Reason TV: Why U.S. Health Care Costs More Than Canada’s: “A Mercedes Costs More than a Corolla”

A word to those who say that Canadian health care is ‘free’:  according to the latest figures, my family (of 4) pays about a thousand dollars per month in health taxes alone.

In addition, the Canadian health care system is less like ‘Toyota Corolla’ amd more like a ‘1980 Honda Civic’…

For example of how health care is being delivered in our hospitals, I can relay what I saw when, a little over a month ago, my mother fell down and injured herself.

She suffered a complex fracture with a shoulder dislocation.  And, true, she did get an excellent surgery to correct that.

But…

She had to sit in a hospital bed, with her arm untreated, for 5 days before there was time in an operating room to schedule her surgery – and she was told she was lucky it went that quickly!

While visiting her afterwards, I got chatting with another lady in her room (4 patients to the room).  This elderly woman got a severe bladder infection, fainted and got a complex fracture of her leg as a result.  It happens…

She could not move on her own, due to the leg.  When she needed to go to the washroom (remember, she had a bladder infection), she had to call the nurse because she could not get out of bed.

During one of my visits, she had called the nurse exactly for this reason several times over the course of an hour – with absolutely NO RESPONSE from anyone.  Finally, I went in search of someone to help her.  I found the nurse, sitting at his station, reading a book.  Very reluctantly, he got up (I was most insistent) and said he’d ‘get someone’…and left.

Another hour passed, nobody came.

The poor lady was still sitting in the hospital bed, crying, because she had soiled herself,without anyone having helped her, when I was leaving half an hour later.

And THAT is the reality of the Canadian medical system!

 

Ezra Levant: Section 13 update – Oct 3, 2012

The Reference Frame: EU bureaucrats’ new strategy to close Czech nuclear power plant

This really should not surprise me, but the EU bureaucracy is rising to new ‘Randian’ heights!

Here is the short version of the story:  the Czech republic is good at producing electicity.  In addition to hydro dams and other sources, it has invested heavily into nuclear power plants – over many decades, so that 1/3 to 1/2 of their electricity comes from nuclear power plants.  The Czech energy policy has been so successful that now, green-invested Germany buys much of its electricity from the Czechs.

While some of the Czech nuclear power plants are brand-spanking new, some are older and pre-date Czech’s entry into the EU.  These older plants use uranium fuel enriched in Russia.

So far, so good.

Then, Czrch became a member of EU.

Still OK.

Except that now, the EU bureaucrats came and told the Czechs they will have to shut down the power plant(s) that use Russian enriched uranium, because there is a pre-existing EU regulation that only EU enriched uranium may be used in EU nuclear power plants…

From TheReferenceFrame (note:  Temelin and Duchovany are Czech nuclear power plants):

‘Temelín – with its combined Russian-American design – was opened after the fall of communism, in 2002 (although the construction began in 1981), and it was a frequent target of attacks by the Austrian Luddite activists. However, Dukovany (constructed started 1974, opened in 1985-1987) which has apparently invited almost no opposition just came under a vicious assault by the EU bureaucrats.

We are learning that the Europeans are not allowed to buy uranium enriched outside of the EU due to some strange paragraph agreed upon at the 1994 EU Corfu Summit (island in Greece). Holy cow. How many shocking ghosts of this magnitude does the EU have? We weren’t members of the EU at that time and the citizens who were deciding about our EU membership in a referendum were not told that “Yes” could mean that some stunning assholes could get a weapon to close our nuclear power plants because of some silly sentence okayed by some drunk and corrupt jerks at an island belonging to a country that shouldn’t have been in the EU at all. If this information were the case, I would consider the referendum to be fraudulent.’

Read it and weep…

John Cleese: Alerts to threats in 2012 Europe

“ Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.”

Note:  for some reason, completely hidden to me at this late (early?) hour, I cannot get the link to work.  If you follow it, just delete the ‘xanthippa-blog’ bit at the front and you’ll get it.  Or, just copy and paste this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002555582

It really is very funny and worth the read.

Once I can get the link to work, I’ll delete this ‘note’ bit…

Posted in Humour. Tags: . 2 Comments »

Free Dominion: ‘ Richard Warman and National Post owe Fourniers $7,230.44’

From the Free Dominion site:

by Connie Fournier » 10/ 02/ 12 8:02 pm

In an assessment decision filed yesterday costs were awarded against Richard Warman and the National Post for their loss in the Federal Court copyright case. They owe us $7,230.44.

