Thinking Right

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 9:08 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. I respectfully dissent, at least in part, from our genial host’s proposal. My bias is that approximately 80% of the Georgia Code needs to be repealed, excised, or otherwise purged. We do not need another special purpose law, certainly not to prevent “California” problems in Georgia. California’s population is a different caliber from Georgia’s, mostly to our good. That’s why we now have Glenn and @@, and California has Octomom.

At the outset we note that Octomom’s financial destiny is wholly within her control. I recall reading that a noted pornographer has offered her some serious money to perform lewd acts on camera. As she seemingly has little reservation about performing related acts with obscene consequences, the pornography work will be a small leap for her. I’ll yield all jokes on the issue to PoFo. By the way, PoFo, grammar note, you wrote, “This Octuplet woman has only given birth to 8 babies in the last 100 days?” Surely that is a misplaced “only,” and the “only” you intend should precede “8”? By moving that “only” around the sentence you can get six different meanings, by my count.

The current system of law in Georgia is sufficient to handle a case such as Octomom. Rather than passing new criminal prohibitions, why not allow the system to do what it was designed to do? Our courts routinely authorize bureaucrats to remove children from an environment where children suffer inadequate attention – we call it “endangerment.” If we theoretically grant that Octomom is able to provide sufficient parental attention but our concern is that the children are a welfare drain on the state, we need to limit the potential state funding to the parent, and couple the new direct funding limits with a system of orphanages (wasn’t that one of Mr. Newt’s thrusts years ago?)

The notion of “holding the sperm donor liable” strikes me as meritorious. Octomom should not be able to waive the state’s interest in paternal liability to financially support his spawn. It takes two to tango.

I am insufficiently conversant with medical ethics to comment on the implanter’s performance here, but it strikes me as no more deviant than that of an abortionist. I am wholly unenthusiastic about a new “negligent birth” tort –seemingly opens the door to all sorts of evil suits.

Otherwise, I do not have a strong objection to large families. If Angelina Jolie wanted to adopt 15 children – I presume her financial and parenting capacity – there is no state interest in precluding that maternal desire. Having assisted Supermom in the rearing of our two children– give me credit for fully appreciating my truly limited-value as an over-aged playmate for our scarred-for-life children - I may think Octomom is a lunatic, but that may be arguable for all of us who willingly embrace the responsibilities of parenthood.

By Redneck Convert

March 5, 2009 9:11 AM | Link to this

Well, this Dr. needs to be put in jail. And the mommy needs to be right there with him. With 14 kids she’s going to be causing our taxes to raise. They’ll all be on welfare and in 20 years or so two or three of them will need to get the Needle and cost us a bunch of money before they pass on. The rest will grow up to be libruls and pick our pocket thru higher taxes they’ll vote for.

I reckon I don’t mind putting out the money to give them the Death Penalty. But I sure hate the thought of paying welfare for all these kids. I sure wouldn’t want a abortion for a woman with 8 kids in her belly. But leastwise the kids that get the Death Penalty will have a fair trial. Altho I sure hate to think of having to pay for their lawyer.

Anyway, I’m not with Wooten all the way on this one. If God wanted you to have a baby you would get in the Fambly Way the regular way, by doing You Know What. I don’t think it’s right for a Dr. to do it for you. So we should just outlaw letting a Dr. do it for you. We got enough ugly kids in this world as it is. Everywhere I go women are carrying around babys that are ugly as homemade Sin but people got to lie to them and tell them how cute the kid is. And that just causes them to want to have more babys.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.

By Ga Values

March 5, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

Yesterday 30 REAL REPUBLICANS voted with John McCain to strip out the earmarks from the omnibus spending bill. Both of our RINO/Socialist Senators Johnny & Saxby voted with Pelosi and Reid to keep earmarks. Please email both of these RINOs and ask them to vote against this waste of taxpayer money.

By Leah

March 5, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, Mr. Wooten is not telling the whole story about Georgia Senate Bill 169, and the parts he leaves out provide ample reasons why this bill should not be passed. First of all, while the bill does limit the number of embryos that can be fertilized to three for women over 40 and two for younger women it goes one step farther and stipulates that ALL of these fertilized embryos “shall be solely for the purpose of initiating a human pregnancy by means of transfer to the uterus of a human female for the treatment of human infertility”. This means that the over-40 mother has no choice but to implant all 3 fertilized embryos, if that many were successfully fertilized, regardless if it is in her best interest to risk a multiple pregnancy. Hmmm, wasn’t the ‘got to use them all’ philosophy what got octomom into her current situation? Further, by limiting the use of fertilized embryos to infertility treatments, this bill insidiously closes the door to any stem cell research that might involve destruction of embryos.

Another important line in the legislation reads “A living in vitro human embryo is a biological human being who is not the property of any person or entity” and further “The in vitro human embryo shall not be intentionally destroyed for any purpose by any person or entity or through the actions of such person or entity.” This raises the question about what would happen if a couple with fertilized embryos undertakes a divorce. Must they go through with the implantation anyway? The bill says that the embryos can only be used for creating a pregnancy, aren’t either the husband or wife’s property and can’t be destroyed. So will they be forced to have their embryo implanted to an anonymous recipient in order to comply with this absurd law? This is an outrageous bill meant to play upon the public outcry over octomom in order to make an ultra fundamentalist anti-abortion agenda.into state law.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 9:13 AM | Link to this

Yesterday’s blog closed with a flurry of national health care arguments, and today’s topic is closely related. Dr. Williams offered a survey of the Swedish health care system yesterday, urge all to review his column. The allure of bureaucrat directed health care funded by taxpayers (hereafter “BDHCFBT”) escapes me entirely. I would never want to go to a VA hospital. I do not disparage – Mrs. jbmlaw worked at two VA hospitals in our earlier life, and we came to know and admire many of the professionals there. The problem is the system.

