Socialized Medicine Can Be Hazardous To Your Health

A major European study of cancer survival rates has shown what many in the health care industry have known and witnessed for years - socialized medicine is hazardous to your health.

The study in Lancet Oncology found the highest cancer survival rates in the USA, where care can be accessed on a much more timely basis in a (relatively) free market system. The UK, with its vaunted "free" system, scores near the bottom of the group.

Why is this you ask? Don Watkins of ARI sums it up nicely.

I saw no mention of Canada in the parts I read, but you can be sure that we tend to the British end of the spectrum.

Shona Holmes had to flee a country where doctors can be jailed for the crime of practicing medicine in a timely fashion in order to get treatment that saved her vision and probably her life. The country that was unwilling to treat her cancer to be treated before it caused irreparable harm? Canada.

Vople & bridge safety: concern, or buck passing

Joe Volpe, (L, Eglinton-Lawrence) went to get some media face time yesterday to push the federal government to increase funding for infrastructure upgrades. One assumes to prevent a disaster similar to the one in Minnesota.

He readily admitted that the Liberals did not make adequate infrastructure investments, but by calling for the Conservatives to do so, one gets the impression that he is simply covering Liberal backsides in case there is a collapse of a bridge under federal responsibility. In essence, "We told you so. Just ignore the fact the Liberals didn't do anything on the file while they were in power."

Since roads are generally a provincial responsibility, did you ever wonder how many bridges that is?
The Federal Bridge Corporation Limited is responsible for all of 9 structures.

And yes, the minister has had every one of them inspected over the past year.

If Joe bothered to read the news rather than focus on covering Liberal butts, he might be aware of that.

Continuing Ontario's Slide

We see in today's news that Canada has gone from having 3 "have" provinces just 15 years ago to one or one and a half now, according to Global Insight Canada.

The 3 "haves" 15 years ago were BC, Alberta and Ontario.

BC fell out of that category in the late 1990's, according to the article.
Anyone remember who ruled BC from 1991 until 2001? Here's a hint.
Clearly Dippers can be hazardous to your economic health.

Alberta never fell from the "have" coulmn, even during the oil bust years.
Any correlation to the governing party there?

Now we see Ontario heading down the road of the have nots.
Will Dalton add accomplishment that to his website?
Of course not. But then again, truth is not something we have come to expect from Dalton.

It does indicate one thing though. He really wasn't up to the job.

What will it take to put a stop to this?

"What will it take to put a stop to this?"

So goes that wail of a relative of a an 11 year old boy killed by gunfire between rival gangs in Toronto over the weekend.

First things first. The guilty party here is the gunman. A person "known to police".

But, that doesn't answer the question, does it.

I would suggest the following in answer to the question.

1) Rudimentary parenting skills.
What's an 11 year old boy doing outside in that neighborhood at 1:00 am? I don't care whose birthday it is. A parent or guardian's first responsibility is the safety of their kids. A kid in his bed at that time of night is much safer than at a mammoth block party.

2) Rudimentary parenting skills.
OK, the kid's up later than usual for a special occasion. I'm not a fan, but it happens. Your neighborhood backyard birthday party has now been crashed by over 50 "unwelcome and unwanted" party crashers, several of which are know to be connected to local gangs. Do you a) Call the cops, b) Gather up the kids and bring them inside to relative safety? or c) Leave an 11 year old kid in the middle of the crowd, on their own?

Its time parents took more direct responsibility for the safety of their kids.


Do I think that Ephraim's death was his parent's fault? No.

Would rudimentary parenting skills have prevented his death? Absolutely.

Deconstructing RFK, Jr. & Enironmentalism.

On Wednesday's Your World with Neil Cavuto, FNC's Cavuto hosted both ABC's John Stossel and environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The money quote from RFK Jr. pretty much sums up what we have come to expect from the environmentalists that get air time on the MSM.

Here is the quote:

"First of all, the, everything we need to do, the science on global warming is settled, 2500 scientists and the IPPC report, the top meteorologists and climate scientists from around the world have announced the global consensus that global warming exists, that we are causing it, and that its impacts are going to be catastrophic. You don't need that science, though. All you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Arctic. The Arctic is melting. It is catastrophic. The good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global warming are things we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America's prosperity, for our national security, for our economic independence."

Let's look at this piece by piece.

