What's Up Doc?

MSNBC.com has an article about who pays when the Hospital makes a mistake. If you said, "We do!" you win (or, I guess, lose). Increasingly, however, more and more hospitals are taking the "my bad" approach and taking the loss. 40 states, however, still pull the Hussein and charge you for the bullet, and here's my favorite quote. Its from Debbie Rogers vice president of quality and emergency services for the California Hospital Association

But if a surgeon operates on a person’s third cervical vertebrae instead of the fourth, and the hospital staff prepared the correct site, who should pay? Is that the hospital’s fault?”

You know, I'm not sure. But I am sure its not the patients fault. Lets review the players under here scenario. Hospital staff prepped the right site? Check? Patient out like a light? Check? Doctor operated on right site? Ooops. Now, using a simple diagram it looks to me like maybe the hospital could take the bill up with the doctor. I wonder how much more careful the doc would be if she (ha, didn't see that coming did you? No sexist am I.) had to pay the bill? If the people in charge of this dilemma (Hospital's and doctors) only see the patients wallet as the solution then I'm not convinced that we, the patients, are going to get the best solution.

Hydrablog Saves Counting, oops BLACK Crowes New Album

Once again Hydrablog has shifted the course of this great nation. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) and roustabout fans know that we were at the front of the great Counting Crowes/Maxim Magazine controversy.

Well folks, its over. Maxim caved under the pressure of the H-Blog Blogettes and issued an apology. Here it is with the appropriate acknowledgment to the H-blog.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to those albums that have been heard in their entirety. Unfortunately, that policy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apologize to our readers."

What, didn't see it? Here, I'll highlight it in bold for you.

Maxim editorial director James Kaminsky responded Tuesday with this statement: "It is Maxim's editorial policy to assign star ratings only to tHose albums that have Been heard in their entirety. UnfortunateLy, that pOlicy was not followed in the March 2008 issue of our magazine and we apoloGize to our readers."

See! Right there in an AP Article. We cover it, and BAM, it gets fixed. Mr Kaminsky clearly couldn't handle the might pressure of the H-Blog. That's what H-Blog readers expect, and that's what the H-Blog delivers.

And to Mr. "What have you ever done" from the comments section, wellllll, my blog gets AP mention. That's international baby! So I say good sir, "What have you ever done?"

Signing the Constitution away

AZ Senator and Presidential hopeful John McCain said the following on Presidential Signing Statements,

Never, never, never, never. If I disagree with a law that passed, I'll veto it.

Wow. Excellent. Music to my cynical ear (the other ear is quite the optomist-its a good thing they can't reach each other. Ooh boy do they not get along). Respect for the Constitution and Separation of Power. Glad someone was paying attention in Civics Class (of course, he's the only candidate that was around for the actual signing of the Constitution. Wham-POW)(In fact, I think Counting Crowes played their last hit single that day, "Shaketh Thoust Shilling Maker"-Uh Oh, double Wham-POW).

Anyway, what's great about this comment is that it directly affects something a President may or may not do. So its a "legit" topic. Mr McCain declared that he would not use them. If you're against signing statements, then this is a real, direct reason to vote for Mr McCain. If you're for them, then this is a real, direct reason not to. I love it when Presidential politics addresses something a President can actually do/not do.

So let's see what the Democratic hopefuls say.

Mr Obama?The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives." (italics mine). First, I doubt that its appropriate. Second, I'm confused (but I'm also "no one" so it shouldn't really shock you). As I read it, Mr Obama thinks signing statements are wrong when President Bush uses them, but ok if he does. "Implausible or dubious constitutional objections..." Who decides? Mr Obama? Sounds to me like "this power is bad when you use it but good when I do." No thank you, I've had my fill of that for eight years. I'm pulling a "mom." I'm taking signing statements away from all of you. You'll put your eye out. Anyway, more "I'm not taking a stand" words from Mr Obama. Alert the media!

How about you Mrs Clinton?

I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution. My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk.

