Ted revisited

We are reminded that "Ted changed so many lives," and in so doing resurrected himself in the image of an advocate for the little guy; therefore he should be forgiven for that "mishap on the bridge".

An advocate for the little guy? Really? He fought welfare reform for goodness sake. How did that help the little guy? He opposed low-income parents’ choosing effective schools for their kids. That was a real help. He did demand taxpayer funding for abortions. You mean that kind of advocate?

Know what? We don’t care if his supposed concern for the masses was genuine (plenty of those "masses" in Hyannis Port aren’t there?) because where we grew up no one tolerates cowardly acts from men. You cross that line and you’re an outcast. What kind of real male was this guy? He wasn’t. He was an east coast elitist, a gutless wonder, a drunk, effeminate like most of his kind; he had no respect for women and was likely useless in the sack to boot. (The lefty women rave about this guy but no way they would make the trade for this bottom feeder if they had a cowhand in tow, just in from the roundup - a gentleman, genuine, strong and virile, right ladies?) Now the adulation, remiders of all the good this clown's done for Americans, lives he's changed, is crap. The real Ted Kennedy was in plain view that night in 1969 - drunk, felling sorry for himself, looking for cover, while a human being slowly exhausted that oxygen left to her. As Mark Steyn noted recently, "I don’t know how many lives the senator changed — he certainly changed Mary Jo’s — but you’re struck less by the precise arithmetic than by the basic equation: How many changed lives justify leaving a human being struggling for breath for up to five hours pressed up against the window in a small, shrinking air pocket in Teddy’s Oldsmobile? If the senator had managed to change the lives of even more Americans, would it have been okay to leave a couple more broads down there? Hey, why not? At the Huffington Post, Melissa Lafsky mused on what Mary Jo "would have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history . . . Who knows — maybe she’d feel it was worth it."

Have the left no limits, no standards of acceptable behavior? I think we all know the answer.



Robert Craven

Ted Kennedy - A Real Man

We’ve been "reminded" by friends on the left that Ted Kennedy redeemed himself after that little mishap on the bridge, done a heck of a lot of good since for the down-and-out and that we should all be proud of this American as he joins most of the rest of his clan in the hereafter. Wherever they are, let’s hope that driving, flying, boating or skiing are outlawed or their companions are in trouble. I can’t even imagine Ted trying his wings out. But then it’s unlikely he’ll be assigned any where he’s going.

Sure, good ‘ol Ted abandoned his girlfriend with a few minutes of oxygen left to her in an air pocket inside a submerged Olds. After partying, and then driving off a bridge (that act itself should have been enough to disqualify the guy from ever holding public office again) this useless male freed himself, leaving 28 yr old Mary Jo Kopechne to suffocate as the air ran out. He rested at the creek’s edge, then walked back to the party house. One of his "associates" took him back to his hotel. Poor devil. When you’re in a hurry to find a alibi, it can be stressful. Sure it can. Then nine hours later and after conferring with political advisers and lawyers, Kennedy called authorities to report the incident. We rarely resort to crude language in this blog but in the case of Kennedy we think the guy is a cowardly so-and-so. There. Feel much better now.

After murdering Kopechne and escaping with a suspended sentence (connections??) Kennedy took a breather, re-emerged and was promptly re-elected. Wonderful country, the good ‘ol USA. She never holds a grudge. (Neither does Harvard - Kennedy was readmitted there after being expelled for cheating.)

What kind of real damage has this guy done since? As the National Review editors put it, "...he mistook power for wisdom, and he very often left things worse than he had found them. He meddled in Northern Ireland to no good end, contributed mightily to the politicization of the federal courts, sought to regulate and restrict political speech, appeased the Soviets, contributed to the American defeat in Vietnam, and attempted to apply the Vietnam template to Iraq. A child of privilege, he worked energetically to deny school-choice scholarships to poor black children in Washington, D.C. His ideas on taxes, immigration, and social welfare were reliably counterproductive."

That about sums it up for this evening folks. What more is there to say when a left wing rag like Time describes Kennedy as a "Palm Beach boozer, lout, and tabloid grotesque." Can’t argue with that.

