Monthly Archives: April 2010

Ron Paul making a slight shift to the Right on Foreign Policy/Defense?

Posted on by

by Eric Dondero

With his son Rand in a hotly contested race for the Republican nomination for US Senate, Ron Paul may be treading a bit more lightly on the non-interventionist/isolationist rhetoric of the past. In fact, he may even be inching closer to a more mainstream Republican view.

The younger Paul of course, is running on a strong defense platform. In fact, he's made some statements like supporting intervention against Iran over nuclear missiles, and fiercely opposing closing down Gitmo, that have likely made some Ron Paulist's hairs stand on end.

Cong. Paul sent out a press release endorsing Senate primary candidate and his former House colleague John Hostettler in Indiana. In the 4th paragraph down he made the following slightly nuanced remark:

John also understands that we need to fight for a stronger national defense, where we support our troops and defend our country without policing the world or subsidizing the security of other wealthy nations.

A "stronger national defense"? Defending "our country?" Those are welcomed sentiments by those of us who are in the Pro-Defense wing of the libertarian movement. Contrary to popular view, we Pro-Defensers are not automatic Pro-Policing the World, and we are most certainly not in favor of subsidizing the defenses of wealthy nations, Japan, Germany, Turkey, even Israel.

Perhaps some areas of agreement may be emerging, between previously hostile Pro-Defense wing of the libertarian movement, and the Ron Paulists.

Ironic, that it appears to be Rand Paul, Ron Paul's own son, who may be helping us all to come together.

We Pro-Defensers applaud Ron Paul's move to a more centrist position on National Security. We just hope it's not a short term election ploy.

Disclosure: I served as Travel Aide to Libertarian Presidential candidate Ron Paul in 1987/88, Ron Paul for Congress Campaign Coordinator in 1995/96 and Senior Aide to the Congressman from 1997-2003. I resigned over his opposition to the War in Iraq.

Libertarian-turned-Republican Porn Star Stormy Daniels drops out, compares her troubles with media trouncing of Sarah Palin

Posted on by

An endorsement coming of David Vitter if he advocates abolishing Income Taxes

From Eric Dondero:

It's been a long, strange trip indeed for Stormy Daniels, Louisiana's most popular Porn Star. First, in 2009, in the midst of revelations that incumbent Republican David Vitter sought the services of a prostitute, Daniels announced an exploratory committee for his Senate seat. At the time she flirted with a run on the Libertarian Party ticket.

After over a year of less-than-steller press conferences, and drastic changes in her campaign team, not too mention Vitter's rising popularity, Daniels re-tooled, and announced a couple weeks ago, she'd run as a Republican. Louisiana has a winner-take-all election with no primaries.

Now she's bowing out of the race entirely. Blaming in part, an unfavorable media. NewsMax quotes her as comparing herself to Sarah Palin:

"To begin with, like Governor Palin, I have become a target of the cynical stalwarts of the status quo," Daniels said. "Simply because I did not fit in their mold of what an independent working woman should be, the media and political elite have sought to relegate my sense of civic responsibility to mere sideshow antics."

Now Daniels is putting the word out, that a Vitter endorsement is a distinct possibility. But only if he takes a very libertarian pledge. Continuing from NewsMax:

Daniels accused Vitter of financing his campaign with special interest money but said she still might support him if he goes along with her proposal to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and the federal income tax in favor of a "fair tax" plan that includes a national sales tax.

Could Djou deliver a Republican upset in Hawaii?

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

Charles Djou is the Republican nominee for Congress for a special election HI CD-1, set for late May in Hawaii. He is a Army Reserve officer, and current city councilman for Honolulu. This is the Neil Abercrombie seat.

