The advertising above is just a source of revenue. If the ads get offensive enough, I may drop them.
Clayton Cramer's BLOG |
|
|
Clayton's commentary on news and events of the day. Broadly speaking, I'm a conservative with libertarian sympathies (getting more conservative as my children get older).
 Never forget! I ran for Idaho state senate in 2008--didn't win I've written a number of history books, as well as scholarly and popular articles, (see my web page).
PayPal members: to make a contribution
Email me at blogmail at claytoncramer dot com. Sorry to be so indirect, but all spambots must die! But they haven't died yet! Include the word spamIamnot in your subject line to make sure that my spam blocker lets you through. |
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Which James Hansen Was Right? The 1971 version? Or the 2007 version? From September 21, 2007 Investors Business Daily: Climate Change: Did NASA scientist James Hansen, the global warming alarmist in chief, once believe we were headed for . . . an ice age? An old Washington Post story indicates he did.And I guess you could ask the question: why should we assume that the guy that had it wrong in 1971 has it right today? Labels: global warming Friday, September 21, 2007
This Might Seem a Bit Extreme At First Convicted felons may not possess firearms or ammunition--even a single round. The theory is that if you find a convicted felon with ammunition, he's probably not in possession of it for old times sake, or as a good luck charm, but as evidence that he has been in possession of a firearm recently, and is too careless to do a proper search of himself for ammo. From the September 21, 2007 Idaho Statesman: A former Northside street gang member was sentenced Thursday in federal court to 32 months in prison for being a convicted felon in possession of a single .45 caliber round of ammunition.This being Idaho, the first comment was complaining about the light sentence! I have a few misgivings about the failure of federal law to distinguish between violent felonies and federal felonies such as turning back a car odometer, but Mendoza doesn't sound like someone who deserves much sympathy. Labels: gun rights Preparing for President Nut Job's Address to Columbia Great poster that you really should click here to see. Don't worry, it's worksafe, unless you work for Nazis, or some universities in the U.S. Labels: terrorism Jewish, Maybe? Or Atheist? Best of the Web also points out to this article that either identifies a reporter too stupid to be trusted with a pen, or too wickedly satirical to stay in that job for long. From the September 19, 2007 New York Post: September 19, 2007 -- A Queens teen was arrested yesterday after placing fliers in his teachers' mailboxes asking them to convert to Islam - then made threats once he was caught, authorities said.What's your guess for why he was trying to get them to convert to Islam? Was he Jewish? Catholic? Atheist? Maybe Buddhist. Labels: humor Do You Remember the Rupert Holmes Song "Escape"? You remember--the guy who is bored "with his old lady" and responds to a personal ad--and guess who it turns out to be? Well, it actually happened. And the results were not anywhere near as romantic or sweet as the song. The tragic details are here. Best of the Web pointed me to this tragic little soap opera gone bad. Why We Should Stop Electing Congresscritters I occasionally find myself wondering, "Is the average American as crooked and sleazy as the average member of the House and Senate?" It seems hard to imagine. There are aspects to the political process that either favor the morally handicapped, or that cause these deficiencies. There are days that I lean towards one explanation or the other. Many years ago, a member of the California legislature, State Senator Alan Robbins, wrote an eloquent and powerful essay from his prison cell about the corrupting effects of raising money for campaigns. I wish that I could find that essay; he talked about how very few members of the California legislature survived their first re-election campaign without being either corrupted by the need to raise huge amounts of money (bribes disguised as campaign contributions), or find themselves supporting measures of which they disapproved, because they had to make to get that money. (Here's a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that explains a little of the background on the bribes that sent Robbins to the federal slammer.) A few years earlier, the FBI had attempted to bribe a number of members of the California legislature and had no problem getting enough evidence to prosecute a number of them. Another member of the State Senate was tried (name escapes me at the moment), and some of his remarks to the undercover agents were played. "We'll have to run this through while Rose [Vuich] is out of the Capitol. She actually reads the bills!" and "Vuich isn't for sale." This was considered a remarkable situation--that a member of the state senate was not corrupt. The shame of being revealed as an incorruptible member