Robert Craven

Fatal Flaw

Well, the fun’s about over. We’ve exposed this health care scam from the beginning. Obama and the rest of the left-wingers of his party offered up a monster of a bill which none of them read but which BO thought he could ram through in a few weeks - "trust me". Pretty quick, a few citizens called him on it, knowing they were about to be had. Neither he nor any of his cronies could explain or defend their bill, while most of the unwashed knew it was nothing more than an effort to emulate the failed Canadian system.

Want to understand the source of BO’s failings? Then recall our warning of last year - his critical flaw is that he has consistently demonstrated a lack of judgement. It is that simple. Take away the glib talk and slick presentation and you have near emptiness - a lack of preparation, a lack of research, a lack of focus. Couple that with his radical progressivism, and you know you’re in trouble. He does not understand America; he does not understand Americans. He gave the party’s far left the chore of sculpting the so-called stimulus bill. Stupid. He outsourced the health plan to the partisan left-wingers of his party who are key House chairs. Stupid.

Now BO looks to emulate and celebrate Senator Kennedy’s late presence in the effort the resuscitate his failed bill. This is no wonder - Kennedy anointed BO as the Fifth Kennedy Brother during the campaign. This will prove to be only one more mistake. From Michael Beran, a contributing editor of City Journal and author of The Last Patrician: Bobby Kennedy and the End of American Aristocracy, "Obama may find it to his credit -- and his country’s – benefit to fix his gaze not on Ted, but on Jack. For in addition to his more superficial graces, President Kennedy possessed a degree of wisdom, which might be defined as grace of judgment. John Kennedy’s sentiments were liberal, but he knew that a wise president must have the country in his bones, must feel, as by instinct, the temper of the people, and must know what they will bear and what they will not. He was annoyed by those who, like Arthur Schlesinger Jr., urged him to be another FDR. Schlesinger, he said, wanted him to act as if it were 1932. But ..... the mood of the people, President Kennedy knew, had changed." For Obama, "At so critical a juncture he needs to emulate, not the intoxicated extravagances of the late senator, but the sober moderation of his older brother....."

Well put Michael.

Robert Craven

The Big Gun?

BO’s fatal flaw, transcending even his radical politics - lack of judgement. Presto. He misread his mandate, misjudging the public’s appetite for government control in their lives. Obama and the rest of the far left just can’t believe the masses won’t acquiesce to herding. Witness Representative Eric Massa of NY, a big fan of the nanny state, who admits, "I will vote...against the interests of my district...if I actually believe it will help them." Look up the word "representative" Eric.

But even if he does own a dictionary, it likely won’t help. He and the rest of the anointed actually think they can make better decisions than ordinary people are capable of making for themselves, whether about medical care, child rearing or whatever.

Obama miraculously escaped from his past words, deeds and associations and so figured, heck, they’ll go for just about anything if that didn’t matter. But white guilt has it’s limits and Obama just ran into one. Americans aren’t as stupid as he figured.

As we illustrated in an earlier sketch, since Obama can’t defend his latest attempt to get between people and their decisions, and since the health proposal’s opponents have exposed the facts, he and his cronies have resorted to slander - it’s all about a right-wing conspiracy. Pretty quick he’ll find out that dog don’t hunt and guess what? His handlers will pull out the big gun - Race. If we oppose this guy, we become racists.

First out of the gate - NY gov Paterson, who whines it’s racism because a growing number, Dem’s included, don’t want him to run next year. He claims the next victim will be Obama. What a handy tool huh? As Jonah Goldberg explains, "No one should be surprised. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, liberal Democrats have to accuse their opponents of racism." To most of us, race is incidental; to these clowns it’s primary.

Robert Craven

The Scoundrels Seek Refuge

Today BO accused the Republican leadership of a partisan end run. "I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, '94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook," the president said. Well heck, we hadn’t thought of that, but hey.....

This ploy, this partisan attack, played in different forms on the airwaves, in the many pro-Obama health care ads, spotlights to all but the willfully a party caught with their pants down, again.

