when circumstances present themselves, today is not the time for compassion.
It's been a tough three-hundred-sixty-five days for one Hugh Hewitt and the teams and causes that he's cheered for.
It all started on January 8th, 2007 when his beloved Ohio State Buckeyes (ranked #1 in the nation at the time) were utterly and completely destroyed by Florida in the BCS Championship game.
Then on April 2nd in Atlanta, the OSU basketball team lost the National Championship game against Florida.
For a while, Hugh enjoyed a respite from the sports agony. Then, after his beloved Indians won the American League Central division, defeated the hated Yankees in the ALDS, and were within a game of reaching the World Series with a seemingly insurmountable three games to one lead over the Red Sox in the ALCS...
...they choked like Bill Lobdell trying to do radio and allowed the Red Sox to come back to win the ALCS and cruise to an easy World Series title. That one really hurt.
But hope springs eternal in Hugh's heart and he quickly turned his attention to his beloved Browns. Cleveland made an impressive turn around this year and finished with a solid 10-6 record. In today' s NFL, a 10-6 mark just about guarantees you a playoff berth (which would be the Browns first since 2002). But because the Browns had choked in Week 15 at home against the hated Bengals, they had to wait until the evening of Sunday, December 30th, when the result of the last game of the NFL regular season between the Titans and Colts would determine their fate. The game was tied at ten headed to the fourth quarter when...
...two Titan field goals gave them a 16-10 win and left the Browns out in the cold. Again.
I'm not sure if you've noticed the same thing, but I've picked up a vibe that Hugh is supporting Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee. It's subtle, but there's definitely something there.
Which means that Romney's second place finish in Iowa last Thursday and his almost certain second place finish in New Hampshire today are just the latest examples of Hugh's favorites falling short.
Whoops! I almost forgot. Last night, the Buckeyes (again ranked #1) were once again outclassed by an SEC opponent (this time LSU) in the BCS Championship game. Talk about coming full circle. Oh well, there's always next year, right Hugh?
It's been a tough three-hundred-sixty-five days for one Hugh Hewitt and the teams and causes that he's cheered for.
It all started on January 8th, 2007 when his beloved Ohio State Buckeyes (ranked #1 in the nation at the time) were utterly and completely destroyed by Florida in the BCS Championship game.
Then on April 2nd in Atlanta, the OSU basketball team lost the National Championship game against Florida.
For a while, Hugh enjoyed a respite from the sports agony. Then, after his beloved Indians won the American League Central division, defeated the hated Yankees in the ALDS, and were within a game of reaching the World Series with a seemingly insurmountable three games to one lead over the Red Sox in the ALCS...
...they choked like Bill Lobdell trying to do radio and allowed the Red Sox to come back to win the ALCS and cruise to an easy World Series title. That one really hurt.
But hope springs eternal in Hugh's heart and he quickly turned his attention to his beloved Browns. Cleveland made an impressive turn around this year and finished with a solid 10-6 record. In today' s NFL, a 10-6 mark just about guarantees you a playoff berth (which would be the Browns first since 2002). But because the Browns had choked in Week 15 at home against the hated Bengals, they had to wait until the evening of Sunday, December 30th, when the result of the last game of the NFL regular season between the Titans and Colts would determine their fate. The game was tied at ten headed to the fourth quarter when...
...two Titan field goals gave them a 16-10 win and left the Browns out in the cold. Again.
I'm not sure if you've noticed the same thing, but I've picked up a vibe that Hugh is supporting Mitt Romney as the GOP presidential nominee. It's subtle, but there's definitely something there.
Which means that Romney's second place finish in Iowa last Thursday and his almost certain second place finish in New Hampshire today are just the latest examples of Hugh's favorites falling short.
Whoops! I almost forgot. Last night, the Buckeyes (again ranked #1) were once again outclassed by an SEC opponent (this time LSU) in the BCS Championship game. Talk about coming full circle. Oh well, there's always next year, right Hugh?
Just In Case You Were Wondering...
...who the heck Gene Amondson is.
Atomizer Sez:
Gaaaak!!! The man is a monster.
The Elder Replies:
Didn't I warn you about trying on swimsuits in January, Atomizer?
Atomizer Sez:
Gaaaak!!! The man is a monster.
The Elder Replies:
Didn't I warn you about trying on swimsuits in January, Atomizer?
Monday, January 07, 2008
Yo, Adrian!
Last Wednesday, John Edwards had an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal titled My Plan to Stop Corporate Abuses (sub req) in which he decried CEO pay, called for universal health care for all, and announced his plan for a new universal (he likes that word a lot)retirement account for employees.