From Rightosphere:

Research 2000/Daily Kos Hawaii 1st Congressional District Survey

•Charles Djou (R) 32%
•Ed Case (D) 29%
•Colleen Hanabusa (D) 28%
•Other 4%
•Undecided 7%

All three candidates face each other in the same race; winner take all. The DNC is backing Case, which has caused consternation among Hawaii's more liberal activists, and among feminists who are staunchly backing ethnically favored Hanabusa.

Djou has received a wide array of endorsements, including Mitt Romney, Eric Odom's Liberty First (Tea Party) PAC, and the Gay Republican group Log Cabin Clubs.

According to the Star-Bulletin, Djou was one of the attendees at the Tax Day Tea Party rally on the steps of the Capitol in Honolulu. Over 1,500 attended.

Baker-Tisei ticket to Repeal Liquor Tax on Day 1 if elected

Posted on by

Massachusetts State Income Tax to be reduced to 5 percent

From Eric Dondero:

Meet the Republican ticket for Governor/Lt. Governor for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2010. Over the weekend the MA GOP met in convention, and Charles Baker and his running mate Richard Tisei won an overwhelming 89% of delegate support, thereby assuring no primary election will be held.

Baker is a former CEO of a Health Care provider. Tisei is the Senate Minority Leader, (in the extreme - out of 40 Senators only 5 of them are Republicans). He is also openly Gay, and is known for a hardline fiscally conservative, yet socially tolerant approach.

Upon winning the nomination the ticket made some news. Dedham Transcript:

The Baker campaign on Wednesday began promoting the Thursday’s announcement by Baker and Tisei of Citizens for Limited Taxation chief Barbara Anderson's endorsement and “Day 1 tax cut legislation.”

The Baker-Tisei campaign announced Thursday afternoon that, if elected, they will file on their first day in office legislation to repeal recently increased sales, alcohol and meals taxes and to reduce the income tax to 5 percent.

“The liquor tax has adversely affected businesses here in Massachusetts while border businesses have watched former customers go to New Hampshire and Rhode Island instead,” Tisei said in a press release with a Wakefield dateline.

Interestingly, Tisei is already drawing criticism from Democrat sources for being on the ticket. They say him running for Lt. Governor will take him away from his duties as Senate Minority leader.

SHOCK POLL!! Palin within two points of Obama

Posted on by

From the liberal polling firm out of North Carolina, Public Policy Polling (via Hedgehog):

PRESIDENT – NATIONAL (PPP)
Mike Huckabee (R) 47%
Barack Obama (D-inc) 45%

Mitt Romney (R) 45%
Barack Obama (D-inc) 44%

Newt Gingrich (R) 45%
Barack Obama (D-inc) 45%

Barack Obama (D-inc) 47%
Sarah Palin (R) 45%

Additionally, Real Clear Politics (RCP) running average as of yesterday, had Obama's approvals virtually tied with his disapprovals, 47.7% to 47.4%.

Ronald Reagan conservative David Harmer ahead for California Cong. primary, ready to take on Dem in November

Posted on by

Near Pelosi's District

David Harmer, is the libertarian-conservative "Ronald Reagan" candidate in California 11. He just outraised the three other opponents, in the first quarter for the Republican primary by a substantial amount. His contributions exceeded all of theirs combined. And he outraised the incumbent Dem, Jerry McNerny by a substantial amount. Harmer raised over 380K in the first quarter, the incumbent raised 280K. Harmer's Republican opponents raised less than 250K combined.

Almost 15,000 people turned out at the Pleasanton, California tea party on April 15. The campaign was overwhelmed by the interest in his campaign. He was interviewed by ABC 7 from San Francisco, and Greta Van Sustern covered the Pleasanton Tea Party for Fox and featured David in their video coverage.

John Hickey, a longtime California Libertarian (former Libertarian Party activist), and volunteer in the Harmer campaign told Libertarian Republican:

We're going to win the primary and then take the crap sandwich that Jerry McNernery (also known as a Pelosi puppet) shoved down our throats and come November 2, we're going to shove that crap sandwich back at him.

