The Nigh Seen Creeder

The Nigh Seen Creeder will return on Tuesday, January 2.

Someone sent me an interesting link concerning John Edwards and his, well, concern for the poor. Professor Stephen Bainbridge, who teaches law at UCLA, had this to say 'bout Ol' Smiley Edwards:

"During his [20-year] career of allegedly championing the helpless, he took no pro bono cases. This failure is especially noteworthy given that the North Carolina bar's rules of professional responsibility state that 'The provision of free legal services to those unable to pay reasonable fees continues to be an obligation of each lawyer.'"

John Edwards wants us all to believe that he stands tall before the Man when it comes to helping the poor and needy. What he doesn't want us to believe - or know - is that he's not at all agin' makin' the poor pay for all his helpin'.

According to several news sources, a bipartisan congressional group plans to re-introduce a bill that would allow U.S. residents to import drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, mainly from Canada. I took the "importation" crowd to task several weeks ago, and I'm all too happy to do so again. To wit:

Ever since the cost of prescription drugs became a catch-phrase political issue, liberals (and a few Republicans who should know better) have been peddling the canard that rising drug prices are due to "greed" in the pharmaceutical industry. To say that prices result from greed implies that companies can set prices where they wish, that prices are not determined by supply and demand.

Economists tell us that prices rise when demand exceeds output. Demand for new drugs has increased dramatically in recent years; it was inevitable that drug prices would follow suit. It's also important to remember that developing a new drug often costs in excess of $500 million. Millions of dollars are also spent on drugs that never reach the market. Thus, an enormous amount of capital is invested in drugs BEFORE they ever fill the pill bottles of consumers. In our free market system, drug companies are just as entitled to a return on their investment as anyone. (Those who suggest that drug companies - nay any companies, for that matter - are "too profitable" are simply repeating outdated socialist nostrums.)

Canadian consumers pay lower prices for prescription drugs because Canada's government-run health care system employs price controls. When they introduce drugs into the Canadian market, U.S. drug companies can charge just enough to cover manufacturing costs. Most of the burden of paying for research, development, and distribution falls on American consumers. Those people who think that they're doing an end-around on the drug companies by running to Canada for prescriptions are only deluding themselves. Every American consumer who has purchased prescription drugs has already helped to subsidize those low prices. Indeed, the only reason Canadian price controls "work" is because the true cost of pharmaceuticals shipped into Canada has been shifted to U.S. consumers.

So, what's the easiest way to lower drug prices in the United States? The answer is not price controls, as [a bipartisan congressional group] suggests. Price controls will only create shortages (look back at the history of price controls for the past, oh, 2,000 years). U.S. drug companies should follow GlaxoSmithKline's lead and threaten to withhold drugs from Canada and Europe until they allow prices to rise to more sensible levels. We will all enjoy cheaper drugs if Canadians and Europeans are forced to pay free-market prices.

John Edwards, whose Osmond-esque smile prettied up the Democratic presidential ticket in 2004, is running for president ... again. He announced his bid this morning in New Orleans. Quoth Edwards: "America deserves a great president in 2009." 'Tain't you, John, sorry.

I will give John Edwards credit for one thing: he has brass ones the size of basketballs. What makes him think that Americans are ready to elect as president an undistinguished single-term senator who's not going to win his own state's votes in the Electoral College? Let's not forget that Edwards dropped his bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate when his internal polls showed that North Carolina voters were less than enamored with their pretty-boy senator, to say the least. Indeed, a Mason-Dixon poll conducted in October 2003 indicated that only 42 percent of voters in North Carolina would've "definitely vote[d] to re-elect Edwards" as Senator -- a pitiful showing for a sitting officeholder who was less than a year away from re-election.

John Edwards is hoping that his "Two Americas" campaign, a none-too-subtle attempt to invoke the spirit of Robert Kennedy circa 1968, will be able to overcome the Hillary Clinton money-'N'-name-ID juggernaut. He can hope such, and he can pray, but his campaign is destined to be overwhelmed by Democratic forces for whom a Clinton Administration, Part II, is a prospect just this side of total nirvana.

