Here’s my problem.   I fill up with 10% ethanol.   I’m taxed to pay for this expensive additive, so hopefully, it does something for me.  Nope.  My fuel mileage drops by nearly 15%.  How is this possible?   I don’t know, but it really hacks me off.   Go above 10% and my fuel mileage drops by as much as 20%.  I’ve tested this repeatedly with my normally high mileage new and computerized vehicle.

Do you have to be a rocket scientist to understand that if your gas mileage drops by more than the fuel you put in, that you are INCREASING our reliance on foreign fuels?   And if the pollution saved per gallon of gas used is not notably higher than the 10-20% drop in fuel mileage, you’re still polluting as much or more than before?   This aside from the MASSIVE pollution and energy usage caused to create ethanol and the terrible impact it has on food prices.

There is no redeeming value to ethanol production.   At all.   Unless you like creating busy work for farmers at an incredible cost to everyone else.   I get it, conservatives like farmers.  But is it not time to stop subsidizing what gets produced and let the market decide what gets produced?   Is not our terrible ethanol situation a massive testament to the flaws of well-meaning government involvement in the market?   Why do Republicans lose their ideals as soon as a tractor gets involved?   Are there ANY Republican politicians that have noticed their fuel mileage going to hell?   Do any of them drive themselves any more?

Are we really this idiotic?  Do we really deserve the government we have?  I don’t remember sinning this badly in my previous life.

But it’s not just that. We seem to like to meddle, nationally, in the right to die, gay marriage, flag burning and things that Thomas Jefferson would say “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”. If Ted Kennedy were in incredible pain and wished to pull the plug a little early or if Ronald Reagan, in a moment of clarity, decided he didn’t want to go back to where he was, are we really good judges to say they shouldn’t do that? Is this not something between man and his maker?    Do I need someone like Rick Santorum forcing me to live my life as he wishes?   If Catholics, for instance, think that assisted suicide is evil, does that not, then, only apply to actual Catholics?  What if Muslims come to power?   Will I be forced to add a few dozen more illegal things to the long list of things I can’t do to myself?

Pondering out loud, I’m asking if this is a necessary part of conservatism or Republicanism? Would it cause a splintering of religious conservatives? Or would they hang in there and be okay with the “it’s unconstitutional” argument. I respect Republicans for trying to make a flag-burning amendment rather than simply trying to outlaw it, but if we were to outlaw flag burning, what is next? Not coincidentally, the fact that it is legal to burn a flag has all but completely destroyed the desire to burn them. Maybe there’s a message for us in there somewhere.

As a married person, I honestly don’t feel diminished if Bob and Steve get married. Politicians say my marriage is diminished, but I’m not feeling it. I don’t really care. Of course, some might say that homosexuals shouldn’t be exempt from the stresses and strains of marriage either. But it is it a national issue? Moreover, is it an *important* national issue, compared to the economic disaster we face?

Now, I can see how the federal government may have an interest in the trafficking of highly addictive drugs. I have seen these drugs take away the freedom of will of friends and acquaintances and it is a brutal affair. Certainly we can regulate the sale of these, without punishing the sad user further. We have seen that humans like to intoxicate themselves one way or another. If not marijuana, alcohol. If not alcohol, adrenaline. If not cocaine, huffing some chemical that is 100 times more dangerous.

One of the things that has annoyed me more than all of this, however, is “Click it or Ticket”.  Aside from the annoying rhyme, seeing these signs and the associated taxpayer expensive every few miles.   I have no idea why this bothers me so much, since I feel naked without my seatbelt, but in my fantasies, I have one of the many interesting weapons from Halo2 as I come upon one.   Yes, it’s a good idea to wear a seatbelt, but why are we spending 100s of $millions to threaten and fine people?

The question becomes, if we really profess to believe in the Constitution, why do we get involved in these things at a national level?   Is it possible to explain to those who do like these laws that it’s a state or local issue?    Do we gain more voters than we lose?  Or do we simply lose the base?    These are interesting questions that would be interesting to poll.   For instance “if the same interpretation of the Constitution that prevents ObamaCare also throws out all national, but not state or local, drug use laws, are you for this interpretation?”    Are we capable of separating our moral lives from our legal lives?   Inquiring minds would like to know.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 112th(?) Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.

