I know that my friends whose politics fall to the left of my own, which is probably everyone I know, are going to find this post irritating. To them, I apologize for the irritation. I couldn't help but see the irony in this Huffington Post piece by Josh Silver. Here we have the Executive Director of an organization called "Free Press" attacking someone in the media. In this case he calls Glenn Beck a fear-mongering, hate speech spewing extremist and while he avoids the oft-used connection to the Nazi party, he manages to connect him with the 1920s/1930s anti-Semite Father Coughlin and Senator Joe McCarthy.

The answer to Glenn Beck is not to deprive him of his First Amendment right to free speech. This is not about censorship, it's about sanity. Our leaders have a responsibility to condemn fear-mongering in all its forms, defend those who are unfairly attacked, and support a more diverse media system that provides alternative voices to the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other extremists. The lesson from the shameful Coughlin era and the McCarthyism of the 1950s is that we must confront the politics of personal attack with decency, reason and a commitment to more political speech, not less.

It isn't about censorship? Really? Sure sounds like it to me. I did find it interesting that Van Jones, whose White House resignation is blamed on Glenn Beck, was a board member of the Free Press and Arianna Huffington's political director when she ran for California governor. Funny how Free Press' executive director wrote this piece against Glenn Beck that appeared on the Huffington Post. Read the rest of this post!

I find it mind boggling that the President's administration ridicules conservatives for believing in "conspiracy theories" on one hand and then on the other hand, they ask Americans to report "fishy" emails and web postings on the Internet.

On the White House blog, Macon Phillips posted this post about the Drudge vs. White House brouhaha over the Healthcare reform... errr... I mean Health Insurance reform. The problems began when the Drudge Report highlighted this video:

The video seems to show the President saying that his healthcare reform wouldn't get to single-payer healthcare but that change would require 15-20 years of transition. It sure seemed to suggest that he favored single-payer health care despite claims to the contrary.

The White House posted a video response with a bunch of clips in response which show President insisting that nothing in his healthcare... oops.... I mean health insurance reform plans would eliminate private insurance.

In conjunction with that response, this was included on the White House blog.

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I find the idea that the White House is requesting that people notify them of "fishy" emails or web postings a bit troubling. On the heels of the fiasco over the disclaimer on the CARS web site, it is really unfortunate. It just feeds right into the conspiracy theory nuts. Who gets to decide whether something is "fishy." Is it "fishy" if it disagrees with the White House's position? What about the "fishy" emails I get from President Obama? Am I supposed to report those?

I think the post was just an innocent attempt to find out about emails or web postings that they might wish to rebut. Unfortunately, it wasn't well thought out. As it now stands, they've asked the American people to join the thought police and report their neighbors. I don't think this is the change the Democrats were hoping for. I'm beginning to think that the White House staff are their own worst enemies.

Read the rest of this post!

I'm not sure why I'm on a run of political postings lately, but this item from HotAir.com just cracked me up. This announcement from the FedBizOpps.gov web site is just loaded with irony.

Humor In The Workplace
Solicitation Number: RFI-BPD-09-0028
Agency: Department of the Treasury
Office: Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD)
Location: Division of Procurement

This is a sources sought notice and not a request for quotations. The purpose of this announcement is to seek qualified contractors with the capability to provide presentations for The Department of Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), Management Meeting with experience in meeting the objectives as described herein.

The Contractor shall conduct two, 3-hour, Humor in the Workplace programs that will discuss the power of humor in the workplace, the close relationship between humor and stress, and why humor is one of the most important ways that we communicate in business and office life. Participants shall experience demonstrations of cartoons being created on the spot. The contractor shall have the ability to create cartoons on the spot about BPD jobs. The presenter shall refrain from using any foul language during the presentation. This is a business environment and we need the presenter to address a business audience.