As we all know, Democratic presidential primaries are dominated by party operatives and leftist true believers. Right now, these folks are salivating at the prospect of a Hillary-Obama ticket. Unless and until Hillary or Obama has a "macaca" moment, Edwards is a certified second-tier presidential candidate. Hell, Edwards'd be doing us all a bigger the next year and a half in New Orleans trying to figure out why the city's recently re-elected mayor, Ray Nagin, deserves no scorn for last year's post-hurricane misery and mayhem.

If you'd like to sip on a glass of good wine, and do so for a good cause, pick up a bottle of Firestone Estate's 2004 Jarhead Red Reserve. (Nashville's Liquor World, in the Hickory Hollow area, is a known wine-seller at which one can purchase JRR).

The net proceeds from the sale of Jarhead Red Reserve - an artful Bordeaux-style blend of Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Malbec - benefit the Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, which provides educational assistance to the children of fallen Marines.

I had the opportunity to meet President Gerald Ford in 1993. Ford visited Middle Tennessee State University - not too long after Bill Clinton was inaugurated - to discuss the presidency, the Soviet Union's implosion, and the coming New World Order. (Remember when the foreign policy debate was dominated by discussions of what to do with the "peace dividend?" That debate should have ended a few months later when the World Trade Center was bombed; but, alas, such was not to be.) As a member of the state College Republicans leadership, I was afforded the opportunity to meet with the former president for a short time following his speech. He was gracious and funny, and he asked more questions than he answered. Indeed, he seemed more interested in hearing what we students and dignitaries had to say about world events than he was in hearing himself pontificate on the issues of the day. It's hard for me to imagine, say, Bill Clinton or St. Jimmy Carter behaving in a similar fashion.

When you come across Kwanzaa "greeting" cards at the grocery store, or Kwanzaa wrapping paper at Target, pause for a moment and reflect upon this:

"Every year school children across the United States are forced to celebrate Kwanzaa by their politically correct, union backed teachers. So, every year I try to write a piece reminding people about what a media backed scam Kwanzaa really is -- all of the makings of a Hallmark 'holiday,' i.e. a 'holiday' solely designed to get you to buy crap.

"Kwanzaa did not come about until the 1960's. It was founded by a felon named Ron Karenga. Mr. Karenga spent time in prison for assaulting and torturing two black women. According to one of the the women in a Los Angeles Times article, the two women 'were whipped with an electrical cord and beaten with a karate baton after being ordered to remove their clothes. She testified that a hot soldering iron was placed in Ms. Davis's mouth and placed against Ms. Davis's face.'

"Let's also remember Mr. Karenga's own words. He noted, 'People think it's African, but it's not. I came up with Kwanzaa because black people wouldn't celebrate it if they knew it was American. Also, I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of Bloods were partying.' You be sure to remember that quote when your child is forced to celebrate it at school. Be sure to also remember Mr. Karenga called Jesus 'psychotic' and called Christianity a white religion black people should shun." (emphasis mine)

The Nigh Seen Creeder will return Tuesday, December 26.

The following editorial was written by the late Vermont Royster. It has been published annually in the Wall Street Journal since 1949.


When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.

Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.

But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression -- for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?

There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?

Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.

And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.

So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.

But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.

Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.

Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter's star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.

And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage."

Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Barbara S. didn't like my - admittedly brief - swipe at the Tennessee Education Association. In an e-mail of great length, which was so vapid and redundant that I will not bore my readers by re-printing it, she told me that the TEA is "not a union"; it is a "professional organization in business for children."

After swallowing the bile that'd made its way into the back of my throat, I responded thusly (adhering to the adage that less is more, which should be a lesson to Ms. S.):

The Tennessee Education Association's primary function is to collectively bargain on behalf of its members. The TEA publishes lofty reports and studies periodically to show its commitment to "improving" our educational system; however, it exists mainly to advance the economic interests of those teachers who join the TEA.

So, the TEA fancies itself a "professional organization" rather than a union, huh? How many professional organizations go on strike, work "to the clock," and make unreasonable salary demands? Not many, I assure you. Yet, the TEA's affiliate unions regularly engage in such activities. Do these sound like the actions of an organization that's "in business for children?"

After winning re-election as county executive in Maryland's Prince George's County last month, Jack Johnson responded to critics who asked why taxpayers should be expected to purchase first-class airline tickets for their well traveled chief exec. (Honestly, I didn't realize a county executive in a state as small as Maryland had to embark on so many in-the-line-of-duty.) According to blogger Howard Mortman, Johnson defended his upscale travel habits by uncorking this gem:

"I don't think [Prince George's County's taxpayers] expect me to be riding in a seat with four across and I'm in the middle."