1. Fiscal Responsibility Act – Enact zero base line budgeting, rather than automatic increases in budgets for government programs. Pledge to freeze government spending for 4 years to reduce government deficits and strengthen the value of the dollar and our credit abroad.

2. Energy Freedom and Independence Act – By federal mandate, prevent courts, state/local governments and environmental groups from preventing construction of new refineries, biofuel refineries, solar energy, nuclear and wind power. Open up all major areas of the US for oil and natural gas exploration, including coastal areas and ANWR. Sell off Strategic Petroleum Reserve and replace with the Strategic Algal Fuel Reserve on a barrel for barrel basis, jump starting algae biofuel development and production. Completely replace foreign oil imports with US petroleum reserves and biofuels by 2020. Require all car manufacturers to make biofuel engines and energy sipping DSG or available in all cars by 2012.

3. Healthcare Diversity Act – Creates penalties for prescription drug gouging, allowing American to the same low prices available in other countries. Protects doctors and hospitals from excessive lawsuits, preventing unnecessary procedures. Provides special protections to small cash only healthcare clinics formed by doctors and nurses to provide care for the under insured.

4. One Human Race Act – Removes all accounting or use of race from federal programs or law permanently, including the census, but excluding generalized law enforcement descriptors. Create a new standard of treating individuals as individuals rather than limited by or empowered by their genetic backgrounds.

5. Justice Equality and Citizen Protection Act – Creates mandatory minimum standards for felony crime that removes judicial unfairness and creates a standard of ‘equal time for equal crime’. Creates enhanced mandatory minimums for repeat offenders. Creates a proactive intranet learning environment for reducing recidivism rate. Allots money for more federally operated prisons to stop the ‘catch and release’ going on due to lack of prison space and requires states to contract with federal prisons rather than releasing due to overcrowding. Address rules that allow judges to throw out evidence on technicalities, rather than admit all of the evidence

6. Lady Liberty Act – Immigration reform that returns the US to a land of opportunity for hard-working individuals. Creates an “illegal to legal” program that brings current immigrants out of the shadows and allows them to pursue citizenship over time with humane fines. Brings aboard needed legal, taxpaying citizens and prevents worker abuse. Allows for family relocation and travel within confined limits. Reforms the aging bureaucratic INS system. Creates guest worker VISAs. Enhances border patrols to target drug smuggling.

7. Crime and Drug Sanity Act – Legalizes growth, possession and use of marijuana for personal use ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, state and local ordinances may vary. Maintains federal law enforcement of marijuana sales and importation. Legalizes hemp for agricultural use. De-criminalizes use of ‘hard’ drugs ON A FEDERAL LEVEL. Increases penalties with mandatory minimums for the sale, distribution and importation of addictive drugs such as meth amphetamines, cocaine, heroin. Calls for the review of all non-violent drug offenders now in jail.

8. Citizen Congress and Voter Choice Act – Creates single term limit for all members of Congress to eliminate corruption, and create voter choice. Creates an even playing field by eliminating incumbency. Eliminates the allure of pork barrel spending an earmarks.

9. Fair Tax Choice Act – Creates fixed flat tax as an option to conventional tax filing. Tax payers may choose the option which works best for their situation.

10. Social Security/Medicare Choice Act – Creates optional Medical/Retirement Savings Account program to replace conventional Social Security and Medicare on an individual basis, allowing choice for tax payers.

11. Education Choice Act – Mandates that all federal spending on education be available to be transferred on a per student basis to a school of the parents’ choosing, including private school. Eliminates bi-lingual subsidies.

12. Defense Reform Act – Closes unneeded military bases in European countries. Reallocates resources to global hot spots such as the Middle East or Africa. Creates smaller, more diverse bases with fewer personnel and cost designed to respond to terrorist activities. Pursues lower cost technologies for defense rather than overkill exotic technologies. Focuses on troop level technology and resources.

13. Poverty Reduction Act – We pledge to strengthen home ownership programs, work with businesses to create government backed car loans for very high economy vehicles. We pledge to directly address the poverty in America through examining the costs afflicting the poor. We pledge to take a strong stance towards predatory lending, government fees, fines, interest penalties, healthcare, housing and insurances costs.

Many nations have far more serious spiritual care than the US.  In fact, we are well below Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Malaysia, Singapore and other advanced religious nations in providing this basic care to its citizens.   In these countries, church attendance is close to 100% and for good reason, their caring government is involved.

