Back to the "nice, moral geeks" theory. I guess in some ways it just boils down to the way people's brains are wired. Imagine you find a wallet with 1000 dollars in cash in it. The fact is, the more of a conscience you have the more pain you would feel at taking some of that money before returning the wallet. There are people so "morally sensitive," that taking 10 dollars from that wallet would cause them more pain than other people who threw the wallet in the gutter.
Maybe that explains part of the Bush paradox: he's screwing so many people over, but he looks so innocent, so well-intentioned! Maybe he just has a little gimpy conscience that doesn't worry too much about things. I like this theory. Bush isn't evil, he just happens to have a lazy conscience, a diminished capacity for imagining the suffering of other people. He's like molly! (my cocker spaniel) She doesn't know how upset I'm going to be when she takes a dump in the kitchen, she just knows she's in the mood to lighten the load. That's why Molly can be all buddy buddy with me right after making me clean up her turds. Bush is the same way! There's no such thing as an evil cocker spaniel, and I think Bush is kind of in the same boat. (And by this I don't mean to say Bush is an idiot, because that is a totally different irrelevent. You could be dumb and have a sensitive conscience, and a rocket scientist could be completely immoral. I just think he has a weak conscience.)
I like this Baucus guy from Montana. He seems pretty down to earth, asking hard questions without being combative.
Apparently countries in Europe re-check drugs on the market every five years. Another indication they are running a tighter ship over there.
Oooh, Baucus just got testy. "I would like you to address the question I asked."
Hatch looks like he has a dark side. He looks like the type of person that you wouldn't want to work as a personal assistant for.