Powered by TypePad

« As You Work Out Today... | Main | Converging On Dull »

November 10, 2009



I want to note that Porchlight has been made even more famous today, in living color over at Insty.

Pretty soon we are going to have to pay her to show up here.

Whoo hoo!

steve sturm

I know great minds think there is gold to be mined, but I don't see where much can be done to cut costs. Cutting reimbursement rates doesn't lower the cost of care, it merely forces the providers to absorb a portion of it. Tort reform only saves money to the extent frivolous claims and attorney fees are reduced, as with cutting reimbursement, money denied to those who have suffered from malpractice only forces them to absorb the costs of the (bad) treatment. And the only costs saved by cutting back on 'Cadillac plans' involves having people do without the level of care provided by such plans... and who gets to decide on what is unnecessary? A medical rationing board?

Perhaps cutting back on truly redundant tests could save money... but only if those savings aren't outweighed by the costs of developing the data system that allows for doctors to have real time access to information. Increasing the supply of doctors could reduce the fees charged, as basic economics theory says doing so would result in doctors entering the field who are willing to charge less, but that also would likely result in a lower quality of care (think pro sports expansion) and thus higher costs due to mistakes made by less qualified providers.

I have a better chance of winning the lottery than they have of finding true savings.

mr know it all

Interesting word, "agita." I don't think it is spelled right. Aceto is vinegar in Italian. Italians pronounce it Ah-chay-ta, which morphed into meaning heartburn.


Jane, you beat me to Instapundit and Porchlight this morning.

Yay, Porch!

Ask any doctor if malpractice suits select the bad doctors.

Tort reform, steve, doesn't necessarily have to 'force those suffering from the effects of malpractice to absorb the costs of it'. Done well, it may only impact the fees the lawyers get, and it surely can diminish the vast amount of money spent on 'defensive' medicine.

In this day and age, malpractice has practically become a 'process' failure rather than an individual one. There is much to reform about the present system.


I wish these scheming slimebags would try to keep straight which "costs" they're talking about.

There are a variety of ideas for attacking cost increases more aggressively, including setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals more rigorously and discouraging workers and employers from buying expensive health insurance policies that mask the true costs of treatment.
Is the government trying to save me money by discouraging me from spending it on an expensive policy, or are they trying to save my employer money? Shouldn't they limit themselves to saving taxpayers' money?

As far as I know, taxpayers do not spend any money for my health care. How does discouraging me to spend my own money qualify as "cost-cutting"?

steve sturm

You say tomato, I say tomato... ah, doesn't work in print.

Is 'defensive medicine' really a bad thing.. if you define it as making absolutely sure that X or Y isn't to blame for the ailment? Example: patient goes to ER complaining of headache and MD order MRI just to make sure it isn't due to tumor or similar. Probably wasn't, but MRI eliminates as possibility. Patient is happy, doctor is able to focus attention on other still-possible causes.. and happy he's eliminated chance of being sued because this was the one in a million situation where there was a treatable tumor present.

likewise, ordering tests duplicative of tests previously done at MD's office. Sure, the ER MD could try to access the files, but that takes time, there can be problems in relaying results, etc.... a big relief to all to go an order the second test just to make sure there isn't any glitch in relying on previous test.

And finally the same holds for the extra staff hired and the controls put in place to try to reduce medical mistakes. Fewer people, less costs, but fewer people or fewer controls and more mistakes. I'd be glad if each hospital had a staffer go around to surgical patients making sure the proper limb was being worked on. I'm glad hospitals spend the money making sure babies are properly id'd. Sure, without the controls, we'd save money, but we'd likely end up with babies slipping through the system.

Me thinks the complaints about malpractice are in large part because doctors don't like anyone looking over their shoulders and telling them they screwed up and because ambulance chasers are just sleazy people and not because there are truly billions and billions to be saved.

I Won

Independent, bipartisan, select commissions will make binding recommendations that cover every aspect of health care, ensuring a smart, strong, and patriotic end result.


Yes and don't slouch Winston Smith on those
deep knee bends

Do hangnails get worked up?  Why not?

steve, you've a blindered understanding of just what defensive medicine is all about. Ask yourself this; is every headache responded to with an MRI? Why not?