HarmerforCongress.com

Libertarian Jew: Tea Partiers just regular Americans fed up with Big Government

Posted on by

RIGHTWING LIBERTARIAN

From Libertarian Jew blogspot:

Economic failure and governmental intrusion are very much on the forefront of the Tea Party Movement’s mind. One of the speakers at the rally last night [southern California] was a doctor who was discussing, in detail, how ObamaCare’s price controls on insurance are going to greatly hinder doctors’ ability to treat their patients. A not-so-amusing anecdote he brought up was when Nancy Pelosi was being interviewed after the passing of the health care bill. A reporter asked her about the constitutionality of the bill. You want to know what her response was? It was “Are you serious?” I think that has to be my response to her idiotic response. The head of Congress has no respect for the Constitution, which means she has no respect for American jurisprudence. And she still holds a seat of such affluence?! And you wonder why Congress’ job approval rating is so low.

Idiocies from Congress set aside, people at the Tea Party Rally were just fed up with government intrusion. If you think that economic freedoms aren’t important, think again! In more ways than one, your economic freedoms are your freedoms. If we continue going down this path of giving the government more regulatory powers over the economy, which, by the way, are not granted by the Constitution, you wouldn’t be able to buy property, buy the kind of car you like, eat whatever you want, have the thermostat set the way you like it, or to pursue the career of your choice.

Editor's Note - Steve bills his blog as - The political and religious musings of a right-winged, libertarian, non-Orthodox, traditionalist, Zionist Jew who emphasizes rationalism, common sense, and free, open-minded thought. We're adding Libertarian Jew to our Blog Roll.

Following historic televised debate: Lib-Dems positioned to finish second in UK Elections

Posted on by

by Clifford F. Thies

The strong showing by the leader of Great Britain's Liberal Democrat Party, Nick Clegg, in the first ever televised debate among party leaders in that country has scrambled election forecasts.

Going into the debate, the Conservatives, lead by David Cameron (photo), were solidly in first place, with a lead in the popular vote ranging from the high single-digits to the low double-digits over Labour, lead by Prime Minister Gordon Brown; and, projected to win something close to, if not an absolute majority of seats in Parliament. The biggest uncertainty seemed to be how particular districts would fall, whether to the Tories versus Labour, or to the Lib-Dems versus the Scottish Nationalists, or any number of other permutations. Now, the biggest uncertainty appears to be whether the Lib-Dems will overtake Labour in the popular vote, with the outcome in terms of seats much more fluid because of the number of competitive districts in which there are three or more strong parties. The old rule of thumb, that 40 percent in the popular vote results in a majority in Parliament might not work in this election.

In the British (and Canadian) system of elections, the members of the governing chamber of parliament are elected from "winner-take-all" elections, with the government formed by the party (or, by a coalition of parties) winning the most seats. This format practically invites minor parties with appeal in certain regions. In Canada, there is, for example, the Quebec nationalist party and, in Great Britain, the Scottish nationalist party.

In addition to the regional dynamic, the left in Great Britain, as in several other countries, is fracturing, with significant numbers defecting to green parties and with the far-left impatient with the center-left. In Great Britain, Tony Blair's re-casting of Labour as a neo-liberal party enabled the party to string together a series of majorities in Parliament. But, it looks as though this re-positioning of Labour will come undone with the surge of the Lib-Dems in this year's election. Labour, in Great Britain, may come out of this year's election in a position similar to that of the New Democrats in Canada, a minor party that is competitive in only selected districts.

What is the real cost of healthcare?

Posted on by

While I don’t usually write about my personal health, I was recently asked about health care reform during a discussion at the American Pathology Foundation meeting recently in Las Vegas. While the discussion centered on the main issue – not a full reform of the current healthcare system but rather insurance reform, it prompted me to put to words a few personal experiences and ask the question “What is the real cost of healthcare?”