Although this is a drop in the bucket considering what Maximum Disruption has cost us, it is a very substantial award for self-represented litigants, and we are thrilled with this decision!

Read the reasons here: http://www.freedominion.ca/images/Asses … easons.pdf

 

Connie went against some of the most expensive lawyers money can buy – and won!

Well done!

Thoughts on Omar Khadr’s repatriation

Well, well, well.

The chickens have come home to roost.

Or something like that!

It seems like the vast majority of the media is jubilant over Omar Khadr’s return to Canada – in stark contrast to the polls of actual Canadian people, the vast majority of whom opposed his repatriation.  He killed an American medic, he was sentenced in America – why should Canadian taxpayers foot the bill for his jail time and rehabilitation?

And the cost of rehabilitation will be high!

Not counting the ten million he is suing Canada for, that is…

Because this 5 times war criminal is unrepentant and more militant than ever.  He is a racist, misogynistic bigot who is hell-bent on using any means available to him – including violence and propaganda – to wage jihad against us, non-Muslims.

We know this because he openly says so.

No, not to the media and the useful idiots from the consular office – but he says it nonetheless.

He boasts of having killed Americans.

He says his best days were when he was manufacturing roadside bombs and planting them, to blow up our and allied military personnel.

And he is proud of having cold-bloodedly murdered a medic – not in the heat of a battle, but while the unarmed medic was attempting to render him medical assistance!

Forget the lie so often repeated in the media that he is a ‘child soldier’ – he is not.  Not according to either the spirit or the letter of the law, which is very specific in its definition of the legal term ‘child soldier’.  But I have ranted on that in the past…

What is important now is how we will deal with this hardened terrorist in our midst:  will we pretend that he is just another petty criminal who can be rehabilitated through education, or will we recognize the clear and present danger he poses to us all?

He had, after all, committed treason by taking up arms against our and allied forces.

It’s right there, in our criminal code.

The only reasonable course of action is for him to be charged and tried under that law because if the laws are not applied equally to everyone, the very foundation of our society will be undermined.

Ezra Levant: Speer Kids Fund

TheFIREorg: College Professor Censors Anti-Obama Comment on Free Speech Wall

So much for oprning students minds…

 

Reason TV’s Nanny of the Month: Obama vs Romney

…and while on the topic of the US elections…

 

A guest post by Juggernaut: “Thoughts on feminism”

The following is a guest post by Juggernaut, where he shares his thoughts on feminism.  While I may not agree with all he says, I do think it is thought-provoking:

I think feminism is often misunderstood, and no matter what stance you take on feminism, there is a degree of controversy. Hardcore feminists will probably see me as a chauvinist or misogynist. Hardcore anti-feminists will probably see me as an emasculate wuss indoctrinated by leftist propaganda. In the end though, there are merits to feminism, but some feminists do go to unhealthy extremes in their beliefs.

There does seem to be an aura of belittlement and disrespect toward women in our culture (a.k.a. much of our movies and music). When feminists mention a human history where males have forcefully dominated and cultural barriers have prevented women from excelling in careers by giving them the expectation to be stay-at-home mothers, I listen and openly accept these criticisms. The guys who automatically write off feminists and see these concerns as silly, do seem to be in an overall state of justified ignorance. A person who doesn’t feel threatened or guilty will gladly welcome even more questioning and probing.

Men, instead of taking offense and immediately jumping to conclusions and saying something like “well, if it were a man, then ____”. Openly listen, and who knows, you two may actually be on the same page.  This is in the same way that some feminists need to be more open in taking criticism.

There are gender roles in our society. And there are two kinds of traditions. Some traditions are useful. Other traditions are not so useful. My belief is to adopt the useful traditions and abandon the less useful traditions. Everyone has different needs and a different lifestyle. If women want to adopt male gender roles and men want to adopt feminine gender roles, I have no problem with that. In some cases, it’s best for a woman to work and in other cases, it is best for a woman to be a stay-at-home mom. In the end, it’s a woman’s choice (as well as a man), in what she wants to be and what she wants to do with her life. Whether the traditional gender roles of women cooking/cleaning and men doing handiwork are adopted into a family or not adopted into a family, I respect their decision. Live and let live. Everyone has their own choice, and I won’t judge them.