"... the science on global warming is settled..."

This is clearly the statement of someone who has never actually practised science. Climatology is a very young science with new research and developments being done at an ever increasing rate. There is, in fact, considerable controversy and varying conclusions being made a wide range of scientists. Anyone even remotely conversant with the scientific method knows that scientific reports are published so that the thought process and conclusions of the author(s) can be evaluated by a wide range of scientists and so that others can begin the process of poking holes in the reasoning. Publishing also allows others to try to duplicate the experiments and thus confirm or refute the original research. It takes a great deal more than one report to begin the process of accurate scientific knowledge.
If everything that was to be known about the climate was known, then we could accurately predict the weather well into the future. At this point, we can't even predict if its going to rain next Tuesday with any significant accuracy.

".... 2500 scientists and the IPPC report, the top meteorologists and climate
scientists from around the world have announced the global consensus that global
warming exists, that we are causing it, and that its impacts are going to be
catastrophic."

Firstly, consensus does not prove anything in science. Functioning models that can accurately recreate measured data and accurately predict are the basis for proving things in science.
Secondly, an ever increasing number of the scientists listed in the IPPC report are publicly disavowing supporting the report's conclusions. So do you really trust a document that doesn't even allow the people to read it and make their own assertion that it is correct, rather than just declaring their agreement?
Thirdly, the IPPC report is a political document, not a scientific one. Its conclusions were drafted before the technical portion of the document. It was drafted by bureaucrats from the most political and self serving organization on the planet, the UN. Hardly a bastion of objective opinion or clear, rational scientific thought.

"You don't need that science, though."

Translated: Don't bother looking for facts, proof, or even attempt to understand what you are observing. I have an agenda to push.

"All you need to do is walk outside. I just came back from the Arctic. The
Arctic is melting."

Its July. Apparently, in Mr. Kennedy's vast scientific background, he was never exposed to the phenomenon of snow melting during the summer.

"It is catastrophic. "

The climate of the planet has been changing for millions of years. What makes you think this is catastrophic? Global warming, if true, could be a great boon to some. At worst, its a mid level civil enginering problem. The only reason to declare a catastrophe is to acquire additional government (and UN) powers and money.

"The good news is that everything that we need to do to solve global
warming are things we ought to be doing anyway for the sake of America's
prosperity, for our national security, for our economic independence."

Even rudimentary mathematics shows this statement to be ludicrous, if you accept the first portion of his premise. Again, it is simply a call for more government intervention in our daily lives, and a curtailment of individual liberty. Interestingly, its not a prescription Mr. Kennedy chooses to follow for himself.



In summary - MSM environmentalists (Al Gore and RFK Jr. being classic examples) have no interest in objective scientific truth. Their interest is political power and control over others.

A Government to Fear

Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant has decided he has the soultion for his province's problem with street racers. Crush any car that could be used for street racing. (ref: cbc.ca)

Yes, the Ontario Provincial Government has now decided that it is perfectly acceptable for it to sieze and destroy your property, even though it was legally acquired and you have broken no law. No compensation is to be provided either.

There are so many reasons to fear a government with this attitude.

Suppose they next decide that your SUV is spewing too much carbon dioxide for their liking - confiscate it & crush it. Suppose he decides your house is too big, or painted the wrong colour. Again, the same principle would allow him to confiscate it, and anything else you thought you owned.

Aahh! There's the problem. In Canada you are not allowed actually own anything outright. You only have things because the government allows you to, and they can take it away without due process any time they want. A citizen of Canada does not have the right to private property. The ability for a private citizen to actually own something would require property rights recognized in the constitution.

Now who was it that specifically excluded property rights from Canada's constitution? That would be Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Remember that as the items you thought you owned are being hauled away, even though you have committed no crime.

Canadian MSM continues to ignore the destruction of Venezuela

Kleptocrat Hugo Chavez has moved ahead with his takeover of his country's oil industry, and there is no mention of it in the Canadian MSM.

Venezuela is a major producer of oil (for now), and this is surely the sort of thing that investors and those generally interested in the news should be aware of.

I suppose if an idol of the left steals (That's what "nationalization" is folks - theft.) then it isn't considered something Canadian should know about. Apparently its more important to know what the Black family was wearing yesterday at the courthouse. Those salient details I can get from our MSM.