of the State Senate may have been too much for he; within a few weeks of these damning comments coming out, Vuich announced that she wasn't running for re-election. (After all, who is going to contribute to your campaign once they find out that they aren't getting anything for it?) Anyway, here's the thought: instead of electing members of Congress and the state legislatures--which creates this enormous problem of bribes that pretend to be campaign contributions--why not just pick members at random from the registered voters of the district? (If anyone was randomly picked twice in a lifetime, I would demand an audit of the random selection process--and perhaps have that person start buying lottery tickets.) It's rather like being on a jury--except the pay is better. Yes, we would probably end up with some people that aren't too smart, or too rational. Of course, we have that already. Rep. Lynne Woolsey (D-CA), for example. But I am pretty sure we couldn't do any worse than the current crop of corrupt and stupid sorts that tend to represent us in Congress. Random selection doesn't prevent outright bribery, of course, but neither does the current system. The only good news is that outright bribery--especially if it involves people without a lot of experience being politicians--is a lot easier to spot and prosecute than "campaign contributions" being used to buy votes. If special interests want to persuade Congress to support some cause, they either have to start with a fresh batch of House members every two years (and 1/3 of the Senators every two years), or they have to persuade the entire population, in the hopes that they will be persuading the next year's Congresscritters. My guess is that for at least some special interests, the costs of mass persuasion will be so high that some special interests may just give up. For others, they will keep up the effort, but they will be much less successful. I'll take my chances with random selection of Congresscritters--at least the moral caliber of our representatives will be improved. Everything is For Sale on eBay An amusing remark from Kevin Richert's blog: In the eBay economy, it seems, everything is up for bid. Labels: humor, Idaho politics A Couple Where Both Are Members of Congress... in different countries! The September 21, 2007 Idaho Statesman has this article about how Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) is not running for re-election: Republican U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller, recently named one of the most corrupt members of Congress by a watchdog group, will announce he will not seek an eighth term, a spokesman said Friday.Well, good, he's giving some other Republican enough time to make a serious run for the seat. But here's where the story gets weird: The Tribune then reported that Weller's wife, Guatemalan congresswoman Zury Rios de Weller, had set up a nonprofit corporation in Illinois whose board also included Jerry Weller's mother, brother and business associate.Is that weird, or what? A member of our Congress is married to a member of the Guatemalan Congress. I suppose it could be worse--he could be married to a member of the Iranian Parliament. Declining Support For Al-Qaeda Simon over at Classical Values points to this September 18, 2007 New York Sun article about an al-Qaeda backer who has backed away: A prominent Saudi cleric once praised by Osama bin Laden has published an open letter condemning Al Qaeda's violence.The article goes on to quote the editor of international Arabic publication: "Sheikh Salman al Ouda's distancing himself from Bin Laden at a time when those absolving themselves of Al Qaeda's leader have nothing to lose and no price to pay." Mr. Alhomayed wrote in an editorial published yesterday. "This comes at a time when no one is shedding any tears for the leader of Al Qaeda organization."So perhaps al-Awdah is simply recognizing that al-Qaeda is in deep trouble, and is jumping off a sinking ship. Labels: terrorism HR 2640 Amendments It's in the Senate now, and as some worried, there are attempts being made to amend it--but not by the Democrats to add antigun stuff on it--but by Democrats adding stuff to make it easier for some people to carry guns. The Bitch Girls pointed me to this September 21, 2007 Wall Street Journal article that reminds us of the famous saying by Will Rogers, "I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." In the Virginia Tech case, the shooter was able to buy firearms in part because relevant court records weren't forwarded to the National Instant Criminal Background System, the data center that helps conduct background checks. Labels: deinstitutionalization, gun rights Why Isn't This Freedom of Speech? I just saw on CNN that in a town near where the Jena 6 controversy is going on, the police pulled over a red pickup truck with nooses on it. Nooses in a tree was part of the racist provocation that liberals over here are now using to justify the racially-motivated beating of a white student that is why the Jena 6 were prosecuted. My first reaction