Between Posts

While this paper by the Royal College of Surgeons in England was written more than 100 years prior to the COVID pandemic of the 2020's and its subject is the disease of syphilis, the similarities as regards the general panic of the populace and the over-reaction by the government, as well as the deceptiveness of medical and government officials, makes the two events remarkably alike.

For the masses of Americans who are just as vociferous, thoughtless and ignorant about the matters of Separation of Church and State, and Equity, as were the English more than 100 years ago on the issues of Disestablishment and Disenfranchisement, this short treatise should be required reading. Whether you agree with the author or not, at least and at last you can say that you have some real idea of what you are talking about when you argue your case.

"Network adequecy" by county, with dark blue counties having higher levels, as presented during the Georgia House Health Committee meeting.   Credit:  Georgia House of Representatives By now, all the frogs (American taxpayers) covered by the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) have been boiled, rendering most criticism of the socialist medical insurance program moot. But sometimes the urge to prove that you were right all along outweighs the probability that such proof will fall on dead ears, and that is what we are doing with this post: Providing proof and expecting nothing to change as a result of our doing so. Read this , then come back to this post. The article focuses on the state of Georgia, but you can be sure that the problem is endemic to all 50 states. County-level data from last year shows some rural counties with over 90% network inadequacy. Depending on the insurance provider, people might have almost no access to allergists or obstetric gynecologists, among oth

  or   A smart fellow named Jim Abernathy, whom I do not know personally, posted on Facebook: "Meanwhile, my main grammatical pet peeve remains the "between he and I" variety, with it's many iterations. Many people seem to consider the subjective case pronouns to be inherently more elegant or correct than the objective case, and apparently have no idea how to choose between them. The most frequent version of this is the "for We the People" strain. This past Fall, the Alaska Republican Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka became my grammatical hero when I heard her say "for Us the People" on Mark Levin's show. The allusion to the Constitution's preamble was still quite clear, and she recognized that she didn't have to commit a grammatical atrocity to make it! Rare discernment, these days." To which I replied: "And I would like to add here that there is a simple way for people to always get it right, and that is to remove the conjun