A street sign at an intersection in Beverly Hills.

As Canadian doctors prepare to meet in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to discuss their country’s “sick” health-care system, Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) says, “We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize“.  (Emphasis added.)

As the Canadian system implodes,  Dr. Robert Ouellet, the outgoing President of the CMA, will be putting forward the notion of allowing “a role for private health-care delivery within the public system.”

Wonder if the American media will be covering the Canadian doctors’ push for change in the direction of the system President Obama is trying to overhaul.

(Via GatewayPundit who has more.)

UPDATE:  A search for Anne Doig on google news yields no links to American publications.  I get a similar result when I search for Robert Ouellet.

UP-UPDATE:  Well, they are picking this up “>on the right- and libertarianosphere (guess the former is (by my definition at least) inclusive of the latter).

Some days turn out better than expected, even when you were already expecting a very good time.

And such was my experience at the GayPatriot BBQ this Sunday at reader Leah’s Valley home.  Not only did we have a good turnout of readers, but several straight bloggers joined us as well, including Roger Simon and his wife Sheryl Longin (who discovered the real Deep Throat of Watergate),  Joe of Valley of the Shadow and Wesley of In My Copious Free Time.

I knew it was destined to be a great party before I even got there.  Defying the liberal boycott, I went to Whole Foods to buy cheese and olives.  When I asked the adorable man at the cheese counter if they had Humboldt Fog (quite possibly my favorite cheese), he replied that they did–for he had just cut  up a wheel and put out the wedges he had wrapped.  And then, on my way out, passing the pastry counter, I saw on an adjacent display carousel, boxes of cookies marked, “Pinky the Elephant.”  How perfect for a BBQ for blog of gay people sympathetic with the GOP.

At at the BBQ, a good time was had by all.  The food was delicious, especially the chicken and a homemade cheesecake.  And it was so nice to have a conversation without having to defend ourselves against charges of self-hatred.  And the topic varied widely from considerations of Anthony Perkins to discussions on the prospects of the health care overhaul passing and Ma’am Boxer winning reelection.  At its peak, we may have had 25 people, with guests ranging in age from 20 to 65.

We stayed well into the night; I didn’t realize it was long past 10 when I left.

Just to show the different treatment Republican and Democratic Senators receive, consider this. In 2006, he Washington Post obsessed about then-Senator George Allen’s one-time use of the strange word, “macaca,” to describe a left-winger (with a mohawk or mullet (depending on who’s describing it) stalking his campaign with a video camera. It was indeed an odd moment and a strange expression.

Somehow, the Post found deeper meaning in that. By contrast, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, his one-time colleague from the state where he was born, has made multiple strange statements, many of which are indeed indicative of her attitude toward her critics and constituents. And yet, she gets a pass from the media.

In the past Ma’am has won election and reelection in California because she is the Democratic candidate in a largely Democratic state.  But, if people saw exactly what kind of person this Democrat was, well, they would surely opt for different representation.

To remind you of Ma’am’s attitude toward those with opinions different from her own, let me show them to show again.

Here’s how Ma’am treats a Brigadier General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

Here’s how Ma’am tries to discredit a black man offering the views of the business association he heads:

Here’s Ma’am saying that those whose disagree with Democratic proposals for increased state involvement in the health care market (including many of her own constituents) are really stooges for outside organizations:

If any Republican Senator had been caught this many times on tape saying such silly things, his party would have long since made sure she wasn’t running for reelection.

I still have no evidence that any local television station in the Golden State has shown Ma’am Boxer for what she truly is.

HUGE hat-tip to reader Ignatius who commented on my post yesterday about the death of private insurance for the following link:

In the video, a (very cute!) CU-Boulder Poli-Sci and Marketing major named Zach Lane asks the president a very simple question:

We all know the best way to reduce prices in this economy is to increase competition. How in the world can a private corporation providing insurance compete with an entitiy that does not have to worry about paying a profit, does not have to pay local property taxes, they’re not subject to local regulations? How can a company compete with that?

And I don’t want generalities, I don’t want philisophical arguments.

The president then goes on to give generalities and philisophical arguments and completely bypasses answering Zach’s question. Are the people who still support this liberty-killing plan even listening to the lack of defense?