Under the modern definition of “general welfare”, the federal government has not only the right, but obligation to solve this terrible problem.    We know from many studies that, aside from having the heaven advantage, religious people are happier, better adjusted, more family oriented.   Spiritual care lowers the crime rate, extends life span, lowers alcoholism/drug use, creates happier kids, keeps families together,  and even causes people to be more charitable with their time and money.   The science is in and there is no doubt we must act to save these people.

Now, some argue that there are many people that do have spiritual care, but many of them do not have enough *preventive* spiritual care as they do not see their minister or priest more than a few times per year.   Others are “pray and dash” attendees that only visit church in emergencies (weddings, funerals, baptisms) and pay little or none of their tithing.   Many are illegal immigrants.  This means that regular church goers are paying the bulk of the spiritual care in the US, causing the burden to be distributed unfairly.   Further, a disproportionate amount of wealthy people skip out on church altogether, causing the spiritual care costs to be unfairly distributed to those least able to afford it.

I propose a bill of not less than 1000 pages, because to create a simple bill would not fully address the complexity of the problem.   The most important thing is make sure that everyone is enrolled in a church.  After all, without church enrollment, there is no spiritual care.   Further, we must make sure that people can afford to go every week.   As we know, not going to church every week condemns you to hell, unless there are mitigating circumstances.   For those that cannot afford church, we will make available taxpayer subsidies to the church of the attendee’s choice to cover part or all of their tithings.   Much of this money will come from the wealthy who don’t attend church now, so there will be little impact on the average churchgoer.

“But will you be able to keep your existing church?”  Yes!   If you like it, keep going [Church availabilit subject to discretion, please see government for details].  Churches will have to become registered and a spiritual care assessment done to make sure they are providing you with the care you deserve.  Basic spiritual care must include weekly mass, confession and communion as a minimum level of care.

“Is there a possibility that there won’t be enough money and churches?”   No, of course not.  We see it as a large probability, not just a possibility.  So, just in case, we will have a heaven panels to make sure that the most needy and most savable make it into church.   If one of your family members has lived long enough to have committed great sins, he or she may have to give way to someone younger with less sin on his or her hands.  But this will be done in an entirely impartial way, based on science.   We will make sure that everyone who can be saved will be saved.

“Some say that people such as Senator Ted Kennedy, with advanced age and sins such as vehicular manslaughter, adultery, sexual assaults, repeated drunken driving, abortion activism, etc, would not qualify for expensive soul redeeming treatments, should my family and I be scared of this?” – No, of course not!   Very few people have sinned as much as Ted Kennedy.  He is a tough case, but he is an exception rather than the norm.   We would certainly pray for his soul, but to be honest, there’s not much that could have been done for him.

“How will we know that people are going to church and giving proper tithing?”   The government will require that churches all change their paperwork to a single government standard.   The government will then have a spiritual care commission that oversees the paperwork.   All enrollees must submit their tax returns to the commission to ensure they are eligible for any subsidies.    At some point, we hope to create a single payer system in which tithing is removed automatically from your check and paid to the church by the government.   A true convenience for every church goer.  This will shorten mass by nearly 2 minutes.

“Will illegal immigrants get spiritual care?”   No.   All churches will be required to card attendees at the door and require proof of citizenship and social security numbers before submitting paperwork for payment.    We will work to ensure that only bona fide American citizens get USC.   The last thing we want to do is spend the church goers money recklessly.

“What about a public option, to keep churches competitive?”   This is under consideration.  If it doesn’t make it into the first bill, we’re pretty sure we can slip it in later.  There is strong evidence that a public church will be less expensive to run, but if not, we have the advantage of being able to divert church goer money to the public church, making sure that many people tithe twice and are doubly insured of going to heaven.

“Wouldn’t a public church be illegal”?   No.   The Constitution says that the government may not establish a state religion.  But the public church would be simply that.  A church, not a religion.   Therefore, it is legal.

“If this is so important, why didn’t the founders create USC at the beginning of the country?”  I don’t know, let me get back to you on that.  Someday.    But I’m sure there was a good reason.  Probably not enough money or something.  Could we move on?  What?  Oh, wait, my lawyer says that “general welfare” of citizens didn’t exist in the Constitution back then.   It’s a relatively new rationalization.