Keep in mind that feminism is not a church. There is not one set of tenets you have to believe in order to be a feminist. And there are different kinds of feminists. Some of them happen to be the most extreme feminists (and I’m not condemning their lifestyles at all; but I will start to ask questions when they start condemning others). Some people believe in feminism and support feminism, but it isn’t their entire life. Other people eat sleep and breathe feminism. They spend a lot of their spare time protesting and they study feminism in school. A good amount (but not most) of the latter kind are found in colleges. And some of them are very extreme. If you go to college, you may hear a lot of feminist protests and feminist professors, and therefore conclude that most or a lot of women are like that.

But the most hardcore feminists are only a minority, and don’t represent most women at all!

I have a lot of respect for feminism, but not the extremists. That is in the same way I have respect for people in pursuit of their religion, but not the extremists.

Here is what I don’t like about the most hardcore extreme feminists:

1. They are more judgmental on women than men are. If a woman likes to live a lifestyle that is in line with what women have traditionally living, they will see those women as being brainwashed, as if they didn’t have the capacity to make a decision themselves. Basically “all women should be like ____. if you aren’t like ____, then there is something wrong with you.”

So, if a woman actually likes living within the gender roles, and actuallys want to be a stay-at-home mom, she should not be seen as brainwashed or too intellectually inferior to make her own decision. Her decision should be respected because she is intelligent enough to decide what she personally wants.

2. They are overly politically correct, take things too literally, and have no sense of humor. If they hear a joke that is mildly inappropriate, they will act uptight and decide the joke to be misogynistic. These people are much harder to have fun with, especially if you have a broader sense of humor. You can’t have casual small talk with them about having a long philosophical discussion about feminism. Everything leads to feminism and they sound like a johnny one-note. You can’t listen to the radio without them giving you a complete dissection of every lyric.

They don’t grasp the difference between words and actions. Actions matter more than words. If you say an off-color joke, it doesn’t represent who you are or what you think of women. It’s how you treat people that truly matters.

Again, these aren’t all feminists. Just maybe the minority of the most extreme feminists, who are ironically the most vocal. Most people who believe in feminism, believe in it, but they don’t commit the time to attend feminism events every week, they don’t study feminism and they don’t talk about feminism constantly.

Why is this bugging me?

Because some men are being trained to tailor themselves to the most hardcore feminists, thinking that those extreme beliefs represent ALL women.

Generally, I’d say dedicated feminists are no more than 10% of women, but 90% of women don’t subscribe to all of the things that hardcore feminists believe. That’s what angers me. A minority of women can’t speak for all women! The same way a minority of black people can’t speak for all black people. Or the same way a minority of muslims don’t speak for all muslims.

Most women do generally believe in feminism, but they are far from the hardcore extreme branch of feminism.

Most women actually don’t feel like them being a woman is restricting them in any way.

Most women actually like an inappropriate joke now and then. A lot of women will laugh hard at them. They can laugh at a “thats what she said” joke. They like being teased every once in a while. They do not mind at all having the passive role of waiting for the man to call and wanting the man to set up the date. Most women expect all of that! They don’t want a man who is boring, play-it-safe, over-apologetic or politically correct all of the time.

When it comes to sexuality, some women are more sexual than others. Some women resent the idea of pre-marital sex (and the idea of one night stands). Some women are perfectly okay with pre-marital, if it is with a guy they are attracted to. Women neither deserve to be labeled as a slut or a prude.

I say this to both men and women, don’t ever feel like you are doing something wrong by feeling attracted to someone. Don’t ever feel guilty about wanting sex, if that’s truly what you want. There is a huge difference between treating someone like a sex object (with no regard to anything else) and appreciating someone as a whole (including sex).

Most women WANT a man who is traditionally masculine, rather than boring, neutral or effeminate. They want a masculine man who is assertive and acts in a leadership role. This does not mean bossy, intrusive and manipulative. What I’m saying is that they want men to be the initiator, a protector that can provide a feeling of security.

A guy may talk to or get to know a woman who is a die-hard feminist, and therefore tone down his masculine qualities, in belief that he is belittling or insulting a woman by being traditionally masculine. But in the end, that is what most women like and are attracted to.

If you are surrounded in an isolated atmosphere of a vocal minority, it is easy to see a distorted view of what women are like. But in the end, each woman is different. There is no one formula that can be agreeable with all women. Some women are non-traditional and other women are more traditional.

In the end, accept people for who they are and let them make their own choices. And don’t get pressured into making a lifestyle choice just because someone doesn’t like what you are doing.