« Bush in Al Anbar Province, Iraq | Main | Quechup...the social networking platform spamming the globe »

John Edwards: I'll Outlaw Christian Scientists

Well, not quite, but I think that that falls under the "fake but accurate" aegis.

Edwards says that under his plan for national mandatory health coverage, we will all be required to have regular checkups and "preventive care." From there, it's just a short step to mandatory treatment, regardless of any objections -- including religious beliefs.

Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind immediately.

I thought his side was all about "choice" when it came to matters of our bodies and our health?


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/23804.

Comments (50)

John Edwards is a phoney id... (Below threshold)
RFA:

John Edwards is a phoney idiot (if there can be such a thing)
He is entertaining to watch as an example of everything you would never want in a President.

Liberals like to control pe... (Below threshold)
Steve of Norway:

Liberals like to control people.

"Liberals like to control p... (Below threshold)
Michael:

"Liberals like to control people." Why is that?...when they can't run their own lives very well.

Well, Yeah, libera... (Below threshold)
Cole:

Well,

Yeah, liberals can't run their own lives very well. But the more lives they can run, the greater the likelihood that one will turn out well, just based on the stopped-clock premise (a stopped clock is right twice a day).

If even one life run by a liberal turns out okay then the liberal can die satisfied that even though their life was a miserable failure, they made sure someone else's was not. (Often that life would have turned out better if the liberals had not been running it -- but this isn't about the person whose life was changed. It is about the satisfaction the liberal can draw from that life. Kind of the way a spider gets satisfaction from sucking the life out of a fly.)

Oh Jay, it'll be a snap! Ju... (Below threshold)

Oh Jay, it'll be a snap! Just remember to submit this form with you 1040 on April 15 and President Edwards will be very very pleased.

Next step ... rationing and regulating white sugar, transfats, red meat ... of course outlawing tobacco smoking and motorcycles .. and a rating system of restaurants so any Food Establishment with too much alfredo or steak on the menu is barred from serving anyone under 18.

Silky Pony has plans!

Geesh... I thought Edwards ... (Below threshold)
marc:

Geesh... I thought Edwards tank was empty of sharks to jump. Guess not.

But I sure would love to see a "President Edwards" frog march a Jehovah's Witnesses' child off to the hospital for a "preventive care" blood transfusion.

What a blithering idiot.

I thought his side... (Below threshold)
I thought his side was all about "choice" when it came to matters of our bodies and our health?

Only if it doesn't impede the rush to socialism. Socialism is the goal. All other matters are secondary.

And if we get one of these democratics in the White House and a democrat Congress, it's going to be a full sprint toward socialism. They won't squander that opportunity if it presents itself.

Funny how they project this... (Below threshold)

Funny how they project this stuff first. So, if my FBI file can somehow find its way to Hillary's basement fifteen years ago then why should I worry about this now? Maybe this?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/usercomments?start=90

Silky Pony makes Hillary look like a ....mare. Is he interested in more than my blood type? Or as Darleen noted, does he want my required sigmoidoscopy results?

Here is the answer...he's out of control and throwing candy to the mob.


I thought his side... (Below threshold)
I thought his side was all about "choice" when it came to matters of our bodies and our health?

Only when the choice is to slaughter an innocent baby or not.

Regardless of how you feel ... (Below threshold)
Mike:

Regardless of how you feel about "mandatory" doctor visits, consider this:

"Edwards said his plan would cost up to $120 billion a year, a cost he proposes covering by ending President Bush's tax cuts to people who make more than $200,000 per year."

Here is the Federal Budget mandatory spending for FY 2006:

* Social Security - $544 billion
* Medicare - $325 billion
* Medicaid - $186 billion
* All other mandatory programs - $357 billion. These programs include Food Stamps, Unemployment Compensation, Child Nutrition, Child Tax Credits, Supplemental Security for the blind and disabled, Student Loans, and Retirement / Disability programs for Civil Servants, the Coast Guard and the Military

And the Breck Girl wants us to believe that his socialized medicine/mandiatory exam and treatment scheme for every single person living in Americais only going to cost about 40% of what we currently spend on Medicare? Just how stupid does he think we are?