Today's winner of the irony award is the creator of the web site eightmaps.com who took the pro-Proposition 8 donations database and merged it with Google Maps in order to create a map of the homes of those who donated even amounts as small as $50 to the yes on Proposition 8 campaign. Where's the irony? The ironic thing is that this person chose to keep their own identity secret to avoid retaliation. I'm not sure what you'd use this map for other than retaliation. How'd you like to be one of the people on the map below?

Read the rest of this post!

As someone who has had a hip replacement, the title of this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "'Too Old' for Hip Surgery" caught my attention. The opinion piece by Nadeem Esmail who works at a Canadian free market think tank has some news for those Americans who think universal health care sounds like a great idea. Frequently, supporters of universal health care point to Canada as one of the countries whose health plan we should envy.

Health-care resources are not unlimited in any country, even rich ones like Canada and the U.S., and must be rationed either by price or time. When individuals bear no direct responsibility for paying for their care, as in Canada, that care is rationed by waiting.

Canadians often wait months or even years for necessary care. For some, the status quo has become so dire that they have turned to the courts for recourse. Several cases currently before provincial courts provide studies in what Americans could expect from government-run health insurance.

Mr. Esmail then goes on to describe some of the court cases currently pending in Canada by people who feel their government run health plan has failed them.

In Ontario, Lindsay McCreith was suffering from headaches and seizures yet faced a four and a half month wait for an MRI scan in January of 2006. Deciding that the wait was untenable, Mr. McCreith did what a lot of Canadians do: He went south, and paid for an MRI scan across the border in Buffalo. The MRI revealed a malignant brain tumor.

Ontario's government system still refused to provide timely treatment, offering instead a months-long wait for surgery. In the end, Mr. McCreith returned to Buffalo and paid for surgery that may have saved his life. He's challenging Ontario's government-run monopoly health-insurance system, claiming it violates the right to life and security of the person guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Shona Holmes, another Ontario court challenger, endured a similarly harrowing struggle. In March of 2005, Ms. Holmes began losing her vision and experienced headaches, anxiety attacks, extreme fatigue and weight gain. Despite an MRI scan showing a brain tumor, Ms. Holmes was told she would have to wait months to see a specialist. In June, her vision deteriorating rapidly, Ms. Holmes went to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, where she found that immediate surgery was required to prevent permanent vision loss and potentially death. Again, the government system in Ontario required more appointments and more tests along with more wait times. Ms. Holmes returned to the Mayo Clinic and paid for her surgery.

On the other side of the country in Alberta, Bill Murray waited in pain for more than a year to see a specialist for his arthritic hip. The specialist recommended a "Birmingham" hip resurfacing surgery (a state-of-the-art procedure that gives better results than basic hip replacement) as the best medical option. But government bureaucrats determined that Mr. Murray, who was 57, was "too old" to enjoy the benefits of this procedure and said no. In the end, he was also denied the opportunity to pay for the procedure himself in Alberta. He's heading to court claiming a violation of Charter rights as well.

These constitutional challenges, along with one launched in British Columbia last month, share a common goal: to win Canadians the freedom to spend their own money to protect themselves from the inadequacies of the government health-insurance system.

The cases find their footing in a landmark ruling on Quebec health insurance in 2005. The Supreme Court of Canada found that Canadians suffer physically and psychologically while waiting for treatment in the public health-care system, and that the government monopoly on essential health services imposes a risk of death and irreparable harm. The Supreme Court ruled that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violates citizen rights as guaranteed by that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

The experiences of these Canadians -- along with the untold stories of the 750,794 citizens waiting a median of 17.3 weeks from mandatory general-practitioner referrals to treatment in 2008 -- show how miserable things can get when government is put in charge of managing health insurance.

Remind me again, why we're supposed to want government run health care? In Canada, my local hospital, serving a community of only about 30,000 in the area wouldn't have the MRI or CT machines that we've come to depend upon. While it is expensive, our health care system works. People have access to care in a timely manner. Given their track record, why would we expect government to make it better? I just don't get it. Read the rest of this post!