Bye, Bye Belinda

So, Belinda is saying goodbye to politics. (link)

Is anyone surprised by this?

Let's check the track record:

University degree - checked out before completion.
Marriage # 1 - nope.
Marriage # 2 - nope.
Corporate Executive Career - didn't stick around as the "VP of special projects" for daddy's company.
Conservative party - left for a sweeter short term offer
Liberal party - another short term fling


About the only thing that Belinda has stuck with in her life is being a professional dilettante.

Provoking Britain isn't usually a good idea

Iran seems to be geographically challenged in its seizure of 15 British military personnel. The "evidence" Iran presented to justify its actions places the seizure in Iraqi waters. Oops.

When this little detail was pointed out to them, they went away and came back with a new location - in Iranian waters this time. No explanation as to what prompted the sudden change in coordinates. It certainly wasn't a typo.

Iran should know that the Brits don't mess around with things like this.

Do Canadians value pain and suffering?

Ontario Health Minister George Smitherman (L - Toronto Centre-Rosedale) has refused to even consider alternate means for Ontarians to get their health ailments addressed in a timely manner. He states:

"This Ministry of Health gives you and all Ontarians the complete assurance, I will never support the outsourcing of those knee surgeries to any private, for-profit-motivated organization," Mr. Smitherman said. "Our government fundamentally believes that the public health-care system, the not-for-profit public health-care system is the best expression of Canadian values [emphasis added]."..

A couple of questions Mr. Smitherman:

1) Canadians hold a wide range of different values. Some value a free market approach to these things, while other prefer a more socialist approach. Is your stance in fact Canadian values or Liberal Party values? I would argue its the latter.

2) The time from diagnosis to surgery being performed can be less than two weeks for my dog, but over two years for myself for similar ailments. Please explain why I should not have other options available to me?

3) Is forcing people to suffer in pain when their ailments could be addressed sooner a Canadian value, or a Liberal party value?

4) Is forcing a medical condition to worsen for a year before addressing it a Canadian value, or a Liberal Party value?


Its time to stop equating Liberal Party values with Canadian values. They are not the same.

Science or hype?

An Angus Reid survey released today says that only 12% of Canadians think that global warming is based on "junk science".

Oddly enough, 12% is also roughly the level of scientific literacy in this country.

ITAR & Dual Citizenship

The Globe & Mail gives us today's dose of how those awful Americans are oppressing the world - this time through ITAR restrictions on military contracts.

The article states:

Despite Charter provisions that prevent discrimination based on nationality, the citizen of Canada and Syria -- along with 23 other dual-national colleagues -- was told he will never be able to work on U.S. military contracts at his workplace in Mirabel, Que.

Mr. Nahas was the latest Canadian to fall afoul of Pentagon rules that prevent people from certain countries from coming into contact with U.S. military data.

"I feel like a second-class citizen. It's discrimination, pure and simple," said Mr. Nahas, a technician who assembles helicopters.


I don't particularly agree with Mr. Nahas's assessment of the situation.

The issue is not that he is a second class citizen at all.
The issue is that he is also a first class citizen - of Syria.

I don't know Mr. Nahas and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Nahas is anything but an honest and upstanding citizen of Canada. His status in Canada is not in question, doubt or jeopardy.

If Mr. Nahas would like to renounce his Syrian citizenship, he would be allowed to perform work on the above mentioned contract. But alas, that option is never discussed when addressing the dual citizenship issue. If one chooses to hold two citizenships, then one should expect to have to play by the rules that apply to each - at the same time. You don't get to "cherry pick" from both sets. If you lose on one, its game over.

The terms of the contract were quite clear going into it. If you want to build US military aircraft, certain nations (and by extension their citizens) need not apply as it will be deemed an unacceptable security risk. Bell knew this going in. The other option is of course, to not bid on US defence work at all and lose the income that Bell Helicopter will get from the contract. If you want to do work for another country's military, you better be ready to play by its rules. That has always been the case and will be for the foreseeable future.

The US has decided that it does not want to share the designs and blueprints for its military helicopters with Syria. Few would have an issue with that decision and fewer still would have an issue with their right to make that decision. US ITAR law is written, for very good reasons, such that a transfer of information to a person is considered a transfer to all countries in which he holds citizenship. Why? Simply because that person any at any time and move to any country in which they hold citizenship and bring that information with them. If one holds a citizenship with a country, there is obviously some sort of tie or allegiance to it.