**Tort reform only saves money to the extent frivolous claims and attorney fees are reduced...**

Tort reform is geared at not just frivolous/marginal claims filed to push for nuisance settlements, but at the reduction or elimination of massive multi-million-dollar jury awards for damages not actually suffered, i.e., punitive damage awards meant as penalties, not recompense. Also, under our contingency-fee system over half of the money paid for malpractice wards on settlements does not go to injured patients at all, but to lawyer's fees and system overhead. Even without a "loser pays" reform, cost could be cut dramatically by removing the "jackpot" nature for lawyers of filing suit on contingency percentages.

The $54 billion in savings estimated by CBO from tort reform is a reasonably modest estimate, and $54B ain't chicken feed.

We're getting standardized electronics records anyway -- that is not in the least dependent on reductions in "defensive medicine" (real apples and oranges linkage there) and is already being phased in.

The Great Conceit is that we MUST have something called "comprehensive reform" that fundamentally transforms the entire industry all at once in order to accomplish anything. There is no reason at all not to proceed with incremental targeted rforms that improve system function. No reason except that the Dems in Congress want to take over and control the entire industry, which requires something more akin to seizure and confiscation than real reforms.


All hail I-Won.

Learn a little about process failure.

And you perpetuate a common misunderstanding. Tumours aren't what doctors fear missing in acute headaches; it is bleeds.


Porch, Why not ask Chris is you could purchase the original of that cartoon and frame it? Really, you don't want to let it go.

Rick Ballard

"I don't think it is spelled right. Aceto is vinegar in Italian. Italians pronounce it Ah-chay-ta, which morphed into meaning heartburn."

Nope. The verb agitare comes from the same root as the English agitate. Agita is the state of being - agitated. Occasionally Italians will use it to refer to the cause of agitation rather than to the state of being agitated.

Jack is Back!

Is that Porch in the shower?

If so, Yowza:)

steve sturm

But to the extent that a doctor pays just a bit more attention to what he is doing due to the potential of being sued, and punitive damages, being what they are, ought to provide even more of an incentive to not screw up.

TANSTAAFL, tort reform may save money in some areas, but will likely add costs elsewhere... it isn't the golden bullet advocates claim.

and a tumor is what they said they were looking for, I don't know why, perhaps something specific to the symptoms cited, but I was glad to hear there wasn't one.


No, Jack, just a character in that strip. But it's the image we'll all have when we see Porch's name under her comments from now on...

Uncle BigBad

Is this an open thread yet? I've been thinking about Gen. Casey's remark that he doesn't want to lose "the Army's diversity."

I remember Navy bootcamp (about 50 years ago). As we gathered, we were a diverse group of slugs. At the end of the training, we had lost all our diversity. We were a military unit, the opposite of diverse. I suspect General Casey understands that better than I do.

When did all that change?


When did all that change?

When it became more important that you are black than that you are president.


When did all that change?

Be All That You Can Be. Army of One. Sara Lister.

Happy Birthday, USMC. 234 years.

Cecil Turner

Is 'defensive medicine' really a bad thing..

It adds about 10% in cost. Is that a bad thing? Not if you don't care about cost.

It's similar to the argument for preventive care. While it may improve overall health, it generally increases cost. And though it may be worth it to the patient, if the payback is to ration some higher priority care (presumably to those less fortunate), then they probably wouldn't agree on the relative benefits.


I was following up Mustang's link to a description of Anwar Aulaqi, to which I dubbed him 'the Jon Stewart of Jihad'except I noted that Stewart isn't really that funny. The way the media is spinning this, isn't simple ignorance, it's deliberate distortion of the facts. But you'll say, Narciso, we noticed this before, it only came up this year (sarc)Did everyone drink
a potion, and forget the last eight years
in the press.


But subsidizing demand without changing supply only reduces the price paid by the beneficiary of the subsidy; the increase in demand will increase prices paid by society as a whole.

As I recall, the last time we tried this policy on a large scale was the California power supply system, where rates to consumers were fixed, while at the same time, suppliers were denied the chance to expand power production in a cost effective way. And we all know how well that worked out: power rationing though rolling blackouts.

Sounds like Obamacare is a medical version of that plan.


As far as I know, taxpayers do not spend any money for my health care. How does discouraging me to spend my own money qualify as "cost-cutting"?

Exactly, ex.