Today, there was a flurry of Letters to the Editor responding to Edwards. This was my favorite:
I agree with John Edwards ("My Plan to Stop Corporate Abuses," op-ed, Jan. 2) that there are problems with health care and with inequality of pay. I have a recommendation that may not solve all problems, but that will address some major ones: Place a cap on lawyer compensation.
The most irrational form of inequality of pay is a lawyer sucking up a 25%-33% contingency fee from a claim. It seems that in many cases, lawyers benefit more than the affected people. This is a terrible example of inequality of pay. After all, the compensation of most CEOs is much less than 25%-33% of the profits of the companies they run. I propose that John Edwards write another piece in the WSJ with his proposal on how to curb this "legal abuse." He should consider starting with a "fair reward for work." Based on this principle, I think that he should propose limiting the compensation of trial lawyers -- I would consider setting that limit to a maximum of $300 per hour, not to exceed $750,000 a year (this is calculated as $300 times 50 hours a week times 50 weeks a year). That's between 15 and 20 times what an average worker makes -- and it seems to be fair in the context of closing the inequality of pay.
An additional benefit of this proposal is that health care and court costs may decline as the more frivolous lawsuits are settled earlier and at a lower cost (and hopefully out of court) once lawyer compensation is not linked to the result of the lawsuit. I look forward to hearing Mr. Edwards's views -- and those of his major financial backers -- on this proposal.
Adrian Gulich
Teaneck, N.J.
I guess it all depends on whose wallet is being gored.
Today, there was a flurry of Letters to the Editor responding to Edwards. This was my favorite:
I agree with John Edwards ("My Plan to Stop Corporate Abuses," op-ed, Jan. 2) that there are problems with health care and with inequality of pay. I have a recommendation that may not solve all problems, but that will address some major ones: Place a cap on lawyer compensation.
The most irrational form of inequality of pay is a lawyer sucking up a 25%-33% contingency fee from a claim. It seems that in many cases, lawyers benefit more than the affected people. This is a terrible example of inequality of pay. After all, the compensation of most CEOs is much less than 25%-33% of the profits of the companies they run. I propose that John Edwards write another piece in the WSJ with his proposal on how to curb this "legal abuse." He should consider starting with a "fair reward for work." Based on this principle, I think that he should propose limiting the compensation of trial lawyers -- I would consider setting that limit to a maximum of $300 per hour, not to exceed $750,000 a year (this is calculated as $300 times 50 hours a week times 50 weeks a year). That's between 15 and 20 times what an average worker makes -- and it seems to be fair in the context of closing the inequality of pay.
An additional benefit of this proposal is that health care and court costs may decline as the more frivolous lawsuits are settled earlier and at a lower cost (and hopefully out of court) once lawyer compensation is not linked to the result of the lawsuit. I look forward to hearing Mr. Edwards's views -- and those of his major financial backers -- on this proposal.
Adrian Gulich
Teaneck, N.J.
I guess it all depends on whose wallet is being gored.
The Truth Is Always In Season
As the whirlwind of the political season threatens to sweep us up in a storm of polls, primaries, candidates, conventions, debates and demagoguery (yes, I was watching John Edwards on C-SPAN this weekend), it's important to occasionally step back and keep matters in perspective. In this month's issue of First Things, Robert P. George reminds us not be distracted from the moral truth (sub req):
Our task should be to understand the moral truth and speak it in season and out of season. We will be told by the pure pragmatists that the public is too far gone in moral relativism or even moral delinquency to be reached by moral argument. We will be advised to frame arguments in coded language so as not to scare off the soccer moms or whoever is playing their role in the next election cycle.
All of this must be resisted. We must, to be sure, practice the much-neglected and badly underrated virtue of prudence. But we must have faith that truth is luminously powerful, so that if we bear witness to the truth about, say, marriage and the sanctity of human life--lovingly, civilly, but also passionately and with determination--and if we honor the truth in advancing our positions, then even many of our fellow citizens who now find themselves on the other side of these issues will come around.
Our task should be to understand the moral truth and speak it in season and out of season. We will be told by the pure pragmatists that the public is too far gone in moral relativism or even moral delinquency to be reached by moral argument. We will be advised to frame arguments in coded language so as not to scare off the soccer moms or whoever is playing their role in the next election cycle.
All of this must be resisted. We must, to be sure, practice the much-neglected and badly underrated virtue of prudence. But we must have faith that truth is luminously powerful, so that if we bear witness to the truth about, say, marriage and the sanctity of human life--lovingly, civilly, but also passionately and with determination--and if we honor the truth in advancing our positions, then even many of our fellow citizens who now find themselves on the other side of these issues will come around.
