Don’t miss Margaret Wente’s column explaining how the world is dealing with the realization that Barack Obama is only human after all – How did Obama morph into Bush?
Ah it seems like only yesterday…
“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car.”
What the deployment of the 9/11 analogy suggests is that Obama would like to treat BP as though it were al Qaeda, at least rhetorically — a villain for him to confront on behalf of the wounded American people.
That may seem politically shrewd to Obama and his team, but it will have parlous consequences. The analogy muddies and obfuscates.
By comparing an unwanted disaster to a conscious act of war, Obama is adding an improper moral dimension to the effort to clean up the Gulf — a moral reckoning that will make it harder rather than easier to focus on the task of actually plugging the damn hole.
Bloomberg reports via SF Gate that “Poland may delay the funeral of the late President Lech Kaczynski if the cloud of volcanic ash disrupting air travel across Europe prevents world leaders such as U.S. President Barack Obama from attending.”
However they needn’t worry. President Obamawill be thereno matter what:
The White House says that though a volcanic ash cloud has led to the cancellation of thousands of flights in Europe, President Barack Obama will still be flying to Poland for President Kaczynski’s funeral…
No stinking little ash cloud can stop the GreatObama!
…The Prime Minister’s Office is acutely aware of the irony of loading a plane full of political leaders to fly through hazardous conditions to the memorial of a president who died flying through hazardous conditions to a memorial with a plane full of political leaders…
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Canada. This is a woman who never leaves you wondering what she is thinking and some find her refreshing because of it.
I guess I’m wondering how much of this is coming from from her as opposed to official U.S. policies. For example it’s rather strange that President Obama signed a document prohibiting federal money funding abortions in the U.S. (except in rare circumstances), and yet Hillary seems to want Canada to fund the whole world.
Maybe I missed something here but it appears to be rather hypocritical.
On the Afghanistan issue, I agree with Greg Weston that “Harper isn’t going to lose any points at home for standing up to the Americans, especially over an increasingly unpopular war.” Prime Minister Harper stated in the House of Commons that “Whether it comes to our role in Afghanistan, our sovereignty over our Arctic or ultimately our foreign-aid priorities, it is Canada and Canadians who will make Canadian decisions.”
I don’t see a disconnect here between this and the environmental deals, one of which will apparently be announced today.
We are working well with our partners in the United States. Prime Minister Harper is looking out for the best interests of Canada and Canadians, as always.
And Hillary Clinton is looking out for Hillary – as always.
The Whitehousehas announced a deal with the anti-abortion Democrats which will likely secure the passage of the Health care bill.
On CNN just now I’m hearing phrases like‘sanctity of life’ and other politically incorrect language.
Wow.
I’m trying to imagine how this would play out in Canada where Bob Rae and company seem to want Canadian taxpayers to fund abortions for all women in the Third World.
…So, which countries do have the best health-care systems?
Of the world’s top 20, 17 are European (Finland, Sweden, Norway …). They all share similar traits: all have mixed systems that combine both public and private providers, everyone is covered, no one is hurt financially when they fall ill, and there is widespread use of new information technologies to improve efficiency and reduce both medical errors and cost. None has the litigious environment that wastes so much money and poisons the efficient provision of care.
All spend less on health care per person than either Canada or the U.S. and patients are treated based solely on medical need. Iceland, for example, has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world yet spends $3,319 per person per year on health care costs. Japan, which has the third-lowest infant mortality rate and highest life expectancy, spends only $2,581 per person.
Each of these countries also experiences significantly shorter, or no, wait times.
By focusing on the timely and efficient delivery of the best possible care, while adhering strictly to the principle that no citizen will go without health care because of an inability to pay, these countries are providing models that both Canada and the United States could adapt to our own domestic needs…
…The mood in the recession-wracked United States is already tense enough. What happens, though, when recovery comes — and incomes continue to be squeezed? When Americans return to work — only to discover that they are working to repay the nation’s debts, not to improve their own personal standard of living?
Look for an even tenser decade ahead, made tenser still by any added costs of Barack Obama’s vast new social welfare program.
…Contrary to popular belief, Canada doesn’t have completely government-funded health care, said Mr. Flaherty, who waded into the U.S. health care debate in response a question from the audience at the luncheon event hosted by the Canadian Association of New York.
Instead, about one-third of Canada’s annual health care bill, including things, for example, such as most laboratory services, is covered by private funds, he said. “It’s not 100% government.”
While Canada offers wonderful acute care coverage, the downside is people might have to wait longer for less urgent care like a hip replacement and the system is expensive – and keeping costs under control in Canada is getting more challenging, he said…
In some Canadian media it would seem that dissenting opinion is not welcome.
Rumour has it that Rex Murphy’s jump from the Globe to the National Post was precipitated by his very unwelcome musings about Global Warming and Climategate. The Globe editor must have had a lot of complaints from left-wing readers because he apparently wanted to bury Murphy’s column in the less prominent Monday edition.
(And why doesn’t that work when we complain about James Travers to the Star?)
If the Globe rumour turns out to be true, then it is damaging proof of how some media chains try to control and manipulate the message. Objectivity is an illusion.
The attempt to hide the voices of the ‘deniers’ (aka truth-seekers) seems to parallel the efforts at East Anglia to do the same.
As Kate quipped, it’s not a profession – it’s a tribe.
…The U.S. is going down the same disastrous road the European Union did five years ago when it created its cap-and-trade market, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It, too, gave away the permits for free. That doomed the ETS’ effectiveness in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, along with another huge blunder EU bureaucrats made by handing out more permits than emissions. (The point of cap-and-trade is to lower the “cap” over time, not raise it.)
I’m no fan of cap-and-trade. The European model is a carnival of corruption, profiteering, speculation and multi-billion-dollar fraud. It’s done nothing to improve the environment while handing undeserved profits to big business and driving up the cost of energy to consumers.
That said, if the U.S. is stupid enough to implement cap-and-trade, and if we’re stupid enough to follow, let’s at least do it in the least stupid way.
The only way cap-and-trade can be effective in reducing emissions, which is the point, is if (a) all carbon permits are auctioned (b) no industry is exempt (also the opposite of what happened in Europe) and (c) the government develops an effective, enforceable mechanism for lowering the cap on emissions.
Will all this hike energy prices for consumers? Absolutely. Big time…
