It’s official: there’s a health care crisis in America. When all of the major candidates for President spend time talking about it, you know some solution is just around the corner. But, tragically, most of the common wisdom on what the problem actually is and how to fix it is 180° off course.

To understand that this true, why this is true, and how we came to be here, we first need to make a critical—but often forgotten—distinction:

What we care about is access to health care, not access to health insurance.

We shouldn’t give two cents about access to health insurance, except as a means to health care. Listen carefully to what all the politicians actually say: nearly all of the verbiage about universal coverage, universal access, etc. is focused on access to health insurance. Why? Because that’s something that government can actually promise, unlike access to health care. Short of enslaving all doctors, chaining them to desks, and scientifically distributing them around the country, there’s simply no way to ensure universal access to health care.

If you live in the middle of nowhere, for example, all the health insurance in the world does you no good if there aren’t any doctors for 500 miles. This is a problem in a surprising number of areas. In some regions the only neurosurgeons (for example) may be in large cities. The high cost of medical malpractice insurance has combined with natural market forces to increasingly limit specialists to lucrative big city markets. A growing problem in an age of increasingly effective but highly specialized medicine.

Or again, if the government’s brilliant solution to your lack of access to life-saving medicine reduces the available providers by capping what they can earn without capping their expenses (such as the aforementioned malpractice insurance), how exactly will that help you? What good does it do you to have every right to have some procedure only to find that no doctor is willing to perform it?

Or consider the dilemma for many in Canada. There, you have not only universal coverage, but the “right” to free comprehensive care. Unfortunately, you have no right to decide just what “comprehensive care” might be for any given condition. So, in some cases, you will be told to take some pain killers, shut up, and wait to die. In others, your operation may be scheduled in weeks to months due to shortages of facilities or personnel. All the problems, in short, of the worst possible HMO with absolutely no independent legal recourse.

The sad truth is that universal health insurance coverage will not solve our problems. Nearly universal health insurance coverage already exists in our system. (In fact, it’s part of the problem.) Out of 300+ million people in the United States, under 30 million citizens lack health insurance. That’s a 90%+ coverage rate, but somehow I suspect we don’t have anything like a 90% satisfaction rate with health care. In part because all of that health insurance actually makes decently priced quality health care harder to get. If you ever want to verify that for yourself, shop around for doctors offering to pay in cash, off the system. You’ll be surprised at the deals you’ll find, especially for routine things like office visits—which account for the bulk of most people’s health needs.

If we’re really serious about providing quality health care to as many people as possible, for the best possible price, we need to leave aside the rhetoric and actually look seriously at the real problems. So I propose to do just that over the next few weeks, examining the problems of consumer health insurance, high drug costs, malpractice insurance, and health care for the poorest Americans. If you’ll join me, I think you’ll be surprised at some of what you find, and I hope you’ll come to agree with me that our focus needs to shift to what really matters: the best health care possible for the most people at a reasonable cost.

Danny Thomas (born Amos Alphonsus Muzyad Yaqoob), Jan. 6, 1912-Feb. 6, 1991.

Success has nothing to do with what you gain in life or accomplish for yourself. It’s what you do for others.

—Danny Thomas

WordPress divider

Many Americans today have probably never heard of Danny Thomas, as he belonged definitively to the twilight of the Golden Age of Cinema (starring in the 1952 remake of The Jazz Singer) and the dawn of the Golden Era of Television (starring in, what else, The Danny Thomas Show and producing such shows as The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Andy Griffith Show, and The Mod Squad). And before all that, he was a stand-up comic touring the Midwest nightclub circuit under an anglicized form of his given name, Amos Jacobs.

In any event, it is not for Danny’s entertainment talent that we honor him today. Of all his long work in the studios, only a couple of his many shows are still shown frequently. But though most do not know him by name, nearly everyone knows him through his greatest legacy: The St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee.

At an early moment in his career, when the nightclub circuit was looking particularly grim (he was languishing in Detroit, no less), Danny knelt down in prayer and asked St. Jude Thaddeus (patron of hopless causes) to “show me my way in life.” Soon Danny found himself in Chicago and his career finally moving. When he next went to St. Jude in prayer at another turning point, he pledged to build a shrine if he ever had the means to do so.