There is no theoretical reason to consider BDHCFBT unless it can deliver either lower costs or better services. BDHCFBT is inherently flawed in its economic fundamentals: adoption of BDHCFBT assures us that US health care will suffer at least one (and – potentially - all) of three inevitabilities:

(1) A bureaucrat somewhere serves as gatekeeper, denying services to some citizens, most frequently those who need more expensive services.

(2) Pay scales for service providers will diminish, and innovations in treatment will cease, as budgets will constrain “time-wasting” research techniques.

(3) The taxpayer will become an unlimited source of funds for the health care industry, even to the point of burdening the next generation with this generation’s Viagra bills.

None of those possibilities is desirable. Supporters of BDHCFBT persuade themselves that someone else will pay their bills, a common misrepresentation by the left in promoting the virtues of Leviathan.

Around the time Mrs. jbmlaw and I moved to the promised land (Atlanta’s northern suburbs,) misguided “compassionate”* politicians implemented a version of BDHCFBT in our former state, Tennessee. The immediate result was (1) near-bankruptcy for the state, quickly followed by (2) slashing numbers of participants in the BDHCFBT program through tighter eligibility requirements, followed thereafter by (3) significantly higher user fees. Give Tennessee another five years and it will effectively disband the BDHCFBT program, as almost every productive person in the state who abandoned private service has returned.

[* - definition – adjective, describing the act of an overlord stealing from taxpayers to fund his preferred charities]

Notably, private medical services were never prohibited in Tennessee, a stark contrast to every national health “insurance” program proposed to date by the national socialists. Given the path Tennessee has traveled, it is uncurious that the WSJ editorialized (futilely) in favor of nomination of Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, (D), as Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS.”)

Gov. Bredesen made his personal fortune as founder, and later seller, of a healthcare management company. One of Gov. Bredesen’s more admirable personal traits is that he does not accept salary for his public service, instead living off his own investments. Gov. Bredesen’s practical administrative experience curing the evils of socialized medicine would have been a benefit to the country as the leftists careen down that path. As one would expect of a community organizer, instead of getting a seasoned professional with experience in the field he is to supervise, The Empty Suit selected a career politician with no industry experience to run HHS. Change we can believe in.

By Peanut Man

March 5, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

As usual I’m Mad at Saxby Chambliss, this time Obama is trying to do the right thing by ending direct payments of over $500,000 to nonfarmers but Saxby gets lots of money from them and his son would be out of a job with out this rip off of the taxpayer.

A recent Government Accountability Office report found that the Department of Agriculture wrongly paid more than $49 million in overall farm subsidies to wealthy farmers who did not qualify for the funds from 2003 to 2006 — which President Barack Obama, during his campaign for the White House, vowed to stop.

Now, the nation’s economic turmoil, coupled with lawmakers’ growing intolerance for waste, may make it possible.

“We’re seeing among Capitol Hill staffers a new openness to try new alternatives,” said Ryan Zinn, national coordinator for the Organic Consumers Association. “The bottom line is, the Farm Bureau has lost a lot of its power, and it’s a reflection of the changing demographic in the United States. Anyone in touch with reality knows we have to find a new way to allow farmers to survive.”

Tinkering with the new farm bill would require congressional approval. Several lawmakers have tried regularly to trim, or redirect, agricultural subsidies over the years but have been shot down.

But a number of members of Congress with strong farm ties were turned out of office last November, and that might give Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) and others more maneuvering room to reexamine the payment structure.

Kind said he’s already working to draft legislation addressing the issue. He had introduced a measure during the last farm bill debate that would have redirected $12 billion in direct payments and many other crop subsidies to rural development programs. But it never gained traction.

“No one is talking about cutting out the safety net entirely at first, but we do have to tighten things,” Kind said. “There is too much waste in the farm bill, and it’s skewed too heavily toward the large and wealthy farmers. We want to put our money where we get more bang for our buck, and we’re not getting beneficial return from direct payments.”

But Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee — and panel member Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), among other farm supporters, say direct payments will not be tinkered with on their watch.

“I find it odd that in times of financial turmoil, when the administration is passing out trillions of dollars to banks, labor groups and the unemployed, that our new secretary of agriculture would threaten to cut the safety net out from under American agriculture producers,” Roberts said.

But Vilsack, who’s been in his Department of Agriculture office barely a month, is still developing policies and timetables for implementing them.

“I’m just having a hard time figuring out what I’m doing next week,” he said.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 9:17 AM | Link to this

Wholly off topic, I don’t know Keith Olbermann, but evidently his being offends Chairman Ann. When I read truly clever writing, I usually note that, “I wish I had written it.” Her column this week may be a notch too clever even for me to wish on myself. Olbermann’s humiliation is hilarious nevertheless, maybe the funniest she has written, and anyone with a sense of humor will appreciate her more-vicious-than-usual column today. Thus, the average Obamaniac should skip it.

AJC’s Carroll Rogers gives us hope for the season, in his description of Braves pitching.

By Curious Observer

March 5, 2009 9:31 AM | Link to this

Yes, Ragnar, we certainly don’t want some faceless government bureaucrat making health care decisions for us. We’d much rather have a faceless health insurance company bureaucrat doing that—making determinations of what will be paid for and what will not.

And we most certainly want health insurance companies to be totally free to rip us off big-time. We can never allow a person to make a choice of the existing 20 or so health insurance plans that federal employees now already have available.

But keep on pushing the line that somehow the federal government will be running health care. Tell people that there will be only one plan available, and people will have no choice. It scares a lot of people, and nothing provokes fear like a total myth.