This is the same line of thinking that is bringing us the "dream big" goal of smart grids. The gov't invests in them so utility companies can charge us more when we use electricity during peak hours. All so we can budget. It will save us money!


Congratulations, Porch!

I can't believe there was a JOM-related nude and it wasn't me.


It was nice of Chris to have my quote come from the lovely Sam, who is about my age, but much better looking. ;)

Mr. Porchlight got a kick out of it - though he is a Dem unfortunately, he is also an artist of sorts, and has done some cartooning (is that the word?). He hadn't seen DBD before and spent some time on the site yesterday. He was impressed.

Maybe Chris will send me a hi-res version for printing and framing...


Thanks, MayBee. It should have been you! :)


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/11/interview-with-the-president-jail-time-for-those-without-health-care-insurance.html>Interview with the President: Jail Time for Those without Health Care Insurance?

The President said that he didn’t think the question over the appropriateness of possible jail time is the “biggest question” the House and Senate are facing right now.

So, depriving someone of their liberty isn't the “biggest question”. I think about the only quesiton bigger I guess is depriving someone of their life... Oh, Obama care does that too, so maybe he is right.


Make sure you get it signed too Porch. It was a hell of an honor, as was having Chris stop by yesterday.


ranger, everytime an issue like this comes uop, I wonder what kind of constitutional law are they teaching at HLS?

hit and run

the lovely Sam, who is about my age, but much better looking.

Condolences to your trousers for the conflagration in which they are engulfed.


jail time? hey, ain't no thang.

A Government Wasteland.

Speaking of Constitutional Law, read up on the lastest Kelo irony.


From the Samuelson link in TM's update:

OMB director Orszag, in his blog, has argued that an excise tax on high-value insurance plans would cause companies to scale back those expensive plans, thereby restraining health costs. In a press briefing, John Sheils of Lewin, the study's main author, agreed but said that the savings wouldn't fully offset the higher spending by the previously uninsured. In a speech to the Center for American Progress on Oct. 26, CEA chairman Romer also cited the excise tax as paring health spending.
Restraining for whom? Paring whose spending?

It seems that the government would like us to spend our money on something other than health care. Would it be fair to ask them what they'd prefer? Not energy, surely. Food? No, I'm sure that's wrong. Housing? I think they've got that handled now.

So what do they want us to spend our money on? Would they prefer that we reduce our spending overall, so that the excess money might be available for something else?

Synergy rules the web.

Porchlight, it's a marvelous meme, and thanks also to anduril, for setting you up.


Remember who was one of his profs, the one whose primer, he recommended in the 'civil rights and the law' class, Derrick Bell, the Jeremiah Wright of legal criticism

One like that in 1859 would cripple the world for weeks.  What is the cost of that?.

What would be smart to do would be to create a grid that would react to and recover from a Carrington Event. It's only a matter of time, and the sooner we get after it the better. The more complex our dependence upon the grid, the more vulnerable we become to such a happening.


More smoke & mirrors. After being fed the BS about how conflicted they dems were on the whole thing Crazy Nancy & the Suicidals rammed through the most byzantine health care bill possible outside of Constantinople.

There are no controls, there is no rhyme or reason except a massive takeover of another 20% of the national economy by Orwellian bureaucrats who will define the law as they see fit behind closed doors.

The American people are once again being shucked like oysters and sucked into the maw of Barney Frank and his dope smoking boyfriend.

Congratulations, Porch!

I can't believe there was a JOM-related nude and it wasn't me.

Posted by: MayBee | November 10, 2009 at 10:25 AM

I can't believe there was something a little risque JOM-related and bad wasn't involved.


Rob Crawford

TANSTAAFL, tort reform may save money in some areas, but will likely add costs elsewhere...


Unless you can enumerate those costs, your argument is empty.


(Now now, Rob, don't disturb his sense of apathetic hopelessness and dedicated ennui. I'm sure it serves some purpose for him.)

Yeah, by golly, it could result in a bunch of ambulance-chasers having to seek more societally-productive employment. Horros.


I can't believe there was something a little risque JOM-related and bad wasn't involved.

Ha! So true!



In Brooklyn and Jersey, agita/agida is descriptive of those things which cause agitation, as in "I don't don't need none a dis agita!"


Sad to think about the impact to their domestic staffs, Tully.