His career took off, and Danny found himself wondering just how to fulfill his vow. Working with a group of businessmen in Memphis, he hit upon the idea to build a research hospital dedicated to curing the most catastrophic diseases afflicting children. A key point here: Danny Thomas didn’t just found a hospital—which after all can only treat the children that come through its doors—he founded a research institute dedicated to researching, applying, and publicizing cures for free.

And Danny did more than just found the place, he returned to the community of his birth, Lebanese Americans, to secure ongoing funding. From his efforts, the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities (ALSAC) was founded—with the sole purpose of supporting St. Jude. Today, ALSAC—still exclusively dedicated to St. Jude—is America’s third-largest health-care charity. Thus, the efforts of Danny Thomas and the Arab-American community produced a fundraising powerhouse that today transcends ethnicity, geography, and ideology to reach across America.

With an initial focus on pediatric cancer, St. Jude has helped increase the cure rate of acute lymphocytic leukemia from 4% to 80%, seen its budget grow from $1 million per year to $235 million, and branched out to study HIV-AIDS (devastating the children of Africa) and numerous cancers. Today it engages in cutting edge gene and stem cell therapies and is a highly rated scientific institution.

Leaving aside the 4900 patients seen each year, St. Jude has saved the lives of thousands upon thousands of children around the world through its contributions to basic and clinical research. Protocols developed at St. Jude have helped raise the survival rates for childhood cancers from under 20% to around 70%, with several key cancers having survival rates 90% or higher. And now it sets its sights on the diseases and therapies of the 21st Century. In the best American fashion it does not simply treat the symptoms of the ills it fights, it seeks to eliminate the root causes.

All from the vow of a stand-up comic, with help from a few Memphis businessmen and the unstinting assistance of the Arab-American community. Danny Thomas represents precisely what is right about America: he had opportunity, seized it, succeeded, and then stopped to consider how he could use his success to improve the world.

Of course, as with our other Great Americans Walt Disney and George Marshall, there are detractors. Some point to the sheer impossibility of curing childhood diseases and the tendency of charities to metastasize over time. To these folks the size and scope of St. Jude aren’t strengths but weaknesses—weaknesses that a group of smaller more focused institutions wouldn’t have. Others point out that as nasty as the diseases St. Jude fights are, they’re nothing compared to the childhood deaths from starvation, war, and exploitation. Wouldn’t all those millions be better spent fighting these more lethal, but far less scientifically “sexy” killers? Doesn’t St. Jude commit the classic American blunder of the Big Plan when less ambitious, more targeted efforts would work better?

There’s a point to all the carping, to be sure, but it still misses the point. Here, as always, the perfect is the greatest enemy of the good. Trying too hard to get the perfect solution is a great recipe for doing nothing. While others carp, hopeless cases still find hope at the place Danny built.

Still, I don’t think Danny would mind if those critics of his got busy building their competing visions. They might give ALSAC a run for the money, but I can’t help but think that Danny would just look down and urge them on.

After all, there’s still more than enough childhood misery to go around, sadly.

Consider the following statistics:

  • 40% of University of Virginia (UVa) students consume an average of six or more drinks a week.
  • 24.4% of UVa students don’t care if their friends drink and drive.
  • 33.5% of UVa students don’t mind if their drinking causes problems for other people.
  • 16.5% of UVa students are too scared of the cops to call 911 when one of their friends has alcohol poisoning.
  • About one in twenty UVa students has gotten into a fight while drinking.
  • 25.4% of UVa students drink alone and/or go to frat parties without anyone there that they know.
  • 35.1% of UVa students will leave their drunk friend with a stranger.
  • 10% of UVa students who drink have been injured at some point because of their drinking.

Now, consider the source of these statistics, namely a web site that is supposed to convince UVa students that other students don’t drink. The idea is that students will be overwhelmed by how many of their peers do the right thing, thus causing students with drinking problems to abandon all of their foolish and irresponsible habits.

Of course, to make this argument more convincing, all of these statistics are provided in reverse. For instance, they assert that 60% of UVa students consume 0-5 drinks per week…

I guess you’ll have to excuse me if I’m still underwhelmed by those numbers.

Apparently, this is a popular approach to addressing alcohol problems at universities. You can even find consulting companies that will put together one of these “Social Norms” campaigns for your school. There are (at least) two things wrong with this picture.