By ron

March 5, 2009 9:32 AM | Link to this

Good morning,The octopus has definitely opened up a discussion with her misguided attempts at motherhood.I’ll give her credit for that.Write laws prohibiting the mothering of doctor implanted multiple birth over a certain,arbitrary number?What to do if the law is ignored?I can’t think of a law off hand that hasn’t been broken.Somewhere out there is a lady a little crazier than octo that’s going to go for nine.

Take them away?Split them up and raise them in foster care?Present them as a unit to some foster being to raise as their own?No east answers here.

Now,what to do should octo become financially solvent either through the intervention of some well known talk show hosts or her lucritive porn contract? I’ve already explained that the conservative red states will be buying the lion’s share of the viewing of such an endeavor.

Lastly,please don’t overlook the fact that octo is the product of Jim’s favorite rant.A home occoupied by both a mother,and a father.Sometimes the best laid plans for our offspring go a wee bit awry.

By Glenn

March 5, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

Yeah, yunno? Whaswiddat?

Heck yes the doctor should be culled from the gene pool. No question. You don’t have to delve into bio-ethics to see that his patient’s odds of survival, bearing eight at once, neared nil. What he did was something approaching a murderous act, and I blame that state’s Attorney General, Jerry Brown, for the failure to arrest and jail The Ripper pending trial.

But that’s California, for ya.

By Steven Daedalus

March 5, 2009 9:35 AM | Link to this

Gosh Jim, I thought you were a personal freedom advocate, oh I see, only when it fits your personal agenda.

By Glenn

March 5, 2009 9:56 AM | Link to this

Here I was, trying to make things simple, Pitiable Leftskin, and you & Jim have to go and take things into murky Ethics.

You oughta be ashamed, da lottayoose.

By Yep

March 5, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this

The only objection I really have to “octo” is the fact that she is a total ward of the state. What she has done is similar to what the welfare brood mares of the past did to receive government money before the reform that was passed in the 90’s that Obama threw out with the spedulus bill. There should be some fairly draconian laws put into place that totally cut off daily payments to those receiving welfare after they have had, let’s say three children that we must pay for. Not to say that these people can’t have children, but that we will not pay for it.

If “octo” were truly a needy welfare recipient, where did she find the money to fund in vitro fertilization, through money she should have spent to take care of her family instead of getting supported by uncle sam, that’s where.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 9:31, “Yes, Ragnar, we certainly don’t want some faceless government bureaucrat making health care decisions for us. We’d much rather have a faceless health insurance company bureaucrat doing that” The distinction, of course, is that you get to choose your health insurance company, but you don’t get to choose your bureaucrats. If you don’t like your health insurance company, you change companies; if you don’t like your bureaucrat, you change your … what? And, of course, the national socialists are about to relieve us of that choice - too much freedom going on here. Change we can believe in.

Bertrand de Jouvenel, writing in 1951 about popular attitudes toward income inequality in “The Ethics of Redistribution”: The film-star or the crooner is not grudged the income that is grudged to the oil magnate, because the people appreciate the entertainer’s accomplishment and not the entrepreneur’s, and because the former’s personality is liked and the latter’s is not. They feel that consumption of the entertainer’s income is itself an entertainment, while the capitalist’s is not, and somehow think that what the entertainer enjoys is deliberately given by them while the capitalist’s income is somehow filched from them.

By 1911A1

March 5, 2009 10:04 AM | Link to this

It seems to me that this is something better suited for the medical profession to police instead of the guvmint. Doctor does an obscene number of embryo implants? Yank his license.

By deegee

March 5, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this

What enlightened experience does Ralph Hudgens possess that qualifies him to be an authority on the number of embryos that a fertility clinic can implant? As we learn more about the octomom it becomes ever more apparent that she is disturbed. The issue in her case isn’t about fertility treatments. It is about the breakdown in a system that didn’t stop an unstable person from taking extreme actions and putting innocent people at risk. IMHO, she never should have gotten the first implanted egg. Ralph Hudgens’ time would be better spent helping the people in his meth-infested district that are producing at-risk children the old fashioned way.

Senator Ralph Hudgens graduated from high school at Georgia Military in Milledgeville and then received a B.S. in Agriculture from the University of Florida. For eighteen years, he worked for the Agricultural Chemical Division of Shell Chemical Company. In 1983, he founded Quality Propane, Inc., which he sold in 1987. Currently, he is President of Hudgens Enterprises, Inc., an investment company with holdings in real estate and also Diamond Outdoor, Inc., an outdoor advertising company. Ralph, a former political appointee in the first Bush administration, was the state representative for the 24th District from 1996-2002. In 2002, he was elected as the state Senator for the 47th District, where he serves as the chairman of the Insurance and Labor Committee, vice-chairman of the Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee, vice-chairman of the Banking and Financial Institution, and also serves on the Natural Resources and Environment and the Reapportionment and Redistricting Committees. Sen. Hudgens married the former Suzanne Morgan in 1963, and they have four children and 10 grandchildren. Ralph and Suzanne are active members at Winterville First Baptist Church.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 10:19 AM | Link to this

Dear deegee @ 10:11, while you and I are broadly on the same side of this issue, I deplore your cultist argument. “Credentials” are irrelevant in evaluating the quality of any argument. Sen. Hudgens’s arguments are not displayed, and you do not challenge a single argument he has made, you merely attack him for his being. That is immoral.

By SaveOurRepublic

March 5, 2009 10:20 AM | Link to this

I’m not sure I agree with Senator Hudgins’ proposed legislation, as we have FAR too many laws on the books now & the last thing we need is further government empowerment. I do agree with cutting off taxpayer subsidies to “welfare moms” who keep churning out the kids (on the taxpayer dime). This enablement through entitlement is pure socialism & goes against the grain of our Constitutional Republic.