I am not saying we should do away with dual citizenships.
Sometimes these things have wonderful advantages. Other times that have disadvantages.
Be prepared to accept one with the other.

A Fascinating Comparison of GDP's

This is a fascinating map. It equates the GDP of various countries with that of a US State that has a similar GDP.

There are so many thoughts that come to mind.....

How has a relatively young country like the US managed to leave more established (i.e. older)nations in its economic dust?

What are the major factors contributing to the economic success of the US?

etc. etc.

h/t Carl Stormer

It's a good start...

Chuck Strahl has fired the head of the Canadian Wheat Board.

That's phase 1.

Now let's work on getting a look at the books.
I'm sure that will be interesting reading.

Mr. Coderre - check your job description

In yesterday's committee hearings on Bill C-257, a bill to ban the use of replacement workers during strikes, Liberal M.P. Denis Coderre made the assertion that "it is [his] job to ensure that we have as few strikes as possible."

I beg to differ. The job of a member of parliament is not to prevent strikes. Its to represent your constituents. That would be all of your constituents, Mr. Coderre. Not just the unions that backed you.

While we are on the topic of Bill 257 (another attempt to restrict the free exchange of goods & services courtesy of the Bloc), I stand firmly opposed to it. The conservatives were, of course, the only ones who were opposed it. We need to get this thing defeated at third reading. The Liberals, Bloc & NDP have never been about people working out their own agreements. They are addicted to legislative coersion and would never even consider that people might be capable of this without the "help" of a government.

The basics never go out of style

I have always maintained that the most valuable engineering tools are a pencil and a blank piece of paper.

Apparently, I am not in the minority on this one. A survey of engineering professionals finds that most rely on hand calculations every day. Electronic rsources are moving up the list in terms of frequency of use, but nothing replaces the ability to do your own math.

The Nations in Canada

It is always good to agree on the definition of specific terms of an agreement before signing it. In fact, its vital.

One of the things that scientists do at the start of any calculation is define the terms they are going to use during the calculation. The more specific the definition, the more sure you generally are of the end result, and that your conculsions will not be misinterpreted.

As we look at the discussion of what nation or nations may exist within Canada we should probably start by defining our terms.

So, how do we go abut finding definitions of various words? The standard answer is a dictionary. My dictionary (Funk & Wagnall’s Standard College Dictionary – Canadian Edition, © 1982) gives the following:

nation
• noun 1) A body of persons associated with a particular territory, usually organized under a government, and possessing a distinctive cultural and social way of life. 2) A body of persons having a common origin and language. 3) A tribe or federation, especially of American Indians; also the territory it occupies.

Just for fun, let’s add the Webster’s dictionary definition to the mix:

na·tion
1 a (1) : NATIONALITY 5a (2) : a politically organized nationality (3) : a non-Jewish nationality b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government c : a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status2 archaic : GROUP, AGGREGATION3 : a tribe or federation of tribes (as of American Indians)

Following through on 1a above, we find:

Nationality 5 a : a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state b : an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation )


Let’s also look up the definition of the French term “nation”, to be sure we are all talking about the same thing. From my Micro Robert Dictionnaire:

nation

• n.f. 1) Groupe humain assez vaste, qui se charactérise par conscience de son unite et la volonté de vivre en commun 2) Communauté politique établie sur un teritoire défini, et personnifiée par une autorité souvraine


Looking at the definitions above and other dictionaries in both French & English, it is interesting to see that two themes emerge. The concept of a nation as a political entity – the default mode in the English definitions, and the concept of a nation as a group of people with common language, culture & origin – the default mode in French definitions. Both are applicable in both languages though.

So, using the dictionary terms, what are the nation(s) that one finds within Canada?

The one that fits both the English and French definitions is clearly the entirety of Canada as one nation. Are there subsets, that could themselves be considered “nations”, as per the dictionaries?

Is Québec a nation? Probably not, by strict interpretation of these definitions.

Are there other nations within Canada? Clearly, yes – if we look from the common definition of a cultural group rather than a political one. The “pur laine” of Québec world meet that definition. The Acadians would clearly fall into that definition of “nation” as well. Similarly, there would be many First Nations groups who meet these definitions much more readily than the Province of Québec as a whole. Even English Canada would clearly constitute a nation by those terms.