  1. If I go to a crowded frat party or a popular bar that is turning people away at the door every Friday and Saturday night, I’m not going to be worried that too many of my peers will look down on me for drinking. On the contrary, I’m still going to be more worried that I’m never going to get through the crowd around the bar to get a drink of my own.
  2. If you can do the simple arithmetic that I did at the beginning of this post, then you can figure out that there are very large groups of students who do these things that you are not supposed to do. There are over twenty thousand students at UVa, and so I have to conclude that nearly a thousand of them have gotten in a fight while they were drunk. The first two rules of Fight Club might be not to talk about Fight Club, but they evidently still have quite a few members in their Charlottesville chapter.

The only part that I can’t figure out about all of this is why anyone would think that such a ridiculous campaign would work in the first place. Yes, people are very sensitive to what their peers are doing, but people also already have a pretty good idea of how much their peers are drinking and posters with these messages certainly aren’t going to change that.

PS – Please double-check to make sure that your friends would actually call an ambulance for you if you needed one. Apparently, a fair number of my peers wouldn’t.

A couple months back, I mentioned the real scandal of embryonic stem cell research: its supporters oppose effective, non-controversial stem cell research in favor of the immoral and unproven embryonic research. Now, that circle can welcome at their latest charter member. Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois has recently signed into law a bill making his $15 million in unauthorized grants for embryonic stem cell research, well, authorized. It also sets up an institute to award future grants and (of course) to encourage therapeutic cloning (an essential part of the embryonic research package).

All in all, a great victory for the destruction of human life in the service of nebulous and distant goals. And what an ally the movement has gained in Gov. Blagojevich! Already renowned for his rampant cronyism, absentee governorship, and fiscal irresponsibility, he’s recently added petty partisan sniping against his own party leadership in the legislature. “Blago” as he’s affectionately known to his many detractors, is such a paragon of empty-headed, plastic haired stupidity that he seems utterly unreal. You think he must be a fictional character, at first, until you see all the evidence. Surely, you think, anyone who makes George W. Bush look like the president of MENSA can’t be real.

But, he is, and now he’s a proud member of the illustrious political supporters of embryonic stem cell research. Well, he does join a proud pantheon of idiots. And, of course, some clearly smart people who just hate human life. And, even, a few misguided souls who actually think they’re doing the right thing.

Most importantly, he joins a growing effort to defund research making leaps and bounds for a blind leap of faith. Using human beings for research purposes is, of course, a time-honored tradition—but planning to deliberately produce, grow, and kill them for the sole purpose of research is new. And supporters shouldn’t think they’re fooling anyone with lame protestations about how funding for this research doesn’t reduce funding for other stem cell research. Of course it does. There’s a (really) limited pool of money out there, and it’s obviously pretty tight. If it weren’t, you wouldn’t need Blago’s paltry $15 million, as the embryonic guys would be swimming in cash.

In reality, of course, money is tight, and every million thrown down the homicidal maw of embryonic stem cell and “therapeutic” cloning research is one less million to spend on stem cell research that actually produces results. But that’s by design, because embryonic stem cell research isn’t about achieving short-term results, it’s about research unhindered by current moral or ethical limits. It’s about redefining “medical ethics” and humanity to allow the full range of experimentation on human beings—provided that those human beings are killed before they get too obviously human for our comfort.

Of course, as our comfort zone expands, I’m sure the bounds of “therapeutic” cloning will slide right along with it. All perfectly simple and reasonable once we’ve set ourselves up as the arbiters of which lives are really human. Nice to see all the old ways coming back again, I suppose. “Life unworthy of life” does, after all, have such a fine pedigree in so very many places. But, really, we’re going one better: our mantra won’t be unfit life, it’ll be fully commoditized and packaged life—designed, mass-produced, packaged, and ready for sale on the open market.

Once in our past, we berated the Romans for cruelly exposing their unwanted infants and the Spartans for discarding deformed children deemed unworthy of life. Now, we boldly march into a future where we will calmly grind up our deliberately produced offspring in the service of those lucky enough to get to the magic moment of birth when they somehow suddenly become worthy of life.

And, right there in front, capering in front with the other pied pipers, the empty, empty head of Blago—not a hair out of place.

UPDATED: Belatedly added link to insightful post about Blago from a fellow Angry Man.  Let the shameless site-promotion grow from more to more, and so blogger life be enriched!

Illinois recently joined the growing ranks of states which are banning smoking in public places. While not the historic milestone it should have been (many states have already gone through with full bans), it is a step in the right direction. Illinois is joining an elite group of states nationwide who have finally stood up for the rights of their citizens. Currently 16 states have full bans of smoking in the workplace, 20 have banned smoking in restaurants, and 14 have banned all smoking in bars. In the Midwest alone, Ohio, Illinois, and Minnesota have banned the dangerous habit, with Michigan and Wisconsin suspected to soon follow suit.

But why ban smoking? Most people view smoking bans as a sort of nanny law— a law designed to protect them from their own choices. But smoking bans aren’t nanny laws. They’re about protecting other people from your irresponsible choices. No laws to date have banned smoking in private residences, or on residential property, just in public places where your choices can adversely affect other individuals. This ban will help to reduce the 65,000 deaths annually that occur as a result of second hand smoke1; help to mitigate the increased 25-35% increase in rate of coronary death caused by second hand smoke1; and the 16-19% increase in risk of lung cancer1. This reduced incidence of health problems will also positively effect our economy. Employers will pay $1,300 less per employee for health insurance due to the decrease in secondhand smoke related effects2. Nationwide, $661 million in taxpayer dollars would be saved every year due to the use of government medical aid.2

But the ban won’t only help the health of citizens and reduce the cost to employers and tax payers, studies in states which have already conducted bans have shown that it will help improve business as well. Studies have shown that 75% percent of bar patrons rated a nonsmoking atmosphere as important to their selection of bars, and 91% said they would go to bars more frequently if smoking was completely banned2. California businesses even saw a total of 8.7% increase in growth for restaurants and bars after smoking bans went into effect2.

In the face of such a mountain of evidence on the problems second hand smoke forces onto others, many smoking supporters try to compare smoking to drinking, and claim that if smoking is banned, drinking should be too. The comparison, however, is a false one. One can drink responsibly with friends without adversely affecting their health. In fact drinking in moderation is actually good for your health. As long as those who have been drinking don’t drive, no one’s health is put in jeopardy. There is no such thing, however, as responsible smoking. Any amount of second hand smoke represents a health risk for those nearby.

It’s time for the rest of the States to take responsibility for public health and help the vast majority of their citizens who support smoking bans. Such a move will improve the quality of life we all enjoy, bring in more business to restaurants and bars, and help to reduce the tax burden we all bear as a result of the poor choices made by others. It is time to ban smoking.

-Angry Midwesterner

1 Secondhand Smoke: The Health Risks, SmokeFree Illinois
2 Secondhand Smoke: Economics, SmokeFree Illinois

It is ironic that every time we vote on this legislation, there’s a major scientific study that says you don’t have to do stem cell research.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)


Truer words were never spoken (as long as you add “embryonic” to the last three words). Even as Rahm and his buddies were pushing their umpteenth attempt to get federal funding to kick-start the Devil’s choice of embryonic stem cell research (to save a life you must take one), Japanese researchers were announcing a major breakthrough using not even uncontroversial adult stem cells but lowly skin cells.

The Kyoto University breakthrough, announced in the prestigious journal Nature and confirmed by scientists from MIT, Harvard, and UCLA transforms skin cells, one of the easiest cell types to harvest, into an embryonic state. Bypassing the difficulties of cloning and nuclear transfer (transferring the nucleus of one cell to another), Dr. Shinya Yamanaka focused on finding genes that would allow an adult cell to regress to its original primitive, pluripotent state.

And he succeeded, at least for mouse skin cells. In that case, he found just four genes which could enable this “Holy Grail” of stem cell therapy. By every test his team—or their colleagues at other institutions—can preform, these regressed cells are the full equivalent of embryonic stem cells. They seem to lack only one thing: the need to kill a tiny embryo to harvest them.

That’s the real scandal of the stem cell debate. Incredibly promising, non-controversial research is being completely neglected—even ridiculed—as the debate rages over highly controversial, difficult, and (so far) comparatively unproductive research. For no legitimate scientific reason. When Sen. Hillary Clinton said:

This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families.

she was in fact the one putting ideology before science. If she were really committed to advancing science without regard for ideology, she would be supporting independent efforts to increase funding to non-embryonic stem cell research programs. That would show true leadership and an appreciation for the science involved, and could be done alongside continued efforts to override the President’s veto on embryonic research funding.

No matter what the merits of embryonic stem cell research, or the worthiness of overriding the President’s veto, why should good science go neglected? No matter which side one takes on the embryonic stem cell debate, surely everyone can agree that moving ahead with research into using other stem cells—research which doesn’t push anyone’s buttons—is a good idea?

But neither the Democrats nor their media allies seem interested in stem cell research that doesn’t involve killing humans. Consider this fine example of spin by the New York Times:

“How many more advancements in noncontroversial, ethical, adult stem cell research will it take before Congress decides to catch up with science?” said Representative Joseph R. Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, holding up a front-page newspaper account of the scientific discovery. “These have all of the potential and none of the controversy.”

Such techniques, if proven successful, could sidestep heated debates about the research. The technique described on Wednesday works only in mice and is unsuitable for humans. Scientists hope it will prove adaptable to human cells, but cannot say when that may happen.

True enough. But this describes nearly all stem cell research. It is the height of spin to criticize what your chosen approach shares with the alternatives. The fact is that we are merely at the beginning of stem cell research in general, and we have a long road ahead whichever road we take. Why should that be used as an argument against any promising technique?

This is why the rush to focus nearly exclusively on embryonic stem cell research is so puzzling—and troubling. In a world of limited resources, surely a case can be made to prefer promising approaches which a large portion of the population does not find abhorrent? And shouldn’t even proponents of embryonic stem cell research see the benefits of separating the two? Since one branch of stem cell research is not controversial, why not pass specific funding for it separately? Why conflate the two in the mind of the public and on the floor of the Congress. There’s only one reason: because embryonic stem cell proponents want to make it an all or nothing proposition. “Either you embrace all stem cell research—with no restrictions at all,” they seem to be saying, “or we’ll prevent funding for any research.”

And that’s why it’s the Democrats and the media who are putting “ideology before science” every time they fail to clearly distinguish embryonic stem cell research from other stem cell approaches. Considering the promise of numerous adult stem cell therapies, the Senate Democrats’ constant campaign to derail funding for it is the true scandal of the debate. And the Democrats need to be held accountable for it, and for the harm it threatens to do to those awaiting cures across the world.

It has recently come to my attention that our President hates Capitalism, and actively works against the health of the American people. I’m not terribly surprised, however, after all if he doesn’t respect fundamental liberties, what does he respect? Bribes from big business is about all I can come up with. His recent position on quashing innovation in the meat packing industry seems only to confirm this.

Our story begins with Creekstone Farms, a small Kansas producer of beef. The beef production and meatpacking business is a tough world to compete in, especially with the huge corporate businesses that rule the roost. Rather than accepting a role as the low producer on the totem pole, the owners of Creekstone Farms resorted to good old American ingenuity and the application of capitalist principles. As the USDA currently only mandates testing of 1% of all cattle for Mad Cow Disease, an infectious prion that has caused a number of recent scares, Creekstone Farms decided to invest the capital into building testing facilities for all of their cattle so that they could offer a 100% Mad Cow free guarantee to consumers and thus increase their competitive edge. They invested over half a million dollars in extensive testing facilities, and were ready to launch their new innovative plan, but they hit a problem. The US Government refused to allow them to purchase additional testing equipment to outfit the already built laboratory.

The culprit isn’t a law against buying additional testing equipment, nor was it a shortage of the kits. No, the shadowy movers behind this decision was none other than big business advocacy groups. They even admitted to pressuring the USDA into withholding additional testing kits. The president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (a non-governmental advocacy group put together by the big players in meat packing) went so far as to say,

If testing is allowed at Creekstone, we think it would become the international standard and the domestic standard, too.

Let me translate this out of lobbyist speak into plain English for you,

Oh no! Everybody panic! The consumers might like a higher quality product more than ours and we might have to cut into our profits!

Creekstone took the issue to federal court, where in March a judge ruled that the US Government had no right to deny the additional testing kits to Creekstone. This decision is currently being appealed, which led to the Bush administration’s announcement that it would fight to keep Creekstone from testing more than 1% of its cows. Now tell me, why does President Bush hate Capitalism? More importantly why does he hate the health of the American people?

It isn’t like the other meatpacking businesses have a right to make a profit. Like all companies they only have a right to try to make a profit, but if people would rather buy someone else’s product, oh well, that is the free market for you. Innovate or die, as they say. The core of this issue is that capitalism and ingenuity have been cornerstones of the American economy for literally centuries. Our market is such that it rewards those who are willing to spend the time and the money on new ideas which pan out. Those companies that don’t innovate and keep with the times fall by the way side, supplanted by smarter companies offering a product more people are willing to buy.

All Creekstone is doing is banking an initial $0.5 million, and a $0.10 per pound price increase on their beef, on the fact that Americans will pay for higher levels of testing and safety on their beef. If they are wrong, Creekstone will lose big time, but if they are right, prosperity will shine on them, just like it has other innovators in other eras. It’s just too bad that the Bush administration would rather line its pockets with ill gotten gains, than stand up for the American way.

-Angry Midwesterner

The winter sports here are drawing to a close – basketball, men’s volleyball, and local elections. I decided that I should pay more attention to the local governance of these simple folks who surround me, and perhaps that would unlock the secret logic the drives them forward in directions that are so unthinkable to a common-sense citizen in the old country. I’ve found that even in their local governance policies these people start with their heads in the wrong place.

Lately, the local politics of my quaint hamlet have stunk like horse manure. Oh, I would that that were only a figure of speech. Burbank, CA, for historical reasons, has an area of town where most of the houses have a horse stable attached. If you think people are strange when they’re way too interested in their pets, you’ve never seen horse owners. And nothing brings a community together like all sharing the same ridiculous interest.

When their quiet, peaceful neighborhood was threatened by the invasion of an evil big-box retailer, they banded together and mounted an All-American grassroots effort to show the overbearing city council that they meant business. Well, they meant business for the council that is – they didn’t mean business for the retailer. That, they were trying to prevent.

This sounds like a familiar enough story, except that this is California. This is Burbank. This is the Rancho Equestrian District. What would normally be cries of ‘The extra traffic will endanger the children in our little subdivision – think of the children’ became Californicated into: ‘There will be wine tastings, so drunken drivers will endanger us as we ride around the RanchoThink of the Horses!’ (Burbank Leader – sorry for the login)

The usual cries of our quaint little mom & pop shops will be replaced by boring huge store” were Californicated into: “it’s replacing a uniquely Burbank business” (The current tenant of the building to be replaced is Captions, Inc – providers of closed-captioning, credits, subtitles, and translations)

The semi-usual cries of “We don’t want that evil, socially irresponsible corporation infecting our town’s policy of social justice and low environmental-impact” ring somewhat hollow when the big-box chain store moving in is Whole Foods. Yeah. That Whole Foods – organic granola is always half-off.

Only in California would you have a ridiculous situation like this. The skeleton outline seems reasonable, but when you have a bunch of rich, homogenously white wanna-be ranchers in the middle of the LA sprawl whose idea of a grassroots effort involves have each one of their lawyers threaten to sue the city complain about the removal of an historic cottage industry of a closed captioning studio in order to bring in the evil big box retailer of fine organic groceries, wines, and other healthy foods, the odds that the folks back in the old country will believe me when I tell them are just astronomically low.

These are the people that annoy me on my walk to work. Their sprinklers are watering their little postage stamp lawns every day of the year. Their sidewalks are frequently covered in excess manure. And on days when I have to get up at dawn to hit the office early, there’s a little smart-aleck rooster next to my office who feels he has to remind me of that fact.

On the other hand, I’ve got no big need for a Whole Foods. I’ve got no dog in this fight. This is Burbank – the “normal” grocery store has a massive organic food section. If I need to impress a vegan, there are two Trader Joe’s within 10 minutes of here. If I badly need to locate something to eat that inconvenienced no animals, I know where I can find some well-watered grass.

I’m just an observer trying to make sense of it all. This is the biggest thing going on in town right now. In the old country we often saw reports of these people and their bickering ways spreading to national affairs. They would often try to cast their opponent as being the privileged favorite, then argue that everyone should only listen to the oppressed minority – establishing a tyranny of the minority. It’s interesting to see their methods turned on each other, and coming to a complete stalemate.

The developer ceded the latest round, but he ceded in a way that allows him to return next time stronger that they can possibly imagine. Possibly in a glowing ghostly aura. The glow might be due to the extra-healthy foods.