Along this same line, we should end birthright citizenship to close the “anchor baby” loophole. Taxpayer dollars should NOT subsidize illegal invaders or their spawn.

By Glenn

March 5, 2009 10:24 AM | Link to this

Hey, 1911A1,

It’s the County of Los Angeles that’s picked up the tab for this obstetric spree, and the County continues to surrogate the fathering of those fourteen children. Meanwhile L.A.’s statehouse steals the federal moneys you and I intend for allocation to the “localities”.

Get it? We don’t pay for the octuplets; we only think we do so. In reality, Arnold is making book on the deal, with L.A. County left holding the bag.

And what a bag she is…

By 1911A1

March 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

Glenn:

Thanks, I spewed my coffee.

By Jason

March 5, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Aren’t Hudgins and Wooten supposed to be champions of small government and individual liberty? This legislation sounds pretty communistic to me. Funny how their attitude changes 180 degrees if you replace “embryos” with “guns” and “fertility clinics can implant” with “citizens can own.”

By Glenn

March 5, 2009 10:36 AM | Link to this

Ragnar,

For Hevvinsakes please say, should our [form of] government ever “take over* a vast bank, and, if so, under which circumstances?

Are you really an absolutist or do you have conditions you’d impose?

By outraged by sb169

March 5, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

I respectfully disagree and I normally agree with Wooten. I disagree with what Octomom did because she already had 6 kids and it was selfish to think of even bringing one more into the world, much less 8 more. I am married and have been for 13 years to a wonderful man with whom I want to have children. We started trying “the old fashioned way” 5 years ago. Apparently, “the old fashioned way” doesn’t work. 5 IUI’s didn’t work. The first IVF cycle didn’t work and then the 2 cryopreserved embryos that were transferred next stuck. That pregnancy ended in a miscarriage. Anyway, if a doctor is responsible, as apparently octomom’s was not, they wouldn’t transfer an excessive number anyway. I don’t want the government, with no experience in the field, telling my doctor how to care for me. Also, God created this field and if it were not meant to be used, it would not exist. If my egg quality at 33 is at the stage of a 41 year old, I want to have 3 embryos transferred if that makes my chances of having even 1 any greater. If you haven’t been there, you are clueless!!!

By sd

March 5, 2009 10:40 AM | Link to this

Perhaps we should just pass a one child law like the Chinese. I mean, it IS irresponsible to grow the population when most ecologists believe that we would be more sustainable at a smaller number.

MORE LAWS! MORE INTRUSION! YAY CONSERVATISM!

By deegee

March 5, 2009 10:44 AM | Link to this

Ragnar, I suppose that in some professions a non-professional opinion is just as worthy as a professional opinion. I don’t mind Mr. Hudgens having an opinion on how many fertilized embryos can be implanted based on a woman’s age. However, when he is proposing legislation that will have an impact on health and human services, it would stand to reason that his credentials include something other than billboard advertising and agricultural chemistry. While Mr. Hudgens may be passionate about this issue, I don’t see how he became an expert in fertility treatments in the short 6 weeks that the octomom has come on the scene. He is taking an extreme, unprecedented case and turning it into a political statement. He should be more interested in doing something to help the neglected children in his own district.

By lwwmm7

March 5, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this

It’s sorta like those stories about deer herds up north where people won’t let you shoot them like God intended but are tired of getting their shrubs eat up. Let’s set traps for these baby-havers and spay and neuter them and turn them back out into the wild and then they can’t make no more babys to be paid for by you and me. We could bait the traps with lottery tickets and cigarettes and beer(from Redneck’s truck, of course) and other stuff they couldn’t resist. It’s so simple I can’t believe we aren’t doing it already.

By sd

March 5, 2009 10:52 AM | Link to this

outraged,

You wrote, “I don’t want the government, with no experience in the field, telling my doctor how to care for me.”

and you also wrote that you usually agree with Wooten. Do you think a doctor should be able to treat his patients with medical marijuana?

By Redneck Convert

March 5, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

Well, glad to see this lwwmm7 is looking out for me and mine. Beer stocks is up again today.

By ron

March 5, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

Dear lwwmm7 @10:48 ——How do you know that you can buy cigarettes and lottery tickets and beer from Redneck’s truck.That’s spposed to be a closely guarded secret.

By outraged

March 5, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

sd — Don’t you think that is kinda painting with a broad brush? Marijuana is a street drug that some people want to claim other uses for. I am a conservative and mostly agree with conservative views, but when it comes to the use of ART, I must disagree.

By lwwmm7

March 5, 2009 11:12 AM | Link to this

Well, I knowed better than to use that old line about huntin’ over a baited field, some folks might have got a little upset about a little harmless joke.

By ron

March 5, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this

Dear deegee——A professional,when confronted with a problem not in his/her field of expertise hires another qualified professional to assist on or to perform outright the task in question.

A politician,when writing a bull spit bill often finds himself/herself amply qualified in bull spitting to proceed on their own,damn the conseqquences.I would guess by the wording of said bill regarding octomom,the politician in question was ably helped by several attorneys of choice.

By Yep

March 5, 2009 11:28 AM | Link to this

I think that maybe we are going about this the wrong way. Make people accuontable to real laws that declare you are responsible for your children, if you have them!! Becoming a ward of the state and suckling at the government teat is not a way that should be tolerated. Normal people who pay their own way stop having children when they think that they can only provide a respectable lifestyle for the current herd in their household. Why can’t we hold EVERYONE to a semblance of that accountability?

By Chris Broe

March 5, 2009 11:30 AM | Link to this

America to whoever got Rush Limbaugh to stfu: Thank you.

The Nanny State Octuplet Mom had the nerve to demand 15 nannies from donations. She’s building a nanny state within a starbucks, or something. You can donate by buying her autobiography: “I do more before 9am than our president does in 100 days”. (Chapter one: How they stopped me from having them all under water).