“Isn’t this something best left to the state or local level?”  No.   Otherwise we wouldn’t get to use the word “universal”.   We like the world universal.  It’s a cool word.  Simultaneously spacey and yet inclusive.   Besides, if all Congress did was follow the Constitution and states rights, how would we be able to say we did anything for the voters?  It’s too important to be left to the states anyway, they might not do it well.

“What if someone wants to opt out?”   No, we know what is best for this person.  Not everyone understands the value of spiritual care run by the government, but will ensure they understand by making it mandatory.  They’ll get it eventually, even come to demand it one day.   People will say “Don’t touch my Spiritual Care!”   We want to create a program so all encompassing that one day, no one will be able to conceive of living without it.  Within a generation or two, people will know no other way of life.  They won’t remember the olden days before forced tithing and mandatory salvation.   We must have salvation from cradle to grave. It is a right as guaranteed by the Constitution of the US [as interpreted today, please see government for details, not all promises may be valid at the time of enrollment, your level of salvation may vary]

Please feel free to send this to the ObamaCare advocate of your choice.

President Zelaya befriends Hugo Chavez.  Zelaya picks up and likes the idea of extending his presidency beyond his one term limit.  One problem.  Constitution says even talking about it out loud causes any public figure to instantly lose his job for 10 years.   Including the president.   Zelaya says ‘screw the constitution’ and decides to hold a referendum on removing term limits.   The Supreme Court, not waiting for a lawsuit or otherwise sitting on their duffs, instantly rules such a referendum unconstitutional.   Zelaya changes the name to “survey” and prints up a bunch of ballots.  Where?  In Venezuela.   The SC rules a referendum by any name to be unconstitutional and warns Zelaya again.   Zelaya orders his top general to ignore the SC and prepare to distribute the ballots.  General goes to the SC for legal advice.  SC tells him to stand down, general complies.   Zelaya fires general for not complying with his orders.   SC orders general reinstated and has military seize the ballots.   Zelaya leads group of civilians to go and ‘liberate’ the ballots with full intention of holding ‘survey’.   SC warns Zelaya again.  He flips them the bird, says he’s going to do it no matter what.   SC, with full support from Zelaya’s party, the Catholic church, Congress and almost everyone else with a heart beat,  has him arrested and the general tosses in the insult of tossing him out of the country.  SC appoints the next in succession, from Zelaya’s own party, to the lead the country until previously scheduled elections in November.

Now, American socialist Democrats are FURIOUS that a Supreme Court would DARE to override the will of the people based on the Constitution (shades of 2000, anyone?).  Me?   I actually stood up and applauded while reading the story.   That is the proper use of judicial power, IN REAL TIME, not waiting 5 or 10 years for a lawsuit to filter up the chain.  They saw multiple unconstitutional abuses of power, swatted them down as they were happening and removed the offending public servant when he refused to cease his illegal behaviors.   That, my friends, is what we call huevos.  I’d go so far as to say huevos rancheros with a large helping of Tabasco.

Isn’t it time OUR Supreme Court stood up, called something unconstitutional without having to wait for years to look at the case?   “I’m sorry, you want to take the land from this poor person and give it to a developer?”   “Yes”   [sound of gavel] “Unconstitutional, next”.   It’s not terribly difficult.

One of the beautiful things about the Constitution of the United States is that it is far more clear than those seeking to unravel it will let you see.  You simply have to view the words as they viewed them.  In this case, it does matter what the meaning of the word “is” is, and it is what the founding fathers said it was, not what someone says it means today.

“Queer” used to mean ‘odd’ or ‘strange’ or ‘out of whack’ and “gay” used to mean ‘happy’ or ‘festive’.   But they now mean flaming hot Barney Frank homosexual.    Do I now have to use the modern use of this word when reading a 100+ year old novel?   Do I now have to rewrite the story in my head to believe that “the queer fellow with the gay wife” is actually a homosexual married to a lesbian, rather than an odd man with a happy wife?   I don’t believe anyone would suggest that I should.   Not even a liberal college professor.