to someone doing something like this is: In a town currently filled with angry black people? That's crazy. I notice that the driver was charged with DUI--about the high level of intelligence that I would expect of someone who would drive a pickup truck around town with nooses on it. Will the ACLU be defending the driver's right to freedom of expression? I mean, if nude dancing is protected, and burning the American flag is protected--why not nooses on your car? Or will liberals decide that racism trumps freedom of expression? Of course, you know my take on it: freedom of speech (which is what the Constitution protects) is not the same as freedom of expression. There is a good pragmatic argument against laws that ban burning of the American flag. People that burn the American flag tend to reduce their political influence on others. But this does not mean that flag burning is protected speech within the meaning the Framers intended. UPDATE: Oh yes, the ACLU is now arguing that the charges against Senator Larry "Happy Feet" Craig violate his freedom of speech. According to this September 20, 2007 Idaho Statesman article: The ACLU filed its brief Monday, saying Minneapolis airport police violated Craig's constitutional right of free speech by charging him with disorderly conduct after arresting him in an airport men's room, where police say he solicited sex from an undercover officer.So, does freedom of speech cover all solicitations to perform some action, no matter how crude or vulgar, or where it takes place, as long as the action itself is lawful? It is completely lawful to have sex with a complete stranger. If you walk down the street, asking every person you meet to have sex, I suspect that you will find yourself arrested for disorderly conduct. Perhaps the ACLU would prefer to live in that kind of a world, where the last attempts at maintaining civility are gone. Labels: freedom of speech Who Are The Jena 6? I haven't looked carefully into this case, which I was led to believe reflected some sort of To Kill a Mockingbird expression of Southern racism. The few news accounts that I have seen showed a bunch of nooses hung in a tree--with the implication that these were part of how the white power structure was terrorizing blacks in this little town. But now I see this summary of the case by a black columnist with the Kansas City Star, and I am disappointed (but not surprised) at how the mainstream news media have played this one: Reed Walters, the Jena district attorney, is being accused of racism because he didn’t show Bell compassion when the teenager was brought before the court for the third time on assault charges in a two-year span. Labels: low standards of journalism Al-Qaeda's Sexual Morality Al-Qaeda spends a lot of time contrasting what they stand for with the decadent West. And yet, there's a rather long history of al-Qaeda and its allies showing that their notion of sexual morality is "rape is okay." Most recently, one of al-Qaeda in Iraq operatives confessed to something that seems to be policy. After discussing al-Qaeda's severe enforcement of its notions of morality with respect to smoking, women being insufficiently covered, and so on, this article in the September 20, 2007 Human Events reports: Enforcement of these laws -- which can perhaps be described as Shari’a taken to the greatest extreme -- has included taking measures to brutally punish people who commit the slightest offense, from smoking, to a woman failing to cover her head in public, to a man not growing a long enough beard. The strictest social mores are to be observed and any deviation from the standard can result in a punishment consisting of torture, mutilation, or death -- including, as the western world has seen on a few occasions (though not enough to grasp the extent of its use), beheading.This doesn't appear to be just a one-time quirk of this particular cell. Rape was a widely used weapon of war in East Timor--and al-Qaeda specifically targeted Australian tourists with the Bali bombing because Australian forces were part of what ended this reign of terror in East Timor. See this November 12, 2002 CNN report: Further possible evidence of the al Qaeda connection to the Bali blasts is contained in a tape released Wednesday by the Al Jazeera TV network, purportedly of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. (Bin Laden praises attacks)Similarly, when Chechnyan terrorists took hostages at a school in Russia, leading to hundreds of deaths--these proud warriors for the higher morality of the Koran raped many of the children. (See also here.) Of course, rape is a fundamental part of the process by which Sudanese militias--who al-Qaeda praises--commit the crimes of Darfur. As this article from the September 24, 2004 Front Page points out: What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).Something that isn't widely known in the West (because it might present a poor picture of Islam) is that a number of Islamic countries use the Koranic standard for rape convictions: there must be four eyewitnesses to a rape confirming the victim's account. If she can't produce four eyewitnesses at trial, she is convicted of prostitution. For practical purposes, this makes rape legal. How would there be four eyewitnesses to a rape who didn't stop it, unless they were participants? This is the law in Iran, and attempts to reform this law in Pakistan are being fought by--who else?