Mr. Mortman has added Johnson's quip to his list of funniest political quotes of 2006, and rightfully so. I was prepared to get all mad about Johnson's out-of-touchness, if you will, when I discovered that he's a Democrat. That explains a lot, n'est-ce pas?

Once upon a time I entertained notions of becoming a secondary school instructor. During an introductory education course, I was asked to interview no fewer than three practicing teachers, if you will. I had instructions to ask each teacher the following question: As a teacher, what is your biggest continuing challenge?

My instructor had spent many a class period bemoaning the lack of funding for K-12 education (she was a member of the Tennessee Education Association, you see). She fully expected her charges to return their interviews having extracted we-need-more-money answers from the teachers who'd been interviewed. Alas, such did not occur.

Most of the teachers with whom my classmates and I spoke said that lack of parental involvement was the biggest (and most frustrating) challenge that they continually faced. Indeed, two of the three teachers I'd interviewed said as much; and the third, after dissing the "bureaucracy," finally got around to dissing parents who spent little time thinking about the education of their young'uns.

I couldn't help but think back to my brief career in education when I came upon the following letter in the Wall Street Journal, which was penned by Richard Mead in Clovis, California. Though brief, it hits a very large nail on its very large head. To wit:

"I found it highly ironic that [NYC] Mayor [Michael] Bloomberg indirectly mentioned one of the true reasons there are failing kids in schools. He states, 'And parents must recognize that the schools can't do it by themselves; values and ethics begin in the home.'

"I couldn't agree more with Mr. Bloomberg's ideas of education establishment accountability. It is indeed a monopolistic, bureaucratic and socialistic way of educating children. But how do we hold accountable the reciprocal of education (parents), who use television to baby-sit, allow their children to stay up late on school nights, don't ask their kids to show completed homework or take their children out of school for vacation on non-vacation school days?

"I can remember when my parents actually asked the teacher what they could do to help me improve. These days, many parents remove any responsibility from themselves by blaming the teacher for poor grades and not their undisciplined children." (Emphasis mine)

For the first time in a long time, Bruce Bartlett says something with which I can firmly agree:

"My conclusion is that for libertarian ideas to advance, the Libertarian Party must go completely out of business. It must cease to exist, period. No more candidates, no more wasted votes and no more disillusioned libertarian activists.

"In place of the party, there should arise a new libertarian interest group organized like the National Rifle Association or the various pro- and anti-abortion groups. This new group, whatever it is called, would hire lobbyists, run advertisements and make political contributions to candidates supporting libertarian ideas. It will work with both major parties. It can magnify its influence by creating temporary coalitions on particular issues and being willing to work with elected officials who may hold libertarian positions on only one or a handful of issues. They need not hold libertarian views on every single issue, as the Libertarian Party now demands of those it supports."

When it comes to doing unto others, a conservative is more likely to put his own money where his mouth - and heart - is. This from National Review:

Since the days of Charles Dickens, conservatives have been caricatured as Scrooges for their supposed indifference to the suffering of the poor. At the same time, liberals have smugly trumpeted their own generosity in supporting expensive government welfare programs. But in a new book, Who Really Cares?, Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks challenges this conventional wisdom. Judging by private charity, he says, it’s conservatives who are more compassionate. Each year, conservatives give 30 percent more than liberals to charity. Religious people, especially, are remarkably generous: Believers are 57 percent more likely than secularists to help the homeless. There are two lessons here: As modern liberalism has come to equate compassion with large-scale government programs, it has eroded the sense of individual responsibility for the well-being of one’s neighbors. And when conservatives say that low taxes and spending should be supplemented by a safety net that is privately funded, they put their money where their mouth is.

It's not often that I disagree with the guys at the Power Line blog. However, the following comment, in a recent post dealing with the death of former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, really touched a nerve:

"In 1973, I was outraged when Pinochet (quite possibly with American backing) seized power from the elected leftist ruler Salvador Allende, whom I admired, and commenced a bloody campaign of repression. Today, I have a different view of Allende, but not of Pinochet."