Jim Ryan

DATELINE DC: Anita Dunn's done. She stated that the rate of reorganization lagged so far behind a Maoist pace that, when even her suggestions for widespread government purges were rejected out of hand, she could not in good conscience but resign. "Peace out!" she stated at the end, making an odd-looking fist in the air in which she managed to contort her fingers into a recognizable face of Stalin. Members of the Obama administration made a similar gesture in sympathy to the departing Maoist.

hit and run

I can't believe there was something a little risque JOM-related and bad wasn't involved.

Have you ever seen "Sam" and bad in the same room together?

Think about it.



As a matter of fact, I haven't.


The medical consumer does not have a clue about "costs" of a doctor visit or procedure.
Until that happy day arrives when we all understand and have some say over how much is spent on our individual healthcare--we are never going to bend the curve.
I have a large deductible and believe me I sure think about trotting off to the doctor at a whim.
My MIL when she got on Medicare took up a new hobby of visiting the doc every other week. Drove me pretty close to bonkers.



Politico: Michelle Obama's poll numbers slide

The article tries to blame it on Obama's numbers dragging her down, but we all know it's the belts.

Oh, and some other stuff. But mostly the belts.

One "first lady historian" spins that it's because people expected her to take a more active role, but instead she's been taking care of the girls, so, it like, disappoints the feminists or something. Snort.


I found the reasons given snortworthy too, Porch.
It turns out she is mildly irritating and preachy. From dating to growing vegetables to working out to where we go to dinner-- she has an idea about how we should do it. And why-- so we can be more productive workers. Who ever thought Americans wouldn't like that?


I was surprised I thought there could only be one first lady historian, Carl Sforza Anthony, much like Highlander. Anita's been
kicked to the back, not under the bus in the LUN


Nothing in that pic could hold a clue, that's for sure.


I think everybody has or has had a Michelle Obama type in their lives. That's part of the reason the numbers fall as people get to know her. They think, "oh, she's just like X - how annoying."

Plus the fact that we are told daily how beautiful, fashionable and graceful she is, in contrast to what we can see with our own eyes.

I can't wait until she goes on Iron Chef. She'll give new meaning to the term "one-ass kitchen."



Michelle Obama speaks at a White House event.


She's like an unhappy Oprah.

mr know it all

Rick Ballard,
You go with your derivation of agita, I'll go with mine. LUN

hit and run

I think she's hot.

hit and run

Wait. We're still talking about Porchlight,right?


Excuse me for butting in here but has anybody informed the progressives that this abortion issue and funding will KILL the hope of ever getting single payer? think about it (not much required)

Clarice? buehler?

That was my first thought Saturday night but I've seen nobody else express it.

BTW, I miss Peter too. :( I left a note at ManchesterBeat a few days ago. It's sad, really, that we only got to know him after he's gone. Damn.


Dunn is history as narciso stated. Another one bites the dust! It must have been Mao or Glenn Beck's red phone. Whatever! Nobody lasts for long that generates more news than the Once.


The thing about Michelle Ibama is that she knows better than anyone else in the world how lazy and self-centered Ibama is, and that he would rather mouth vacuous platitudes than get his clothes dirty.


Does she have no eyebrows?

The President's speech is not resonating with me - all that talk about religious freedom and rights for all the bad guys.

And he got very little applause.

It just doesn't seem like he gives a rat's ass about our soldiers.

Perhaps I am projecting.


Jane - I just noticed the eyebrow thing too. How did I miss it for so long? I suppose it's because I'd rather not look too closely at either of the Obamas. Are they painted on?


There is no fur there. None at all.


Mexican girls in California paint their brows that way, I've noticed....very pointy...very barrio.

Dave (in MA)

Where did they go?


Syl, the "buehler?" reference went over my head. Probably too many pushups whils installing linux or somthing.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

It was better than I thought it might be, Jane. The description of each victim and the part about the perp's ultimate rendezvous with justice both from the military court system and with his Lord was particularly fitting. I didn't pay much attention to the rest of it.



Linux? I got over my love for unix-like systems years ago and have fully embraced the Borg.

Anyway, the buehler ref meant nothing--just listening for a response that said, oh yeah, so and so mentioned it the other day.

Single-payer or government total takeover of healthcare would mean the Hyde language would be sufficient to lock abortion procedures totally out of the system.

I doubt any progressive has considered that fact.