Here’s a follow-up question for Zach to ask:

“Mr. President, it sounds as if you’re not intending for the ‘public option’ to operate any differently whatsoever from the example you gave of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, which is also a non-profit entity. What then, would the point be, considering the hundreds of health insurance companies available in the United States, of having one more that is ostensibly no different?”

And another follow-up:

“Mr. President, are you willing to insist that your ‘public option’ abide by exactly the same regulations that every other insurance company in America currently does, derive NO benefit from being attached to the federal governemnt, and allow it to sink or swim on those merits?”

I’ll wait over here for those questions to be answered. Given how reticent he is to answer Zach’s very simple question, however, I’m not going to hold my breath.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Sometimes when men like Barack Obama are in control of the conversation, with the full-throated endrsement of the old-school media in tow, simple truths get missed.

Today in my home state, the president continued his nationwide tour touting his support for the Stalinization of the health care industry. In his prepared remarks, he said:

At the same time, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care – but the point is, I don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.

So now the president is trying to save us from the “insurance company bureaucrats”? Um, Mr. President, I know you’re the savior of the world and our Nation’s salvation and all, but why don’t you just butt the hell out of the private business relationships we, as free citizens of the United States, have chosen to develop between ourselves.

And to in the same breath suggest that his plan would also keep the “government bureaucrats” out of our business is a complete fantasy. Know this: the president’s “public option” will mean a sure death to private health insurance in America. And here’s why:
(more…)

“Read my lips:  No New Taxes”

George H.W. Bush, August 18, 1988

” . . .what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”

Barack H. Obama, October 15 2008

The former ran as Ronald Reagan’s heir, but governed as if he were Richard Nixon’s.  The latter sounded a lot like Bill Clinton on the fall campaign trail, but acted like LBJ when he entered the White House.  It was as if, once elected their campaign pledges no longer meant anything.  Of course, it didn’t take as long for Mr. Obama’s to expire as it did for those of the elder Mr. Bush.

Each seemed to interpret his election victory not as a vindication for his campaign rhetoric, crafted over a period of time with political advisers in order to appeal to the American people, but as a personal victory, allowing him to do what he thought best for the country.

It’s as if the rhetoric used to win election mean nothing, the person everything.  The messenger seems to think the only message he bore was himself.

I think the unfortunate Mr. Rex had a word for that.

With each passing day, the wisdom of the greatest domestic policy President of the Twentieth Century becomes increasingly manifest.

A number of conservative blogs have posted this audio of Ronald Reagan  speaking out in 1961 against socialized medicine. At about the 2-minute mark, he describes the foot-in-the-door philosophy of a Congressman Furan, then proposing health care reform legislation, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.”

A you consider that foot-in-the-door philosophy that neither President Obama nor any of his minions have disavowed the Democrat’s past advocacy of a single-payer system.

Welcome Instapundit Readers!  While you’re here you might want to check out my advice to the President on how he can improve the health care debate.

Our GayPatriot correspondent in San Francisco filed this report on the protest against Obamacare in the hometown of Nancy Pelosi and Ma’am Barbara Boxer:

It was organized by the Bay Area Patriots and included various speakers, a “moment of being silenced,” a “candlelight vigil” for our MIA senators, and a mock town hall.  I’m bad at judging the size of crowds, but I’d say there were about 300-350 people at its peak.  The crowd was spirited but civil and included 20-somethings (like me) to seniors.  It appeared that local media showed up, so it’ll be interesting to read what their spin will be.

There were only a couple of counterprotesters there, one (a woman probably in her late 20s) with a sign saying “Who would Jesus insure?” on one side and “Answer:  everyone” on the other.  During the “moment of being silenced” (some people put blue tape on their mouth), she was voicing her opinion, trying to goad retaliation from the crowd.  A few people responded, but the majority held their silence.

There were a couple of segments where people from the crowd were allowed to voice their opinions with the bullhorn – some of them were plugs for their various campaigns, while others got off topic with issues like voter fraud, the war in Afghanistan, etc.  But mostly they voiced their concern and frustration with the healthcare legislation.  The Bay Area Patriots passed out a form expressing opposition to the current form of the healthcare reform legislation, and they asked local and California-wide constituents to sign it and mail it to Ma’am Boxer, DiFi, or Princess Pelosi (or all if you make copies).