Twitterers need Followers.

Twitter “nanny state” for the Octuplets’ mom.

Wooten is telling us his approach to the constitution. He believes that you can adjudicate constitutionally, or legislate from the bench. You can only legislate constitutionally. You can never adjudicate constitutionally. There’s a difference in the deliberation implied in the two words: adjudicate and legislate. Therefore, the supreme court had no legal right whatsoever to subpoena voting records from the state of Florida and ruin Gore’s victory in 2000. Even if it was an American coup, it was still a constitutional foe that led to the subpoena. The adjudication of that vote meant that by definition, there was no constitutional intersect with our legislature, nor with the American People.

Doesn’t Cheney have a book to write about his Seven Days in May? It was in May 2002 when Cheney made his move to be our commander in chief concerning the invasion of Iraq. With Rummy, he conceived of a way to keep the Al Queda threat fresh so that presidential powers would be unlimited, AND then he could more easily justify an invasion of Iraq. If Osama was captured and his army destroyed, then there could have been no support for any war in Iraq. The American People would have expected the troops to come home. There wasn’t supposed to be a war in Iraq.

That’s what’s wrong now. We cant even gauge the damage to trust that W caused, so there’s no telling the bottom. I’ve been told my whole life that our dollar is based on trust. I was expected to trust that a dollar was a dollar. Then I was told about Fort Knox and why it was once thought important to have a huge pile of gold to print the dollars on..

True corrections never leave any money on the table. There’s always a Kudlow starting a rally.

Twitter “ninny state” for Sara Palin. (or Bush).

By deegee

March 5, 2009 11:31 AM | Link to this

Yes, ron. He was probably helped by some attorneys in addition to the deacons and the choir at the Winterville First Baptist Church

By sd

March 5, 2009 11:40 AM | Link to this

Outraged,

You asked, “sd — Don’t you think that is kinda painting with a broad brush?”

No, I don’t. I agree with your earlier statement.

““I don’t want the government, with no experience in the field, telling my doctor how to care for me.”

As for your statement implying that marijuana has no medical purposes, isn’t that ALSO something that amedical doctor would know better than you, me, or the federal government?

I don’t know anything about it, but if I was in severe pain and my doctor suggested it, I’d try it. Hell, it couldn’t be worse than the pills they are allowed to give us.

By JLK

March 5, 2009 12:04 PM | Link to this

I agree that the implanting doctor should be held liable for what he has helped create by stepping so far outside the scope of nature and common sense. They should now be, under strict enforcement, “HIS” children to support.

The fact that Georgia lawmakers jumped all over this, however, is evidence that they’re more knee-jerk reactionary than thoughtful or purposeful in their endeavors. What actual problems are they solving or preventing here? Enforcement of child support laws in Georgia is a bigger joke than the fact that WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VOTE on Sunday alcohol sales. Will they address the issue that truly affects Georgia families and contributes to the drain on public assistance resources? HA!

They are a sad, sorry lot, any way you want to measure them. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds. I say it every two years, but we really should remove each and every last one of them from his or her position. Georgia is a joke, and those self-serving jokers under the Gold Dome should bear their share of responsibility. (It IS all about taking responsibility, isn’t it?)

By Peter

March 5, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

Sure Jim……..less regulations for business so American Consumers get the shaft, and more loss of civil liberties……Very Conservative !

What should happen is………… Republican Boys starting at age 16 should be given a vasectomy…………..then we would have less problems in the Woodstock schools with rednecks and guns !

Obviously since the Republican’s are not fans of education, and want to dumb down the population…..this can help keep America Safe !

By catlady

March 5, 2009 12:26 PM | Link to this

If the implanting doctor was made fully responsible financially (to the state) for any babies over 3, until the child is 18, we would see doctors making better decisions. And then, not allow additional welfare/disability/SSSI/foodstamps for anyone with more than x number of children. That Octomom might be able to get nearly $9000 per month of SSSI for her handicapped children is amazing to me. Stop that stuff!

By Jake

March 5, 2009 1:11 PM | Link to this

Holding the sperm donor financially responsible is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. The sperm dopnor’s intent wasn’t to father children just to help someone else become a parent. Octomom should have faced mandatory sterilizaton as a condition of the welfare she already received and that would eliminate the problem.

By Logical Dude

March 5, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this

Now Jim, did you even read the bill at hand? It had little to do with the Suleman case, and a LOT to do with embryos and their status as a human.

The ramifications of this bill would affect normal couples who are having a diffucult time conceiving naturally. It inhibits the doctor-patient relationship and codifies actions that are inappropriate in these situations. (Like the restrictions on the number of embryos - that is a medical decision based on the age, but more importantly, the medical history of the patient.) It is justified to implant more embryos in certain patients.

What you do not say, is that this bill would also equate an embryo with a human being. Yes, some who believe in life beginning at conception will agree with that part of the bill. But it leads into dangerous legal territory when a group of 8 cells has the same rights as an actual living human being. It also restricts the possibility of stem cell research, which a vast majority of people support. It would also prohibit the testing of the embryos, which is necessary to achieve the greatest chance of a pregnancy for those undergoing in vitro fertilization.

I was in the meeting, and heard both sides. BOTH sides agreed the doctor should be stripped of his license. The kind of action is not in line with the industry.

Otherwise, this bill should not be passed as written, and that is why more research is needed: there are too many legal and medical ramifications for a bill written because one woman got herself in a difficult situation.

By JLK

March 5, 2009 1:32 PM | Link to this

Thanks, Logical Dude, for sharing information that Mr. Wooten omitted in his defense of more government intrusion into people’s personal medical decisions. KNEE JERK LEGISLATION is not only a bad idea no matter which political party’s stooge initiates it, but it’s downright LAZY!!

