Canadian Kangroo Courts
Indeed, we have always held it to be a peculiar pathology that Canada, though reflexively rejecting a two-tier health system, would tolerate a two-tier justice system. That is, as an alternative to judgment by the standards of the Canadian Criminal Code under which the accused citizen is availed of many rights, predictable procedural expectations and customary defences, Canadians will also allow their free speech and publication rights to be policed under a system of agenda-motivated provincial and federal tribunals, where none of those protections exist.
In these despotic forums, the vehicle of choice for those who wish to silence those whose opinions they don't like, what is conventionally called a human rights complaint is less accusation, than old-style Soviet denunciation. Not surprisingly, with no right to plead truth or fair comment, and with no obligation upon the prosecution to prove intent or follow rules of evidence--circumstantial evidence and hearsay is accepted in human-rights cases -- defendants hardly ever emerge victorious from these proceedings.
...
Those who take salaries from the human rights establishment believe they do a good thing. Even those who write racist remarks on websites in an attempt to draw out other racists, believe the end justifies the means. But of course, so in a bygone age did Torquemada, so do Iran's mullahs today. Zealots can be found on all continents and in all centuries. They believe things would go better if only people believed as they did. Unfortunately, these are usually the last people to whom the state's coercive power should be entrusted.
First They Came For The Private Pilots?
Utilizing their seemingly unfettered authority to do anything that strikes their fancy without oversight by anyone, Homeland Security has instituted a requirement that private aircraft operators seek government permission each time we propose to take off if we are planning to depart for Canada, Mexico or the Caribbean. ...
It is important to understand that this requirement breaks entirely new ground. While ENTERING any country requires formalities, never, ever, has it been necessary to seek and receive government permission to LEAVE America, the âland of the free,â much less to travel within its borders. And never, ever, has it been proposed that such permission is somehow necessary to preserve ânational security.â This is a requirement only previously seen in Iron Curtain dictatorships.
via From A Concerned Pilot - Transterrestrial Musings.
Snopes has no note of this as a hoax, so I'm contingently marking this as "could be true".
This also makes me think of the people who think it's a good idea to put a fence at the border "to prevent illegal immigration." A fence works both ways, guys.
Cheney More Progressive Than Obama?
Dick Cheney rarely takes a position that places him at a more progressive tilt than President Obama. But ... the former vice president did just that, saying that he supports gay marriage as long as it is deemed legal by state and not federal government.
Speaking at the National Press Club for the Gerald R. Ford Foundation journalism awards, Cheney was asked about recent rulings and legislative action in Iowa and elsewhere that allowed for gay couples to legally wed.
"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone," replied the former V.P. "As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish. The question of whether or not there ought to be a federal statute to protect this, I don't support. I do believe that the historically the way marriage has been regulated is at the state level. It has always been a state issue and I think that is the way it ought to be handled, on a state-by-state basis. ... But I don't have any problem with that. People ought to get a shot at that."
Rational rationing?
I think Leonhardt is maybe half right or maybe even three quarters. He's right that the choice isn't between rationing and not rationing. But I don't agree that the choice is between rationing well and rationing badly. I don't know what rationing well or badly means. He means we ration badly because we spend too much. He's right. The current system doesn't let prices ration. Prices are artificially low. There isn't enough rationing in the global sense.
For me, the crucial question is who does the rationing, a centralized decision-maker or a decentralized system. Centralized decision makers influenced by political pressure inevitably ration badly. Decentralized systems can potentially avoid the problem of political pressure.
The "reformers" want more top-down rationing with prices playing a smaller role than they do now. I want prices to play a bigger role. Prices also play a role in rationing any overall level of care among individuals.
Pictures from Iran's Disputed Election
These are great pics: Iran's Disputed Election - The Big Picture - Boston.com.
Health care reform: The real problem is lack of competition
The reason for rising frustration with insurance companies is that patients can't do what patrons they do when they receive poor service at a restaurant, which is to go elsewhere. Most health insurance is tied to employment, so most patients are stuck with their insurance company. And it shows.
The solution is not less competition, but that is the assumption behind the Obama administration's plan and what it will produce. The solution is more competition.
via Health care reform: The real problem is lack of competition - STLtoday.com.
Economic View - Obama’s Difficult Choices on Medicare Spending - NYTimes.com
MEDICARE expenditures threaten to crush the federal budget, yet the Obama administration is proposing that we start by spending more now so we can spend less later.
This runs the risk of becoming the new voodoo economics. If we canât realize significant savings in health care costs now, donât expect savings in the future, either.
via Economic View - Obamaâs Difficult Choices on Medicare Spending - NYTimes.com.