--the Islamist parties that are allies of al-Qaeda. The only reference I could find was at the bottom of this other story from November 13, 2006 Reuters: Supporters of opposition Islamic alliance Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) hold placards during a rally in Multan November 28, 2006. The rally was held to protest against amendments to Pakistan's Islamic laws that will allow rape victims to seek justice without the need for four male witnesses while alliance leaders have threatened to resign from the parliament saying amendments are un-Islamic.Not surprisingly, this ugly little detail isn't getting much attention, because the left wants to imagine that al-Qaeda and friends are on the same side, since the left and al-Qaeda have the same enemy: George Bush. Thursday, September 20, 2007
Identity Theft & Background Checks A reader pointed me to this worrisome hole in the national firearms background check system. Remember the four police officers shot in Florida a few days ago? From September 14, 2007 channel 4 in Jacksonville, Florida: First reports were that the person responsible for the shootings was a man named Kevin Wehner, a Jacksonville resident with no criminal record.It turns out that Labeet used Wehner's stolen identity for more than registering cars. From the September 15, 2007 South Florida Sun-Sentinel: Long before Shawn Labeet took the life of a Miami-Dade police officer, he stole a Jacksonville man's identity, used the alias to buy an arsenal of weapons, and disappeared into the South Florida landscape despite having an outstanding warrant on charges of shooting and injuring his girlfriend, officials said Friday.My first thought is: shouldn't identity thefts be reported the national firearms background check system? Wehner had a clean record; that's why Labeet, using Wehner's identity, didn't get flagged when buying guns. Maybe it is time for the national background check system to get identity theft reports as well. It may be a little more complex for the victim of identity theft to buy a gun--but it would also slow down guys like Labeet, who were wanted. Labels: gun rights Another Cute Rube Goldberg Device Although I'm not all that sure that this one really works as shown. One odd aspect of this: it's a Honda ad from the United Kindgdom--but why is the announcer an American? Is this common in Britain, to use an American announcer? UPDATE: Amazingly enough, according to Snopes.com, this was not computer graphics--it was real. Even the part that seemed most unlikely to me was done with a weight inside each of the tires, so that when the tire moved, the weight moved as well, causing the upward motion on the ramp. Labels: humor Not Good News In One Sense But maybe okay news for the likely consequences. From the September 19, 2007 Financial Times: Fresh economic shocks on the scale of the current credit squeeze will occur if US house prices continue to fall, one of the country’s leading housing experts warned on Wednesday.Now, before you start hyperventilating, keep in mind that this is one of those, "if nothing happens" scenarios. Do you remember when the Fed kept raising interest rates in the 1990s to deal with what Alan Greenspan called "excessive exuberance"? Well, each time the Fed raised interest rates, they managed to inject a little reality into the stock market. I suspect that Tuesday's 1/2 point drop in interest rates--larger than many analysts expected--was the first of several such efforts by the Fed to deal with "unnecessary gloom." The reason is simple: if you want to lift housing prices, dropping interest rates will do it. The good inflation numbers gave the Fed the room to drop interest rates. The gloom of falling housing prices has really negative effects on the rest of the economy, such as construction and appliance sales. Falling housing prices also interfere with people using their house equity to buy really important necessities like vacations to Hawaii, speedboats, breast implants, and Jumbotrons for the living room. My guess is that as long as there's some risk of these worrisome housing price drops, the Fed will keep cutting interest rates. Hint: this is probably not the time to lock in a 30 year fixed mortgage. I am expecting to see continued cuts in interest rates--maybe another 1/2 point, maybe another full point. And that should get the housing prices to stabilize, maybe even start to rise, and put the breast implant surgeons and Jumbotron salesmen back in business. Labels: economics Why The Right of Conscience Is At Risk We've had a long history in the U.S. of struggling over the question of what constitutes the right of individuals to disagree. Thomas Jefferson's famous saying that: The error seems not sufficiently eradicated that the operations of the mind as well as the acts of the body are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.applies to this case, where homosexuals are intent on forcing their will on those who do not agree. From the September 18, 2007 New York Times: A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.Imagine if, during the 1960s, the U.S. government had revoked the tax exempt status of the Mennonite or Quaker Churches because they were morally opposed to war, and refused to allow military recruiters into their churches. Here is an example of a group (and United Methodists are a very, very liberal denomination) that has a moral objection to homosexuality that is being blackmailed into smiling and pretending that everything is okay. It is for this reason, and because it violates federalism, that I oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that is currently before Congress. It seeks to add sexual orientation to the list of protected groups under federal law. At least the version that I have seen is unlikely to impair the right of conscience--but if there is any lesson to be learned from watching the very creative laws demanding the courts impose same-sex marriage around the country, it is that homosexual activists will take any opportunity to twist the laws far and above what they were intended to do. Why make it easier for them by passing ENDA? If you live in Idaho, you need to email Rep. Mike Simpson and let him know that ENDA needs to come to an end, and to vote no on it. Labels: freedom of religion, homosexuality Will The Remaining Non-Corrupt Members of Our Government Please Raise Your Hands? An investigation into the actions of someone who apparently bribed Rep Cunningham (R-CA) has subpoenaed records of 13 other members of Congress--who are refusing to comply: Acting on advice of the House general counsel, all 13 members of Congress who have been subpoenaed for documents and testimony by the lawyer for a man accused of bribing jailed former Congressman Rep. Duke Cunningham will refuse to comply.Four Democrats, nine Republicans--about what I would expect, considering Republicans were in the majority, and therefore chairs of various committees and subcommittees (where it really helps most to have a good friend when contracts are being disbursed). Of course, this is relatively minor compared to the big scandal--one that is beginning to dwarf the Jack Abramoff scandal. From the September 20, 2007 Bloomberg.com: Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu was charged with defrauding investors of $60 million in ``a massive Ponzi scheme'' and violating the federal campaign-finance law.You know, I think someone could make that an important campaign slogan in the coming election, something like: We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.There's just one problem: Nancy Pelosi's friends in the Democratic Party, people like Hillary Clinton, are at the core of this corruption. It doesn't do any good to say, "We're no more corrupt than Republicans," when it doesn't appear to be even close to true. But more importantly, Republican corruption seems to be at least American, red-white-and-blue corruption (just about money and unfair contract awards)--and not tainted with serious suspicions that the Chinese government has bought a big part of the Democratic Party. Labels: politicians behaving badly The Horror! The Horror! Free Market Capitalism! From the September 20, 2007 Inside Higher Education: Supporters describe it as a fund created by alumni to support interests they have at the university, in this case the study of Western civilization and free market economics.Almost? No, I'm afraid that it is way beyond "almost a disdain." The new program will sponsor educational programs (the development of new courses or new curriculum for courses), lectures, conferences, research and more. The programs will all be based on “free market capitalism,” Vermette said, citing the ideas of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the Austrian economics school of such libertarian thinkers at Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Vermette said that the founders of the center “very much want to work with faculty” at Illinois to support these programs. “We’ll work within the system,” he said.The left is upset because the values that they are trying to promote might not survive a serious academic challenge--and there's little or no chance of that in most public universities today. Labels: political correctness Where Immoral Behavior Takes You I almost feel sorry for the guy. Doubtless, he didn't think that what he was doing would become publicly known. Doubtless, he thought that what he was doing was his business, and no one else's. And I'm sure that he is now filled with shame about what happened, and upset because his career is in shambles, with no one to defend him. If only Michael Vick had solicited sex in a men's room, instead of organizing dogfights! It says quite a bit about how rapidly the definition of "immoral" has changed in our society that Michael Vick probably wishes that he and Senator Larry "Happy Feet" Craig could change places. Labels: decline and fall of Western civilization Ohio's Concealed Carry Law The Ohio Attorney General's office has a very good booklet explaining their concealed carry law, along with a discussion of the legal limits of use of deadly force here. I am pleased to see that the requirement that concealed carry licensees could only drive with the gun exposed have been dropped. I am also pleased to see that Ohio and Idaho have signed a reciprocity agreement. (I'm headed to Ohio next month.) It's also kind of cool that there's an M1911 on the cover of that booklet! Labels: concealed carry, gun rights Gun Control Advocates Prescribe A New Model This appears to be from a University of Pennsylvania publication, the September 7, 2007 Gazette. First they explain that gun control has become something of a dead end politically: “This society has chosen to live with guns,” Dr. William Schwab was saying in July, as he stood before a roomful of reporters in a Penn Law classroom. “There are over 220 million guns in circulation in the United States of America. There is nothing that’s going to take those guns away.”It starts off well, discussing that the problem of gun violence is related to the culture: Of course, the environments in which most gun homicides take place are typically urban and poor. A high proportion of the young men in such neighborhoods are unemployed, giving them ample leisure time to become involved in contests of honor and personal disputes. And there is evidence to suggest that gun ownership is attractive even to law-abiding citizens in such areas, who may reason that police protection is an insufficient guarantor of their safety. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how this feedback loop can take on the contour of an arms race.At this point, I was hoping to see some serious discussion of what can be done to solve the unemployment problem, or deal with the honor culture that drives much of the violence. No, the solution is a police state: High gun density is a good predictor of elevated gun violence, according to Dr. Lawrence Sherman, director of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology and professor of sociology at Penn. But there’s also a substantial level of spontaneity in gun-mediated arguments, he added, and the large majority of disputes don’t last long enough to allow someone without a firearm to go home and fetch one.Why is it so painful to look at the economic and cultural problems that are driving this that these doubtless very liberal academics would rather authorize the police to stop and frisk everyone walking down the street? Labels: gun rights The International Association of Chiefs of Police This item by Dave Hardy at Of Arms and the Law makes it sound as though the Joyce Foundation just bought the IACP: A while back, the antigun Joyce Foundation made a hefty grant to fund a gun summit meeting by some members of the International Assn of Chiefs of Police. Here's the pdf file.My recollection, however, is that the IACP has long been on the gun ban bandwagon. Maybe it isn't so much that the Joyce Foundation bought the IACP, as that the Joyce Foundation funded an event by a group that already believed the same way. Labels: gun rights Giuliani Sure Has Chutzpah From the September 20, 2007 Washington Post: Rudolph W. Giuliani will go before the rank and file of the National Rifle Association on Friday, seeking support for his Republican presidential campaign from a group he once likened to "extremists" for its efforts to repeal the ban on assault weapons.My guess is that the reason Giuliani has been getting a pass from NRA leadership is: 1. They perceive him as someone that can defeat Clinton in the general election. 2. He's not a social conservative. I get the impression from who NRA leadership favors that they are libertarian, not conservative. Maybe Giuliani has really changed his mind on this. But call me skeptical. Labels: 2008 presidential candidates, gun rights What Makes Canadian Health Care Work? The same thing that makes their tiny military spending possible--living next door to the United States. From September 14, 2007 Canadian Television: Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.I know that this isn't that unusual for ordinary Canadians. I blogged a few weeks back about a mother who was about to give birth in Calgary--and had to be flown to Great Falls, Montana, because there weren't enough neonatal ICU beds available in one hospital in all of Canada. It makes you wonder: could the Canadian system that Michael Moore thinks so highly of work if Canada was in Australia, and they didn't have a less fair but overall better health care system available an hour's flight away? Some of the comments on the Canadian Television story from Canadians are very revealing. A lot of the liberals are basically saying that it is an invasion of Stronach's privacy to discuss what seems to be a failure of the Canadian health