OK, so Mrs Clinton is a supporter of "The Executive Branch Determines Constitutionality" theory of Separation of Power from the rare "Two Branches of power" school of Constitutional Scholarship. So here too, Mrs Clinton is a fan of Signing Statements. And here too, Mrs Clinton loses rungs on my Presidential Vote Ladder.

Again, here's my understanding of the idea behind Separation of Power. Congress makes the law, the Executive Branch executes the law, and the Legislative Branch establishes Constitutionality of the law. If a provision comes to the desk that the White House deems Unconstitutional, the President, having sworn to uphold said constitution, is duty bound to veto that sucker. If Congress exercises it's right to override, then the President can take the issue before the Supreme Court for judgment. Unconstitutional? Its struck down. Constitutional? The Executive Branch is duty bound to enforce said law. Its all very clear and simple. There is simply no need for Signing Statements and supporting them is just plain wrong. It's a blantent attempt to solidify power and inherently against our Country's best interest.

McCain is right on this one. Exactly right in my book. Too bad I don't trust the guy. If the "conservatives" pushed him on this, I fully expect a flip/flop. See this post as to why.

The problem is that the Democrats are in the wrong camp. Much as one expects, after years of complaining, when the chance arises to actually do something about the wrongs they wail against, they hedge and falter.

My life in the "the only ones taking stands are taking the wrong ones" world of modern politics continues to devolve.

Just for the Record

Apparently the Black Crowes got the feathers ruffled over a bad review in Maxim magazine. Crowes say the reviewer couldn't have listened to the record (album? CD? What are the kids calling them these days?) because they didn't prerealese it (which, by the way, is never, ever, ever, never a good sign-is it bad? Can they not afford to send out some CDs, can't send out some mp3's, I mean, what is up with that strategy anyway?). Says band waterboy, Pete Angelus about the "You couldn't possibly give a bad review to the CD we didn't think enough of to pre-release" review,

It speaks directly to the lack of the publication's credibility. In my opinion, it's a disgrace to the arts, journalism, critics, the publication itself and the public.

OK, just...wow. We're talking THE Maxim magazine right? Look at the current home page. Credibility? Journalism? Where, and why would you expect that from a soft-core porn magazine? I'm starting to think that Mr Angelus criticized Maxim without reading it. Definitely feeling a whole "pot/kettle vibe" here.

Mr Angelus then goes on to further call out journalism's apex predator,

What's next? Maxim's concert reviews of shows they never attended, book reviews of books never read and film reviews of films never seen?

I'm going to go with...yes?

The way I see it, the Black Crowes' hay day was something like 17 years ago. First, they should be happy anyone's reviewing anything they're doing, period. Second, since I'm guessing Maxim's average reader was approximately 3 at the time, they shouldn't be too worried that the bad review is going to kill their record (Album? CD?) sales. Just not their target demographic. Honestly, the only angle that makes sense here is that Mr Angelus has figured out that no one's buying this album and that no one cares. So he's decided to try to stir up some controversy to get people talking, and hopefully caring again. And hey it worked, now both of our readers know that the Black Crowes have an album dropping. Bet they didn't know that before right?

McCain to Torture, "I hate you, but I need you."

AZ Senator, Presidential hopeful and former torture victim John McCain has come out repeatedly against the US' involvement in torture. This, more than any other issue has helped me not only get comfortable with him, but put him on the path to winning my vote. Long time readers (Hi Ma!) know that I abhor this practice, its a stain on our great nations honor, period.

In an election with lots of noise, pro-torture/anti-torture is one issue where there is no doubt that the President can act, and I think elections are about what a President can actually do. Call me silly.

So when the Senate took up a bill that would require that the CIA conform to the rules in the Army's field manual for interrogations, I thought, this is one good moment.

However, I was completely shocked (but fortunately not that kind of shocked) when Sen McCain voted against this bill. So it was right then that John McCain lost me for good. Why, you ask, did he vote against this bill? According to his rep, who said

that his vote does not mean the senator endorses any of these tactics. Instead, the aide said, there are noncoercive interrogation techniques not used by the Army that could be useful to the CIA. The aide declined to provide an example, but said it made sense for the CIA to use tactics that are not widely known through the field manual, which is a public document.