Further, he wants us to believe that simply raising tax rates for the top two tiers of income earners (from 33% to 36%, and from 35% to 39.6% respectively) is going to magically generate that $120 billion in immediate tax revenue.

And then there is the inconvenient fact that family practitioners are already in short supply, due to the fact that they earn significantly less than virtually all other specialists. Forcing every person in America to be assigned to a family practitioner will stretch family practice to the breaking point; that is, unless Edwards also has a magic plan to double or triple the number of family practitioners in the next five years.

I can think of a number of nightmare scenarios -- forcing surgeons, neurologists, OB-GYNs, oncologists, etc. to perform these health checks on top of their current load of specialty patients, or perhaps assigning primary care to nurse practitioners or physician's assistants. Then again, each of these solutions would reduce the quality of care and increase the probablilty for malpractice, so I suppose Edwards' trial lawyer buddies would make out like bandits.

Perhaps Edwards is really motivated by the opportunity to line his own pockets and secure the future of fellow ambulance chasers, rather than provide all Americans with the best health care possible.

Preventative care? to preve... (Below threshold)
914:

Preventative care? to prevent what..liberalism?

It's already too late to prevent the mental illness that this egotistical hypocrite suffers from..

How long will it be before ... (Below threshold)

How long will it be before the government starts making the decisions on who can become what kind of doctor?

Wasn't that one of Hillary's concepts in HillaryCare?

Then how far into the future, when not enough people elect to go to med school and practice medicine, that the government starts telling students they have to become a doctor because they have an aptitude for it.

After all, so many of these lefties insist we need a draft to make sure our military is fully manned and ensure everyone shares the burden of defending our nation. Why wouldn't it be okay to make someone be a doctor or a certain kind of doctor under the same principles?

Student (to health care career recruiter): But man, I can't stand the sight of blood.

Recruiter: Komrade, you have no idea about blood until you refuse generous offer to serve in Motherland Health Care Services.

to prevent what..l... (Below threshold)
to prevent what..liberalism?

Won't be covered under national mental health care. Won't be recognized as a mental problem as it will mirror exactly ideas of Democratic Socialist Workers Party of U.S.A. (United Socialist America).

Our neighbor when I was a k... (Below threshold)
Paul Hamilton:

Our neighbor when I was a kid was a Christian Scientist. She got a blister on her foot that ended up with gangrene and her whole leg being amputated when she finally became unconscious and her next of kin was able to make medical decisions for her. Oddly enough, she didn't commit suicide to atone for the operation afterward and I never heard her bemoan her sorry fate of remaining alive.

But anyway, I agree this is not the government's place to decide just as it wasn't their place to decide in the Terri Schiavo case.

This sort of "preventative ... (Below threshold)

This sort of "preventative medicine" runs quickly into the Law of Diminishing Returns. By forcing healthy people with no symptoms to consult health care professionals when they do not need to - most asymptomatic health problems would only be detected with extensive unindicated testing which even Edwards' plan doesn't envision making a regular free feature - only clogs the system, causing misallocation of resources.

People will die for no other reason than to sacrifice their lives to Edwards' idiotic concept of "universal health care." Just as they do every day in Canada and Britain and elsewhere.

Scratch a progressive, even... (Below threshold)
kim:

Scratch a progressive, even lightly, and the authoritarian is revealed.
=========================

I've attended services at a... (Below threshold)

I've attended services at a Jehovah's Witness Kingdom Hall many times, and the only real medical objections this religious group has is to blood transfusions. The Bible makes it clear in the Old Testament that the "Life is in the blood", and that blood is a precious item where many have contracted AIDS or hepatitis from alcoholics or drug addicts who have sold their blood for profit to blood banks in the past. A person can have their own blood stored by a hospital prior to surgery or in the event of an accident, but a transfusion from some stranger can present some risk.

