Well it looks like we did it. Congrats to the senator elect Scott Brown. This was quite the election and it was nice to have something to get excited about in regards to politics, especially for us republicans. I have also been really blown away by the amount of friends from all over the country who have emailed me thanking massachusetts for electing Scott Brown and hopefully stopping the proposed healthcare legislation, which I found very interesting.
Speaking of the GOP it seems as though they have been sweeping quite a few elections as of recent.
New Jersey and Virginia have also elected new republican governors. I happened to catch the inauguration of the new virginia governor Bob McDonnell on C-Span last week and one thing that I loved and was a little surprised by was that all the gentleman wore morning suits and some even donned gloves ( apparently the gloves are up for much controversy) I love that feeling of tradition and sense of importance of the event that the presence of the morning suit brought. I tried to research if this was something special to virginia but not much turned up, I did however get the impression that this had been a tradition that at one time was customary to all inaugurations whether presidential or state.
Then as I thought back I began to recall that JFK wore a morning jacket to his inauguration. Now I am no expert on menswear but I do read alot of the gentleman blogs that are and I am learning but I do not know what the special tie normally worn with the morning suit is called but I did notice that JFK wore a normal tie with a waistcoat which also seems to be acceptable with the morning suit. I wish the government would go back to this practice or that more states and all president elects would don the morning suit for their inaugurations.
Have a wonderful weekend all!
Well are you?
TWA
As I recall from history, despite being dapperly dressed in a morning suit, JFK's inaugueration was semi-controversial because he didn't wear a top-hat. It is said by many that JFK's lack of hat signalled the death of men wearning hats with their suits in the early 1960's. Shame.
ReplyDeleteTo your point, I think that standard length cravats are the norm with morning suits, and bow-ties tend to be more restricted to evening wear. (Just an observation) Also, I completely agree that society has done itself a massive diservice by dropping some our more formal dressing habits and homogenizing the business suit for every occassion. Hopefully, we'll revert back a tad and embrace more of our stylistic tradition. Wishful thinkng.
Yay for the Republicans! I campaigned here in VA for McDonnell, and he is such a nice, repsectable man. Very classy!! Have a fab weekend! xoxo
ReplyDeleteInteresting observation on morning coats and curious myself if it is Virginia tradition AND that we haven't heard more about it across both the traditional news but also blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am widely confused on why anyone would want to stop healthcare reform - republican or democrat, first from Massachusetts when Teddy Kennedy served for 40 + years with healthcare as a top campaign platform and because it's in total disarray across the country.
Second, this might not be the 100% best piece of legislation, but it's a start that can be amended over time. The first step for better healthcare for everyone is getting something passed.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletewerewolfinexile- Thank you for the comment, it seems as though JFK wore his hat to and from the inauguration but removed it during his inaugural address. (you can see it in the picture above placed on his seat) As well eisenhower removed his hat while seated. JFK did however put his hat back on during the inaugural ball at the armory. I too would love to see the morning suit as well as the top hat tradition resurrected. As you said wishful thinking!
ReplyDeleteDAM- I agree I was quite surprised that the blogosphere didnt have more commentary on the morning suit especially considering that many of them live in VA
As for healthcare my brief synopsis is this. Here in MA we have "healthcare" basically all that is is a requirement that one is insured. They have not reformed the cost of healthcare just required that all residents be insured. I myself cannot afford the insurance and make too much to qualify for the free plan. Which means that I am fined over $600 from my tax return. So there in lies my reservation on the current proposed legislation, I dont want to see what is happening here in MA happen across the country.
Great article! I just found your blog, and I'm definitely happy to find another conservative style blogger!
ReplyDeleteAs for the health care line, maybe I can clear some of this stuff up. It's part of my job to research this kind of thing. Socialized health care is not the solution, just as medicare, medicaid and social security were not the answer then. Now that they are blaming these three programs that have been operating at a loss since FDR put them into action in the 30's, it should be noted that it was a sham from the get go. FDR's man behind the health care testified before Congress that there aren't any savings accounts or anything that had actually been promised to the tax payer in order to pass those programs. FDR wanted national health care but he knew there was no way the majority of America would go for it.
It's not that the insurance companies are evil, as many say, it's that they have been beholden to a government that regularly tempts them with the ability to make much more than they should be able to through programs such as medicare, medicaid, etc. It's a simple problem of economics. In the time before these government programs, doctors charged their patients directly, insurance was only for unexpected events and emergencies. After all, why do you really need insurance to pay for normal checkups? The patient paid the doctor directly, so under the free market principles the doctors had every incentive to lower the patients cost in order to attract more business.
However, when FDR ordered the creation of these health care programs, the whole system changed. Instead of the patient paying the doctor, the patient paid the insurance company for everything, which was then in turn responsible for collaborating with HMOs and government run health programs that then took enormous fees off the top before the doctor was paid. Now that the doctor does not get paid when the patient visits, he must increase his fees right away just to continue to operate with irregular paydays. The doctor must also up his fees again to compensate for being taxed from the government side and the fees that the insurance company charges the government that are passed down. Fees also go up because the government forces the insurance companies to become a middle-man, attempting to regulate health care costs through certain legislature requiring the companies to do so, which obviously costs money.
The whole thing is in disarray because the federal government has trouble running such big programs efficiently. Over time, the faults catch up in a bad way. There are incredible issues with our closest example to socialized health care up in Canada. Incredible wait times, being turned away for care, people dying while waiting for insurance confirmation, the problems are endless.
It is not the role of government to provide for our health, it is not the role of government to force us to purchase anything. There is no where in our Constitution under Section 1 Article 8 where the powers of the federal government are enumerated that it says the government has any power to do so.
Hopefully, this will clear some things up. Maybe I'll do a more in depth post on my blog to help some people understand.
The next morning after our new Governor was elected I announced to my colleagues, "For the first time as a Virginian, I am proud of my state." And it was true. We'd had Democrat Governors for way too long.
ReplyDelete