After taking the oath of office on national TV, in front of the entire US establishment, some lawyer suggested that a minor verbal stumble by the Chief Justice rendered the whole thing invalid. Obama, a man with no practical experience in the real world, and a lawyer himself, fell for this line. So the chief justice comes over the the White House and does it again, just for grins. There are a few pool reporters and the White House photographer did the pictures.
Now the newsies are complaining that they didn't get enough "access" and "transparency". This whining must be coming from the vast majority who didn't get the opportunity to crowd around and then pontificate about a not terribly significant event.
In actual fact all the voters and taxpayers consider Obama the legitimate president because he won the election. Only the wingnuts who are still contesting Obama's citizenship would give a hoot. And nothing will convince a wingnut of anything. So why did he bother?
Friday, January 23, 2009
Drinking Age
Good blog posting here. The best argument for lowering the drinking age is safety. The safest place to drink is a pub within walking distance of home or college dorm. Since this is illegal now, the under aged drink where ever they think they can get away with it. Often at a great distance, requiring a drive home after drinking. The bad part about youth drinking, is the drive home after imbibing. Lot of deaths, and permanent injuries, to say nothing of the number of smashed up automobiles.
Our children would live longer and get into less trouble if they could drink in on campus or local pubs.
I don't believe the current drinking age prevents teenagers from drinking. I am a parent and have some experience in this matter. I know that preventing them from drinking on campus increases the risk of death.
Our children would live longer and get into less trouble if they could drink in on campus or local pubs.
I don't believe the current drinking age prevents teenagers from drinking. I am a parent and have some experience in this matter. I know that preventing them from drinking on campus increases the risk of death.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Welfare for Lawyers
New Hampshire has a medical malpractice reduction law which requires malpractice cases to be presented to a state malpractice board BEFORE going to court. The board reviews the case and issues an opinion (doctor is innocent/doctor is guilty). Lawyers are free to sue no matter what the board opinion is. However the board's opinion will be presented to the jury at trial. This board has been in operation since 2005, and in that time only one half the cases presented to the board actually went on to trial. Our own Senator John Gallus supported this law back in 2005.
Apparently the board opinion carries great weight with juries. Malpractice lawyers complain presenting the case to the board is as expensive as presenting it at trial, which doubles their costs to win a malpractice case.
Now a REPUBLICAN rep, Robert Rowe of Hillsborough has submitted House Bill 50, to repeal the law requiring a board presentation.
Arrgh. How can a man call himself Republican who is in the pocket of the trial lawyers? How can this man's voter's stand for such cost enhancement and prosecution of their doctors?
Apparently the board opinion carries great weight with juries. Malpractice lawyers complain presenting the case to the board is as expensive as presenting it at trial, which doubles their costs to win a malpractice case.
Now a REPUBLICAN rep, Robert Rowe of Hillsborough has submitted House Bill 50, to repeal the law requiring a board presentation.
Arrgh. How can a man call himself Republican who is in the pocket of the trial lawyers? How can this man's voter's stand for such cost enhancement and prosecution of their doctors?
What's in the hopper?
Time enough has passed for the annual flock of new laws to get written up and posted to the NH legislature's website. So far we have 392 proposed new NH laws. I just spent some time reading all 392 titles just to see what badness might be hidden there in. Surprise. NO titles calling for income tax or a sales tax. Will wonders never cease?
Nearly all the law titles start off with the phrase "Relative to" which seem wordy.
Nearly all the law titles start off with the phrase "Relative to" which seem wordy.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Great Depression II hits the Borg
Stopped by the Littleton Lowe's this afternoon, needing a can of wood stain. Place was nearly empty, more employees in red Lowe's jackets than customers. On regular days (back before the October crash) finding a counter person used to be hard. Not today, store was empty and the clerks are looking for things to do to keep busy. On the way home I eyeballed the Home Depot parking lot, and it was even emptier than the Lowe's parking lot.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
What to spend on for economic stimulus
The quest for the magic economic bullet to pull the country out of recession. We know a couple of things that don't work. Giving free money to citizens doesn't work, citizens are to shell shocked to spend it on anything. Giving free money to Wall St doesn't seem to do much either. The banks are so shell shocked they don't dare lend it out, even if anyone wanted to borrow it.
Some IBM guys suggested investing in broadband and something they called "smart power grid", and computerize the nation's medical records. I can buy the broadband argument, especially up here where a lot of places can't get broadband, no way, no how. Broadband is a necessary utility now, like phone and electric and water. No new businesses are going to start up in places they cannot get broadband.
The "smart power grid" argument was less compelling, partly because the writer didn't bother to explain what it was. Probably because he didn't understand the concept himself. All I can think of is the old utility dream of load leveling. Electric power demand peaks in the morning and evening (when customers are home and cooking) and on hot summer afternoon's when every air conditioner runs full blast. If some loads could be turned off during peak times, the peaks would get smaller, and the utilities wouldn't need as many generators as they do now. Things like hot water heaters, air conditioners, and refrigerators could be switched off during peak periods. Give the customer's an incentive to install "smart" appliances and some how send a signal over the power lines in peak periods telling the "smart" appliances to conserve electricity.
The biggest most expensive part of this would be getting customers to replace perfectly good appliances with "smart" ones. Maybe we just pass a law requiring all new appliances to be "smart" ones and let the normal replacement cycle phase them in gradually.
Either way, I don't see how "smart power grid" really stimulates the economy.
I'd get more behind computerizing all the medical records except I fear that once computerized, hackers and crackers will steal them and offer them for sale. Do you really want your medical records available to anyone on the Internet?
Some IBM guys suggested investing in broadband and something they called "smart power grid", and computerize the nation's medical records. I can buy the broadband argument, especially up here where a lot of places can't get broadband, no way, no how. Broadband is a necessary utility now, like phone and electric and water. No new businesses are going to start up in places they cannot get broadband.
The "smart power grid" argument was less compelling, partly because the writer didn't bother to explain what it was. Probably because he didn't understand the concept himself. All I can think of is the old utility dream of load leveling. Electric power demand peaks in the morning and evening (when customers are home and cooking) and on hot summer afternoon's when every air conditioner runs full blast. If some loads could be turned off during peak times, the peaks would get smaller, and the utilities wouldn't need as many generators as they do now. Things like hot water heaters, air conditioners, and refrigerators could be switched off during peak periods. Give the customer's an incentive to install "smart" appliances and some how send a signal over the power lines in peak periods telling the "smart" appliances to conserve electricity.
The biggest most expensive part of this would be getting customers to replace perfectly good appliances with "smart" ones. Maybe we just pass a law requiring all new appliances to be "smart" ones and let the normal replacement cycle phase them in gradually.
Either way, I don't see how "smart power grid" really stimulates the economy.
I'd get more behind computerizing all the medical records except I fear that once computerized, hackers and crackers will steal them and offer them for sale. Do you really want your medical records available to anyone on the Internet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)