In May of last year I came down with what I thought was a community acquired pneumonia. This was about the time of the first reported cases of H1N1 and out of fear of quarantine at the time for what I was sure was not H1N1 I avoided doctors and hospitals. After trying a couple courses of antibiotics prescribed by a colleague, without relief, I found myself at an “express care” facility on a weekend morning desperate for relief from my symptoms of fever, cough and chest pain.

After completing a short medical history, I was seen by a nurse practioner with minimal waiting who was professional yet focused her questions and examination on the current problem. Within a few minutes I had prescriptions for another course of antibiotics and medication to relieve the cough and subsequent chest pain.

“Are you going to do a chest x-ray?” “No.

“Sputum culture?” “No, why?”

“Referral to infectious disease or pulmonary?” “Huh?”

By the next morning, my symptoms were gone. Of course, this likely would have resulted had I not seen this healthcare provider but for fifty bucks that my employer sponsored healthcare plan paid for I feel like it was time well spent and was able to sleep through the night for the first time in a couple of weeks.

Some time after this I asked a pulmonary colleague had I been seen by him or one of his colleagues what may have transpired. At the least he claimed a chest x-ray and consideration of bronchoscopy and possible PFT testing to exclude other underlying conditions. Seems like a stretch compared to what I needed and with the treatment being an inexpensive visit, antibiotic and cough supressant.

During my acute illness one of our fellows presented with acute flank pain to the ER on the same weekend. After sitting in pain for four hours in the ER it was determined he had a kidney stone and conservative managment was warranted. An ultrasound and CT later, twelve hundred bucks for the ER visit plus radiology costs. No pain relief. By the next week after conservative measures failed and he underwent additional urology consultations, lithotripsy and eventually surgical removal of the stone. Tack on another five grand. A post-op follow up, subsequent IVP and his bills were pushing $10K. This does not count time off from work and lost productivity. The insurance covered a minority of the expenses.

While I am not a pulmonologist or urologist and do not manage acute clinical conditions I wonder what may have happened if my colleague had gone to see the nurse practioner on the weekend as I did. Save the ER costs for same diagnosis, perhaps some more immediate relief of symptoms, quicker appropriate referral as this could not be managed in their setting and definitive care rendered with less delay and patient suffering.

Perhaps this model can be expanded. What is the real cost of healthcare by being overly investigative or delaying definitive care at the expense of conservative measures? It is obviously a difficult balance without the medicolegal implications either way.

I think that we should be looking at outcomes and a cost per outcome (or expected outcome) as function of dollars spent as a significant factor in terms of appropriately providing care while insuring the standards of care are met.

Would I have benefited from a more extensive work up? Would the outcome been different? Probably not. While it may not have been contraindicated and not harmful, or low risk, the costs beyond using emperical data may not justify a similar outcome.

Physicians are driven by data. But what is the data worth as a function of its cost?

Nine Breakthroughs and a Breakdown

Posted on by

In his new book Breakthrough! How the 10 Greatest Discoveries in Medicine Saved Millions and Changed Our View of the World Jon Queijo describes what he believes are the 10 greatest discoveries. 9 of them are uncontroversial discoveries that have been on other top-10 lists, but his 10th choice is one that no other list of top discoveries has ever included. He realizes that, and even admits in his introduction that a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine refused to review his book because there is no such thing as alternative medicine, only treatments that work and treatments that don’t. But he “respectfully disagrees.”

Hippocrates’ discovery that disease had natural causes, sanitation, germ theory, anesthesia, X-rays, vaccines, antibiotics, genetics, and treatments for mental disorders are all worthy candidates for the list. But Queijo ludicrously lists the “rediscovery of alternative medicine” as the tenth “great discovery.” He presents no evidence (because there is no evidence) that alternative medicine has “saved millions” or that it has saved anyone. He doesn’t realize that alternative medicine represents a betrayal of exactly the kind of rigorous scientific thinking and testing that led to all the other discoveries. His list of ten breakthroughs is actually a list of 9 breakthroughs and one breakdown.