Opponents of health "reform" resort to specifics - case histories, examples of what rationing could look like, citations to news articles, stubborn facts about the spending involved. Supporters don’t refer at all to the bills involved or explanations rebutting critics’ claims. Just listen to a few and decide for yourself. Instead they focus on politics, as our president just did today. Wonder why? They’re caught and they know it.

Robert Craven

Nice Try. Now A Solution.

Mark Schmitt is executive editor of the liberal American Prospect. Schmitt tells us that from the very beginning, "the public option was part of a carefully thought out and deliberately funded effort to put all the pieces in place for health reform before the 2008 election." The left convinced candidate Edwards, who told ‘Meet The Press’ that this would be the key to his program. "The rest is history," says Schmitt. "Following Edwards’ lead, Obama and Clinton picked up on the public option compromise. … It was a real high-wire act — to convince the single-payer advocates, who were the only engaged health care constituency on the left, that they could live with the public option as a kind of stealth single-payer, thus transferring their energy and enthusiasm to this alternative."

Too much. The fact that Schmitt admits that the public option was always "a kind of stealth single-payer" should come as no shock to our lefty friends. (But we’re upset they stole our byline, recent sketch). All of us know that Barney Frank, Jan Schakowsky, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein and Paul Kurgman have all been caught on video telling single-payer advocates that the public option is nothing but a stepping stone to the Real McCoy.

Nice Try. Didn’t fly with most Americans did it BO?

Now what? How about fine-tuning that which works?

Reform what we have - the very best health care system in the world. Expensive? Fine, start with the Democrats, who have blocked tort reform without fail. Why? Because of the incestuous relationship between this party and trial lawyers. What fool doesn’t know that? Trial lawyers helped create a medical crisis through malpractice suits that raise costs while driving doctors from their practices. The accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers says about 10% of the cost of medical service is attributable to medical malpractice lawsuits. Roughly 2% is caused by direct costs of the lawsuits; an additional 5% to 9% is due to expenses run up by defensive medicine. Too much. Such an irony that our lefty friends here in Marin whine about health costs.

Availability a problem? Fine, you could fix that by ending the federal law allowing states to ban health insurance sales across state lines. But when John McCain called for ending the ban during the 2008 presidential campaign, he was attacked by Joe Biden. Instead, the fruitcake left thinks it can improve the problem of a partial monopoly by turning it into a total monopoly. You know - "single payer." Stop regulating insurance companies for goodness sake. Make them compete.

That was easy.

Obama denounced the insurance companies in last Sunday's NYT’s saying: "A man lost his health coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because the insurance company discovered that he had gallstones, which he hadn't known about when he applied for his policy. Because his treatment was delayed, he died." (Well, might have had something to do with the cancer.) Anyway, in a free market such an insurance company couldn't stay in business.

Are we launching a satellite? How tough is this?

Robert Craven

Obama's Lesson In Domestic Politics

BO’s plummeting approval ratings indicate that many of the Americans who voted for this guy have discovered he’s not the package they thought he was.

Very few Americans have much in common with Obama (even less so with his wife - "this is a downright mean country"). OK, but not a deal breaker necessarily. And it is no secret that Obama had zero executive experience. Fine. Not necessarily a deal breaker either. What should have been a deal breaker is the fact that Obama was the single most partisan of any Democratic senator, that he was/is nothing if not a radical progressive (although he camouflaged that in the campaign). What also should have been a deal breaker is his cozy relationship with radical anti-Americans like Wright and Ayers, his history of eliminating his senatorial rivals through leaked divorce records, the fact that he was a cog in the Chicago banking/mortgage shake-down machine, and that along with others he blocked reform at Fannie/Freddie - ground zero. How do these things translate to a qualification? Simply overlooked? Certainly they were trumped in the election by white guilt (and BO’s master leveraging of his preferred half color), a sour economy and a lunatic-like hatred of Bush.

Yet it only took nine months for Americans to say "enough," exercising in fine style the First Amendment. BO got a pass in the election; he did not get a pass on his attempt as president to further nationalize US economic resources in the guise of health reform.