Procrustes for President.<b... (Below threshold)
kim:

Procrustes for President.
================

Of course, people will be v... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Of course, people will be victimized by the government bureaucracy which will determine which procedures and treatment are acceptable, and which ones are not. The latest treatment fads will be made mandatory and alternative methods will be banned. If you want something other than chemotherapy for your cancer, too bad. If it ain't on the checklist, you're outta luck. If you don't take the approved meds like a good little boy, even if they have been proven to be ineffective, you don't get your monthly government benefits.

I'd have to take Mike to ta... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'd have to take Mike to task for stating that having mid-level practitioners perform preventive health care would decrease the quality of care people receive. That's Moonbat Guano. Mid-levels already perform a large proportion of preventive health care in the US, and they do at least if not better jobs than their physician colleagues.

Preventive Health Examinations include reviewing health risks by reviewing family and personal health history, determining vaccination status, tuberculosis screening, eye and hearing screening, congenital disease screening, screening and education for maladaptive behaviors (obesity, tobacco, alcohol, drug use and abuse, high risk sexual activity), chronic disease screening (hypertension, diabetes, cholesterol and other fat disorders, cancer for example). They may be associated with recommendations and education regarding the findings of the exam, but they are separate from treatment. Heck, you have to use a separate billing code if you actually treat something during a preventive health exam.

Annual exams are not appropriate for all ages. The periodicity of exams varies with age and known risk factors (PAP smears, for example, are repeated at intervals dependent upon whether previous results were normal or not).

Nonetheless, I take to task anyone who belittles preventive health requirements as part of health insurance programs. What is truly abominable is that most health plans offer minimum coverage for preventive health procedures except where required by law.

The Breck Boy's comments may or may not be appropriate, but the spirit of making preventive exams universally available, and requirements for health insurability is not such a crazy or bad idea as long as the preventive exams required are based on evidence-based and cost-effective screening procedures.


And yet this jerk can hold ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

And yet this jerk can hold a streight face while urging us all to give up our SUVs while traveling around in his 4 mpg limo and in his private jets and live at his estate with its huge utility bill WHAT A BLABBERING IDIOT

If preventative health care... (Below threshold)

If preventative health care really does avoid the bigger problems later *why* do insurance companies not cover it? (Speaking of the ones that actually don't.) You'd think they'd be all about their bottom line, huh?

Doesn't Edwards have to be ... (Below threshold)
roy:

Doesn't Edwards have to be elected first, and then find enough people in Congress dumber than him? The glaciers will melt long before then.

"John Edwards: I'll Outlaw ... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

"John Edwards: I'll Outlaw Christian Scientists"

...of course..as you point out...he didn't really say or claim that...or refer to it...As Edwards is for separation of State and Church he probably would continue to allow those who allow their children do die rather than receive medical care...to continue to do so...
Question...Is it child abuse if a child's death could have been prevented by professional medical care?

The reality is that most "p... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

The reality is that most "preventive" health care has poor return on investment. The claim is always that preventive care reduces the amount of health care expenditure by more than its cost, but this has seldom proven true. In fact, the entire reason that the HMO's were created was this argument. That an HMO would have an economic incentive to spend on preventive care - but the economics did not work out that way. There is controversy that mammogram screenings are not bringing the return expected for example.

The rare exceptions are smoking cessation programs and weight loss programs.

Question for YOU Nogo:... (Below threshold)
Metprof:

Question for YOU Nogo:

Is it child abuse if a child dies as he exits the birth canal and has his skull pierced and brains sucked out?

SPQR:The payback f... (Below threshold)
epador:

SPQR:

The payback for most preventive health is measured in decades. Since there is no immediate savings, there is little corporate incentive to include it. How many people keep the same health insurance for 15 or 20 years (except Medicare and Medicaid)? HMO's fail mainly because there is a strong profit incentive and very weak health maintenance incentive in their structure. If their controlling boards were 51% or more consumers who took their job seriously, I bet they would be a lot more effective and responsive to the needs of their insured.

