The answer to the question of what can possibly be gained by trying KSM and his cohorts in a Federal Court in NYC is obviously nothing...at least nothing good.  If that's the case, and it is, then why do it?

 

The answer is Obama and the left's insane and inane  obsession to paint President Bush, V-P Cheney and the rest of the previous administration as the real criminals.  By moving the trials to civilian Federal courts, Obama has granted the defense the opportunity to use the civilian rules of discovery in preparation for the trials.  Undoubtedly, the defense lawyers will insist on access ( and ultimate exposure) of every FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO and every other US intelligence agency document (classified or otherwise) related to 9/11 and the pursuit of suspected terrorists in its wake. And no doubt when the requests for these documents are initially denied, there will be motion after motion after motion for dismissals as the defense will claim that their clients cannot get a fair trial without access to these documents.

Eventually, some loony lefty appellate/circuit court judge will rule that these documents and even field agents must be made available to the defense.  Once done, every intelligence agent, every intelligence gathering method and every intelligence secret will be made public, eviscerating every method to continue these necessary efforts.

 

 

 

 

   While it certainly would have been preferable for Doug Hoffman to have won, if the national spotlight had not been focused on this race by national conservatives, it is highly likely that DeDe ScuzzyFuzzy would have won.  ScuzzyFuzzy is, arguably, more liberal than Bill Owens.  If she had won, she would have become the 1 'Republican' vote needed for Pelosama to claim 'bi-partisan' support for the marxist agenda being rammed through Congress. (1 vote either way doesn't make much of a difference right now)

 

We're better off with Owens representing NY-23 than ScuzzyFuzzy.  What is needed now is a solid conservative to run NY-23 and send Bill Owens to the Congressional retirement home next November.

 

There are several things that can be done to improve access to healthcare, lower costs of insurance and does not require a federal governement takeover.

 

1.  Meaningful Tort Reform.  Practicing professionals and their insurance providers can work far more efficiently if they has some grasp of their maximum exposure in lawsuits.  While no one wants to take away an individual's right to sue when they've been injured, unquantifiable awards under the headings of 'pain and suffering' and/or 'punitive damages' must be capped.  Using the federal anti-trust measure of treble damages seems a reasonable standard.  If the limits on damages are say, 3 times the actual damages for pain and suffering, and an additional 2-3 times the combined damages for the punitive category, real reductions in medical malpractice insurance can be realized with a resulting reduction in cost at the doctor's office.  Further, if the doctor no longer needs to practice defensive medicine, both in the testing arena and the time it takes in notating files...the combined savings would be enormous.

 

2. Expand Medical Savings accounts.  First, make medical savings accounts employer free...in other words, any person can walk into a bank and establish such and account that goes with the individual when they change or lose a job.  Further, end the practice of 'use it or lose it' and make the funds transferable to other types of accounts under certain circumstances.  Personally, I've never signed up for and HSA when one was available because I could never accurately predict my medical expenditures for the year. 

 

3. Eliminate state insurance monopolies.  Allowing individuals and businesses to find the best plan anywhere in the country will stoke real competition and lower premiums and prices.  (This should be extended to all lines of insurance regulated by states...ie auto and home).

 

4. Phase out S-Chip, Medicare and other federal programs in favor of vouchers for which these qualifying individuals can purchase catastropic coverage on the open market. By phase out, I mean that those currently in these systems would keep their current coverage if they choose, or they can opt out for the voucher if they find a better deal.

 

In truth, the Federal Government only should be providing health care to military personnel, especially to those wounded in action needing lifelong treatment for their injuries.  It's the least we, as a nation, can do for are fallen soldiers, and anything we do is never enough.

 

 

I'm one of those weird individuals who actually looks forward to jury duty.  In fact, if the concept of paid professional jurors ever became a reality, I'd be first in line for the job.  Why?  The answer is simple....that is if ever, God forbid, I find myself at the defendants table looking at a group of potential jurors, I hope and pray that every individual sitting in that selection box is intelligent and fair-minded, so that they can evaluate the facts and dispense with the emotions and perceptions. 

 

I understand why many hate jury duty.  It's boring.  It's often the loss of a day's pay or more.  Many don't feel qualified.  Others don't want to be put in the position to have to judge.  But to anyone with a discerning mind, if there are no extreme extenuating circumstances preventing you from serving...serve anyway...even if you have a legal out.  It's the only way to make the legal system more just.

 

By the way...I'm not writing this in a vacuum...I have jury duty on 10/27. 

 

 

 

 

Welcome to my soapbox.  

 

I plan on using this space to express my opinions, observations, bliefs and commentaries on just about anything and everything....politics, religion, sports, cookingg...whatever, it's all fair game.  

 

Do I expect anyone to read this?  No, not really.  But if anyone does, I hope to inform, entertain, and sometimes provoke...and I always welcome your comments.

 

It is my hope to post at least 2 to 3 times a week....more if I can.

 

Talk with y'all later.