When these jokers start showing the determination to identify and solve the problems within the scope of state government and stop flapping around aimlessly in the winds of popular outrage, only THEN do any of them merit an additional term in office.

By lwwmm7

March 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this

I just started work on the Next Great American Novel, about the mess we are about to see when the economy collapses and grocery stores run short of food and power is not available 24-7 and cable TV begins to sputter and die. The teeming hordes in the cities spread out into the countryside, a-robbin’ and a-rapin’ and generally causin’ trouble. Sorta like Mad Max meets the Rodney King Riots, only not so subdued. Won’t be any money to speak of by publication time, but I could probably work out a trade for some taters or bullets or something.

By Algonquin J. Calhoun

March 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this

Jim, you think it’s a good idea for the state to control the number of children one can bring into the world? You are backing the passage of a law that would criminalize the bringing of life, not the taking away of it. Seems to me, you Republinazis talk a lot about getting government out of the lives of the people but your argument here indicates you support government supervision of how, and how often, we reproduce. You want to punish doctors who abort and doctors that help manufacture a litter. Your arguments are socialistic in nature and would be more at home in China. Encouraging responsibility is one thing but seizing children and forcing adoption is something you might find in an Orwellian, totalitarian state. The proposed law you support won’t stand a Constitutional check and you know it. Who would choose which children stayed and which were given away? if you want to make life more humane and improve the overall quality of it, how about advocating some meaningful control of firearms? We’ve had one octomom but millions of murders with handguns through the years. I know, you Republinazis love the constitution when it comes to guns. But if you love it for that then you have to take it all!

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 10:36, good question. I am now an absolutist, at least until 12/31/2009, although I was not before. The problem that traditionally arose from one of the “too big” entities was not in the failure of that particular entity, but in the ripples around it. While the principle applies to both commercial corporations and small banks, it is most easily demonstrated in the example of a small bank.

Many small banks hold deposits at large banks. The deposits have nominally large balances, but in fact those balances are nothing but the one day float from the depositor’s “outgoing cash letter,” which balance will be offset almost in toto by the “incoming cash letter” the next day. The “outgoing cash letter” is nothing but the pile of inter-bank checks, which many institutions choose to clear through larger banks rather than maintaining a separate membership at the Fed. The “incoming cash letter” is that pile of checks, deposited elsewhere, drawn on the smaller depositing bank.

From the beginning of the FDIC, there was a cap on deposit insurance, most recently $100,000, for almost all purposes. Those “float” balances above the insurance cap were uninsured, and thus at risk of loss.

FDIC resisted that idea of subsidizing the float of corporate entities from the time that the “too big to fail” doctrine first arose in the 1970s, favoring what they called “market discipline” for the large entities. However, as we saw when Chuck Shumer destroyed Indy Mac with his “likely to fail” press release, a single moron can trigger a bank run, true condition notwithstanding.

In the wake of the political failure of Indy Mac, FDIC came to realize the prudence of averting bank runs. In a staggeringly-intelligent recent move, the FDIC, under its “Transaction Account Guarantee Program” now insures all demand deposit balances without limit; a less impressive element of the program, however is that the TAG program terminates 12/31/2009. Thus, for the time being, neither small banks nor even corporate managers need fear loss due to mismanagement at the “too big” bank, and thus the traditional incentive motivating a bank ”run” is wholly mitigated.

In absence of potential ripple effects, there is no lingering need to avoid a failure via capital injections. If Citibank were to fail today, there would be no meaningful ripple effect.

Dear deegee @ 10:44, credentials matter when hiring one to do a particular job. Credentials are meaningless in procuring “opinions” – from personal experience, I assure you I can buy any well-credentialed opinion I want on any subject. I simply do not share your admiration for “credentialism” in analyzing opinions. However I do not dispute much of your analysis of Sen. Hudgins’s motivation for raising the issue; politicians are politicians, and they pitch whatever sells.

By @@

March 5, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this

Legislation such as that proposed by Hudgens can result in all sorts of unintended consequences. I’m wary of those Jim.

If we think in terms of medical ethics or lack thereof, yes the doctor failed in his concern for the octuplets. He should therefore be held liable, though not financially. Taking his license — never to practice medicine again, is liability enough as far as I’m concerned. His “livelihood” has been denied him.

Financial liability to sperm donors (unless they knowingly partook) is also something with which I disagree. Sperm donors serve many infertile couples who would otherwise be unable to conceive. Don’t put what they contribute at risk.

Nadya Suleman is a real piece of work. When contacted by Angels in Waiting with an offer of free shelter and nursing care for her and her children, she refused — choosing, instead, to pursue a show on “Reality T.V.” I was on the money with that one.

I’m convinced that this was her intent all along. She was looking for an easy and fast buck with minimal effort. Whadd’ya wanna bet she voted for Obama?

She knows nothing about life and should never have been given the gift of…..

If she loves kids so much, then she should have sought a paying job as a nanny.

It’s interesting when one looks at the original Hippocratic Oath as compared to the new and “more modern” version which will require a scroll down.

What was the intended purpose of Hippocrates’ oath?

(((Hippocrates (460-377 BC), a Greek physician, is traditionally acknowledged as the “Father of Medicine”. The Hippocratic Oath was formulated in the 4th century BC, at the time when Hippocrates was establishing medicine as a science, raising it from its primitive state.)))

The entertainment media are encouraging; and doctors are enabling selective abortions of singular pregnancies as well as in litters they’ve implanted.

Raising us above our primitive state? Somehow, I’m thinking….

NOT! We have devolved in so many ways.