Granted, there is a lot of Moonbat Guano being sold as preventive health screening, but its hard to argue against vaccination, STD screening, early identification and treatment of diabetes and hypertension to prevent complications and tuberculosis screening. Being told by your provider to quit smoking or drinking at a preventive health visit, though relatively low in effect, still has more weight and positive effect than any anti-abuse advertising. I'd agree that a lot of cancer screening other than the PAP smear is hard to justify as "Cost Effective." That's where the use of evidence-based analysis to choose what kind of screening you perform is important.

BTW, the careful examination of the mammogram data cost benefit shows some benefit in select age groups that was enthusiastically but inappropriately applied to larger populations, thus leading to the poor benefit ratios seen in the mass programs. Similar problems exist with screening for colon cancer. There is yet to be a really effective screening tool for lung cancer, still a major killer.

Left out of above in screening and referral (as well as availability of) dental and mental health problems. We know that poor dental health has a strong correlation with serious cardiac disease, and that most visits to the Family Doctor (or provider) are related more to mental health rather than physical problems. Huge sums of health care dollars in hospitals, emergency rooms and outpatient settings are wasted trying to diagnose and treat physical ailments in folks who are mentally ill. Antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs are thrown at patients by their primary care providers without significant evaluation or monitoring by mental health professions, usually because they are just not available for physical or economic reasons.

While this is outside the scope of preventive screening medical exams, it needs to be part of the general public health policy to effectively address the issues. The Surgeon General tried to push for better mental health availability, preparedness for response to disasters and community health about 4 years ago and found himself having to backpedal (most of the on-line speeches, papers and statements quickly vanished from the SG site) most likely due to folks concerned about cost issues.

Of course he only wants tho... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Of course he only wants those who share the liberal ape to man poppycock bull kaka or man is cuasing global warming

I just hope his healthcare ... (Below threshold)
moseby:

I just hope his healthcare plan includes haircuts.

You guys are seriously frea... (Below threshold)
jim:

You guys are seriously freaking out and calling "fascism", over a plan that everyone gets checked out for their health?

Wow.

I guess we all need to defend ourselves against this terrible evil, that could add years to all our lives and improve our quality of living.

But warrantless wiretapping, which intervenes in our right to privacy, and the Administration's demand that they be able to hold anyone for any length of time for *any* reason or *no* reason, with *no* access to legal counsel and *no* right to even see what they're charged with - that's no threat to our freedoms at all.

Is it so hard to admit that maybe health insurance companies are making money off people, and that maybe we can do health care a bit better? Since other nations who make less than us are outliving us by years on average?

Just a thought.

Jim, once again you didn't ... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim, once again you didn't read the post or understand it.

Not to mention that your supposed counter-evils are not relevant to the discussion ... not to mention gross exaggerations typical of your inability to accurately discuss current events. Your complete fabrications are just attempts to hijack the thread.

Question...Is it c... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
Question...Is it child abuse if a child's death could have been prevented by professional medical care?

How would you prove a child or anyone will survive any medical condition? Statistics may show the odds are in favor of survival with good medical care, but there are way too many counter examples of relatively healthy people dying at the hands of professional medical care. How many healthy kids have died from complications after receiving immunizations? How many people having minor surgery die from hospital induced infections?

If some parent objects to their kid receiving modern medical treatment for religious reasons and someone brings a law suit to force such treatment, then they should be accountable for the results. If the child dies or is permanently injured they face the same consequences the parent would have faced by not seeking medical care for the child. Let those who want to make such decisions for parents put their asses on the line for their beliefs just as parents do.

Well SPQR, I was under the ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Well SPQR, I was under the impression that this article was accusing Edwards of making a proposal, that could impinge on religious freedom. I got that from the title-

"John Edwards: I'll Outlaw Christian Scientists"

Does "outlaw" and "Christian Scientist" mean something different to you?

Or perhaps it was in the body of the article,

Edwards says that under his plan for national mandatory health coverage, we will all be required to have regular checkups and "preventive care." From there, it's just a short step to mandatory treatment, regardless of any objections -- including religious beliefs.

Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind immediately.

I thought his side was all about "choice" when it came to matters of our bodies and our health?

We're reading the same article, right? I read that as saying Edwards wants to deny choice, which is basically calling him a fascist.

If I am wrong, then what do you think is the intent of that bolded statement?

And finally, sorry that you don't like my showing how your views are not consistent when it comes to choices the ***GOP*** would rather deny us. But it is not "hijacking" and "fabrications" just because you say it is.

Please show how anything I have said here is a fabrication.

Pardon the missing end /blo... (Below threshold)
jim:

Pardon the missing end /blockquote , above. Should read:

We're reading the same article, right? I read that as saying Edwards wants to deny choice, which is basically calling him a fascist.

If I am wrong, then what do you think is the intent of that bolded statement?

And finally, sorry that you don't like my showing how your views are not consistent when it comes to choices the ***GOP*** would rather deny us. But it is not "hijacking" and "fabrications" just because you say it is.

Please show how anything I have said here is a fabrication.

Finally, just to get straig... (Below threshold)
jim:

Finally, just to get straight to how this article misquotes Edwards, here's what he actually said:

"If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

Notice the first part - "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose to not go to the doctor for 20 years."

People who don't want to go the doctor regularly, can just not be in the system. They can continue to deal with HMO's, insurance companies, faith healers, or whatever the hell they want.

So there's nothing mandatory about it - it's just common freakin' sense.

Remember this example, the next time you all complain about the so-called Liberal Media twisting someone's words - you just did it to Edwards, here.

jim, you are such a crooked... (Below threshold)

jim, you are such a crooked asshole, you must shit curlycues.

You quoted the HEADLINE of my piece, then the entire thing EXCEPT the first sentence:

Well, not quite, but I think that that falls under the "fake but accurate" aegis.

Edwards talks about "universal health care." "Universal" means everyone. No exceptions. And he wants to not only make us all enroll in it, but also go to doctors on a regular basis -- whether we want to or not.

As I said, it's not that far from mandated treatments, even if they violate religious or other deeply-held personal beliefs -- "for our own good."

J.

Jim, Jay Tea did not misquo... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Jim, Jay Tea did not misquote Edwards. Note that the AP themselves title their piece "Edwards backs mandatory preventive care".

What all your attempts at spin fail to do is remove the element of compulsion from Edwards' proposal.

Then I guess the AP got it ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Then I guess the AP got it wrong too. Huh, what?? The Media can misquote liberals as well??

As the Edwards quote shows, those who don't want to have regular preventive check-ups can continue to do whatever they want, without joining the system Edwards is proposing.

That's not mandatory, is it?

Jay, you must want to belie... (Below threshold)
jim:

Jay, you must want to believe you're right so much that you're willing to be a victim of an imaginary attack in order to prove it.

Do I need to walk through it now? OK, I will.

1) I said the article was basically accusing Edwards of being a fascist.

2) SPQR said I was misinterpreting.

3) I pointed out several things that showed I was *not* misinterpreting, including the headline, that gave me the impression you were basically calling Edwards a fascist.

4) You state that because I didn't quote one line out of your entire article, that said "not quite" - while the gist of your entire article is that Edwards wants to deny choice.

Of course it's obvious that Edwards didn't say Christian Science should be outlawed - and of course you were not saying Edwards said that.

But you *were* suggesting that Edwards so-called mandatory health plan could be an infringement on religion, right?

And you were suggesting Edwards was for a denial of choice, right? Which is basically accusing Edwards of being a fascist, is it not?

Don't call me crooked, when the twist is in your own mind.

No, jim, I'll repeat it bec... (Below threshold)

No, jim, I'll repeat it because you didn't get it:

I was not protesting that you didn't quote one line. I was noting that you quoted EVERY SINGLE WORD OF MY PIECE EXCEPT THAT ONE SENTENCE -- and it carries the critical "not quite" disclaimer.

Schmuck...

J.

