Ready to Shoot

Ready to Shoot

by Ed Nowicki and David Kopel

This article appeared in the <http://www.baltimoresun.com/> Baltimore Sun
on February 27, 2008.

Taking handguns away from law-abiding civilians can endanger them - that's a
familiar argument. What most people might not know is that many police
organizations also oppose handgun bans because of the harm they can cause to
police training and preparedness.

That's what we argued this month when we filed a friend-of-the-court brief
against the District of Columbia's handgun ban in the U.S. Supreme Court.
One of us, Ed Nowicki, is head of the International Law Enforcement
Educators and Trainers Association, a professional association of police
trainers. We were joined in the brief by the other major police firearms
training organization, the International Association of Law Enforcement
Firearms Instructors.

The lawful availability of handguns for citizens provides the police with a
much larger pool of recruits who have experience with handgun safety, and
who have learned basic familiarity or developed proficiency in the use of
handguns. That's why our brief was joined by a broad coalition of law
enforcement organizations, including the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police.

The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do
their job.

A citizen who has experience with handguns in hunting or target shooting
will have acquired the habit of keeping his finger off the trigger until the
last instant before the shot. For a police officer, this is a life-or-death
skill; staying off the trigger while drawing the weapon in an emergency
prevents accidental shootings.

Likewise, a police recruit who has enjoyed target shooting as a civilian
will have learned how to hold a handgun with a strong but not over-tight
grip, and how to keep the gun steady while firing, avoiding the muzzle flip
that causes missed shots.

There are only so many hours in a police academy for firearms training. If a
trainee is picking up a handgun for the first time, he will have to spend
time acquiring elementary familiarity with its operation - flipping the
safety on and off, and reloading quickly. It takes a while for these actions
to become second nature, and that time would be better spent refining
already developed skills, such as practicing engagement with multiple
targets.

Another amicus brief, filed by a group of retired generals and admirals,
makes a similar point about military training and describes research showing
that military recruits who have firearms training in civilian life perform
much better in combat.

Many innovations in police firearms training have been created by civilian
trainers, who often have more time to dedicate to the subject than do police
instructors; many police instructors do not teach fulltime, and those who do
must teach a variety of subjects. For the same reason, many police firearms
instructors are civilians.

Jeff Cooper, a civilian, invented The Modern Technique, which is now the
standard model for defensive pistolcraft. Mr. Cooper created the technique
after World War II, based on his observations that Army handgun shooting
methods were far from optimally effective. Many thousands of police officers
- and police trainers - learned their skills at Mr. Cooper's Gunsite Ranch
in Arizona. Other civilian experts, such as Massad Ayoob of New Hampshire
and John Farnam of Colorado, have also made important contributions to
handgun doctrine, and have themselves trained many police officers and
police instructors.

The widespread civilian possession of handguns also helps the police do
their job. In countries such as the United Kingdom (where handguns are
banned) or the Netherlands (where handguns are rare), the home-invasion
burglary rate is 48 percent to 59 percent, and many home-invasion burglaries
lead to assaults or rapes.

In the United States, only 13 percent of house burglaries take place when
someone is home, and studies show this is because about half of U.S.
homeowners have a gun. And handguns are by far the best guns for home
defense, because they're easy to maneuver in confined spaces and hard for
criminals to grab.

Because there are so many fewer home invasions in America, there are many
fewer emergencies to which the police must respond. Thus, the police have
more resources available to thwart, investigate or deter other crimes.

Where law-abiding people are allowed to have guns, criminals know they're
rolling the dice.

The Baby Name Wizard

I came across this page and found it very interesting... For those on this
email I'll break down some names and their popularity in 2006. The site
graphs the popularity of names over the last 100 years or so. As you type a
name in the graph shortens to match what you've typed.

I didn't graph everyone's name, so if you don't see yours below go over to
the site. The higher your number, the more unique your name is, the lower
the number the more popular your name.

Gennie, your name is absolutely unique.

Didier, I think your name is unique because the list doesn't include French
names?

At the bottom I've displayed what the chart looks like with my name.