By Ragnar Danneskjöld

March 5, 2009 2:45 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn, a minor follow-up, if you really want to get me started, just wait until Jim raises the topic of “mortgage cram-downs.” If you thought the democrats inflicted damage on the economy with effectively-unlimited taxpayer-backing for FNMA/FHLMC, wait until you see the ripples from mortgage cram-downs. We may not see another piece of residential real estate sold in the US.

By JLK

March 5, 2009 2:46 PM | Link to this

@@, your points were cogent and logical until you took a cheap shot at American voters. Please don’t try to associate this monstrous anomoly of a mother with 66+ million of your fellow Americans simply because you (I presume) voted for the other guy. Even if she DID set aside her narcissism long enough to stand her very pregnant behind in line several hours to vote for Obama (rather doubt it), the “Octomom” situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons your fellow Americans felt so strongly that we needed a new direction. It’s more likely her decision was encouraged by pop culture hype and Americans’ insatiable appetite to feel personally involved in the “lives” of strangers. (Wanna BE “reality TV?” Have a few dozen kids and the money just rolls in!) Your swipe at the President was a gratuitious non sequitur. (IMO, of course.)

By Curious Observer

March 5, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this

Algonquin @1:47 p.m.,

Wooten would no doubt endorse Emerson’s famous “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”

See, if it comes to the economy and things they like to do, people like Wooten and Ragnar want government off their backs.

But when it comes to things they dislike, they want government officials out in jackboots to put the force of law into their beliefs.

Got it?

By Mike Toreno

March 5, 2009 2:58 PM | Link to this

I don’t think about Ms. Suleman at all, except to wish her well, because I do not participate in what seems to be a leading sport in America, that of second-guessing the family arrangements of others.

Basically, Wooten thinks there should be a law prohibiting everything he doesn’t like. But his idea that OB/GYNs should be liable for the deficiencies of the lives of those they bring into the world is interesting. Does everyone born in Georgia have a claim against the doctor for allowing them to be born in such a cesspool of ignorance and squalor? Do children of conservatives have claims against the doctors who let them be born to shiftless, ignorant parents? Where does it end?

By Dusty

March 5, 2009 3:33 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe you can tell people in a democracy how many children they can produce. That is a restriction of their rights. Communism allows such restrictions.

The professional rights of doctors are usually controlled by ethics (other doctors/ medical boards) or by legalities.

Ms. Suleman probably knew all those things. The doctor took a chance. Lawmakers will probably tire of bothering with any regulations because they are usually ineffectual(the laws and the lawmakers).

I suggest we forget Ms. Suleman. There will be plenty of people with her same mentality who will support her craziness with theirs (Look at show biz if you don’t believe it). I’m not one of the crazies. And…I do not live in California where they thrive. Ms Suleman…who??

By Davo

March 5, 2009 3:40 PM | Link to this

Settle down, JW. This gal is pathetic, to be sure, and there may indeed be more of this nonsense…who knows. What I do know is the govt will spend alot of money fighting these cases in court, which is just a waste of time and money. Oh, and I also know that it’s fundamentally none of the govts business how one should procreate.

What a pointless law to try to enforce.

By ron

March 5, 2009 3:46 PM | Link to this

Dear Ragnar @2:45——You’ll see real estate sold on a smaller basis just as soon as the prices get down to where they belong.By that time the bankers will have pocketed all the money they want for a time.Credit will ease slowly for credit worthy buyers,if there any left by the time credit card companies drop everyone’s credit ratings by the trick of lowering limits.You won’t live long enough to see real estate boom like it did.

By @@

March 5, 2009 3:49 PM | Link to this

JLK:

I’ll aim my shots at whomever I think is deserving.

Obama couldn’t put his narcissism aside long enough to vote to protect infants born alive after botched abortions in Illinois. Neither could Suleman put hers aside in the best interest of her children. I don’t know….maybe it was the disconnect between him and somebody else’s child that allows you to give him a pass.

(((It’s more likely her decision was encouraged by pop culture hype and Americans’ insatiable appetite to feel personally involved in the “lives” of strangers.)))

Just like Obama’s was encouraged by the media’s pop culture hype of Mr. Cool Calm and “Collective”:

((( John Quelch, the senior associate dean at Harvard Business School and co-author of “Greater Good: How Good Marketing Makes for Better Democracy,” says there are four key components to Obama’s cool: he’s street cool, family cool, technology cool and culture cool.

That cultural coolness — people are comfortable seeing Obama on the basketball court, in the Oval Office and on their T-shirts — is something to which Amy Maniatis, the vice president of marketing for CafePress, can testify.

“Never before have we seen images of a president — his face, his likeness — on so many graphic T-shirts. It’s never been so hip to wear a president on your T-shirts,” she said.

“What the phenomenon that we’ve seen with Obama is the ‘Obama the politician,’ ‘Obama the political candidate’ sales are over but it’s been replaced with ‘Obama the pop culture icon,’ ” she said, pointing out that since the election, the number of Obama products for sale has continued to grow.)))

The Mr. Cool image? I’ll give you that.

His economic incompetence, thus far? You can have that too.

I didn’t vote for the guy because his incompetence outshined his pop culture image. Inexperience may send a tingle up your leg but it doesn’t do much for mine.

By Eleanor Rigby

March 5, 2009 4:09 PM | Link to this

We all have much bigger issues to worry about at this time. Get the government out of my uterus!

By Maniac is accurate

March 5, 2009 4:10 PM | Link to this

What this woman, donor and doctor did was wildly irresponsible. And, morallly, if not legally, this doctor owes these children financial support. But, in this country we are free to be irresponsible. Luckily there are mechanisms in place to protect the children. They will still suffer for the choices that have been made. Common sense cannot be legislated, though.