He tells compelling human-interest stories about the discoveries. The complexities, the mis-steps, the near-misses, and the ups and downs make fascinating reading. He describes farmer Benjamin Jesty leading his wife and children on a two mile trek through the fields in 1774 to steal cowpox pus from a neighbor’s cow and inoculate his family with a sewing needle to protect them (successfully!) from smallpox. He describes the many chance events that had to conspire for Fleming to see the effects of mold on his culture plate and the long, tortuous course between his observation and the therapeutic use of penicillin. He tells how the pea-gardening monk Gregor Mendel’s discovery of genetic principles went unrecognized until decades later after 3 other researchers had unknowingly replicated some of his experiments.

He offers fascinating tidbits of historical information. Anti-vaccine activists are nothing new: he tells how they sabotaged the use of an early typhoid vaccine in the Boer War by such tactics as dumping vaccine shipments overboard from ships. As a result, the British Army suffered more than 58,000 cases of typhoid and 9000 deaths.

He recounts Roentgen’s early comments about his discovery of x-rays:

I still believed I was the victim of deception.

I have discovered something interesting, but I do not know whether or not my observations are correct.

Before he announced his discovery, he studied the characteristics of the rays, investigating whether they could penetrate various materials or be deflected by a prism or a magnetic field. One can only wish that today’s students of “energy medicine” would employ his cautious, self-questioning, and scientifically rigorous approach!

My favorite was a delightful anecdote about Thomas Edison: in the early days after the discovery of x-rays, Edison received two requests in the mail, one from an apparent voyeur asking him to fit a set of opera glasses with x-rays and the other asking him to

Please send me one pound of X-rays and bill as soon as possible.

There are hints of trouble before we get to the chapter on alternative medicine. Queijo claims that one of Hippocrates’ accomplishments was to believe that respect for a higher power was a necessary precondition for good health. What does that even mean? Why would it be important? He offers no evidence that such respect has ever saved lives or had any positive effect on medical practice.

In the chapter on genetics, he starts by describing the ancient superstition that “maternal impressions” could affect the development of the fetus: for instance, after watching a fire, a woman delivered a baby with a flame-shaped birthmark. He demolishes that possibility with a reasoned discussion of genetic principles and DNA. But then he inexplicably cites a modern study by Ian Stevenson, who holds a number of strange beliefs, is convinced he has solid evidence proving reincarnation, and could be classified as a maverick if you wanted to be polite. Stevenson collected a number of case reports and opined that

In rare instances maternal impressions may indeed affect gestating babies and cause birth defects.

Queijo agrees with him, saying

In the brave new world of genes, nucleotides, and SNP’s it’s easy to dismiss such mysteries as playing no role in the inheritance of physical traits — no more than, say, DNA was thought to have for 75 years after its discovery.

He’s wrong: Stevenson did not find any “mysteries” but merely the kind of coincidences that will be inevitably found if you look hard enough for them.

In the chapter on alternative medicine, Queijo loses it entirely. He seems to think that modern medicine has become so fixated on diseases and technology that alternative medicine had to rediscover that diseases occur in people. He criticizes the reductionism of the scientific approach, but offers no evidence that a non-reductionist approach has ever resulted in discoveries or provided better patient outcomes. He sees the struggles between scientific medicine and alternative medicine as politically motivated turf wars rather than as efforts to establish the truth. He claims that by 1998, Americans were seeking alternative care practitioners more often than their own primary care physicians. If this is true, offering that statement without qualification would be misleading to say the least. Anyway, popularity is no guide as to what treatments work.

He accepts homeopathy uncritically and even suggests that it is now supported by science. He likes the idea of homeopathy because it “shares some underlying values seen in ancient traditional medicines” such as vitalistic energy concepts, detailed interviews to inquire into every detail of the patient’s life, stressing the healer-patient relationship, and deriving many of its remedies from natural products.

