Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Not Me]

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/times...printstory.jsp

Punch halts murder trial

PHILADELPHIA - A man accused of raping and murdering a young girl punched his defense attorney in the face Monday, bringing his jury trial to a halt.

Court officers tackled the defendant, Malik El-Shabazz, 20, then led him quickly from the courtroom at Philadelphia's Criminal Justice Center. The attorney, public defender Fred Goodman, was not seriously hurt, officials said.

Judge Jane Cutler Greenspan immediately declared a recess and sent jurors home. It was unclear whether the attack, which was unprovoked and came without warning, would result in a mistrial.

Prosecutors planned to argue Tuesday that the trial should continue as planned.

"It's our opinion that he was trying to obtain a mistrial," Cathie Abookire, a spokeswoman for Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham, said of El-Shabazz. "I'm sure it will be the first order of business when the court reconvenes on Tuesday."

It was unclear whether the defense team would ask the judge to restart the trial with a new jury. Goodman and his co-counsel, Andrea Konow, did not immediately return phone messages Monday.

El-Shabazz is accused of murdering 6-year-old Destiny Wright during a girls slumber party at his sister's Philadelphia home in 2002.

During the trial, jurors were shown a police videotape in which El-Shabazz described in great detail how he smothered the girl and then lugged her body more than a mile to a vacant lot. Jurors on Monday also saw gruesome autopsy photographs of the girl's body.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
My God, man! I had no intention of reducing you to this level! You really need to work on restoring your self-confidence.

May I reccomend gardener's shrink?

S_A_M

I can't afford a shrink, because I'm afraid my job'll be outsourced to India. I've taking to sitting next to marines on the bus, and talking to them about my problems- one knows Gardener.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Well that's got to be inaccurate. We knew something would likely happen.....AQ had attacked us at least 3 times while Clinton was President, the question was what to do about it. Clinton blew up parts of a mountain, Bush's team put together a plan to take out the Taliban government. Blowing up a mountain can occur a little quicker than actually doing something.

Yep. But that's not the point. Sounds like an interesting book. Read what the authors quote Gen. Hugh Shelton (Ret.), former Chief, JCS, and Gen. Dan Kerrick (Ret.), former deputy Natl. Sed'y advisor, as saying. [Actually, I assume you have.]

Good that folks are starting to look at this stuff. Can't fix problems unless you acknowledge they exist(ed). And why won't Condi testify under oath before the 9/11 panel?

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
humor is banned here. soon you, I and ncs will be escorted out by security and fitted with ankle bracelets with sufficient electrical charge to knock us out should we dare to come back.

thats not true. You go ahead and try and be funny occasionally.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM/Ty

essay question:

Explain why this post foreshadows the failure of all non-capatilistic systems.

Because all the lazy and poor bastards will drink my beer while buying me little. And the quality of available beer will decline to the lowest common denominator -- Old Milwaukee. Enough to make me a Republican.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
thats not true. You go ahead and try and be funny occasionally.

I am sad that I am restricted to being funny only occasionally. Please alert me as to what I am to try.

[confidential to hank] I think you meant to say "You go ahead and try TO be funny occasionally."[/confidential to hank]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There's already been more than one? (a) Way to be a morally bankrupt liberal! (b) There is hope! Since your moral bankruptcy has been established, you will likely desert the current family as well!

If I were Atticus, you'd be in big trouble now.

S_A_M

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Thanks, but I'm booked solid with an appointment to chew glass.

Outed!!

From the Guinness Book of World Records:

"Strangest Diet

Michel Lotito (aka Henri Mangetout) from Grenoble, France, has been eating metal and glass since 1959. Gastroenterologists have described his ability to consume 900 g (2 lb) of metal per day as "unique". Mangetout - Michel's nickname - literally translates as "eats everything". Michel says bananas and hard-boiled eggs make him sick."

You would hate bananas.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If I were Atticus, you'd be in big trouble now.

Want me to put her on "ignore"? I should rent out space on my list. All of the joy of retribution, and you don't miss out on anything!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

What would happen if Republicans treated Richard Clarke like a distinguished public servant with serious disagreements about important matters of public policy, and engaged with the substance of what he's said? What would they say?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.timesleader.com/mld/times...printstory.jsp

Was the PD pretending to be blind? That would explain it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop


So why not provide catastrophic coverage to everyone, and set up a new market where private companies bid to get pieces of the government business? You have the competition, and private companies are providing the services.

Now, why do you need government to do this, beyond a mandate and a subsidy to those who can't afford it?

If there's a bureaucracy either way, would you prefer it to be federal employees or private sector cos.?

I just don't see why if it's private sector, having the government intervene beyond a mandate is likely to make things better. Unless you want to do it to advance a redistributive agenda, which is an entirely different matter.

The only thing that having it run by gov't is that you ensure 100% participation. But to those who say "I prefer not to join" I say fuck 'em, and refuse 'em at the ER door.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Now, why do you need government to do this, beyond a mandate and a subsidy to those who can't afford it?

If there's a bureaucracy either way, would you prefer it to be federal employees or private sector cos.?

I just don't see why if it's private sector, having the government intervene beyond a mandate is likely to make things better. Unless you want to do it to advance a redistributive agenda, which is an entirely different matter.

The only thing that having it run by gov't is that you ensure 100% participation. But to those who say "I prefer not to join" I say fuck 'em, and refuse 'em at the ER door.

But the gov't bureaucracy will grow anyway in monitoring who gets the subsidy since you can't get it if you are covered by an employer system, and that could be through a spouse filing separately or through a parent or whatever, and presumably COBRA would disqualify you for this catastrophic coverage so you can't just do it through a checkbox on W-2 for single uncomplicated people like me. And, not to open a can of worms, but isn't Medicare fairly well-run?

ETA just giving people money -- how would that work? Wouldn't you have to figure out what a reasonable catastrophic premium would be for each individual? Or do you give everyone the most it would cost? Or the least? Whatever you do, it will be an approximation. Also, this would provide an incentive for fly-by-night crap companies to sell "insurance" and then disappear with the premiums. This is already happening with places that market multiple employer plans to small businesses, who think they are getting a great deal. Note that multiple-employer (not multiemployer, which is union) plans are regulated by the states, not the feds, just like actual insurers.

[Not Me]

This link briefly discusses the Clinton health plan:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/tp00.cfm

I think these "consumer choice" models in the links below are better reforms. However, I would also limit them to only requiring catastrophic coverage and prenatal care, except for children. I think we should mandate fuller coverage for children. The basic premise is that everyone has to enroll or they get fined and they get tax credits for enrolling.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG902.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL392.cfm

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
This link briefly discusses the Clinton health plan:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/tp00.cfm

I think these "consumer choice" models in the links below are better reforms. However, I would also limit them to only requiring catastrophic coverage and prenatal care, except for children. I think we should mandate fuller coverage for children. The basic premise is that everyone has to enroll or they get fined and they get tax credits for enrolling.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/BG902.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/HL392.cfm

In your comments re: children, are you already taking into account the CHIPs stuff that did get thru during the Clinton Admin (even though the whole thing did not go). I think CHIPs may have been expanded since then (and since Clinton left office).

Disclaimer: This post in no way assigns credit or detriment to any political party in the passage of the CHIPs legislation and/or any changes subsequently made to such legislation. References to presidents are made only to provide temporal guidance, and because Clinton is pertinent b/c of the origin of the materials examined by the Heritage Foundation in the links provided by Not Me. Side effects may include dizziness, increased appetite, loss of appetite, or suicide. Individual experiences will vary. You are encouraged to PM me or Not Me (hee hee) for additional information if you believe you may be suffering detrimental side effects.