The linux was a jab at anduril who keeps posting long stuff about it. I'm lucky to be able to find the power button.

Don't you suppose they'll just amend the Hyde language? never say never with these folks.

Frau Gesetz

Not only what kind of constitutional law is being taught at HLS, clarice, but *who* is teaching it. narciso points in the right direction.

Porchlight - Flotus has yet to learn how to squat or stradle in a flattering way, especially among the cabbages and salsify.


Oh, and I'm sorry I couldn't tell you more about peter than I did, ut that was his choice. I broke the silence vow when he died and I'm glad I did because otherwise many of his friends around the world would not be able to reach out to eachother and know him more fully.
If I was wrong when I reach the pearly gates, along with many others trying to get even with me for my many misdeeds, I expect he'll hit me over the head with a harp or something.

Frau Gesetz

*straddle* - a stradle is a combination ladle and strainer used in military kitchens.

Frau Gesetz

clarice, if anything, PUK will use a Nerf halberd on you. For the idiots, he will use his legendary formidable wit.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Can you believe this?

Dem Congresswoman Threatens IRS Retribution Against Catholic Church for Supporting Stupak Amendment

She wants the Catholic church to be stripped of its tax exempt status.


That's a great idea--I hope every catholic paper and organization in America gets to see that!.
We could help I suppose.


It's so weird that they're getting all wee-wee'd up about Stupak, considering that the Dems squawked up and down about how the bill didn't provide abortion funding in the first place.

Dave (in MA)

Somehow I haven't managed to find time to read the 2000 pages yet, but it wouldn't surprise me that their plan was to work the abortion funding into one of the infamous vaguely-worded sections after passage, and Stupak precludes doing so.


Well there you go being a smart ass again, porch.


Guilty as charged! But Dave in MA is right, they had something carefully arranged and Stupak threw a wrench in it.

I still think the whole thing is kabuki, though - they will all kiss and make up just before the vote. It's a red herring so we don't notice all the other awful stuff.

Rob Crawford

It's so weird that they're getting all wee-wee'd up about Stupak, considering that the Dems squawked up and down about how the bill didn't provide abortion funding in the first place.

Like the declarations there were no death panels, followed by the quiet passage of an amendment that removed them?


Lynn Woolsey another idiot from Calif:

Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, the first former welfare mother to serve in Congress, is in her ninth term as the representative from California’s 6th District, just north of San Francisco. Her district includes all of Marin, and most of Sonoma County.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Congresswoman Woolsey is a vocal and visible leader on progressive issues, particularly those dealing with children and families. A passionate and outspoken opponent of the Iraq war, she has helped move public opinion against President Bush’s failed Iraq policy. She introduced the first resolution calling for our troops to be brought home and convened the first congressional hearing on military exit strategies, and introduced H.R. 508 the Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act. The San Jose Mercury News recently called her “the unofficial matriarch of the [anti-war] movement in Congress.”

Congresswoman Woolsey, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, believes that ending the Iraq war must be the beginning of a complete re-evaluation of U.S. national security policy. She has proposed the Sensible Multilateral American Reengagement and Transition (SMART Security) which puts an emphasis on peaceful resolution of international conflict. SMART would keep Americans safe through stronger global alliances and improved intelligence capabilities, as opposed to pre-emptive military strikes. SMART also calls for the United States to live up to its nonproliferation obligations, and it includes an ambitious humanitarian development agenda to address the hopelessness and oppression that give rise to terrorism in the first place.

As the Chairwoman of the Committee on Education and Labor’s Workforce Protections Subcommittee, Congresswoman Woolsey helps to oversee policies that affect millions of American workers. Congresswoman Woolsey also sits on the Subcommittee on Elementary and Secondary Education. She is currently working on reform of the No Child Left Behind Act, to fully fund the law and make it more flexible and less punitive toward schools and school districts.

It's jihad Johnny's representative..

Rob Crawford

She has proposed the Sensible Multilateral American Reengagement and Transition (SMART Security) which puts an emphasis on peaceful resolution of international conflict.

So she's not just an air-head, but an ignorant, malignant air-head.

Thomas Collins

In the LUN of Sara(Pal2Pal) on Representative Woolsey's comments on the Catholic Church, Woolsey is quoted as stating:

"The IRS is less restrictive about church involvement in efforts to influence legislation than it is about involvement in campaigns and elections."