By JLK

March 5, 2009 4:16 PM | Link to this

Wow, @@! You’re right!! As a citizen of the United States, you DO have the right to um, “aim your shots” at anyone you like. Please accept my apology for asking you to please be reasonable in your arguments and not insult people unfairly. My bad. You may well indeed use any and every discussion, no matter how unrelated, as a segue into a flawed anti-choice rant, and a personal attack on your fellow countrymen and our President. It must be KILLING you that we wear the President’s picture on a t-shirt without the words “WORST EVER” or “NOT MY” underneath the image. I’m so sorry you’re soul is drowning slowly in it’s own bile because you cannot decide the reproductive lives, nor the personal tastes of others. You have my sympathy.

I’ll have to both agree and disagree with you on your pejorative “cool” rant, though. I agree that some Americans likely DID vote based on “cool.” That makes about as much sense as blindly following the guy who spouts “family values” even though he’s a divorced adulterer and his own children don’t even speak to him. Yet, the Reagan b0ner is still as stiff as ever in some circles.

At least as many, I’ll wager, chose the smart guy with the Constitutional Law background as a refreshing change from the stuttering (recovering) alkie who wiped his well-toned, bike-riding backside with our Constitution on a weekly basis. Others may have chosen the one who demonstrated an ability to discuss issues with a calm demeanor without flying into nonsensical angry snits on camera. Others likely struggled with their final two choices in November, disappointed after the primary results, and came down on the side they disliked the least. Regardless, to lump 66 million voters into one simple mindset indicates a severe lack of depth to your comprehension of your fellow humans.

For the sake of your own withering heart, please do try to forgive them! And me, for saying “please” so many times in one day. You must really hate that too.

By Maniac is accurate

March 5, 2009 4:18 PM | Link to this

Ragnar, What you say of Phil Bredesen is true. He is a true, common sense public servant. In observing his work up close for most of his first and part of his second term, I can say he is the only politician I’ve ever encountered who didn’t set off my BS-ometer with every other word. Too bad Obama didn’t take advantage of talents like that.

By Dusty

March 5, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this

Dear @@, 3:49

Now I know that I am not HIP!! Sob! Just bought a comfy green T-shirt over at Big Lots for two dollars. Those cheap skates!! They did not put a picture of Obama on it. Thus I lose all my ratings as cool cat in the neighborhood.

Life just aint fair!

By Dave

March 5, 2009 4:55 PM | Link to this

You people are missing the point of this bill. There is a lot more to it than just “limiting the embryos implanted based on age”. This bill was crafted by an organization called the BioEthics Defense Fund.

This is a religious based (heavy Catholic influence) organization who wrote a bill designed to so limit the possibility of a successful IVF transfer that it would more or less destroy the IVF industry. The only medical input given to the two lawyers who wrote the bill was based on was from a Neurologist that has nothing to do with reproduction. This Neurologist is also against IVF to begin with because it is against her religious views.

Included in this bill was also the fact that you aren’t allowed to fertilize more than 2 or 3 embryos. If a doctor can pull out 7 - 8 eggs, they have no way of telling what eggs are better than others. The reason people are doing IVF is that the egg quality is not good. This bill would make doctors guess which ones are the best.

The bill also wanted to not let anyone freeze any embryos at all for any kind of future use as well as to not let egg donors get any kind of compensation for donating their eggs. Egg donors are compensated because they have to undergo multiple doctor visits, screening on the front end and then deal with shots and the egg retrieval which includes anesthesia. It’s hard enough to get egg donors when they are compensated let alone if they will not be. There is no reason to restrict that other than to make the process harder.

On top of all that, the two or three emryos implanted isn’t a good idea either. If you have four embryos and 3 of the four are bad quality (which they can tell at that point), you may want to place three in a 34 year old woman. Age does play a factor but it is not the only factor. It should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

In Georgia, you have to undergo a psych exam before you are permitted to move forward in the IVF process. They obviously don’t have that law in California. It’s sad that one overboard case out of several hundred thousand successful and normal IVF procedures makes it alright to vilify and possibly destroy the IVF process all together.

Lastly, if you do more research on the BioEthics Defense fund, you will also see they are an anti-abortion driven company that is against any type of IVF. They didn’t craft this bill to stop multiple births or watch out for the mothers, they did it to push their religious views on other people.

Please try to educate yourself on the topic before passing opinions.

By @@

March 5, 2009 5:26 PM | Link to this

Dang JLK, I wasn’t looking for apologies, sarcastic OR “sincere”.

I’m not altogether disappointed with Obama’s foreign policy since it’s looking very much like a continuation of Bush’s with the exception of Afghanistan. His economic policy too (stimulus? didn’t work when Bush tried it). Obama’s is on a MUCH GRANDER scale (deficit spending) than Bush’s was though.

I suppose one could see it as His efforts to outdo his predecessor……living up to his iconic image and all, even if it DOES lead to our economic demise.

What do you think motivates Him to OUR end, JLK?

By catlady

March 5, 2009 5:29 PM | Link to this

Every child should have a mother and a father. True. Unfortunately, from my perspective (teacher 36 years) a lot of kids don’t have that, even with both adults in the home. Some have NEITHER, even with 2 adults in the home. There is more to parenting than just being married and together in the home.

By JLK

March 5, 2009 6:21 PM | Link to this

“What do you think motivates Him to OUR end, JLK?”

@@, If I were a mindreader, my life would be much different today, I can tell you that! Heh..

To answer your question for this or any President, I can only HOPE that deep down, he’s motivated by an imperative to do what’s right for our nation. Only the naive expect perfection or see a messiah in an elected leader. But in troubling times, it feels good to believe we have a Captain at the helm who will try to his very last breath. I know he will disappoint on some things, but I believe he will do his absolute best to clean up the messes he inherited and lead us toward a more self-sufficient economy — making and doing things here of which we can be proud, and one day telling the Saudis we don’t need their stinkin’ oil no more.