A rather pernicious myth has been propagated by statists the world 'round concerning Salvador Allende's overthrow. The myth in question goes like this: Allende was overseeing a peaceful and democratic transition to socialism that was destroyed by the machinations of the CIA, which was acting as a puppet master for Augusto Pinochet and his henchmen.

The Allende Myth may be good for keeping the socialist faith alive, but it totally contradicts the historical facts. This is a quick synopsis of the facts in question:

Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile in 1970 with only 36% of the vote. At no time during his presidency did his political party, Popular Unity, have a majority in the Chilean Congress.

Opposition to President Allende had been growing for months prior to the September 11, 1973 coup d'état. His attempts to restructure the nation's economy led to soaring inflation and food shortages. A prolonged strike by truck drivers who opposed his plans for nationalization quickly brought the country to a standstill. The truckers were soon joined by shopkeepers angry because they had nothing to sell; and housewives marched through Santiago banging pots and pans because to protest the lack of food in Chile's stores.

President Allende brought senior army officers into his government in August 1973 in a feeble attempt to head off a revolt. The final crunch, however, came three days prior to the Pinochet-led coup when Chile's two major opposition parties called for the president's resignation. Allende refused and his fate was sealed.

Augusto Pinochet's brutal post-coup repression can in no way be justified. But in 1973, many Chileans welcomed the overthrow of an individual who from day one had actively subverted the Chilean constitution. Allende not only got what he deserved, he's an individual who should not be admired by anyone -- especially those with right-of-center political views.

Joltin' Django is recovering from surgery.

He will return on Monday, December 18.

The National Journal's Chuck Todd says he fully expects Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, to run against Senator Lamar Alexander in 2008: "[H]e's got a longer list of reasons to run than not." I don't agree with Mr. Todd's prognostication. Indeed, I'd like to think that Junior's smart enough to know that if he couldn't win an open seat in a pro-Democrat election year, he's not going to best a popular incumbent.

That being said, my post-election take on why Corker won remains instructive. If Junior hops into a race against Sen. Alexander, the red-blue map from the '06 race will be more pronounced ... in Lamar's favor.

Dr. Dean Edell is the host of a syndicated radio program (heard locally on 1510 WLAC) specializing in medical chit-chat. Some of his views are, well, out there. For example, Dr. Dean recently suggested that if we - society, that is - were to decriminalize the sale, purchase and use of heroin, heroin addicts would resemble folks who are addicted to prescription painkillers. Because they must live a subterranean life of law-breaking, you see, heroin addicts often come to resemble concentration camp victims.

Anyone who's actually seen a person who's deeply addicted to heroin knows this is complete bunk. Indeed, ask musician John Frusciante, whose skeletal visage on a Dutch television program shocked his friends enough that they implored him to seek help, what can happen to a person's body and well-being when that person is hooked on smack.

That being said, Dr. Dean's biggest pet peave these days is circumcision (or, as he calls it, genital mutilation). I don't listen to the Dr. Dean Edell Show every weekend, but every other time - I swear - that I've listened to him I've had to endure an anti-circumcision rant. It's almost as if he has nothing else preying on his mind these days. I can only wonder what the good doctor thinks about this:

"Circumcising African men may cut their risk of catching AIDS in half, the National Institutes of Health said today as it stopped two clinical trials in Africa, when preliminary results suggested that circumcision worked so well that it would be unethical not to offer it to uncircumcised men in the trials.

"AIDS experts immediately hailed the result, saying it gave the world a new way to fight the spread of AIDS, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would now consider paying for circumcisions."

The Nashville Today tabloid (sorry, no Web site) has a regular column called "Ticked Off," which features anonymous rants from some of Music City's finest citizens. The current "Ticked Off" features this astute gem:

"[Bill] Clinton ... took the helm at [a] time of economic ruin."

Unfortunately, this pernicious myth, first propagated by Bill Clinton himself during the 1992 presidential campaign, finds its way into the public debate from time to time. Each time I see it, I feel an overwhelming urge to correct the historical record. To wit:

Throughout the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton and Al Gore stated over and over that George H.W. Bush had foisted upon the American people "the worst economy since the Great Depression." Problem was, however, they were telling an outright fib. In truth, the recession of 1990-91 was less severe than the 1981-82 recession Paul Volcker engineered to stamp out Jimmy Carter's stagflation.