<http://www.babynamewizard.com/namevoyager>
HTTP://www.babynamewizard.com/images/secondary-header.gif

http://babynamewizard.com/namevoyager/

Alexa 39

Andrea 66

Ashley 10

Beryl > 1000

Brittany 318

Carole > 1000

Christine 437

Christopher 7

Colin 111

Didier TOTALLY UNIQUE

Erin 130

Gennine TOTALLY UNIQUE

Geoff > 1000

Heather 341

Joshua 3

Justin 45

Matthew 5

Michael 2

Pamela 530

Peter 167

Rex 814

Richard 99

Samantha 10

Verna > 1000

William F. Buckley has Died

It's an unfortunate day, Mr. William F. Buckley has passed away.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE4NGRlOGM1NmYxYjdmNjk1MjliOTE2MTYxOWZkZjc=

Obama’s Big Government Tax & Spend Philosophy

If you think Obama's slogan "Yes we can" means change, you're right. But the change is for the worse. He's the most socialist of all the candidates and if he were to get his way the United States would find itself in the midst of a huge recession.

The following article is from National Review online.

 

Obama's Big-Government Vision
It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate.

By Larry Kudlow

Sen. Barack Obama is very gloomy about America, and he's aligning himself with the liberal wing of the Democratic party in hopes of coming to the nation's rescue. His proposal? Big-government planning, spending, and taxing — exactly what the nation and the stock market do not want to hear.

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to "reopen" trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple this benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.

This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals he's looking more and more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?

Dan Henninger, writing in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, notes that Obama's is a profoundly pessimistic message. "Strip away the new coat of paint from the Obama message and what you find is not only familiar," writes Henninger. "It's a downer."

Obama wants you to believe that America is in trouble, and that it can only be cured with a big lurch to the left. Take from the rich and give to the non-rich. Redistribute income and wealth. It's an age-old recipe for economic disaster. It completely ignores incentives for entrepreneurs, small family-owned businesses, and investors. You can't have capitalism without capital. But Obama would penalize capital, be it capital from corporations or investors. This will only harm, and not advance, opportunities for middle-class workers.

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

Imitate the failures of Germany, Norway, and Sweden? That's no way to run economic policy.

I have so far been soft on Obama this election season. In many respects he is a breath of fresh air. He's an attractive candidate with an appealing approach to politics. Obama is likeable, and sometimes he gets it — such as when he opposed Hillary Clinton's five-year rate-freeze on mortgages.

But his message is pessimism, not hope. And behind the charm and charisma is a big-government bureaucrat who would take us down the wrong economic road. 

Chavez’s Simon Bolivar

The Economist has an article on Simon Bolivar and how Hugo Chavez is trying to reinvent the man as a socialist. It's a bit like 1984.

 

 

Simón Bolívar


Time to liberate the Liberator

Feb 7th 2008
From The Economist print edition

Venezuela's president rewrites the history of his hero

Get article background

IN LATIN AMERICA it often seems that the past is of more moment than the present, and nowhere more so than in Venezuela. Hugo Chávez, the country's leftist president, invokes Simón Bolívar, the liberator of northern South America from Spain, as his inspiration. He claims to be leading a "Bolivarian Revolution" and has renamed the country the "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela".

Last month Mr Chávez took this cult of the past a step further. On January 28th the official gazette carried decrees setting up two investigative committees. The first will look at (deteriorating) public health in the capital. The second, composed of the vice-president, no fewer than ten ministers, the attorney-general and the head of the cultural institute, has a weightier mission: its job is to "clear up the important doubts woven around the death of the Liberator". In December, Mr Chávez said that Bolívar might have been poisoned by his Colombian opponents. That is not his only extravagant claim. He has implied that Bolívar was a socialist or even a communist, comparing him to both Mao Zedong and Che Guevara.

Bolívar was indeed a great military leader. He believed that the newly liberated countries should stick together. In that sense he is rightly held up as an early champion of Latin American integration, even though sticking together proved impossible. Yet many of his political ideas were very different from Mr Chávez's.

Bolívar was a Venezuelan aristocrat who inherited estates and mines. He was a man of the Enlightenment, a reader of Adam Smith and John Locke as well as of Voltaire and Rousseau. He was an economic liberal who freed his own slaves, but a political conservative. He believed the new republics needed strong government. He admired the United States, although he feared its potential power. He was a devoted Anglophile—hardly the attitude of an "anti-imperialist".

His soldierly imperiousness caused him to be disliked in Peru and in highland Colombia. In 1828 a group of conspirators in Bogotá, tiring of his dictatorship, broke into the presidential palace bent on murdering him. Bolívar escaped. But after the (unconnected) murder of Sucre, his most loyal general, he set off, ailing and disillusioned, for a proposed exile in Europe.