So the Constitution means what it was meant to mean, not what someone 200 years later says it *ought* to mean.   And the Supreme Court needs to import some Central American huevos, strap them on and start calling a spade a spade.  Further, it needs to instruct Congress that an amendment is required *any time* that the Constitution is remotely unclear.  That the purpose of the Constitution is to enshrine freedoms and *protect* the individual from government.   That any time that Congress acts to empower themselves or diminish the rights of the individual, they are treading on very thin ice.   And that the court must act in favor of the people over the government in any matter lacking sufficient clarity.  Because only then can you preserve democracy and freedom.

These are the lessons from Honduras.  I would hope that a “wise Latina” especially would understand them.  It is time for our Supreme Court to stop act like an odd mixture of a secret debating society and a congressional rubber stamp.   The Supreme Court is supposed to keep Congress in check.  Not every once in awhile, but all the time.  Not 5 years after a bill is passed, but before or immediately after it is passed.  Is it too much to ask that the most powerful protectors of the Constitution finally step up and do something other than allow it to be destroyed?  I don’t think so.

Even use the words single payer in a sentence and the left swoons as though they just heard the words Barack Obama.  Or how they used to swoon, at least.    It seems so elegant to them.   One big, benevolent, caring government writing the checks, no need to worry, all the care you’d ever want for free.

But even with this absurdly rosy scenario, there are, indeed problems in paradise and just about all of them apply to ObamaCare as well.   Errr, sorry, KennedyCare.   (Under Kennedy Care, all ambulances will be a commemorative  Oldsmobile Delmont 88 and will come with an installed bar and condoms.  Bridges sold separately.)

1.  Bureaucracy.   This means that there is no method of bringing prices under control, let alone bringing them down, any more than we can build an inexpensive, let alone less expensive, bomber.    In a monopolistic system, there are two outcomes, either suppliers rebel and leave the system or they get to charge more or less what they want by any number of methods, including fraud, bill padding or unnecessary work.  Which leads to….

2.  Overcare.   Once installed, both systems incentivize overcare.   That means extra testing, extra pills, extra surgeries.   If you’re overweight, why starve, get your stomach stapled.   Sexually active?   Why use a condom when abortions are free?   High cholesterol?  No need to change that diet, we’ve got all the pills you need.    Why, we can even test you for alien microchips at no extra charge.    That is, until……….

3.  Rationing.  Number 2 leads to number 3.   Now that patients are demanding and using as much free service as they can get, the government has no choice but to start audits, clamping down on care and, well, rationing.  Death panels.   Of course, this is not until after the federal budget is in the dumps.   Sorry, 2 leads to 4 which leads to 3.

4.  Federal budget destruction and military collapse.   This is as much as 10-15 years away, but at some point, something will have to give.   If Democrats remain in control, the military is going to be squeezed as never before.   To some this is not a downside, but Obama is already setting us up for some future ugliness from Asia and the Middle East that will require a strong military in the future.     This will also mean a whole lot of other rationing with government services including healthcare.

5.  Sick care.  Under these plans, there may be incentives for prevention in the health care industry, but that doesn’t mean that customers, getting services for free will go along.  More likely, they’ll have that cheeseburger and wash it down with free Lipitor, then pop several Viagra to squeeze more blood through those DC traffic arteries.

6.  Paperwork.  Aside from just general government bureaucracy, someone still needs to handle all the paperwork to get paid.   While this may not increase current staffing, it certainly won’t shrink it much.   Unless the doctor can’t afford to pay for the help due to fee cutting.

7.  Doctor Malaise and Corruption.   Let’s face it.   You’re now an employee of the government.  They can tell you pretty much what to do, how to do it, when to do it and why.  They can ram ‘guidelines’ down your throat like  ’waffer thin mints’ until your honesty and sanity explodes.   You’ll get little reward for working harder, but you will get rewards for waste, fraud and abuse.   The overwhelming concern won’t be for caring for your patients, but how to pay off your student loans while getting $150, no, sorry, $120 for a surgery.   You think doctors have addition problems now?  Just wait.

8.  Constant Congressional Tinkering.   Prepare to have your healthcare change every year because politicians can’t stop messing with it.  Just like the tax code, the ‘health code’ will be under an endless regime of tweaking until it is so corrupt and so incomprehensible that it needs to be destroyed and recreated.   Entire careers will be made or broken based on health care tweaking promises.

9.  Declining practitioners.   Thinking about being a doctor or nurse?  Not any more!  Better to become a lawyer and sue the government to get someone the ObamaCare benefits they deserve.   Or a bureaucrat.    After all, there’s no way of paying the increasingly high cost of becoming a doctor with the increasingly low amount of money you will earn over your lifetime.

