"Who the heck was Anne Hutchinson?"

A well known New Age guru has released a novel called "God". I was reading the blurb from the back of the book, part of which said this:

[...] Job in the Old Testament experienced something completely different from Paul in the New Testament, Socrates chased a mercurial spirit almost unrecognizable to the strange voice that called to Rumi, and Shankara moved from town to town sharing the truth about a God that stood in marked contrast to the one that guided Anne Hutchinson—yet one sees an undeniable pattern. These visionaries took the human race down unknown roads, and Chopra invites us to revisit their destinations. Tearing at our hearts and uplifting our souls, God leads us to a profound and life-altering understanding about the nature of belief, the power of faith, and the spirit that resides within us all. [...]

I had heard of most of those names before, but I thought, "Who the heck was Anne Hutchinson? And why is she listed with those others?" I googled her name and found her Wikipedia page. It's really quite a story. I was a bit embarrassed that I didn't know, being a New Englander myself:

[...] Anne Hutchinson, born Anne Marbury (1591–1643), was a Puritan spiritual adviser, mother of 15, and important participant in the Antinomian Controversy that shook the infant Massachusetts Bay Colony from 1636 to 1638. Her strong religious convictions were at odds with the established Puritan clergy in the Boston area, and her popularity and charisma helped create a theological schism that threatened to destroy the Puritans' religious experiment in New England. She was eventually tried and convicted, then banished from the colony with many of her supporters.

Born in Alford, Lincolnshire, England, Anne was the daughter of Francis Marbury, an Anglican minister and school teacher who gave her a far better education than most other girls received. She lived in London as a young adult, and married there an old friend from home, William Hutchinson. The couple moved back to Alford, where they began following the dynamic preacher named John Cotton in the nearby major port of Boston, Lincolnshire. After Cotton was compelled to emigrate in 1633, the Hutchinsons followed a year later with their 11 children, and soon became well established in the growing settlement of Boston in New England. Anne was a midwife, and very helpful to those needing her assistance, as well as forthcoming with her personal religious understandings. Soon she was hosting women at her house weekly, providing commentary on recent sermons. These meetings became so popular that she began offering meetings for men as well, including the young governor of the colony, Henry Vane.

As a follower of Cotton, she espoused a "covenant of grace," while accusing all of the local ministers (except for Cotton and her husband's brother-in-law, John Wheelwright) of preaching a "covenant of works." Following complaints of many ministers about the opinions coming from Hutchinson and her allies, the situation erupted into what is commonly called the Antinomian Controversy, resulting in her 1637 trial, conviction, and banishment from the colony. This was followed by a March 1638 church trial in which she was excommunicated. With encouragement from Providence founder Roger Williams, Hutchinson and many of her supporters established the settlement of Portsmouth in what became the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. After her husband's death a few years later, threats of Massachusetts taking over Rhode Island compelled Hutchinson to move totally outside the reach of Boston, into the lands of the Dutch. She settled with her younger children near an ancient landmark called Split Rock in what later became The Bronx in New York City. Tensions with the native Siwanoy were high at the time. In August 1643, Hutchinson and all but one of the 16 members of her household were massacred during an attack. The only survivor was her nine-year old daughter, Susanna, who was taken captive.

Hutchinson is a key figure in the development of religious freedom in England's American colonies and the history of women in ministry. She challenged the authority of the ministers, exposing the subordination of women in the culture of colonial Massachusetts. She is honoured by Massachusetts with a State House monument calling her a "courageous exponent of civil liberty and religious toleration." She has been called the most famous, or infamous, English woman in colonial American history. [...]

If you follow the wiki link, there's lots more information, and embedded links too. The details of her trial were chilling. Her descendants included three U.S. presidents, and, well, read the whole thing, if you enjoy history.

   

Scott Brown Achieves Victory in Massachusetts

Brown Scores Upset Victory Over Coakley in Massachusetts Senate Race

In a victory few thought possible just a month ago, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley Tuesday in the race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy -- a win that could grind President Obama's agenda to a halt and portend unexpected losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

Washington was waking up Wednesday to a new Senate make-up, one featuring Republican Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown, who defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in a victory few thought possible just a month ago.

The race for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy is a win that could grind President Obama's agenda to a halt and portend unexpected losses for Democrats in the November midterms.

In his victory speech, Brown declared that he had "defied the odds and the pundits," and said he would try to be a "worthy successor" to Kennedy.

"Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken," Brown said. "This Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party. ... This is the people's seat."

With nearly all precincts reporting, returns showed Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of 120,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.