Bolívar got as far as the port of Santa Marta, where in 1830 he expired from tuberculosis. In a beautifully written novel, "The General in his Labyrinth", Gabriel García Márquez, a Colombian writer, modishly portrayed Bolívar as a man of the people traduced by a reactionary oligarchy. But neither Mr García Márquez nor any serious historian has suggested that he was poisoned. John Lynch, his most recent biographer, points out that the dying Bolívar was watched over by a "qualified and conscientious" French doctor whose medical bulletins were published in Caracas in 1875-78. In his book, Mr Lynch accuses Mr Chávez of "a modern perversion" of the longstanding cult of Bolívar encouraged by many Venezuelan presidents.

It was surely not coincidental that Mr Chávez made his poisoning claim while trying to stir up nationalist feeling against Colombia, accusing its generals of wanting to assassinate him. As the bicentenary of the start of Latin America's independence struggle in 1810 approaches, it may be time for a different sort of investigative committee to be set up. Let historians liberate the poor Liberator from the politicians who would abuse his name.

 

Gross National Love?

Below is a neat study on love versus GDP around the world. The United States, though, wasn't surveyed.

The article is from the Freakonomics blog at the NY Times.


February 14, 2008, 9:32 am
The Macroeconomics of Love: A Valentine's Day Analysis
By Justin Wolfers

Who says there's no romance in macroeconomics? Betsey Stevenson and I are currently working on a paper for a forthcoming Brookings Panel, assessing the relationship between levels of economic development and various measures of subjective well-being.

We are working with an absolutely fabulous data set: the Gallup World Poll. The good folks at Gallup are now surveying people in more than 130 countries every year. And they are asking all sorts of interesting questions about subjective well-being.

In honor of Valentine's Day, let me give you a sneak peek of our findings on love and economic development.


It turns out that love is incredibly democratic, and is as common in poor countries as it is in rich countries. And, encouragingly, about 70 percent of us report feeling a lot of love on any given day. This isn't as obvious as it may sound, as love's enemy, anger, is significantly more prevalent in poor countries than in rich.

The data suggest some interesting places to look for love: the Philippines, Rwanda, and Puerto Rico top the "love tables." Meanwhile those in Armenia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan are feeling the least love. (Unfortunately, the love question wasn't asked in the United States.)
While subjective data are relatively new to economics, I'm very excited by what we can learn, and will be sure to get back to you with more results as our research continues.

Now that we can measure something about Gross National Love, you can be sure that economists will start theorizing about it, and crunching these data to test their theories. What is your theory of love, and how might we test it in the data?

The Unintended Consequences of Al Gore

Below is an excellent piece from the folks that brought us Freakonomics. The article discusses the unintended consequences of growing and pushing for biofuels.

This article doesn’t mention it, but last year the price of corn tortillas skyrocketed in Mexico due to the demand for corn as a biofuel. I bet Al Gore never intended to gouge the poor for one of their staple commodities. But he did and like many other things good intentions end up damning us all.



Global Warming and the Minefield of Unintended Consequences
By Melissa Lafsky

Dubner and Levitt recently wrote a column discussing the unintended consequences of legislation intended to help the neediest segments of society.

Few movements for change have met with as many unintended consequences as the efforts, both in the public and private sector, to combat global warming. Take biofuels (another topic Dubner has addressed here and here). Hailed as the darling of the alternative fuel market, this new energy source, led by the most popular form, ethanol, was declared the solution to burning fossil fuels in 2006. It has since been embraced by companies from luxury car makers to airlines. To meet the growing demand for ethanol, U.S. farmers and agribusiness firms invested millions in growing corn (a move that has already come back to bite them financially). Biofuels have become such a staple of international plans to combat climate change, reports the Times, that governments are even legislating and subsidizing their use:

The EU has mandated that countries use 5.75 percent biofuel for transport by the
end of 2008. In the United States, a proposed energy package would require that
15 percent of all transport fuels be made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these
goals, biofuels production is heavily subsidized at many levels on both
continents.

Fantastic! A worldwide movement to cut emissions and halt what a growing number of scientists call a massive global crisis. Except it all hit a roadblock last week, when two newly-released studies reported that the net environmental effect of using biofuels may be even more harmful than burning the gasoline they were created to replace.

The first study, led by Princeton University environment and economics researcher Timothy Searchinger, found that replacing fossil fuels with corn-based ethanol could actually double greenhouse gas emissions for the next thirty years. As Scientific American writer David Biello explains it:

“Prior analyses made an accounting error,” says [Searchinger]. … “There is a
huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a hectare [2.47 acres] of
forest or grassland from the benefit you get from
biofuels.”