10.   Inability to respond to changing times.    Do you know why school gets out in the early afternoon and why there’s summer vacation?   Not only because kids have to milk the cows, but because air conditioning hasn’t been invented yet.  What do you mean everyone lives in the city?   We HAVE invented air conditioning?  When did THAT happen?

Oh, give me a few more days, I could think of more problems with single-payer, but I think 10 is enough, especially when these problems do not exist under a self-insurance type program such as cash/catastrophic insurance, HSAs, MRSAs or USAs.

When Social Security first came about, it was clearly unconstitutional, but judges caved to the prevailing winds rather than doing their jobs.   It seems they rationalized the answer that the public wanted, rather than being lynched by angry mobs.  They failed to protect the individual.

On the other hand, states should be able to do most anything they please.  After all, people can move to another state if they find that their state’s policies are too intrusive.   And they can far more easily vote their politicians out of office.   These personal insurance plans are not available at the national level.

But I’ve heard no one use the “do whatever you want IN YOUR STATE” argument to combat the idea of ObamaCare.   Not at the congressional level, not even in the broad public discourse.    Aside from thefact that national healthcare is not warranted by the Constitution, it would allow 50 different experiments to occur with the best of these being adopted by other states.   Not all healthcare reform plans are bad, as I lay out in my MRSA idea.

In order to be a Republican, you must wield states’ rights as a primary weapon against national socialism.    Let California be Cuba if they like.  Allow Montana to become a libertarian paradise if they like.   Permit Kansas to be an overtly  moral and religious state if they like.    Hell, even support Bernie Sanders’ right to form a commune and live in a teepee and share beans around a fire.  With guitars.  Gotta have guitars on a commune.

Even if it were disingenuous, the argument that having 50 different experiments at the state level *before* picking a national healthcare plan would have merit to all but the extreme left who want communal utopian heaven to arrive tomorrow like so many cultists awaiting a UFO to land or the end of the world to show up.   There are reasonable people that feel we should do *something*.  After all, if we don’t, nobody will be able to afford health care of any kind in 10-20 years.   And that’s an increasingly grim reality.

So I say to Republicans, if you have no plan that you support, you must support states’ rights to do as they wish.   Otherwise, we’re going to be stuck with the Healthcare of Dr No in the future.

To a Democrat, being ‘patriotic’ is going along with what Democrats and standing against Republicans “for democracy” or the cause of the week.  But it’s clearly not that either.

Patriotism is simple.  It’s a profound belief in the Constitution, the wisdom of the founders of this nation, and the willingness to defend it.  If it’s unconstitutional, it’s unpatriotic.  If it means to defeat the Constitution by any other way than an amendment, it’s unpatriotic.

So, the next time you use unpatriotic in a sentence, you have a nice, simple hammer with which to respond to the first person to call you out.  Because they’re going to expect for you to fail epically when they do.   But this time, they’re the ones on the other end of a smack down.  It sure would be refreshing to see a few Republican politicians use and defend the word patriot and all of its variations correctly for once.   We could use a few good  smack downs about now, because there’s nothing I can imagine as unpatriotic as what is happening in Washington right now.

All of this makes it hard to believe that we grew apart over the years.   But it happened.   I ended up moving to the southwest, partly to get away from the east coast rat race, partly to put some distance between my father and I.   If you remember Mark’s uncle from some of his blogs, well, that’s my father.   He’s the judgmental liberal guy that alienates and fights with everyone around him.   Bright and educated, but handicapped by ideology and frustration.   My father’s nickname for Mark was Marcus Aurelius.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, Mark and I saw each other every few years, when I’d make a trip home and I’d last seen him at my recent remarriage.   But we had lost the close relationship we used to have.   In my mind, he would always be my cousin, we’re young, we’ll catch up in depth later.   When he e-mailed me several months afterwards, I thought “yeah, I’ve got a whole bunch of stuff to tell him, we’re going to get caught up”.    But I was busy and for months, couldn’t think of where to start.   Then I heard he had cancer.   This is worse.  Now I REALLY don’t know what to say.   Fortunately, things seemed to get sorted out rather quickly and he was declared to be cancer free and on the mend.   And I felt a whole lot better about my irresponsible inaction.   With my new baby imminent, we’ll have a whole lot to get caught up on.