The victory marks a stunning upset in a race thought to be safe for Democrats until Brown's campaign began to surge just weeks ago. Even Brown appeared a bit in shock by his victory. Visibly giddy during his remarks, Brown went script and at one point offering up his daughters to the dating circuit -- and later he earned supporters' laughter by flubbing his campaign pitch line, "I'm Scott Brown. I'm from Wrentham. And I drive a truck."

Brown's victory has powerful ramifications for Obama's agenda. The GOP state senator, once sworn in, will break the Democrats' 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in Washington. This creates problems for proposed legislation ranging from financial regulatory reform to cap-and-trade.

But most immediately the win sends Democrats into a scramble to pass health care reform before Brown arrives in Washington. Democrats were already weighing options for how to fast-track the bill before polls closed Tuesday.

Brown blasted the health care bill in his victory speech and urged the Senate to seat him as soon as possible. But a schedule for Brown's swearing-in was up in the air on Tuesday night.

"The people of Massachusetts have spoken. We welcome Scott Brown to the Senate and will move to seat him as soon as the proper paperwork has been received," said Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin said he would notify the Senate on Wednesday that Brown had been elected.

[...]

Considering how much was on the line, Brown's late-in-the-game surge commanded the attention of the Democratic Party establishment, which dispatched top officials over the past week to try to keep the seat formerly held by Kennedy in Democratic hands. Voter interest in the race for U.S. Senate also seemed high throughout the day. Poll workers reported a steady stream of voters at the ballot box despite the snow.

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin was predicting turnout could be as high as 50 percent.

Brown's campaign marked an upset just by being as competitive as it was against Coakley's.

Democrats outnumber Republicans 3-to-1 in the state -- 37 percent of registered voters are Democrats, 12 percent are Republicans and 51 percent are unaffiliated. Obama won the state by 26 percentage points in the 2008 presidential election. [...]

"Tonight, the independent voice of Massachusetts has spoken". I like that!
     

Special tax exempt status for Union members?

Our constitution says that all citizens are to be treated equally under the law. But are some people now "more equal" than others?

EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW?

Well, there's one American concept that certainly doesn't hold water with the Obama crowd. The idea our founding fathers had was pretty solid. The law would apply equally to every person in this country - rich or poor, weak or strong. There would be no privileged classes in this country to who the law would not apply.

That's not the way it is with the Democrats and Obama.

Have you heard about the deal The Community Organizer reached with his union supporters last night? Look ... I've been telling you that this was on the way for three days. You could search high and low in the newspapers and on line and find very little to suggest what was going to happen ... but if you were listening to this show and reading my blog, you saw it coming.

The unions were at the White House telling Obama that they weren't going to support his health care takeover. And why not? Because Obama was going to pay for part of his takeover with a tax on what we're calling "Cadillac" health insurance plans. These are health insurance plans that go past the usual coverage by providing such things as dental and vision coverage.

Something had to be done to keep the unions on board. The Democrats are already facing a rough time in this year's elections and they certainly didn't need union members sitting on their hands on election day. So a deal had to be made. If it meant violating the concept of equal protection under the law ... well then, you do what you have to do; expecially if you're Barack Obama and you believe that your whole presidency rests on your ability to achieve the lifelong Democrat dream of seizing control of the American health care system.

Here's the deal they reached last night. If you're an ordinary citizen who has one of these "Cadillac" health care plan you will pay an excise tax on the plan. If you're an ordinary citizen who has a "Cadillac" plan, but you happen to be a union member, you will NOT pay the tax.

Can you believe this is happening in our country? The government tells you that you're going to have to pay a special tax on your health insurance plan .. unless, that is, you happen to be a union member - or if you happen to work for city or state government. Then you won't have to pay the tax.

I'll try to make this a bit more clear. You live at 123 Main Street. Your neighbor lives at 125 Main street. You're big pals. You drive a truck for one trucking company, your pal drives a similar truck for another company. Your families vacation together. Your kids play together every afternoon. Both of you earn pretty much the same salary and live in houses that are worth the same. You drive cars of equal value. You have similar dreams and aspirations for your two families. Both of you earn some pretty good bucks and you both have comprehensive health care plans - health care plans that the Democrats would call "Cadillac" plans. There is only one difference between you and your bud. The company you work for is not unionized. Your pal is a member of the Teamster's Union. So ... if Obama has his way with his so-called health insurance reform you will end up paying a tax on your health care plan. Your pal won't.

Is that the way you believe America should work? Should a politician come up with a new tax plan to generate some more revenue, and then chose some favored constituencies to be exempt from that plan?

Some idiot on Fox News this morning said that the union workers who are getting the break deserve the break because they have "high risk jobs." This girl worked for something called the Roosevelt Institute and had to be one of the most insiplidly ignorant people I've ever seen trying to fake intelligence in my life.

Elections have consequences. The election Tuesday in Massachusetts will have consequences. We really need to start paying attention.

I want our politicians to uphold the American Constitution... or be replaced.

This video is making the rounds in email:



I really can't say who they will vote for, but it's not impossible for Massachusetts to vote for a Republican. In my experience, the citizens of that state can be very... unpredictable. To outsiders, seemingly contradictory at times. But not to themselves; they have their own internal, Massachusetts-centric logic to guide them. Just when you think you've got them figured out... surprise!
     

A National Health Care Preview, and a lesson from Natasha Richardson's experience

I had posted about Mitt Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts years ago. Some folks warned me that it was doomed to fail, and it seems that is the case. It seems that these sorts of things have been tried before, and the results are always the same:

National Health Preview: The Massachusetts debacle, coming soon to your neighborhood.

Praise Mitt Romney. Three years ago, the former Massachusetts Governor had the inadvertent good sense to create the "universal" health-care program that the White House and Congress now want to inflict on the entire country. It is proving to be instructive, as Mr. Romney's foresight previews what President Obama, Max Baucus, Ted Kennedy and Pete Stark are cooking up for everyone else.

In Massachusetts's latest crisis, Governor Deval Patrick and his Democratic colleagues are starting to move down the path that government health plans always follow when spending collides with reality -- i.e., price controls. As costs continue to rise, the inevitable results are coverage restrictions and waiting periods. It was only a matter of time.

They're trying to manage the huge costs of the subsidized middle-class insurance program that is gradually swallowing the state budget. The program provides low- or no-cost coverage to about 165,000 residents, or three-fifths of the newly insured, and is budgeted at $880 million for 2010, a 7.3% single-year increase that is likely to be optimistic. The state's overall costs on health programs have increased by 42% (!) since 2006. [...]

The article goes on to look at the usual ways governments use to attempt to fix these problems... and the flaws inherent in them. The article also claims that if this plan is applied on a national level, the results will be even worse, because MA had a far smaller percentage of its population uninsured than the national average.

Yet we are now about to adopt this plan on a National level?

Our current health care system would work better if some government controls were removed, such as the silly laws that forbid people from buying health care across state lines. Such as not taxing health insurance that people (like me!) buy for themselves.

If government is to have a roll in improving our health care system, they need to allow us more choices, not less. They need to stop over-burdening the present system with needless restrictions, and let competition lower prices. And our politicians definitely need to learn from the many mistakes of others who have gone before them. Many of them don't seem to have a good record of learning from mistakes. Hopefully the voters will.


There is a great deal to be learned from other National Health Care systems. Natasha Richardson's experience in Canada is a good example:

CANADACARE MAY HAVE KILLED NATASHA

COULD actress Natasha Richardson's tragic death have been prevented if her skiing accident had occurred in America rather than Canada?

Canadian health care de-emphasizes widespread dissemination of technology like CT scanners and quick access to specialists like neurosurgeons. While all the facts of Richardson's medical care haven't been released, enough is known to pose questions with profound implications.

Richardson died of an epidural hematoma -- a bleeding artery between the skull and brain that compresses and ultimately causes fatal brain damage via pressure buildup. With prompt diagnosis by CT scan, and surgery to drain the blood, most patients survive.

Could Richardson have received this care? Where it happened in Canada, no. In many US resorts, yes. [...]

Read the whole thing. It's not hard to see why CanadaCare failed her. In fact, look at this example of a little girl in the US, with a very similar injury to Natasha's:

Natasha's lesson helps save Ohio girl

[...] The McCrackens took Morgan to the emergency room at LakeWest Hospital in neighboring Willoughby, where doctors ordered a CT scan and immediately put Morgan on a helicopter to Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, with her father by her side.

"I knew it was bad when she had to get there by helicopter in six minutes, instead of the 30 minutes it would have taken to get to Cleveland in an ambulance," McCracken said.

When the helicopter arrived at Rainbow, the McCrackens were greeted by Dr. Alan Cohen, the hospital's chief of pediatric neurosurgery. He whisked Morgan into the operating room, pausing for a moment to tell McCracken that his daughter had the same injury as Richardson: an epidural hematoma.

McCracken remembers standing in the emergency room, feeling like the life had just been sucked out of him. "My heart sank," he says. "It just sank."

Unlike Richardson's, Morgan's story has a happy ending. [...]

It was a happy ending for Morgan because of quick action and ample availability of treatment and equipment. The very thing's that did not work out in Natasha's favor under CanadaCare.

There IS a reason why so many Canadian's come to the USA for medical treatment. They don't want to die waiting for treatment in Canada.

I'm sure that there are plenty of things we can do to improve our health care system in the United States, to make it more affordable and accessible. But policies that have a proven track record of failure should not be among them. We have to create better ways.


Related Links:

Health Insurance and Medical Expenses

Lowering Health Care Costs for Everyone

PRIVATE HEALTHCARE ... SAY IT AIN'T SO!

There's No Place Like Home: What I learned from my wife's month in the British medical system.
     

Why I support Mitt Romney for President

Because Fred Thompson dropped out? Well yeah, there is that. ;-) But even then I wanted Mitt for veep. But here is why I now support Mitt for president:

1.) Mitt was a Governor. I much prefer Governors to Senators as presidential candidates. Seeing how they governed a state gives you some clues as to how they might govern a nation, and if they are up to the job or not.

2.) He was Governor of Massachusetts. A Republican Governor, in a state where only 14% of the population is registered Republican. That's quite a feat.

I grew up in nearby Connecticut, and went to college in Boston for a year. I dropped out, got a job and continued living and working in the state for a while, till I saved up money and moved to California. I explored a lot of left wing political groups while I worked there. I'm no stranger to Massachusetts and some of it's political workings.

Anyone who is Governor of that state HAS to work with Ted Kennedy; he isn't just a Senator; he's a local "god". Whatever you think of him, you'd better find a way to work with him, or you will accomplish NOTHING.

The fact that Romney had enough appeal to get elected in such a blue state as MA is a wonder in itself. The fact that he could actually work with Ted Kennedy to accomplish anything is... probably more than I could do! In college, I learned very quickly to choose my words about the Senator very carefully when talking to the locals. Blasphemy was not looked kindly on.

3.) Democrats DID vote for Mitt! Ronald Reagan also had that talent. In a national election, it can be a handy appeal to have if you want to WIN.

Some conservatives don't like that he was Governor of a blue state. Even so, he lived and raised a family there; why NOT be Governor there?


We live in a country full of blue states as well as red. Being able to talk to and negotiate with the other side is not a bad thing. In fact, many would say it's necessary and important.

4.) He is a successful business man, with a long track record of successes. He lives in the real world, not Washington D.C. He's turned around many a failing business. He has an excellent understanding of economics and the things that cause an economy to flounder or thrive. Clearly that's something we are in need of now.

5.) He's a Washington D.C. outsider. He understands why many of us think Washington stinks, and we are fed up with it. He wants to turn it around, like he's done with many a failing business. That's a tall order, but I think the can bring the experience, the diplomacy, and a fresh perspective and the know-how to get it done.

6.) He is now the most conservative candidate running on the Republican side. To those he claim he's not conservative enough, I suggest that you look at who you might end up with instead.

Different people have different requirements about what makes someone a conservative or not. I don't require a 100% conservative straight jacket for any Republican candidate, and I'm pretty sure that most of the American voting public doesn't either. Mitt is conservative enough in the ways that matter to most. We don't vote for perfect candidates, we vote for the best one available for the job. The "perfect" is the enemy of the "good". Accept the good when it's offered to you, or you're likely to get... less. Much less.

7.) The Editors of National Review have endorsed Mitt. This means a lot to me. I've been a National Review fan for many years. I've found it's commentary and analysis over the decades to be thoughtful, considered and well reasoned, and I believe the editor's endorsement of Mitt is likewise. Thank you, NR.


8.) As Governor of Massachusetts, he introduced health care reforms by making existing systems function more efficiently, by assembling a task force to find out where the problems were, why people were not insured, and what they could do about it, and all without creating more taxes or a socialist bureaucracy. Some conservatives have unfairly called this "Hillerycare". Romney is in fact one of the few Republicans that has even tried to address this issue by actually doing something tangible about it. And he is FAR MORE open to the private sector and non-governmental solutions than Hillery would ever dream of. He is willing to think outside of the box. That is often how solutions are found.

Mitt is my new horse in the race. I hope you will consider him, too.


Related Links:

Romney to the Rescue

The Real Mitt Romney? Is he electable?

The Romney Agenda: The Romney Economic Stimulus Plan