Growing plants store carbon in their roots, shoots and
leaves. As a result, the world’s plants and the soil in which they grow contain
nearly three times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. …

By
turning crops such as corn, sugarcane and palm oil into biofuels — whether
ethanol, biodiesel, or something else — proponents hope to reap the benefits of
the carbon soaked up as the plants grow to offset the carbon dioxide (CO2)
emitted when the resulting fuel is burned. But whether biofuels emit more or
less CO2 than gasoline depends on what the land they were grown on was
previously used for…

The second study, led by Joseph Fargione, a scientist at the Nature Conservancy, found that by switching to biofuels, we could essentially be worsening climate change for the next 93 years, in that “[t]he clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land,” according to the Times. Not to mention the fact that, by switching to growing corn, U.S. farmers have turned away from growing other crops, such as soy. As a result, Fargione told the Times, “‘Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world’s soybeans — and they’re deforesting the Amazon to do it.’”

So in a matter of days, biofuels go from a celebrated fossil fuels alternative to a rainforest-killing disaster, with scientists already calling for government reform on biofuel policies. If anything, this provides a window into how little we actually know about this issue, and the wide lengths left to go in reaching a viable solution.

New Blog Format

I've updated the template for the blog site and it looks a lot different. I
decided to use a much simpler format as I use various methods to post. Some
of the methods would format rather ugly on the previous blog design, so I
decided to use something much more basic.

Enjoy.

Che & Obama (Justin's Take)

Justin's take on Hillary's proposal:

I guess it doesn't matter anymore man.

I just love how biofuels are pitched as 'green' because they are made from ingredients that humans can consume, and therefore MUST be better for the environment. Never mind the fact that biofuels pollute nearly 2x as much (according to a recent study on ethanol).

Now for the 'play by play':

Hillary's Green Jobs Plan will (raise taxes):

• Modernize 20 Million Low-Income Homes to Improve Energy Efficiency (this money will come from increased tax on individuals as well as businesses).
• Provide emergency energy assistance for Maryland families facing skyrocketing heating bills (this vote buying measure will again be paid for by tax revenue).
• Invest $5 billion in accelerated energy efficiency and alternative energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth (this $5 billion will just grow on trees...you and I won't have to pay a dime here).
• Create a $50 Billion Strategic Energy Fund and Demand that Oil Companies Invest in Clean Energy (Oil companies are OIL COMPANIES, if the public demand is such, "NEW" industry could emerge and challenge the Oil Companies).
• Raise Fuel Economy Standards. Hillary has proposed a plan to raise fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030 (Kiss your truck good bye, you'll be driving a go kart).
• Help Automakers Retool Plants (why do they need to be retooled? Is she talking about machine tools....or Corporate 'tools'?).
• Promote Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV) (Ahh..yes. PHEVs are soooo green. They take electricity from your HOME, and store it in LEAD and ACID batteries that after a few years must be sent to special 'HAZMAT' landfills. Go Green. Go PHEV!!!).
• Create a Green Building Fund to Make Public Buildings More Energy Efficient (this "Fund" will no doubt be paid for by taxes).
• Train "Green Collar" Workers (what is a "Green Collar" worker anyway?I understand Blue Collar, I understand White Collar...where does green fit in?).

In short...taxes will go up, wealth will be redistributed, industries will crumple, and landfills will be inundated with dead PHEV batteries. Go Hillary!!! WOOHOO!!!!

Oil companies are the cornerstone of our economy, and the only sector not facing SEVERE hardships right now. Sure they make massive profits, it's not like they just throw it in the bank and sit on it. No, they spend it. Oil creates jobs, lets make them unprofitable so we can all be equally miserable. The only thing she'll 'accelerate' is the demise of my beloved
USA.

Che & Obama

This quickly gets my blood boiling. Aside from the fact that Obama's forNationalized Healthcare, a ban on semi-automatic weapons, a complete ban onhandguns, big government and a nanny state, this just adds one more item tothe list of why you'll never find me left of center.

Granted the flag may not have been endorsed by Obama
himself, but itcertainly represents to his campaigners and staff the momentum
and directionhis campaign is headed.

This flag of Che Quevera hangs behind the desk of the
person in charge ofthe Obama campaign office here in Houston. The Fox reporter,
Ford Atkinson,did not ask any questions about the flag and it was only shown
briefly,probably not intended to have been seen.

Kooky economic theories, class warfare and forced
redistribution of wealth -it's not just a Cuban phenomenon. The revolution has
finally spread to thebrand new Barack Obama office.
If you were running a
candidate's local campaign office, what would you puton the wall? Old Glory? The
Texas flag? Or maybe the banner of a hostileCommunist police state?