Then, suddenly, just a month after my baby was born, he had a relapse.  Enough was enough and I wrote him a note to check in on him and let him know I was there to talk and wanted to catch up.   My note never made it through, never was returned.   He collapsed days after his new diagnosis and died quickly, much as his mother, my aunt, had died before him.    And I’ve been dealing with the guilt ever since.   My refusal to believe my cousin could die at the young age of 44 cost me my chance to reconnect.

One of the things in his e-mail to me was his excitement about writing for RedState and for his own website, RightSided.   It had never occurred to me that Mark was a conservative or a Republican.   We had never spoken about politics.  But he had found out that I had gone down largely the same path, likely through the laments of his liberal uncle.   And I’d read his blogs sometimes at night, just to see what what was getting him riled up, every once in awhile finding a post about what his crazy liberal uncle said this time.   In Uncle Mike’s house, there has always been a picture of Mark and his siblings dressed in Revolutionary War costumes and it was still there when I went to see my uncle.   It never occurred to me that Mark would grow up to be a revolutionary, but then, maybe I wasn’t reading the clues literally hanging in front of me.

Mark’s passion for blogging got me to thinking.   I’d never been a blogger, never wanted to be.  I just like to write.  But then, that’s all blogging is.   It made me think that I owed it to him to do some writing of my own to keep his memory fresh and his spirit alive.   He never had children to take up his cause.  So I contacted Erich and he returned my e-mail.   At first, I felt dissuaded because he wasn’t willing to let me slide right into Mark’s spot.   In essence, he nicely gave me the challenge to earn it.   While at first, that dampened my drive, I continued to mull over what to do.  After all, if a tribute falls in the woods, does anybody read it?   But later, after doing a little ripping and tearing on Huffington, several people said, in essence “take it to RedState, they’ll like you there”.   And so I rolled it around in my mind once more and decided to do it, even if no one saw it.   If nothing else, it is good for MY spirit.   And maybe a few of Mark’s fans will chime in so I can know more about the people his life has touched.

I remember how Mark and I called each other “city slicker” and “country hick”, like we were brother’s separated at birth and raised under entirely different circumstances.   One of my favorite memories was him playing Joy Division for me and I made the comment “that guy sounds like he’s going to kill himself”.  ”He did”, he said.   Mark was always into music in a big way.   I remember jamming out to Aerosmith in his basement in high school before I really knew who Aerosmith was and he’d already collected all of their music.   I remember when he got me in trouble for shooting out some windows on the farm with my BB gun too.  I remember those sleepless late nights staying over at Grammy’s and going to the candy store together or pushing each other down the hill behind her house.   And I remember going on video taping adventures in college.   It makes it hard to believe he just went away one day.   But this is a cautionary tale for everyone – don’t lose touch, don’t put off til tomorrow what you can do today.   Because you never know when the chance will be taken away.

If there are some of Mark’s friends out there, feel free to chime in, I’d love to hear from you.   I hope to channel some of Mark’s spirit and energy, though, I don’t know that there will be a natural similarity or not as I am more of a Jeffersonian libertarian than a Republican conservative.   But I am Mark Kilmer’s cousin and I have something to say.

Ask yourself this simple question – if you could have all of your Social Security and Medicare taxes back in cash, would you take it?  You bet you would!   You could pay off your house or invest in a business or stock market, pay your child’s education.   But you’re not going to get it back in cash, it’s been ‘borrowed’.   The only way to get it back is to live as long as you can and use it the hard way, getting old or getting sick.    So, of course, everyone here would like to get the money paid in back someday, one way or another.  People don’t want rid of Social Security or Medicare because it would be like tossing out most of their life savings.  But it doesn’t mean they wouldn’t take their money back.

The real, under your breath answer to the “are you against Social Security and Medicare?” is “yes of course I am, it’s entirely unconstitutional to take money from people and give back as the government sees fit.”    But the politically utterable answer certainly should be “It may be nearly a century too late to be for or against Social Security and Medicare, but I believe if you offered the millions of people who have paid into these programs all of their money back, I believe they’d line up to take it in massive numbers.”   Once this simple seed is planted in the minds of Social Security and Medicare recipients, the dynamic will change and the “third rail of politics” will be taken off the grid, much to the dismay of Democrats.