Edwards talks abou... (Below threshold)
jim:
Edwards talks about "universal health care." "Universal" means everyone. No exceptions. And he wants to not only make us all enroll in it, but also go to doctors on a regular basis -- whether we want to or not.

Jay, that is your interpretation of Edwards statements.

Everyone can be wrong, isn't that true? All of us, including me and including you.

Well, Edwards quote which I showed here, indicates that your interpretation is wrong.

It appears that, from this quote, Edwards is saying that *if you want to be a part of this program*, you would be required to have regular check-ups.

"If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

This is Universal meaning "*open* to everyone", and not "*required* from everyone". There is nothing that says people can simply refuse to be part of this system.

So if you love the way things are, and would rather not go to preventive health screenings because that's too much a restriction on your freedom, you're welcome to not be a part of this program. You can keep getting screwed by insurance companies and HMO's.

No shame in being wrong. It happens to everyone. But from this quote, it looks like you are wrong.

Hey putz - I'm talking abou... (Below threshold)
jim:

Hey putz - I'm talking about implication.

Sorry I didn't include the one line. Here it is:

Well, not quite, but I think that that falls under the "fake but accurate" aegis.

Edwards says that under his plan for national mandatory health coverage, we will all be required to have regular checkups and "preventive care." From there, it's just a short step to mandatory treatment, regardless of any objections -- including religious beliefs.

Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind immediately.

I thought his side was all about "choice" when it came to matters of our bodies and our health?

Is that better?

Now please explain how that proves my argument wrong in any way.

Now I feel bad for calling ... (Below threshold)
jim:

Now I feel bad for calling you a putz. My apologies. That was not a useful response.

It was a very useful respon... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

It was a very useful response, Jim. It gave us a lot of information about you.

Unfortunately, we did not need that information as we already knew who the putz was.

SPQR, your utter lack of re... (Below threshold)
jim:

SPQR, your utter lack of refutation of any of my points is noted.

Please prove me wrong, and show me how Edwards is saying is his health care system will be *compulsory* for everyone, as opposed to *available* for everyone.

I surrender...you folks hav... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

I surrender...you folks have convinced me...no government has any right to demand coverage...
My next project will to contact my State reps and say..what right does Colorado have to mandate proof of auto insurance before we can update our registration????...

Besides it doesn't matter,; the GOP has such an outstanding slate of candidates...who have laid out specifies..no Dem has a chance anyway...
The surge is working...just give it six months...Everything has been good since 2005...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html
...Skip the useless debates and watch Thompson on Leno...

My next project wi... (Below threshold)
My next project will to contact my State reps and say..what right does Colorado have to mandate proof of auto insurance before we can update our registration????...

what does....
that have to ...do with anything...that...is..
being discussed...?...

Driving on publicly provided roads...is not mandatory...It's optional...a privlege...if you will...

If you want to drive on the roads...
shared by others...you will need to meet certain requirements...for their protection...if you choose not to...
meet those requirements...you don't get to drive on the roads...
at least not legally...

nogo... if you succeed in g... (Below threshold)

nogo... if you succeed in getting your state reps to do that... you'll have caught up to New Hampshire... we don't have mandatory insurance here... and we haven't self-destructed yet...

We also don't have seat belt or helmet laws for adults. That's because -- UNLIKE a lot of other states -- we expect adults to ACT like adults.

I can see why that thought would scare you, though...

J.

Edwards talks about "uni... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Edwards talks about "universal health care." "Universal" means everyone. No exceptions. And he wants to not only make us all enroll in it, but also go to doctors on a regular basis -- whether we want to or not.

Jay, are you going to admit that your statement above is false? Specifically, as Jim noted, "universal" means "available to everyone", not "required for everyone".

That's OK. We'll wait.

OMG, JT, you just weren't a... (Below threshold)
epador:

OMG, JT, you just weren't alarmist enough. Chicken Little Fiano has outdone you by resorting to sensationalism and hyperbole.

Well, I am out of here on this one. This place is starting to resemble Wizbang Blue!




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy