"Republicratic" A Female Perspective

“Among pro-choice independent women, pro-choice Republican women, and liberal to moderate Republican women, the issue of abortion produces a larger advantage for Democrats than the economy, the war in Iraq, or health care," *Greenberg Quinlan Rosner/NARAL poll report.

BINGO! I am a fiscal conservative, or what I call a “Republicrat”, or "Coastal Republican" but I am a social liberal and now I will explain why I quoted the above statement and why I vote the way that I do.

I am grateful for shows like John & Ken and Bill O’Riley, I only wish that there was a female perspective on their philosophy. Heck, I wish I WAS the female perspective on that philosophy. They are conservatives, but not Kool-Aid drinkers and that makes their show fair and intelligent even when I disagree. Nothing over the past few days has been more laughable and disingenuous than listening to “Kool-aid conservatives” trying to justify the Sarah Palin selection with the “Well, Barack Obama...” opening statement, then proceeding to cite her executive experience of a tiny isolated state as enough experience for her to be president if something should happen to McCain.

So, here is the female perspective. I work very hard for a living and I have most definitely paid more in taxes that I have benefited from re-distribution of wealth. AND with the exception of one seriously mentally ill family member, that applies to most everyone I know. I earned six figures for years before I voluntarily cut back to focus on parenting so you have to have a whole new perspective to understand why I would vote for a liberal candidate. Why? Because I can ALWAYS make more money. What I can’t do, is give my daughter the right to chose if she has an unplanned pregnancy, or God forbid she is the victim rape.

Supreme court justices are appointed for life and they have the ability to take away choices that affect the amount of money I am free to make because make no mistake, a woman’s reproduction has a powerful impact on her income over her life. I can always make more money, but I cannot leave my daughter a world where she cannot marry and make a family with the person she chooses, man or woman. Those of you who have sons and think this doesn’t really apply to you are wrong because it is your sons income will be re-distributed to care for the unwanted children who are born and DON’T fool yourself into thinking that making pro-life laws will reduce pregnancies. Teen hormones have a lock on that and they always have. Being forced to continue an unplanned pregnancy is a much greater threat to both MY wealth and my daughter’s lifetime wealth than any tax.

Oddly enough, I frequently listen to Dr. Laura and appreciate her stance on protecting children even if I don’t always agree on how to best accomplish that. What I have learned, not from her, but my own experience is that many of the male/female roles are more hard wired than we, as a society, would like to admit and the bottom line is there are things that a mother does better for a child in most cases than a father. This, coming from me, a mother who was biologically unable to breast feed, was a startling discovery. That being said, I don’t think it has to be the only option and if the Palin’s have made things work for them as an untraditional family (albeit while trouncing around claiming traditional values), then I’m happy to take that issue off the table. I recently heard that Sir. Todd Palin is a homemaker dad, and if true, I accept that as my answer (and a good one) my basic questions about Sarah’s “Family Values”, and while I could argue on the social conservative side that her daughter wouldn’t be in the situation she is in if she had a mother more present in her life, that’s only an assumption based on a theory to which I don’t necessarily subscribe. I say their family is anything but “traditional” which is fine by me, but I wonder why it’s fine by the “Kool-aid conservatives”. Or is this just another “Well, Barack Obama....” moment. Let me try this one: “Well, Barack Obama has a traditional family”. Yep, sounds silly, but still ridiculously true in this context.

The bottom line is, what the O’Riley’s, the Kobalt’s, et. Al are missing, especially when it comes to issues like health care is that they’ve lost touch with the average American. The AVERAGE American doesn’t have union health and retiree benefits like they do, which are among the most secure. So when they tell you that you don’t need the government’s help with healthcare, they’re naive. It’s because they’ve lost touch with working for a private company who decides to cancel their group plan. Or a self employee, HARD working entrepreneur like my dad; Our family was DEVASTATED financially when a family member was diagnosed with a serious mental illness. We were above upper middle class, I’d say wealthy even, but we went from that to poor and never recovered.

It’s easy to SAY, well those are the exceptions, and sure the government should help those people, not the lazy ones, but again, it’s naive. The government cannot examine everyone requesting assistance with a magnifier to determine if they are “hard working” or free loaders, so the appropriate solution is not that would be like FEMA healthcare and it would be a failure.

So, I look at it like this, there are many things I don’t like my tax money spent on that WILL be regardless of my opinion. The “earmarks” need to be turned over to “faith based community”, and tax dollars need to be spent on health and safety of the American people and I DON’T mean protecting adults from themselves. That’s social liberalism and fiscal conservatism, that’s “Republicratic” and it’s the missing perspective.

Sarah Palin for President?

I don't like to blog predictions, if you're wrong you're immortalized "wrong", but the flip side is it gives you a widespread "I told you so" if you're right that extends beyond family, friends and co-workers. So, I'm predicting that Sarah Palin will withdraw her nomination for the McCain's running mate. I say withdraw her nomination, because I'm afraid if she resigns as VP AFTER the election, it will look too political. Either way, then McCain will be able to say, see what I did, or tried to do to bring change to Washington?

Over the past few days, conservatives have disappointed me in their ability to act like left wing liberals. By twisting facts and justifying Sarah Palin's nomination the way the far left normally does with their own affirmative action moves. Let's face it, being executive of tiny, isolated cities and states whose issues do not reflect that of most American cities does NOT make for presidential experience. This choice makes John McCain look presidential. It makes him look like a old man smitten by a smart, pretty woman. No doubt impressive, but not the pick for Vice President of the United States. I'd be saying the same thing if this was on the democratic side of the isle.

I'm not a sexist, I'm a realist and also a liberal, but as a mother, I know a sleep deprived, hormone imbalanced mother of a newborn baby should not be one heartbeat away from "the button". So here is Sarah Palin's out, "My family needs me". It will be graceful, and a reason embraced by the Republican base. If I were Bristol Palin, I'd probably be acting out right now. She must want and need her mother by her side during this frightening time, not to mention planning a wedding.

So that's my prediction, for better or worse it's out there. Now let's see what happens.

Is it my imagination or …

Is it my imagination or are things getting bad again in Iraq? I've already blogged about how our efforts in Iraq are jeopardizing our effort in Afghanistan, but since the first of the year, I've heard of multiple attacks that have resulted in US military casualty. Does that suggest that a draw down in the so called "troop surge" back down to pre-surge levels mean a return to pre-surge casualties? Then all the rhetoric about "the surge is working"… well sure it works, just like reduced class sizes works. If you reduce the "SU Troop to Insurgent" ratio, then you have better control over the classroom. Why everyone was so content to ignore the possibility that an unsustainable surge was as temporary as the strategy is a shocking display of short sightedness.

As I've mentioned, I don't think that it's fair to tear up a country and then leave them hanging, (like we're doing in Afghanistan), but if I had to prioritize, I would start troop withdrawal from Iraq and put resources into intelligence so we can keep a very close eye on what is going on there. In the meantime, we should be aggressively rebuilding our military and rehabilitating our physically and emotional wounded soldiers.

This entire situation disturbs me SO terribly; the way that GWB and company have run this country into the ground is so sad and painful. I want to be proud to be an American, but it's hard right now.

Why are so many criticizing Dr. Phil?

Why are so many criticizing Dr. Phil for his role in the "Brittney" saga? Yes, he has a television show and yes, he is a astute business man who I am sure is concerned about the ratings of his show, but so what?

We complain about how complex and expensive healthcare is in America, but here is someone who, regardless of her personal motive or gain, is making sincere efforts to help people get the help they need to make their family healthier and suddenly everyone is critical.

If you think getting treatment for cancer or other physical illnesses are a battle with an insurance company, try getting MENTAL health treatment. It's expensive and much less a science than other types of treatment. Many insurance companies have in fact RESTRICTED the amount of visits to a therapists or psychologists that they will pay for and we all know that a significant portion of the homeless suffer from untreated mental illness.

It is the success of his show and the high ratings that the show enjoys that ALLOW Dr. Phil to provide the help that he provides to his guest and others. Without the revenue that those ratings bring, there would be no mental health facilities donating their services in exchange for publicity that the show provides.

I recently read an article in the LA Times (NOT one of my favorite newspapers) that Californians want to have their cake and eat it too. They argued that we wanted to keep cutting taxes without cutting services. Well, if the individuals are willing to have their problems publicized in exchange for having the help they need, I say we should judge.

The bottom line is that it's the RATINGS that allow Dr. Phil to provide the assistance that he does, and I am certain that if it wasn't helpful, we would have heard or read about it by now. Would we rather that these people NOT be able to get the help they need?

It would appear that Dr. Phil has stepped up and admitted the mistakes he made in dealing with the Brittney situation and I believe he is entitled to a mistake or misstep now and again. If I were to make a judgment as to who could be trusted to be honest and up front about what happened behind closed doors, I'd be inclined to believe Dr. Phil over Lynn Spears any day.

So now is the time to decide. If you feel like Dr. Phil's show simply exploits people instead of help, then stop watching the show. When enough people feel that way, then there will not be enough ratings for the show to help anybody. Will you be happy then?

Almost Time to Table Affirmative Action

This must be a frustrating time for John Edwards, or extremely exciting if he truly believes the things he says. Here we have a charming, middle age, handsome, southern, white, Christian gentleman. Given the landscape upon which he is seeking the Democratic nomination, he should be a shoe in, right? Yet he is trailing behind a woman and a minority. What has the country come to when a white male has to compete on a level playing field with everyone else?

HealthCare Reform is a Real Health Scare Reform

If you haven't heard the latest proposal for healthcare reform, I'd recommend you take notice. The requirement to BUY your individual healthcare from insurance companies is full of promises that this will deliver lower prices because of competition. The California Nurses Association has proposed a plan that essentially gives Medicare to all, even ILLEGAL AILENS! This would be an expensive entitlement that we would live to regret and it's a big spending plan with tax increases that will never get the support of the American people, or congress. In short, it's a FAIRY TALE. The AMA plan, which I use as a comparison in my own plan below (and also similar to the one endorsed by the California governor), mostly benefits insurance companies. In addition, it provides ZERO minimum insurance or provisions (maximum benefits payable), and no controls on what insurance companies can charge.

Many members of congress are so busy living off their expense account that they've lost track of what it cost to live in America, especially in coastal cities. So, before I present my Healthcare reform plan, I'd like to show you what purchasing individual insurance might look like for your family:

Imagine the disastrous economic impact if families were suddenly REQUIRED by federal mandate to spend $700, $800, $900 or more per month to purchase health insurance. And NOBODY is talking about giving subsidies to people in this income level, NOBODY.

I call MY Proposal CARE, NOT COVERAGE
AND I BELIVE IT'S THE BEST CHANCE HEALTHCARE REFORM!

There are nearly 50 million without health insurance coverage. These uninsured generally do not receive basic preventive care because of cost concerns and end up seeking non-emergency treatment in an emergency room, or waiting until medical conditions deteriorate to an emergency situation and the burden of more expense treatments fall on hospitals and taxpayers.

AMA Proposed Solution

Require "those who can afford it" to buy insurance.

Age 18 and under – 11.2% of the uninsured. Children are reliant on an adult parent or guardian to ensure coverage according to AMA plan mandate.

Age 18-24 – 30.6% of the uninsured. Young, generally healthy population, not generally responsible enough to be relied upon to comply with this mandate when they wish to spend their money elsewhere. No penalty for non-compliance will solidify a minimal consistent participation.

Age 25-34 – 26.4% of the uninsured. Period where other family responsibilities such as marriage, starting a family, re-paying student loans, buying a home will place significant pressure on incomes. Generally healthy age group will not feel life pressure to prioritize compliance with this mandate in comparison to other more immediate life needs and desires.

Age 35-44 – 18.4% of the uninsured. This is the age group where common middle age ailments (high blood pressure, diabetes etc) will begin to set in creating higher insurance premiums. This is the group most motivated to comply with the mandate and they will be higher risk than the preceding age categories, increasing the cost for ALL those who chose to comply. Financial difficulty can be expected as families are expected to make premium payments of up to 50% of their disposable income (net of rent/mortgage) while attempting to 1) Save for increasing college costs 2) Save for retirement 3) Accommodate divorce/blended families, child support and alimony.

Low compliance among the 18-24 and 25-34 categories will create catastrophic cost burden for this group making common missed premium payments and lapsed coverage likely and common resulting in excessive litigation over cancelled policies when members fall ill.

Age 45-64 – 18.4% of the uninsured. This group will meet many of the same is the age group where common middle age ailments (high blood pressure, diabetes etc) will begin to set in creating higher insurance premiums. This is the group most motivated to comply with the mandate and they will be higher risk than the preceding age

Age 65+ - 1.6% of the uninsured. This small group has EVERY incentive to be insured and lack of insurance is most likely a lack of ability to obtain or remotely afford insurance. They should be incorporated into our current Medicare plan.

AMA Plan flaws

The reason I focus on this plan is because it provides a very detailed roadmap of the "tax credit" system that is gain more and more bi-partisan support among lawmakers.

1. The AMA plan to disrupt the tax treatment of the coverage of 250 million Americans to accommodate 47 million is well meaning but overkill. My experience working with employer sponsored plans suggest that Americans will be confused, not empowered by a smorgasbord of health plans from which they will be required to choose (especially when taking into account the growing immigrant population who count high numbers of uninsured amongst their ranks). This proposal will also result in either a huge burden to employers in providing communication to educate employees about their choices, or a huge new government bureaucracy to do the same.
   

   
   

2. In addition, if employers will be expected to handle payroll deductions for dozens (if not multiple dozens) of health plans and the resulting group premium billing, reconciliation and payment to vendors, it will require MASSIVE Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS) and Payroll Systems reprogramming as well as additional staff to manage eligibility reporting for employee choices.
   

   
   

3. The AMA Plan assumes that a tax credit/voucher system would INCENT families to purchase insurance, but I believe this is a false assumption. Families already have an overwhelming incentive to purchase health insurance; it's the love, care and concern of their family members, however, if the tax credit doesn't equal or exceed the cost of insurance, there is no further incentive for healthy individuals.
   

   
   

4. Instead of focusing on facilitating market innovation in healthcare, the AMA should focus on setting guidelines and education regarding the most successful preventative care regime and treatments. I reject the AMA assertion that they should design a voucher or tax credit system to "control" the way in which consumers use, or as they call it, "overuse" healthcare services. Not only is there little likelihood of this becoming a widespread problem, it creates problems of interpretation of "overuse" of the patients who face the more complex medical situations. This is something that should be managed at the physician patient level. In my reform proposal, it is clear why this provision is unnecessary.
   

   
   

5. AMA Plan fails acknowledgment or plan for addressing the SIGNIFICANT cost of living differences from state to state. For example, residents of states such as Southern and Northern California, New York, Miami and other high COLA area are currently SEVERLY HANDICAPPED by 401k limits because there is no accounting for an attempt to retire in the area where one has lived their life, and where they may have children or grandchildren they wish to stay near. Simply put, too many in government are out of touch with what is middle class. For example with more and more people having to save for their own retirement (with pensions all but disappeared in the private sector, college tuition skyrocketing and private school tuition due to poor public school performance and overcrowding. Demands on the middle class are more than ever and ever increasing, while federal adjustments continue to track a COLA that doesn't reflect the burden the middle class take on to remain so and provide it to their children.
   

   
   

6. Community ratings will predictability result in poor and minorities Americans paying higher premiums, not unlike auto insurance.
   

   
   

7. Provides THE EXACT same tax benefits to corporations for offering health coverage to employees, while potentially taking some or all of that benefit away from middle and upper middle class families. That just what America is tired of.
   

   
   

8. The AMA's proposal to implement incrementally requires a HUGE increase in spending first to provide tax credits to the low income. Right now, the US can't afford that, the middle class (who will NO DOUBT pay that tab) can't afford it and America will not trust Congress to follow through. They're rightfully afraid of simply getting stuck with another low income entitlement/welfare that never reaps the promised dividends of lower cost and better choice and coverage for all. Get it wrong, and you further divide the country and hurt chances of getting another chance. Remember during Bill Clinton's first term as president? He appointed Hillary to present a proposal that Americans OVERWHELMINGLY rejected and look how long it's taken us to get back to this issue. We can't afford to let this happen again.
   

MY HEALTHCARE REFORM PROPOSAL

A comprehensive proposal like what is presented by the AMA, is courageous. I applaud their attempt to take on this complicated issue, however, as much as Americans want healthcare reform, a proposal that calls for 1) Redistribution of wealth (in "reallocating the current tax subsidy for employer sponsored benefits) and 2) Upsetting the coverage for 80-85% of Americans to fix it for 15-20% will not pass muster with the American people. It's time to get realistic in proposing Health care reform that begins to provide coverage for the uninsured while allowing the insured to gradually review their options as they face being uninsured, for example, during periods of unemployment and when venturing into self employment. As mentioned above, it is not enough to provide incentive for health plan purchase, the incentive naturally exist. Advancing tax credits will result in huge government bureaucracy, lapses in coverage when making premium payments are a financial burden, and most importantly, puts the HEAVIEST burden on America's middle class once again. Worst of all, it's sets up the healthcare industry to become the next oil industry, with politicians promising and consumers hoping and praying that competition will create lower cost only to find twenty or thirty years down the line that healthcare companies are banking record breaking profits and Americans are stuck paying whatever is demanded by what is only a handful of giant, multinational insurers demand after one small insurer after another is bankrupted and bought out after a few very sick members that they are forced to renew. This AMA plan contains no provisions to protect consumers from the type of cost run away that we have seen in the oil and drug markets.

While the AMA proposes "tax consequences" for non-compliance, the enforcement would be reduced to battle with individual who fall ill between coverage (such as during a job switch). Not to mention, a tax consequence of a few thousand dollars is really not meaningful to someone who left tax payers with a $500,000 tab because they fell ill, while uninsured.

CARE, NOT COVERAGE

First and foremost, my proposal LEAVES ALONE the current, employer sponsored healthcare system for employers who choose to keep it. This lack of requirement to burden employers with MASSIVE restructuring of their health plan delivery system will garner important support from corporate interest for healthcare reform and will not threaten a currently fragile employment market.

1. Because conventional wisdom is that the insured (through individual and group plans) pay the cost of the uninsured because the ultimate healthcare they receive is the most expensive and inefficient method of treatment. We can immediately begin to curtail this by MANDATING preventive care, INSTEAD of health coverage. We should select any number of access points where in individual must demonstrate proof of having had a routine physical before they can access certain rights and benefits, not unlike schools require proof of immunization prior to enrollment. This proof should be required prior to:
   
   1. Enrollment in school
      
   2. Starting a new job – the employer will NOT receive any information regarding the health of a new employee, simply that they have had a routine physical exam within the last 12 months (or at the interval recommended by the AMA). An employee who has not, can be sent for such an exam before being allowed to start work and low or no cost services can be available for those who have no coverage and cannot afford it.
      
   3. Both group and individual plans will be required to cover the cost of a routine physical exam, a virtual non-burden on plan since the lion share of plans already offer such coverage.
      
   4. Drivers License Renewal
      
   5. States (or at the federal level) can set additional points at which evidence of routine care must be provided to ensure that issues are treated early, and not when emergent, however in no case will health information be shared among agencies above and beyond a confirmation of having received preventive care.
      
   6. For those who will object based on religious grounds, these people should also object to emergency care and thus should not present a burden to the system.
      
2. The above will address a significant portion of the problem by steadily beginning to decrease cost associated with unnecessary emergency care. However, the cost of covering treatment of those conditions discovered from mandatory preventative screening must be addressed. I propose that instead of requiring the purchase of health INSURANCE, there will be a requirement of each individual to provide minimum funding to an INDIVIDUAL Health Savings Account.
   

   
   

3. The amount of the mandatory contribution to Individual HSA's would be determined by insurance Actuaries and adjusted annually (or as necessary) based on a individuals age, family structure, declared deductible and other factors deemed appropriate. Low income individuals will receive tax credits /subsidies based on a formula that combines the federal poverty level with adjusted regional COLA's determined at the state level. Employed individuals will be required to make HAS contributions through mandatory payroll deductions like social security and transmitted to individual accounts (like 401k monies, with the vendor of the employers' choice), but these monies must be permanently protected from being comingled in a national group trust like the Social Security fund.
   

   
   

4. Individual Health Savings Account (HSA) underfunding will be adjusted annually through income tax process for employed (W2) individuals as well as sole-proprietors (1099) and partnerships.
   

   
   

5. Individuals covered under employer group plans can voluntarily contribute to Individual HSA and tax will be deferred on the contributions. If voluntary contributions are used to pay for health care cost, there will be not tax, however withdrawals for other purposes will be taxed, but without penalties and once a minimum funding level is reached, they my chose to waive coverage in the employer sponsored health plan and have the FULL EMPLOYER PREMIUM contributed to their Individual HSA, or a percentage of the EMPLOYER PREMIUM with the balance going to the purchase of a stop loss policy, however an employer or employer sponsored health plan my require waiting until Open Enrollment AND Evidence of Insurability before allowing the employee to return to the insured group health plan.
   
6. Employees, whose healthcare expenses are paid through a Health Savings account will, along with their physician, determine the course of treatment for injury or illness with the freedom and flexibility enjoyed currently in Health Care Flexible Spending Accounts. Physicians and insurers will be required to disclose the Reasonable and Customary fees for services and employees can negotiate in addition to insurance carriers being allowed to extend the negotiated discount to their HSA members who use the physician in their network. This will eliminate the conflicts over what is and isn't covered. Americans will no longer be slave to the treatment that is covered under the health plan they happen to be covered under today. Education should be ongoing through public service announcements, employer cooperation and insurance companies and finally, Americans will begin to learn how to be smart consumers of healthcare treatments and care can be decided based on the sound medical collaboration between physician and patient and not based on what non-medical administrators determine is most "fiscally sound and appropriate".
   
7. Employers will be required to allow former employees to have their HSA administered through the companies selected vendor until such time as they have another place to "roll" the funds, however, the employer will NOT be required to pay administrative fees for such employers (if applicable) and payment for health services will not be required beyond the balance of the account.
   
8. Insurers will be allowed to develop credit standards and extend loans to HSA members to cover certain treatments which have a degree of urgency and when HSA balances are insufficient, but these loan programs should be at the discretion of the insurer and the capability should be reviewed after approximately 10 years, after the average American has sufficient balances to cover their needed health care.
   
9. The Government should setup a pool to provide advance HSA loans to cover urgently needed treatment for those who may not meet the credit standards of the insurance companies. The insurance of payback will be secured the same as adjustments for underfunding of HSA.
   
10. Our current Medicaid program should be continued at the present time, incorporating the reforms that best compliment the "CARE, NOT COVERAGE" program proposed herein. Individuals and/or Families who are seriously and/or chronically underfunded in their HSA should be subject to automatic review to determine if they are Medicaid Eligible.
    

PAYING FOR THE HEALTH CARE SUBSIDIES FOR THOSE WITH LOW INCOME

The US will fund the tax credits for to help fund HSA's for the low income through the savings realized from requiring preventative care. If our current assumptions are correct regarding the role preventative care plays in determining health care costs, then this should be a certainty. Over time, the unintended benefits is that large HSA's build up over time, will serve to fortify our current Medicare by either

1. Requiring HSA to be exhausted before Medicare is payable or
   
2. Allowing Medicare to continue to pay as it does today, but allowing an Individuals HSA to
   
   1. Partially reimburse Medicare before being paid to a beneficiary upon the individuals death or
      
   2. Paying the HAS balance to a beneficiary upon an individual's death, subject to income tax if that individual does not place the money in their own HAS.
      

THE INEVITABLE POLITICAL SIDE

It is quite unpalatable to have to include this paragraph, however the current proposals I have heard and read, scream of a political deal with big insurance companies to protect their interest in the healthcare market. Whether this is the case or not, I understand the protection to the economy by not implementing health care reform that destroys our current insurance company structure and puts thousands out of jobs is important. To provide a commitment that the insurance industry will benefit from certain interest payments and administrative fees (on group plans) by maintaining HSA trust and through interest on HSA advances will meet this objective and balance the need to service the American people FIRST, then provide protection and growth opportunity to corporations.

I welcome your feedback, questions and clarifications to my plan and hope that you will be willing to allow me a forum to discuss this plan in hopes of gaining public support for "CARE, NOT COVERAGE" Reform.

Creepy Domestic Killers – Why Do We Hurt The Ones We Love?

Over the last few years, I have heard stories, old and new, about people being brutalized and killed by their loved ones. Generally speaking, I am having a difficult time with the idea that I could be attending parent teacher conferences, or exchanging pleasantries at the checkout with someone capable of that type of viciousness. I fail to understand what can provoke that type of rage and I've watched enough episodes of "Forensic Files", to know that it's far from easy to stab or strangle a person to death.

Discovery Times runs a series of shows entitled "Most Evil" in which a Dr. Michael Stone rates killers on a scale of 1-22 with 22 being the most evil type of killer. I think the 22 is reserved for the sickest psychopathic serial killers who get's some type of pleasure from prolonged torture and murdering of their victims. Strangely, he rates people who kill as "crimes of passion much lower on the scale, but I must say, I beg to differ.

At this time, I will take the opportunity to provide a countdown to my top five, most evil domestic killers.

5) Chris Benoit – I am sure that there is some question as to the state of his mental health over the hours that he murdered his family. The reason he ranks lowest on this, my personal list, is because he left no children behind to face this horror and because he took his own life the family the pain of a trial and society the burden of caring for him the rest of his life. I reserve the right to remove him from my list or change his place on the list if additional information is released that sheds light on his mental health.

4) Scott Peterson – It would appear that he premeditated the murder of his wife Lacey and their unborn son Connor. While some might think he is higher on the list than some of the others, he comes in number five because there were no other children besides Connor. As such, while his crime is unthinkable, at least there are no other children who must grow up knowing that their mother was murdered by their father. The creep factor in the way that he romanced Amber Frey during the searches for Lacey is off the charts and I cannot imagine how Amber must feel knowing that Scott was around her daughter.

3) OJ Simpson – The widely know story need little elaboration. I'll just say the creepiest part of this story is his children, Sidney and Justin, being forced to live with him under those circumstances.

2) Dale Peterson – For the record, I'd like to state that he is removed from the list if it isn't proven that he was responsible for wife number 3, Kathleen's murder and wife number 4, Stacie's murder. As a matter of fact, I have a theory about what happened in this case, because I NEED to believe that it isn't how it appears. Here is my alternate, more digestible theory.

• Wife number 4, Stacie killed wife number three Kathleen because although she had "won" and Drew had left his wife for her, she wasn't going to allow Kathleen to bleed Drew financially. Drew recently learns that Stacie was responsible for this, and start's using it to further control her. While Drew was possibly unaware that Stacie was responsible for Kathleen's death, he WAS responsible for having the police department to cover it up as an accident. I think it MORE likely that he would have been able to convince them to cover this up, if there was lack of convincing evidence that he had any involvement in her death, OR if there was convincing evidence that someone else was responsible. Having a murder investigation of his ex-wife's death when he had cheated on her with a teenage minor was definitely a potential career ender. Now let's be clear; The last thing I want or intend to do is slander Stacie. Do I think this is a likely or even probable scenario? Not really. Do I think it's a possible scenario? Yes. I'd rather believe that Kathleen was killed by a romantic rival than by her ex-lover and husband and the father of her children.
  

However, if it turns out that Dale, not once, but TWICE took the life of the mother of his children, forcing them to grow up with that reality, well, I think we know how creepy that is.

1) Bobby Cutts, Jr. – I hope with all my heart that this man is not guilty as accused. When this story was headline news, I used to get chills at the statements that were reportedly made by Jesse Davis and Bobby Cutts toddler son Blake. In review, if Bobby is guilty of this crime, imagine killing Blake's mother and little sister. Somehow having Blake witness his mother and soon to be little sister being murdered by his father, if that is in fact what happened, it more tragic than the murders themselves.

Dishonorable Mention - Convicted

The Menendez Brothers

Susan Smith

Andrea Yates

Dishonorable Mention – Not Convicted

Benita Jacks (Washington, DC mother who killed her four daughters and lived with their dead bodies, possibly for more than six months)

The CPS, school and other social workers in Benita Jacks community who didn't bother to care

Cesar Armando Laurean – accused of killing the young female marine (Maria Lauterbach) who accused him of rape, ONLY if the child she was carrying was in fact his as has been reported and ONLY if he killed the child, which I question. In my mind, I am wondering if he doesn't have the baby with him on the run, why my gut is telling me this, I just don't know.

Lam Luong – confessed to throwing his four kids off a bridge after arguing with his wife.

There were other stories that broke my heard this week and all I can say is whatever is happening in the air that's making people act like evil, vicious animals, I hope it passes.

On a completely separate note, I am having some sort of premonition that Gary Michael Hilton may somehow be connected to the Zodiac killer in the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 1960's. I'm not holding myself up to be any type of psychic, it's just an expression. But something tells me this sixty-one year old man didn't start killing random strangers at sixty.