One could even make an argument for the Leafs Nation, but that may be stretching it a bit.

The many ethnic communities that one finds throughout Canada probably don’t meet the “size” criteria that seems to be a part of making that “community” to “nation” step, but are they any less significant?

Why the fuss about wanting to recognize “the Québec nation”?

For the Bloc/PQ the fight has always been about an independent country for the “pur laine” of Québec. “… ce que nous sommes…” to quote Jacques Parizeau. If they have to take a few members of “the ethnic vote” with them in order to achieve that, well that’s the price of admission. “The ethnic vote” of Québec can be made sufficiently uncomfortable in an independent Québec that their numbers will not rise to the point of being inconvenient is the unstated thought in the back of the PQ/Bloc believers. In the Bloc’s mind “the ethnic vote” (i.e. all non-“pur laine”) don’t really count as part of Québec anyway.

There are many nations (in the cultural group sense of the word) that make up Canada. Why acknowledge just one? Surely they all deserve the same respect, rules, and significance. Or is it simply that Canada has degenerated to the point where all nations (again, in the cultural group sense of the word) are equal, but some nations are more equal than others? That clearly is the Bloc/PQ position.

Wake up Canada. The nation is Canada. There are many subsets that make up the whole, but the whole is what its all about. No one subset deserves recognition that others do not get. That’s a basic premise of western democracy and law. Let’s be sure to define our terms explicitly before we go recognizing nations within nations.

Time to Cast Some Light on the Canadian Wheat Board

The Canadian Wheat Board needs an overhaul for so many different reasons, its hard to know where to start.

Consider:

1) If its the "Canadian" Wheat Board, why does it only apply to western Canada? Those from Liberal ridings can still sell their wheat to whoever they please.

2) It amazing how few Canadians are aware that this monstrosity is responsible for farmers being jailed for the crime of selling their wheat.

3) Whay have the Liberals quickly tried to shut down every attempt to shind some light on its finances.

Paul Jackson raises these questions and others in today's Calgary Sun.

Let's spread the word to the rest of Canada about this Liberal relic.
I agree with Paul's assessment that it will probably make the sponsorship scandal pale in comparison.

Peaceful Trespassing?

Looking at CBC.ca's headline "Protesters arrested at peaceful demonstration" you would think that those arrested were somehow the innocent victims of a police state.

The fact thay they were trespassing on private property is, of course, buried well down in the story.

A quick Google search on those arrested shows that this is their typical m.o. and they they are anything but new to this game.

CBC is in Denial

The CBC is an integral part of the denial machine

Anyone with even a rudimentary level of critical thinking skills who saw The Fifth Estate's program "The Denial Machine" would be able to see clearly where the bulk of the denial is coming from. Unfortunately, everyone at the Communist Broadcasting Corporation clearly lacks those skills.

If you didn't see it, you did yourself a favour. The thesis of the show was to pretend that there is no debate or question amongst "the scientific community" as to whether global warming is a real and major phenomenon. It tried to paint any opposition to the conclusions of globals castatrophe as the paid servants of "big oil."

Consider the following ironies:

1) There is legitimate scientific opposition to the prevailing doomsday predictions of the global warming crowd, yet the CBC denies its existance.

2) It claims any opposition that exists is just a paid shill for "Big Oil", yet refuses to examine the science on either side of the debate.

3) Climate science is a very young discipline. It relies heavily on computer models of very complex systems that have no track record of accuracy. In order to be able to make these computer models, scientists have had to make assumptions. Do any state their assumptions up front and what the implications of those asssumptions are? Have they released their source code for peer review?

4) There is a lot of competition for government research money. Consider that these doomsday scenarios come from those who stand to gain government funding only if there is a catastrophe ahead that their chosen field of study will help understand. Whould you spend billions on climate study if your scientists told you that that the climate was going to stay the same for the next few thousand years?

5) Consider the accuracy of current climate models. Is it reasonable to believe that these models can accurately predict the climate a hundred years from now? Can they accurately predict if its going to rain next Tuesday?


I would suggest that there is considerable basic scientific work still to be done before we move back into caves.

For further details: Terrence Corcoran further eviscerates the CBC's propaganda in this morning's National Post.