Obama can gain from this experience. He has just been told that he was hired to empower Americans, not government.

Robert Craven

The Stealth Operation That Nosedived

Obama’s health plan was a stealth operation that of course failed to make it under the radar. Why? Obama does not understand America; Obama does not understand Americans.

One need only witness the now-fabled town hall meetings. Providing cover, deflection, refuge to the left are the few individuals that resort to shouting - granted, bad behavior. But thank goodness for the Democrats they have that distraction to latch onto - other wise they would be stark naked, holding hands together in the dark.

Wait a minute. What about 99% of the town hall meeting goers? They’re respectful and unlike BO, they’ve begun the read this monster of a bill. And they are naturally upset; that’s called dissent. Hey, didn’t every other Volvo we’ve followed here in fruitcake Marin county carry the bumper sticker - Dissent is the Highest Form of Patriotism? Yes it did. As Mark Steyn observed recently, that bumper sticker must have expired Jan/20!

Who are these town hall meeting goers? Here’s an example, sourced from the AP: Waiting for Specter’s meeting, Nancy Snyder says she kept quiet when abortion was legalized and prayer in schools was eliminated. Not this time. "They did it for prayer, they did it for abortion, and they're not going to do it for our health care," the 70-year-old nurse from Philipsburg, Pa., said Wednesday as she and her husband Robert, 74, a retired coal miner, waited in a long, snaking line for Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter's town hall meeting. "We're not standing back this time," Snyder said. "I don't want someone else to select and say this is what you can and can't have," Snyder said. "Nobody told us to come," she added. "I float my own boat." "This is all being pushed way too fast. It's just being rammed down our throat," said Bette Jackson, a retiree from State College. "I agree we need health care reform, but I don't want the government taking over."

Why the rush; why the snake oil, the fabrication; why the outright lying? We know the answer, as do our readers. But most Americans aren’t as concerned with BO’s motivation as much as with what it is he is trying to jam down their throats. They caught on to this bill in one heck of a hurry. BO tells them they can keep their doc and can keep their insurance. He thinks he is speaking to morons. What if my doc is not the one appointed by the government medical board for ruling on my access to tests and specialists, they want to know? What if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its gov’t-bankrolled competitor, they ask? Finally, a few of these unwashed have read section 440. Whoa! No one wants gov't agents coming into their home and telling them how to parent - the very signature of the Democratic party - getting between you and your kids.

Sorry BO - not this time.

Robert Craven

AMERICA

We intend to close the pattern ahead of most other observers. We first highlighted health care in a mid-July sketch. Some comments reside under "US Economy" as the debate has taken us there and back. We have isolated major points of weakness in the administration's bill and instances of less-than-truthful behavior by its proponents. Now these key flaws to BO’s plan are front and center.

We have often considered it a miracle that we have retained a republic, that founder James Wilson’s sense of natural law is still sacrosanct, because fully one third of Americans don’t give a damn, a third are pre-programmed to knock their country, and a third are real patriots - a mirror image of Revolutionary times. How in the world have we survived as a star for others to emulate? We feared we would not, or could not any longer, until that is - THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS! America, when pushed too far, will accept no more. Out of the closet they come. The Germans and Japanese found out the hard way. So will Obama. Americans have smelled the acrid scent of a social state, more, of a fascist state. They have demonstrated they are not stupid. They may not own a Webster’s but they have enough common sense to recognize that when the state attempts to direct their lives they’ve seen that before, and it won’t happen here.

Robert Craven

Nancy, Your Nose Is Growing

Pelosi and co-conspirator Steny Hoyer held forth in a USA Today op-ed, telling us from the get go that those who want their concerns heard about health care are, "simply un-American." Hah! From the Heritage Foundation, "Pelosi and Hoyer claim that opponents of Obamacare are disrupting townhalls across the country by ‘drowning out the facts’ about health reform. However, it is not the townhall-attending Americans that don’t have their facts straight. It is Pelosi, Hoyer, and Obama’s allies that are doing violence to the truth."