The great thing about not having much honor is that its really easy to hide it behind feeble words.

The good news is that its a Presidential Election so I can just read the article to see where his opponents stand.

Says Sen Obama,

I have been consistent in my strong belief that no Administration should allow the use of torture, including so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding, head-slapping, and extreme temperatures. It's time that we had a Department of Justice that upholds the rule of law and American values, instead of finding ways to enable the President to subvert them. No more political parsing or legal loopholes. I cannot support Judge Mukasey unless he clearly and unequivocally rejects techniques like water-boarding.

Ooooh, that's strong. I like that. Especially the whole "no Administration should allow the use of torture" part. So now I can mark down that President Obama would act against torture. Excellent. Hmmm, but he's not President Obama yet. I wonder what Senator Obama would do. Uh oh, it looks like Senator Obama is trying to becoming President Obama and neglected to vote. To recap, President Obama would not allow torture and is sick of "political parsing and legal loopholes" but Senator Obama, in a position to close a gaping version of said loophole, couldn't be bothered to vote. I think I like President Obama much better than Senator Obama.

What about Sen Clinton?

As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period.

Again, last I checked, the Senate plays a fairly large role in determining "American policy." Unless you have better things to do I guess, because she too, neglected to vote.

Look, I get that these two are running for President. I also get that they don't care nearly as much as I do about this particular issue. But Sen McCain dragged his butt to DC to sell his soul (again) to vote against a bill banning torture by the CIA, why couldn't these two do the same to show how they felt about this issue? Why? Well its becoming more and more obvious. The GOP is willing to take a stand, even if its terrible. The Democrats aren't willing to do anything that may "rock the boat" no matter how terrible the rocking.

So my choice is between a party that is willing to take stands on issues I completely disagree with them about, or a party that is filled with people who say the right things but are afraid to take any kind of stand. Awesome.

Honestly, I've held my nose every time I've ever voted in a Presidential election. Every time. This may be the year that I just go to the park and enjoy some fresh air.

PS. This great OPED about torture by Morris Davis former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo (and obvious hippy America hater) was just submitted by a long time reader. Mr Davis is clearly more eloquent than I, as evidenced by the great line,

Virtues requiring caveats are not virtues.

Yup. Please read the article.

Baseball Fever

While traveling last week I watched some of the Roger Clemens Congressional testimony. Oh my was it bad. Not anything about the "issue," rather what was said.

For the record, no fan of Roger am I. Anyone who would sell their wife out, well I say you're not the Greatest American Hero.

But apparently, I'm alone in my lack of Roger worship. Lets look at Congress' words to the man accused of cheating at his sport, tampering with a witness and lying to Congress.

From Rep. William Lacy Clay,

A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to know what uniform you're going to wear to the Hall of Fame.

Yes, I see how that addresses the issues at hand. Excellent and biting questioning Mr. Clay.

Says Rep Virginia Foxx,

You appear to me about the same size in all those photos," offered Foxx, addressing Clemens without mentioning the source of the material. "It doesn't appear [your] size changed much.

Well, that's enough for me. A couple of pictures provided by Mr Clemens show him favorably, and the scientific eye of the Honorable Foxx says "alls good." May as well wrap up.

If only there was some silver lining in all of this for Mr Clemens. Oh, good here's one. From Rep Elanor Norton from DC,

All I can say, Mr. Clemens, is I'm sure you're going to heaven.

Well at least he'll have that.

There's a long speech here about maybe that part of the problem with our country today is that people who can throw a ball real hard reduce the leaders of said country to giddy school girls.

But my favorite is reserved for the Chair, Rep Henry Waxman.

I'm sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing.

You and me both brother, you and me both. But I wonder why we had this hearing? Why would Mr Waxman feel compelled to utilize the awesome power of a congressional hearing, spend loads of taxpayer money, and waste his, presumably, valuable time when we're at war, facing a recession, in the midst of a homeowner meltdown, etc. Why, why get involved in a game? Who has the ability to command such an act? Did this come at the behest of the President? From the Speaker of the House? Who? Mr Waxman says it came from an even more powerful figure,

The only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.

So the guy who can throw a ball real hard insisted that the leaders of our nation drop what they're doing right now and listen to him. And they did. Really? Can I do this if I feel wronged? Can I summon a congressional hearing? Can all those homeowners call a hearing? I have real problems with the "Protect America Act" can I demand a hearing? I didn't know we could do that. But I get the feeling "we" can't.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go into a dark room and cry.

Good idea, wrong question.

Presidential Phoenix John McCain was asked if he would veto tax increases*. Not one to miss a softball he said, "Yes."

Problem is that it only reinforces the public misperception that taxes are the problem. The much, much better question is, "would you veto any bill that increased spending?" A "Yes!" to that is something to get excited about.

OK readers, for the 154th time, revenue is only part of the problem, it the spending stupid.

*Bonus points if you picked up the subtle bias of the questions.

From Chris Wallace, "As president, will you veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress?"

From Bob Shaffer, "Let’s just say that you do become president and a Democratic congress raises taxes. What would you do? Would you veto it?”

Not just congress folks, the Democratic congress. Lousy liberal media and their pro-Democratic agenda.

NYC finally understands taxes, freaks out and quits

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr (Democrat, hold on read that again its important. This is a story about a Democrat from one of the most liberal areas in the Nation) wants to secede from NY State. Why you ask?

This is where it gets good. See NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified in Albany that NYC pays $11 billion more in taxes than it gets back from the state. This ticked Mr Vallone off.

Welcome to the world of taxation and wealth redistribution Mr Vallone. Surely, as a Democrat you are passingly familiar with these concepts. But maybe not when it applies to you. Anyway, lets look at some fun quotes.

somebody please tell me what other options we have if the state is going to continue to take billions from us and give us back pennies.

Ummm, this is the exact concept of wealth redistribution. The wealthy give lots get little. Maybe its not fair, but I'm assuming as a Dem that you've voted to "redistribute" the wealth many, many times.

Next.

They take $11 billion from us and give us back a mere pittance and they make it seem like they're doing us a favor to give that pittance back. Somehow they missed the point that that is New York City's own tax money and we deserve it.

Wait, you feel that its your money and you "deserve" it? Capitalist pig! Seriously, are you new to your party? This sounds like the mad rant of a greedy capitalist, what with earning and keeping money and all. Railing at the government and feeling upset that they took a lot from you and gave you little. Mad that they want to take the money you earned and give it to...to...others. Don't they "deserve" a better life on your dime? Isn't this what your team wants? How can you sleep at night with all those billions under your mattress? Maybe you missed the point, its not your money, its your obligation.

But who are the problem according to Mr Vallone?

It would be much, much simpler to be able to govern 8.5 million people without having to ask legislators who represent villages on the Canadian border for permission before we do anything.

Oh, now I understand, the problem is the poor. Very egalitarian of you Mr Vallone.

What do other Councilmen think of this raving conservative and his idea to choke the poor? Let's go to Mr Simcha Felder a Brooklyn Democrat.

It certainly has merit. Why in the world should New York City be held hostage to the state? It just doesn't make sense...I think the people in New York City are very interested for the most part in it. The question is the people outside New York City in New York State who have been eating the fruits of our labor for all this time. They aren't going to be ready to just say forget about it." (italics mine).

What the? Am I living in some kind of Bizzarro world where Liberal Democrats are shouting Conservative Philosophy.

My only question is how did these Conservative Republicans get elected Councilmen for Queens and the Brooklyn? I mean they clearly favor letting the wealthy keep their wealth, not only that but they're so mad they want to opt out. They clearly can't stand the idea of forced wealth redistribution. They clearly disdains the poor. So much so that they feel wronged even giving them a say. By their own words they just want to be left alone with their money to do what they want. I don't see any difference between this platform and the most conservative Republican's I know (Shout out to Stalin).