He says,

Alternative medicine offered something Western medicine had too often abandoned: the view that every patient was an individual, that natural treatments were sometimes better than dramatic surgery and dangerous drugs; and that the essence of medicine begins with a caring relationship between healer and patient.

This is a straw man argument that badly mischaracterizes mainstream medicine, and it fails to show that alternative medicine has any advantage over scientific medicine practiced with judgment and empathy. If every patient is an individual and the whole person should be treated, why do chiropractors fixate on adjusting spines and acupuncturists fixate on improving the flow of qi through meridians?

He even goes as far as to accuse the stethoscope of being a nefarious device that distances practitioners from patients! He calls its invention “a dark omen for the terrible turn Western medicine was about to take.” Now, really!

Much of this book is an eloquent paean to the value of science. Unfortunately, it abandons science in its discussion of alternative medicine. It deteriorates into apologetics for belief-based medicine based on misunderstandings and opinions rather than on any evidence. Alternative medicine represents a breakdown of the process that led to the real breakthroughs.

If you read this book, I recommend skipping chapter 10.


[Slashdot]
[Digg]
[Reddit]
[del.icio.us]
[Facebook]
[Technorati]
[Google]
[StumbleUpon]

Medical pot use can conflict with job rules – USA Today

Posted on by

KOMO News
Medical pot use can conflict with job rules
USA Today
... that prohibit the use of medical marijuana for transportation workers in safety-sensitive jobs, including pilots, school bus drivers, truck drivers, ...
Gone to potBoston Globe
The Dean of Marijuana UPortfolio.com
Legalizing Marijuana Not Worth the CostsCNBC
Behavioral Health Central (blog) -Carolinian (subscription) -CNBC
all 278 news articles »

The World People’s Climate Summit

Posted on by

You can watch live coverage of Cochabamba, “The World People’s Climate Summit” via the video below.

Your browser does not support iframes.

Watch this video for live coverage of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, April 20-22, courtesy of OneClimate.net

The pioneering OneClimate Channel has already enabled millions of people around the world to participate in global climate talks – most recently during the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009. But in Bolivia, the promise of an ‘open process’ (there will be no secret discussions behind closed doors) combined with OneClimate’s groundbreaking interactive coverage, means that anyone with access to the internet will have a free pass right to the heart of the summit.

The following is an unbelievable development, reported by  DemocracyNow:

US Cancels Climate Aid to Bolivia, Ecuador over Copenhagen Opposition

“…The Obama administration has confirmed it’s denying climate aid to at least two countries that refused to sign on to last year’s Copenhagen environmental accord. The State Department has canceled funding of $3 million to Bolivia and $2.5 million for Ecuador. Bolivia vocally opposed the accord, while Ecuador has issued its tacit rejection by refusing to sign on so far. A coalition of southern, island and developing countries opposed the non-binding accord largely over its exclusion of mandatory and robust emissions cuts at the levels recognized as necessary to avert devastating climate change. There are fears the funding cuts could signify the Obama administration will attempt to punish nations financially for defying the US stance on climate agreements. In a statement, Kate Horner of Friends of the Earth said, “The US is acting like a bully, strong-arming the most vulnerable countries to get them to sign onto an ineffective and unfair deal that will not move the world closer to a just climate agreement.”

If this is in fact true, it’s a ridiculously bad move by the Obama administration.  By this rationale, the United States should stop sending aid to Israel because they have defied us and continue to build settlements in Palestinian areas. That is much more serious than a country speaking out against an ineffective non-legally binding Accord,  reached by only a few countries in Copenhagen last December.  It’s unconscionable that the U.S. is denying climate aid to countries that need it, especially after the American corporation Bechtel’s attempt to steal and profit from Boliva’s water years ago.  What is the matter with the Obama administration on climate aid, especially when the U.S. is one of the world’s biggest polluters?