Pelosi - "The first fact is that health insurance reform will mean more patient choice." That is false. According to the non-partisan Lewin Group, about 83.4 MM people would lose their current private insurance, or a 48% reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

Pelosi - "Reform will mean affordable coverage for all Americans." That is false. As we have already highlighted, yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up as much as $460.

Pelosi says her plan will "lower costs". That is false, and has been thoroughly refuted by the CBO.

We heard from Dr Robert Trout this pm, a close friend and keen observer who has taken it on his own (since Obama and co have yet to bother) to take HR3200 apart; below, what he found just at the beginning!

From Trout:

SEC 102 Protecting the Choice to"Keep" Current Coverage.(a) Grandfathered health insurance coverage defined. Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage" means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Year 1 (eg. Jan 1, 2010) if the following conditions are met: [SO FAR SO GOOD, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS!!](1) Limitation of "NEW" Enrollment-(A) In General - Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Year 1 (eg., Jan 2, 2010).THIS MEANS YOUR INSURER CAN NO LONGER OFFER POLICIES TO NEW CUSTOMERS AFTER THIS DATE (EG JAN 2, 2010), WHICH MEANS THE INSURER WILL GRADUALLY LOSE INSUREDS UNTIL IT IS FORCED TO CLOSE BUSINESS!!!THUS, OBAMA'S CLAIM THAT "YOU CAN KEEP YOUR INSURANCE PROVIDER" IS TRUE, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT "UNTIL WE PUT THE COMPANY OUT OF BUSINESS IN A FEW YEARS"


Moving On:(2) Limitation on changes in terms or conditions--Subject to paragraph () and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Year 1(eg Dec 31, 2009).THIS MEANS IF YOU OR THE CARRIER MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE POLICY, YOU LOSE THE POLICY AND GO DIRECTLY TO GOVT COVERAGE. FOR EXAMPLE, SUPPOSE YOU WANT TO CHANGE FROM A HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLAN TO A LOW DEDUCTIBLE PLAN, GO DIRECTLY TO GOVERNMENT INSURANCE!!

CALL/WRITE YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. AXE THEM IF THEY HAVE READ EVEN THE FIRST PAGE OF HR3200, AND WHAT SEC 102 MEANS TO THEM, AND TELL THEM WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU!!!!

Dr. Robert Trout
Robert Craven

Fascism in Washington? Already?

We’re told the word "fascist" has been tossed around a bit lately, particularly in reference to tactics from the Obama administration. Whoa now! We wouldn’t know as we don’t listen to talk radio, or any radio, don’t own a TV and don’t subscribe to any newspapers. We have a few books around, an old pc that rarely works, and that's about it. Fascism in the good ‘ol USA? Come on.

Let’s see. What does the word mean? We do own a dictionary; here is Webster’s definition: "Any program for setting up a centralized, autocratic, national regime with severely nationalistic policies exercising regimentation of industry, commerce and finance, rigid censorship and forcible suppression of opposition."

We looked up the Obama health care plan:http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-07140

Son of a gun. BO’s plan does seem to reek a tad (as does the White House email urging the masses to turn in their neighbor if that neighbor’s view on the plan seems "fishy").

But don’t take it from us. What follows are excerpts from a presentation by David Janda, an MD and recognized expert on preventative health care, as keynote speaker at a Congressional Dinner in Washington, July/17.

About BO’s plan, Janda summarizes, "...it should be clear that the same warning notice must be placed on the Obama care plan as on a pack of cigarettes. Consuming this product will be hazardous to your health. The underlying method of cutting costs throughout the plan is based on rationing and denying care. There is no focus on preventing health care need...."

Janda continues, "The rationing of care is implemented through The National Health Care Board. This illustrious Board ‘will approve or reject treatment for patients based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment.’ Translation.....if you are over 65 or have been recently diagnosed as having an advanced form of cardiac disease or aggressive cancer.....dream on if you think you will get treated.....pick out your coffin."