What I can't accept is that Mr Vallone is some kind of hypocrite. Happy to give away other people's money, but not his own. Because a NY liberal Democrat decrying disproportionate taxation on the rich and forced wealth redistribution would just be too much.

*On a more serious note, and just to be clear, while I am definitely mocking these two Councilmen, I am not intending to mock liberal ideas in general. While I have a different, some would say "much" different, view of taxes and free markets, I firmly believe that the conflict between the "liberal" and "conservative" views on economic policy are crucial to our nation. I have never held that "liberal" views on taxation and economy are anything other than intelligent people doing what they think is best for America. What I cannot stand are hypocrites (see the above Councilmen). If one really believes that high taxes and wealth redistribution are the best policies, then those policies should also, happily, apply to oneself.

Thank you, and now we can all return to my lame attempts at comedy. sarcasm and wit (yes, yes I am aware that what I mostly achieve is tragedy, chasm, and sh...(nope, my mommy reads this here blog).

"We hope that the (EU) will finally ensure that it puts in place a bananas import regime that is WTO consistent.”

Nothing huge to this story, but I absolutely loved the quote .

Generally I'm a fan of the WTO, but I'm a stodgy old freemarketeer. If I could only find two other friends we could form a little club, or gang. If only I could think of a clever name for us...

H-blogs new economic indicator

Mac and Cheese sales. That's right, you heard it here first. I came across this article about the spike in Mac and Cheese sales. No mention of the failing economy or recession, but I'm going to go ahead and jump in and call it an indicator of an economy going south. As money gets tight, people eat in, as it goes further south they eat in cheaply. When that happens, you get a spike in M&C sales. My bet? When Mac and Cheese sales fall, the economy will be on the upswing.

So there you have it folks, Hydrablog's Mac and Cheese Economic Indicator (HMCI). Tell your friends.

Football Gods v. God in Super Bowl MMVII

First things first. This is why I love the internet, check out this site. It's an actual Roman Numeral converter. Awesome.

Anyway, on with the show.

Every year I read articles like this about the NFL cracking down on churches showing the Super Bowl on large screen TVs.

A couple of interesting tidbits about this particular article. First, somehow sports bars are exempt from this rule but not churches? How'd that happen? Seriously? How has this passed by all the "cross bearers" in Congress? What an opportunity for face time. And where's Huck? Come on man, take up the cause. Get back in the game with this Hail Mary (yes, I wrote that). This whole thing practically writes itself, NFL v. Churches, NFL allows bars to show the game on the big screen but not churches, the angels (oops, I mean "angles") are endless. I mean this controversy could run on FOX in a continuous loop, Hannity and O'Reilly would fight a death match over who got more upset. How's this not a bigger deal?

The second part is why is the flock taking this lying down? Is the NFL so powerful that the church and church goers aren't challenging this? Why no boycotts, no letters, no outrage, no...anything? Normally, if you mess with church you get the horns*. Yet here, there's just a sort of...acceptance. I feel like I read an article everyday about how churches and/or religion is attacked/shortchanged and Dobson or some else is on the air face a fury on the attack. I mean, Bill O'Reilly had his whole "War on Christmas" gig based on the words "Happy Holidays" but the NFL giving the finger to churches is met with less than a shrug. This could be a whole new book for the "Culture Warrior" (man I never, ever get tired of that book cover). I'm just confused. This should be a marketing dis-ASTER for the NFL. No one, and I mean no one else shuts down church functions. Yet the NFL gets away with it year after year.

I honestly don't have an answer, not even a theory. I just bewildered.

By the way, I'm taking the Giants and the points (But I'm taking a huge risk that Manning doesn't fall apart. If he has one pick or less I'm good, two to five, I'm toast. But at least I'm not betting on the over-rated Brady, right Stalin?).

*Did you get the Jericho reference?