The IRS is less restrictive about 501(c)(3) organization lobbying than about 501(c)(3) organization intervening in campaigns because Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code contains an absolute prohibition on 501(c)(3) organizations campaigning for or against a candidate, but does not contain an absolute prohibition on lobbying (the lobbying restriction is that no substantial part of a 501(c)(3) organization's activities may constitute lobbying). Thus, the IRS's posture on lobbying and political campaigns in relation to 501(c)(3) organizations is not within the discretion of the IRS, but is mandated by law.

I would have hoped that a Congresswoman was aware of such distinctions. But, then again, I guess we have found over and over again that Reps and Senators often don't stoop to the demeaning task of actually reading the law.


Five'l; fet you ten that even if someone read the law outloud slowly to her, she wouldn't understand it.

Maybe we ought to propose a US Congress Admission Test one must pass before being sworn in..something that includes evidence that the candidate can comprehend what he/she is passing.


What's that bill someone has been trying to sponsor that would require all congressional legislation to include a section specifying the exact language in the Constitution that permits the government to enact the legislation?

I can't remember who's been trying to get this passed, but it needs to be in the next Contract With America. Maybe the only thing.


Thanks for the lesson on 501(c)(3), TC. Is there anything there about keeping to what you're supposedly about? For example, what could this possibly have to do with medicine?

AMA Urges Repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'


It was better than I thought it might be, Jane.


My dislike for the man is so pronounced I cannot see the forest for the trees when he opens his mouth.

He did not utter the word "terror". And that pisses me off.

Psychiatrists always get stuck with what no one else can figure out.

Open the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual, by which the irrational is made to look like science.


I guess I have kept my standards, low, I was really angry when they did the summary
of those slain, by this Salafi thug, and we know this didn't have to happen. I thought it was a passable speech, then I see the writeup by Ambinder, and then I second guess


W/R/T med mal, I've wracked my brain for a long time trying to see how the system can be fixed. I've tried a bunch of med mal cases and it is clear to me that the vast majority of docs who get sued should get sued. That doesn't mean there are not frivolous med mal suits, but in MA the bar is very high and it is far too expensive to risk the time and expense on a bad case.

Greta came up with one very good idea I thought: She suggested that you cap attorney's fees on both sides. So going in, both lawyers know that they cannot earn more than say $25,000 on the case in fees. That would serve to force people to the table a lot more quickly. The most devastating part of any law suit is how long it goes on. A plaintiff who has been harmed has to lug the doctor who harmed him around for years and years (and vice versa). IMX honest people don't get better when they are in litigation. It's better for everyone if the resolution is swift.

So that's one solution. I'd also cap punitive damages. I wouldn't eliminate them because some doctors actually deserve punitive damages - I might make them pay that part out of their own pocket, but I would also make a bigger burden in finding them. I'd also let the jury's decision act as a referral to a body that could revoke the docs license if the malpractice was that egregious.

I'd not curtail non-punative damages (medical expenses and lost wages) because that puts the person on welfare and all that does is shift the burden from the doc to the taxpayer.

BTW IMX doctors do not get sued who actually take the time to explain to their patients what happened and why. It's the ones who cut and run who invite litigation.

There are scoundrels, and there are victims, and doctors are found in both groups.

I think those are generally magnificent suggestions, Jane.


PUK's post on NHS and his mom's death is online:


That's hard to read again, Clarice, and to imagine the horror that would inspire that particular man to post it.

One was Kevin Rudd's speech.

I'm watching for his miracles, clarice.

She's got a good paragraph in the middle about the debunked science.

Kevin Rudd ranted on deniers last Friday in the most demagogic terms short of Ahmadi-Nijad. Maybe worse. Deniers are the new Jews. Linky link under nominal name.


I think he felt so strongly about this he would want us to share it outside of JOM. I hope my guess on that is right.
On a lighter note--Headline (Ft Hood) News by Iowahawk:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dburge/2009/11/10/media-roundup-troubled-american-psychiatrist-allegedly-shoots-warmongers-at-ft-hood/#more-261174>Journalist Malpractice

Dave (in MA)

Johnny Jihad is scheduled to get his raisins in 10 minutes.

Dave (in MA)

AP: Virginia governor refuses to stay execution of John Allen Muhammad

The comments to this entry are closed.