Lots of Business, Not Much Class
I recently had the "opportunity" to experience business class on both Northwest and Delta airlines on a trip to Russia. Over the years, I've been in business class a number of times on Northwest (for obvious reasons), but this was my first experience with Delta and so I thought I'd do a bit of compare and contrast:
Seats: Essentially the same seats. It's nice that you can position them in a variety of ways, but until they get much closer to the ninety degree incline (as other airlines do), extended sleep is still a dream (at least for me). Slight edge to Delta for ease of use.
In-flight Entertainment: Delta's system is harder to navigate than Northwest's, but offered a much better selection of movies. I still don't understand while most--but not all--of Northwest's movies are edited. Delta's are not. If I'm going to watch a movie, I want the full-on version. Plus Delta also featured a variety of programs from HBO. which was nice for a non-premium cable channel guy. Delta.
Food: While neither was out of the ordinary, both had decent food. Since I did an enjoy an honest to goodness ice cream sundae (more of everything!) on Northwest, I'll give them the nod.
Booze: Probably the most important category. I was disappointed with Delta's selection of whisky, although I did enjoy the Woodruff brandy they served. They did have a decent offering of wine, which was a plus. The wines listed in the NW menu were the not the ones available on the flight and the flight attendant wasn't really sure what wines she even had on her cart. Room for improvement on both carriers. Because of the wine fiasco, I'll go with Delta here.
In-flight Service: In the last three years, I've flown Northwest's World Business Class to know that service is not a differentiator for them. The service isn't outright bad as much as indifferent. For the most part, the flight attendants do what they have to do, but nothing more. There is a perceptible attitude of "I'm here to do my job" rather than "I'm here to serve you." This seems to lead to an inattention to details and failure to follow through. It's not egregious, but it is noticeable and is annoying.
Again. this is not based on any particular experience with any specific crew on any individual flight. It's the cumulative experience of more than a couple of dozen of flights in recent years. And of course there have been notable exceptions of superior service, but the very fact that they are exceptions rather than the rule speaks volumes about the overall state of Northwest's service.
On the other hand, I wasn't exactly blown away by Delta's in-flight service either and I wouldn't want to draw any broad conclusion based on one flight. However, the service I received on the one Delta flight was definitely better than what I've typically gotten on Northwest. Advantage Delta.
Shortly after the recent trip, I received an e-mail from Northwest asking me to complete a survey on their World Business Class service. I hope that my responses help prompt changes that bring a bit more class into their service.
Seats: Essentially the same seats. It's nice that you can position them in a variety of ways, but until they get much closer to the ninety degree incline (as other airlines do), extended sleep is still a dream (at least for me). Slight edge to Delta for ease of use.
In-flight Entertainment: Delta's system is harder to navigate than Northwest's, but offered a much better selection of movies. I still don't understand while most--but not all--of Northwest's movies are edited. Delta's are not. If I'm going to watch a movie, I want the full-on version. Plus Delta also featured a variety of programs from HBO. which was nice for a non-premium cable channel guy. Delta.
Food: While neither was out of the ordinary, both had decent food. Since I did an enjoy an honest to goodness ice cream sundae (more of everything!) on Northwest, I'll give them the nod.
Booze: Probably the most important category. I was disappointed with Delta's selection of whisky, although I did enjoy the Woodruff brandy they served. They did have a decent offering of wine, which was a plus. The wines listed in the NW menu were the not the ones available on the flight and the flight attendant wasn't really sure what wines she even had on her cart. Room for improvement on both carriers. Because of the wine fiasco, I'll go with Delta here.
In-flight Service: In the last three years, I've flown Northwest's World Business Class to know that service is not a differentiator for them. The service isn't outright bad as much as indifferent. For the most part, the flight attendants do what they have to do, but nothing more. There is a perceptible attitude of "I'm here to do my job" rather than "I'm here to serve you." This seems to lead to an inattention to details and failure to follow through. It's not egregious, but it is noticeable and is annoying.
Again. this is not based on any particular experience with any specific crew on any individual flight. It's the cumulative experience of more than a couple of dozen of flights in recent years. And of course there have been notable exceptions of superior service, but the very fact that they are exceptions rather than the rule speaks volumes about the overall state of Northwest's service.
On the other hand, I wasn't exactly blown away by Delta's in-flight service either and I wouldn't want to draw any broad conclusion based on one flight. However, the service I received on the one Delta flight was definitely better than what I've typically gotten on Northwest. Advantage Delta.
Shortly after the recent trip, I received an e-mail from Northwest asking me to complete a survey on their World Business Class service. I hope that my responses help prompt changes that bring a bit more class into their service.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)