Fox
has the video

Clinton's Insane Ideas

I dislike Clinton's platform immensely. On the one hand she discusses
harnessing "America's entrepreneurial spirit" to tackle renewable energies
and in another breathe she's talking about forcing private companies to pay
for R&D into other technologies. Why doesn't she just come out and state
that she's going to nationalize energy companies? Essentially she's trying
to do something similar! It's insane.

The market will find a better way when the technology finally comes to
fruition. It can't be FORCED! People just don't want to hear that no
matter what has been discovered to date, fossil fuel is the most EFFICIENT
fuel out there. Our trucks, ships, planes and home energy demands will not
be met with hopes and good intentions.

And how exactly does the President create new jobs??? Jobs are created in
the private sector in response to demand causing businesses and sectors to
grow.

Below is the egregious blog post from Clinton's campaign site:

Feed: blogHillary
Posted on: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:55 PM
Author: Crystal Patterson
Subject: Hillary's Plan to Create a Green Jobs Revolution: Creating New,
High-Wage Jobs of the Future

Today, at the General Motors Allison Transmission Plant, in White Marsh,
Maryland, Hillary outlined her Green Jobs plan, which will stimulate
economic growth, end our dependence on foreign oil and provide good-paying
jobs in Maryland and around the country. Hillary's plan will transform the
way we use energy, finally require large oil companies to pay their fair
share towards renewable technologies, and create at least five million new
jobs in the process.

Hillary's Green Jobs Plan will:

* Modernize 20 Million Low-Income Homes to Improve Energy Efficiency.
* Provide emergency energy assistance for Maryland families facing
skyrocketing heating bills.
* Invest $5 billion in accelerated energy efficiency and alternative
energy investments to jumpstart green collar job growth.
* Create a $50 Billion Strategic Energy Fund and Demand that Oil
Companies Invest in Clean Energy.
* Raise Fuel Economy Standards. Hillary has proposed a plan to raise
fuel economy standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030.
* Help Automakers Retool Plants.
* Promote Plug-In Hybrids (PHEV).
* Create a Green Building Fund to Make Public Buildings More Energy
Efficient.
* Train "Green Collar" Workers.

Hillary believes our climate crisis presents us with a significant
opportunity. She is prepared to harness America's entrepreneurial spirit and
make the bold investments necessary to lead us to an energy independent
future, of which green-collar jobs are the cornerstone. Read more on
<http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5909> Hillary's plan
to create a Green Jobs revolution.

View article... <http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=43265>

FW: Like hope, but different

This is very interesting.

Feed: Democracy in America
Posted on: Monday, February 11, 2008 2:07 PM
Author: Democracy in America
Subject: Like hope, but different

Anti-McCain viral video

View
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/02/like_hope_but_dif
ferent.cfm> article...

GOP Valentine's Day Cards

Below are some funny "Liberal" Valentine's Day Cards from the GOP:
http://net.gop.com/valentine/Default.aspx

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_obama4.jpg

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_clinton1.jpg

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_obama1.jpg

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_clinton2.jpg

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_obama3.jpg

http://net.gop.com/valentine/images/vec_clinton3.jpg

English language succumbs to Symbiotic Ephemeralization

This is the worst case usage of buzzwords I've ever encountered.
Horrendous!

English
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/08/symbiotic_ephemeralization/>
language succumbs to Symbiotic Ephemeralization

Web Site Sells North Korean Luxury Goods

Ha:

The challenge for the country in peddling its wares, however, is quality.

"They have nothing serious to sell," said Lankov, who teaches at Seoul's
Kookmin <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328095,00.html> University and
studied in North Korea. "Nobody wants the products. Everything is bad."

People looking for something exotic, however, might be interested, he said.

Feed: FOXNews.com
Posted on: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:43 AM
Author: foxnewsonline@foxnews.com
Subject: Web Site Sells North Korean Luxury Goods

Strange government-run site can sell you an SUV, postage stamps or boxing
gloves -- when it's running properly, that is.

View article... <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328095,00.html>

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

So rather than just bill someone for healthcare received because they're
uninsured, Hillary would authorize yet another way for the government to
come into our lives to punish us... don't we have enough things going on in
our lives that we don't need to juggle the demands and pressures of the
government, too? Seriously, Hillary, STAY OUT OF MY LIFE.

A quote from the article "Clinton
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31> health
plan may mean tapping pay":

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish
the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage
for all Americans.