care system. Other comments by Canadians reveal some deep disgust with what is going on: If I had her money, I'd receive my primary care in the States too. We have been saddled with a Stalinist, second-rate system.and: I had cancer and am now 'cured'... and thankful for the treatment I received in Toronto.and: Sure she should get her treatment where she can if she is able to pay for it.and: 9,000 Canadian-trained doctors in the US. Why should we be surprised if some of the patients head there too? It's time for the Liberal Party to acknowledge the gorilla at the dinner table and work with the Conservatives in a non-partisan way to start thinking about fundamental changes to our health care system. This means either raising taxes to Scandinavian levels, or openly allowing privatization instead of operating in the shadows and slowly cutting services one a a time. Let the NDP scream about zero compromise on socialized medicine, time for the mainstream parties to get a grip on this.and: While living in the USA several years ago I found a lump in my breast. I went to the doctor the next day, she had me in for a ultrasound and mam the very next day. We are now living in Canada again, this time my doctor here found a lump, she sent me to a specialist ( 10 1/2 weeks it took), still haven't had a mam. This Canadian system is scary, and needs to be fixed! I too if I had the money would seek treatment in the USA.Something that doesn't get discussed enough in the debate about universal health care is that the cost of health care is huge. Yes, there are some efficiencies that having everyone insured will bring to the table. If we are prepared to accept the Big Brother approach of John Edwards of forced preventative health care, we can probably save a bit more money. If we are prepared to accept doctors telling us we have to eat healthy, can't smoke, can't drink to excess, how and with whom to have sex, and how much exercise to get, we can probably save a lot of money. But not only will most Americans balk at this level of government intrusion, I'm sure the ACLU would file suit the instant that the federal health care nazis started to wag their fingers about unprotected casual sex (just homophobia, is what they will say). If we can't make a big difference in the costs--and I don't think we can--then we have the face up to the fact that medical care for everyone at the level that most Americans have come to expect is very, very expensive. Canada has opted to go cheap, rather than raise taxes to the level required to provide American levels of medical care. Will Americans be willing to raise taxes enough to provide medical care for the uninsured? If those caring and compassionate Canadians won't, why would we expect that Americans will? Labels: health care Wednesday, September 19, 2007
HilaryCare 2.0 Senator Clinton has unveiled her new universal health insurance plan--and I must say, it's progress from the disaster she tried to impose in 1993. Of course, there wasn't much direction but up from that. Part of the improvement is that she won't require everyone to give up their current health insurance plan. The goal is to only cover the uninsured, by giving them the option of joining the current federal health plan for Congresscritters. The downside is that it will require $110 billion in subsidies, supposedly by raising taxes on those who make more than $250,000 a year. (Somehow, I suspect that it will drop down into my bracket along the way, since these are Senator Clinton's big supporters.) The other downside is that it will force every American to buy health insurance. I think health insurance is a good idea--but I have acquaintances who are so obscenely rich that they really don't need health insurance. There is literally nothing bad that can happen to them, for any length of time, that would make a significant dent in their wealth. (Of course, they vote Democrat.) Clinton wants to eventually make this requirement to show health insurance a condition of employment: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."And the current requirement for proof of legal residency here works so well! Groan. The leftist cheerleaders, like Joe Klein at Time, are already screaming when Drudge Report described this statement as "Health Insurance Proof Required for Work": I know this is old news, but this guy is shameless. The headline, with a photo of a three-quarters crazed Hillary, is HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORKSo Hilary says that the long-term goal is requiring proof of health insurance for work. And to point this out is misleading or dishonest? In what way? Labels: health care Maryland High Court Rules Against Same-Sex Marriage Suit The Maryland Court of Appeals (which is Maryland's highest court) has ruled against a lawsuit that claimed that "one man, one woman" violates the Maryland Constitution's equal rights regardless of sex provision. To my surprise, the Court of Appeals examined the evidence from contemporary documents to demonstrate that (surprise, surprise) in 1972, there is simply |