Next, "The plan also outlines that doctors and hospitals will be overseen and reviewed by The National Coordinator For Health Information and Technology. This ‘coordinator’ will "monitor treatments being delivered to make sure doctors and hospitals are strictly following government guidelines that are deemed appropriate." It goes on to say.....’Doctors and hospitals not adhering to guidelines will face penalties.’ According to those in Congress, penalties could include large six figure financial fines and possible imprisonment. So according to The ObamaCare Plan....if your doctor saves your life you might have to go to the prison to see your doctor for follow-up appointments. I believe this is the same model Stalin used in the former Soviet Union.

Then there is Section 1233 of The ObamaCare Plan, devoted to ‘Advanced Care Planning.’ After each American turns 65 years of age they have to go to a mandated counseling program that is designed to end life sooner. This session is to occur every 5 years unless the person has developed a chronic illness then it must be done every year. The topics in this session will include, ‘how to decline hydration, nutrition and how to initiate hospice care.’ It is no wonder The Obama Administration does not like my emphasis on Prevention. For Mr. Obama, prevention is the‘enemy’ as people would live longer."

Finally, Janda noted that, "Section 102 has the Orwellian title, ‘Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage.’ What this section really mandates is that it is illegal to keep your private insurance if your status changes - e .g., if you lose or change your job, retire from your job and become a senior, graduate from college and get your first job. Yes, illegal."

After Janda finished the presentation, a Congressman asked him how to respond in an interview if asked for the best single word to describe the plan. Janda responded - "Fascist".

Seems a fit but not a surprise. White guilt and a sour economy got us a community organizer for president whose administration’s strong-arm tactics would make ACORN proud.

Robert Craven

How To Offend A Founder

Those familiar with economic history find it difficult to swallow Obama’s agenda. They understand the implications. So would the Founders. So does Obama; he simply hopes the public are slow to catch on.

Background: Obama may appear to the casual observer to be historically challenged, proclaiming for example that during WWII his great-uncle helped liberate Auschwitz, and his grandfather knew troops that liberated Auschwitz and Treblinka. (This is nonsense. The Americans did not free either camp.) Or, in Berlin, stating when referring to his preferred half color that, "I don’t look like...Americans who’ve previously spoken in this.. city," forgetting apparently that both Powell and Rice had preceded him. Fortunately the fate of our country does not hang on these amusing constructions; it does hang on the success or failure of Obama’s assault on the private sector. That’s a tad more serious and that is where most of the left simply follow, lemming like, as Obama and his co-conspirators conveniently ignore economic history in their pretended role as society’s saviors.

Obama hijacked the economic crisis through the so-called stimulus bill. Now he has manufactured a crisis for the purpose of another government grab; this heist will be permanent, a ready-made legacy. What for example if our friends from the left sat down with James Madison in an attempt to justify their president’s health or economic agenda. Judging from everything Madison has ever written, he would no doubt lose his lunch. Madison warned in 1794 against, "the old trick of turning every contingency into a resource for accumulating force in government." Yet Obama’s crew didn’t even bother to disguise that motivation - "never waste a crisis."

Sure enough, left-leaning administrations here and abroad have over the years levered all kinds of crises. The US Depression is one of the latest such opportunities, the left taking advantage of economic trouble to amass power. And we all understand the "ratchet effect." As problems subside, the enlarged government presence remains.

For those in the "feel good" camp who have never seen an easy way out they didn’t take, perhaps a read of F.A. Hayek’s The Road To Serfdom (Is Paved With Good Intentions) is in order, a book Milton Friedman endorsed as, "..for anyone interested in politics in the broadest and least partisan sense, a book whose central message is timeless." Hayek demonstrates that the left’s trademark of empowering government with increasing economic control will inevitably lead not to a utopia at all but to fascism.

Finally, another Founder reminds us that, "Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants." Alexander Hamilton would find Obama a threat to the Republic to which he and others gave birth.

PS Recall that on Monday, 8/3, the White House website asked citizens to send any "fishy" information regarding the health care plan to flag@whitehouse.gov. "Fishy" as in dissenting. That is, turn in your neighbor. Step one. Hamilton was right.

Robert Craven