The 1990-91 recession (dated August 1990 to March 1991) was relatively short. Based on official recession-dating by the National Bureau of Economic Research, it spanned eight months in duration, compared with the 11.8 month average for the five previous recessions. Weak consumption spending and residential investment was the primary cause of the 1990-91 recession. The Federal Reserve was reluctant, and hence late, to ease the fed funds interest rate in 1990, and the economy slipped into a mild recession.

Finally, the 1990-91 recession ended 20 months before the November 1992 election. (The NBER did not announce its end date until December 22, 1992 -- over a month after the presidential election.) Bill Clinton and Al Gore took office at a time when the economy was firmly rebounding. Any suggestion to the contrary is pure poppycock.

I didn't get a chance to comment on former UN Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick's passing last week. Truly the American people owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Kirkpatrick, who capably assisted the Reagan Administration as it fought to consign the Soviet Union to the ash heap of history.

I had the opportunity to meet Jeanne Kirkpatrick in 1994 when she spoke at Middle Tennessee State University. She was on hand to discuss how women can become more active in politics and global affairs. Her speech was full of self-empowerment themes, and she discussed UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's career at length. When she finished, she took but one question from the audience. A sandals-and-granola type stood and started ranting about "male oppression" or some such silliness. When she finished (hell, I don't think she even asked a question), Kirkpatrick spent a good ten minutes picking apart the questioner's feeble arguments point by point. The audience erupted in applause and Kirkpatrick thanked MTSU for the invitation. I was awed at her intellect and her humility.

Since I was affiliated with the Tennessee College Republicans, I had an invitation to stick around for an after-speech reception. My colleagues and I chatted with Dr. Kirkpatrick for a few moments and stepped aside when an elderly couple approached. The elderly couple in question, who before passing gave a lot of money to MTSU, simply wanted to shake Dr. Kirkpatrick's hand and thank her for coming. As they turned to leave, the Mrs. said this (I will never forget it if I live to be 100): "We're just so happy that you could come to Murfreesboro, Mrs. Nixon." Dr. Kirkpatrick smiled graciously and said she was more than happy to be there. She will be missed.

"Spirit merges with matter to sanctify the universe. Matter transcends to return to spirit. The interchangeability of matter and spirit means the starlit magic of the outermost life of our universe becomes the soul-light magic of the innermost life of our self."

No, I didn't lift that quote from Natural Law Party literature. It comes courtesy of Dennis Kucinich, who announced today that he's running for president ... again.

When he took office in 2003, Governor Phil Bredesen promised that he'd steward an "open, honest" government. After overseeing a Department of Safety (Tenn. Highway Patrol) that allowed itself to become politicized by rewarding political donors with promotions, and after it was revealed that Deputy Governor Dave Cooley intervened in the case of a "high-ranking state official demoted for sexual harassment last year, arranging to get him a different job without letting his new supervisors know what the man had done," you'd think the Governor Phil would make every effort to avoid all appearances of impropriety. Well, he ain't. Bill Hobbs reports:

"Gov. Phil Bredesen has named the former lobbyist for 1Point Solutions - the corrupt company that may have stolen millions of dollars of people's retirement funds, and whose CEO donated large sums to Bredesen's campaigns and to the Tennessee Democratic Party - as his new Deputy Governor. New Deputy Gov. Stuart Brunson replaces former Deputy Gov. Dave Cooley - the guy who ran the administration's donations-for-promotions scheme in the Tennessee Highway Patrol."

There're wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; thousands of illegal immigrants crash our borders every day; dozens of individuals whom President Bush has nominated for seats on the federal bench have gone months and months without an up-or-down vote in the U.S. Senate; and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) has nothing better to do than go after the NFL:

"The National Football League's ability to negotiate exclusive sports packages is under fire from the outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee," reports the Associated Press.

"Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., twice said he would introduce legislation in the next session aimed at eliminating the league's freedom from antitrust laws.

"Specter said the NFL should not use the exemption to negotiate exclusive programming packages such as DirectTV Inc.'s 'Sunday Ticket,' which allows viewers to watch teams outside their regional market."

"Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., who gained notoriety after the FBI found $90,000 in his freezer, was elected Saturday to a ninth term in Congress," reports United Press International.

"The congressman remains the target of a federal investigation for allegedly taking payoffs. Alleged co-conspirators have pleaded guilty, and Jefferson has said he expects to be indicted."

Being a crook isn't Rep. Jefferson's only fault, as ABC News reported last year:

"Amid the chaos and confusion that engulfed New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina struck, a congressman used National Guard troops to check on his property and rescue his personal belongings — even while New Orleans residents were trying to get rescued from rooftops."

Again, only in New Orleans.

Could the Hillary Clinton for President campaign be over before it officially begins?

According to a Marist College poll, less than half of the Democrats polled would "definitely consider" voting for Hillary for President. More disturbing for Ms. Clinton is the fact that only 22 percent of independents would definitely consider voting for her. 45 percent of independents would "definitely not consider" voting for her.

In head-to-head match-ups with the Republican frontrunners, we see why a lot of Democrats are concerned about Hillary Clinton winning the Democratic nomination:

Rudy Giuliani: 49 percent, Hillary: 43 percent
John McCain: 49 percent, Hillary: 43 percent

The Marist poll also asked likely GOP voters whom they favored for the nomination. The results were:

Giuliani: 24 percent
McCain: 23
Rice: 15
Gingrich: 8
Romney: 4

As I pointed out a few weeks back, Rudy and McCain shouldn't start making general election plans just yet. At this point in the '04 campaign, Joe Lieberman was running away with the nomination.

In a speech before the Japan Society in New York City last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the aging U.S. population will present a "daunting challenge to the nation's economy." Bernanke's comment was a profound understatement.

According to a recent study in Investor's Business Daily, by 2040, 46.8 percent of government outlays will be public health care benefits to the elderly. If Democrats follow through with their promise to make more seniors eligible for prescription drugs, it's conceivable that Medicare will consume half the nation's budget by the time today's workers retire

Because politicians are loath to limit benefits, tax hikes will be necessary for Medicare to survive. Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff says a payroll tax hike of 4 percent is necessary to ensure Medicare's solvency through mid-century. I'm afraid that's a conservative estimate. The confiscatory payroll taxes needed to fully fund Medicare will soon provoke cries of outrage from liberals and conservatives alike.

As Alexander Tytler warned in the eighteenth century, "Democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy."

I'm afraid the coming Medicare crisis will soon prove Tytler a prophet.

What on earth's happened to U.S. Representative Jim Cooper? Prior to his leaving the U.S. House in 1994 to run - unsuccessfully - for the U.S. Senate, Cooper was widely considered to be a moderate to conservative Democrat. He earned this reputation by doing such things as offering a scaled-down, more business-friendly alternative to Hillary Clinton's 1993 national health care scheme.

Since returning to the U.S. House in 2002, Rep. Cooper has competed with Harold Ford, Jr., aka Junior, for the title of Tennessee's Most Liberal Member of Congress. His latest foray into the left-wing deep end was his refusal this week to vote against a non-binding resolution condemning the decision by the city of St. Denis, France, to name a street after Mumia Abu-Jamal, the dreadlocked left-wing activist who was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Philadelphia Police Officer Danny Faulkner.

Bill Hobbs has the complete story here.

It's not often that I agree with an editorial in the Nashville Scene. The Scene's current editorial, however, is spot-on in my opinion. A sample:

"That [John Wilder’s] old and has been around for a long time are not what make him a worthwhile target for vilification. It’s that he has about as much interest in improving the state as Gaylord has in seeing Nashville build a new city-owned convention center."

This should surprise me, but it really does not:

"[T]he Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency reported Hamas representatives recently had secret talks with U.S. Democratic Party officials in anticipation of the party regaining congressional power in Washington."

For those who wish to learn more about the Democrats' new buds in Palestine, check out the Anti-Defamation League's Hamas Fact Sheet. A sample:

"In August 1988, Hamas issued its Covenant laying down its ideological principles and goals. Replete with anti-Semitism, it echoes the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion and charges Jews with an international conspiracy to gain control of the world. In Hamas' worldview, Islamic precepts forbid a Jewish state in the area known as Palestine, the Jewish people have no legitimate connection to the land of Israel and Yasir Arafat is a traitor to the Islamic Palestinian cause. As the Hamas Covenant proclaims, 'The land of Palestine is an Islamic trust... It is forbidden to anyone to yield or concede any part of it... Israel will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.'"

"As a percentage of Nashville’s population, male Hispanics have been responsible for a greater percentage of fatal traffic accidents this year than any other demographic, police data show," reports the Nashville City Paper.

"While the U.S. Census bureau estimates that Hispanics made up approximately 6.3 percent of Nashville’s population in 2004, police say they were responsible for 17 percent of the fatal car wrecks that have occurred so far in 2006."

"Congress will approve an immigration bill that will grant citizenship rights to most of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. after Democrats take control next month, predict both sides on Capitol Hill," reports the Washinton Times.

"While Republicans have been largely splintered on the issue of immigration reform, Democrats have been fairly unified behind the principle that the illegals currently in the country should get citizenship rights without having to first leave the country."

The left's paranoia seemingly knows no bounds. According to C.W. Clouse, the current Obama Barack for President bandwagon is nothing but a Republican plot to ensure that an undistingued - "unseasoned," according to Clouse - lawmaker who's served but two years in the U.S. Senate gets the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

I hate to throw a monkey wrench in Mr. or Ms. Clouse's conspiracy theorizing, but the Obama boomlet began on the Oprah Winfrey Show. It was Ms. Winfrey who was the first to suggest that Mr. Obama should throw his hat into the 2008 presidential ring. Does Clouse really want us to believe that Karl Rove or some other GOP operative is giving Oprah Winfrey marching orders? I don't know any politically astute individuals who're willing to bite that conspiratorial fishhook.

That being said, I wouldn't be making plans to attend a Hillary Rodham Clinton inauguration just yet. It's hard to imagine that Hillary Clinton's hyper-liberalism will go over well in America's heartland. The famous red-blue maps from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections will become even more pronounced if Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee. Unless he or she can make inroads in the South and Midwest (see Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton in 1976 and 1992 respectively), it's well-nigh impossible for a Democrat to win the presidency. If Clouse thinks Hillary Clinton is going to peel away Tennessee, Arkansas, West Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky, etc., from the GOP in the next presidential contest, I have some beach property in Kansas I'm willing to sell him or her.

Remember the scene in Pulp Fiction in which Vincent and Jules show up at the back door of Marsalis Wallace's nightclub following the "Jimmy situation?" When the bartender opens the door, he finds Vincent and Jules bedecked in T-shirts and mid-1980s-style shorts. The bartender asks in an excited tone, "What's up with them clothes?" Remember?

When I turned on the Titans-Colts game yesterday to find the Titans clad from head-to-toe in powder blue uniforms, I asked myself ... what's up with them clothes? Okay, so I threw in an expletive as well. The underlying question remained the same. Then I asked myself another question, which I asked aloud this time to no one in particular: Who in God's name decided that all-powder blue uniforms are a good idea?

I placed a call to the Titans' HQ this morning looking for answers. The young lady with whom I spoke heard this from my end:

As yesterday's game unfolded, I kept waiting for a gaggle of men -- some sporting a Jeff Fisher fit-for-a-porn-star mustache -- to emerge wearing wigs and ill-fitting cheerleader outfits to cheer on the powderpuff, er, powder blue Titans from Tennessee. Who on earth decided that the Titans would take the field in such garishly ugly uniforms?!

I was told that the Titans' choice of uniforms yesterday was a "clubhouse decision." After speaking to someone who actually works in the clubhouse, I still couldn't pin down an individual, or individuals, who would take credit for yesterday's powder blue nightmare.

Because the Titans bested the Colts in such a dramatic fashion (60-yard game-winning field goals don't come along very often), I'm afraid that the Titans players may develop a superstitious attachment to the, ahem, unique uniform combo in which they took the field yesterday. If that is indeed the case, I will be forced to dust off the Pittsburgh Steelers cap that's been languishing in my closet since immediately after the successful NFL Yes! campaign of a decade ago. (Black and gold is a manly color scheme, n'est-ce pas?!)

This morning's Knoxville News-Sentinel aks important questions:

"John Wilder has served the state for a long time, and much of his service has been with distinction. But do we want him to continue to embarrass the state by criticizing officials who enforce the law in Tennessee or by conducting himself as if ethics don't matter?

"Would we want him to become governor?"

The answer, of course, is no.

"Looking for a silver lining in a country where about 37% of children are born outside marriage, some commentators have chosen to speculate that many of today's single moms are in fact hip, prosperous women, perhaps in their 30s or older, who have decided that they don't need a husband to fulfill their dreams. We've even seen the suggestion that the unwed trend reflects America's evolution as a more tolerant, diverse country when it comes to "lifestyle choices," reports the Wall Street Journal.

"Yet experts who have looked closely at the phenomenon have hardly anything positive to say. Past research indicates that the bulk of unwed births are to young women, typically in their 20s, who are not college-educated and are not prospering. There's also a mountain of evidence to suggest that children raised by such single mothers are at an increased risk for virtually every social problem you can think of -- poverty, crime, drug use, etc. -- including single parenthood." [emphasis mine]

"The allegations of political influence that sparked the unraveling of the leadership of the Tennessee Highway Patrol last year were never investigated by the agency, the THP said Friday as it made public a nearly empty case file on the incident that was missing some notes," reports this morning's Tennessean ... on page 6B. (If and when a newspaper wants to make certain that people do not pay attention to an important story, it publishes stories near the obituaries on a Saturday.)

"The alleged attempt by Ricky J. McWilliams of Halls, Tenn., to use political connections to get out of a drunken-driving charge launched The Tennessean's investigation of the THP last year. After the initial story broke in August 2005, Safety Commissioner Fred Phillips — who would step down with other THP leaders later that year — told the news media he had ordered a full review of the McWilliams DUI case. ...

"Gov. Phil Bredesen's administration faced criticism last year when The Tennessean reported that sexual and workplace harassment investigations were not being fully documented. In some cases, notes that were taken were shredded. Meanwhile, a separate probe by the newspaper showed that the honorary THP badges were given out to campaign donors, celebrities and friends of the powerful."

Vermont Senator-elect Bernie Sanders, the only avowed socialist in the U.S. Congress, says the gov'ment should consider utilizing "cost controls," meaning price controls, to bring down the price of prescription drugs; and he seems to be equally in favor of enacting the silly plan to re-import drugs from Canada, which was supported by various Democrats during this year's congressional campaign. Sen.-elect Sanders' sentiments are no doubt shared by many a member of the voting public these days; however, such thinking is borne out of a disturbing ignorance of basic economic principles.

Ever since the cost of prescription drugs became a catch-phrase political issue, liberals (and a few Republicans who should know better) have been peddling the canard that rising drug prices are due to "greed" in the pharmaceutical industry. To say that prices result from greed implies that companies can set prices where they wish, that prices are not determined by supply and demand.

Economists tell us that prices rise when demand exceeds output. Demand for new drugs has increased dramatically in recent years; it was inevitable that drug prices would follow suit. It's also important to remember that developing a new drug often costs in excess of $500 million. Millions of dollars are also spent on drugs that never reach the market. Thus, an enormous amount of capital is invested in drugs BEFORE they ever fill the pill bottles of consumers. In our free market system, drug companies are just as entitled to a return on their investment as anyone. (Those who suggest that drug companies - nay any companies, for that matter - are "too profitable" are simply repeating outdated socialist nostrums.)

Canadian consumers pay lower prices for prescription drugs because Canada's government-run health care system employs price controls. When they introduce drugs into the Canadian market, U.S. drug companies can charge just enough to cover manufacturing costs. Most of the burden of paying for research, development, and distribution falls on American consumers. Those people who think that they're doing an end-around on the drug companies by running to Canada for prescriptions are only deluding themselves. Every American consumer who has purchased prescription drugs has already helped to subsidize those low prices. Indeed, the only reason Canadian price controls "work" is because the true cost of pharmaceuticals shipped into Canada has been shifted to U.S. consumers.

So, what's the easiest way to lower drug prices in the United States? The answer is not price controls, as Sen.-elect Sanders suggests. Price controls will only create shortages (look back at the history of price controls for the past, oh, 2,000 years). U.S. drug companies should follow GlaxoSmithKline's lead and threaten to withhold drugs from Canada and Europe until they allow prices to rise to more sensible levels. We will all enjoy cheaper drugs if Canadians and Europeans are forced to pay free-market prices.