Here are some more of his photos:

One of the primary reasons the debate over health care reform has gotten out of control is that many (but, fortunately not all) Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media, have by and large focused on the most extreme antics of a handful of the protesters against increased federal involvement in our health care system, drawing our attention to the most hateful and juvenile of the signs at the various protests (while all but ignoring the same conduct from supporters of the President and Democratic plans to overhaul the system).

And these Democrats and pundits, in turn, hyperventilate how horrible, no good, hateful, very astroturfy we are, focusing on the angry rhetoric of a handful, ignoring the concerns of the multitude (which, if current polling trends are correct, reflect an emerging majority of Americans).

Their hyperventilating further debases the debate.

Today, AP, reverting to its fawning coverage of the President, began its article on his latest town hall, suggesting he was trying to change the tone of the debate, “Trying to lower the temperature of the health care fight, President Barack Obama on Friday denounced news media emphasis on angry protesters at town hall meetings.“   And, to be sure, in his civil response to the challenging questions he received yesterday in Belgrade, Montana, the President did take a step in the direction of “recalibrating” the debate.  But, it was only a step.  Still, it represents progress.

He should, however, have dropped the attempt to bait the Republicans by saying that, well, when they voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act in 2003, so they really have no grounds to complain today that he’s proposing a vast and expensive new government bureaucracy with no way to pay for it (just as they did back then).

If Obama really wants to lower the temperature, he needs to mount the bully pulpit as only the President can do and make a plea for civil discourse while praising those of his critics, including many (if not most) Republican congressional critics and a number of pundits, notably Charles Krauthammer, who have expressed their concerns in a thoughtful manner.  And when he praises the angry voices, he would do well to note that they have come from both sides of the debate.

While he need not mention his fellow Democrats by name, he need, through his rhetoric, make clear he is addressing the hateful barbs tossed by some of the leading Democrats in both Houses of Congress — as well as the antics of their allied interest groups.

Should he do that, he would both increase his standing with the public and enhance his own credibility in the current debate.

In my post outlining a strategy for opponents of the people’s veto of the bill passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor recognizing gay marriage, I noted (in a footnote) that one of the ideas I was putting forward, featuring same-sex couples talking about their relationships represented a shift in my position.

You see, I had long believed that because of the “ick” factor, the cause gay marriage would be better served by not showing gay couples.  Many Americans may not mind what people do in their own bedrooms, just so long as they don’t have to be reminded about it by seeing them together.  They’re fine with us being left alone to live our lives as we please, just as long as we don’t do it in front of them.

But, something I read on a left-wing blog (I believe it was Michael Petrelis’s site, but am certain there were others) actually got the gears in my head spinning and caused me to rethink the issue.  These left-of-center bloggers (I’m pretty sure it was more than one) lamented the absence of gay people in the “No on 8″ commercials.  And said something like,”Why can’t we make the case for our rights.”

And while I disagreed with their choice of rhetoric, I realized that if wavering (and wary) voters say a gay person saying he understood what marriage was all about and was ready to assume its responsibilities, then more people might see that this wasn’t just about a milepost in the culture wars (to paraphrase one wise law professor), but about affirming the values of an ancient institution.

If people see a gay person saying that, it could both change minds and promote healthy and genuine social change.

When I read last night that my state’s junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, was appearing at bookstores in the Bay Area to sign her latest thriller, I wondered that she had time to promote a book, yet not to listen to her constituents as the Senate prepares to debate climate control legislation as well as a massive health insurance overhaul.

So, I called her office to ask about this.  According to Ma’am’s staff, she has “nothing scheduled.”  Amazing. She’s more interested in selling her book than doing her job.  She doesn’t care what her constituents think.  Meanwhile, though blissfully unaware of what those constituents wear when they protest the type of big-government policies she tends to favor, she attacks people she was elected to represent as not having genuine concerns about the growing size of the federal government and its increasing intrusion into our private lives.

Noting that his senators in the Empire State also have little time for his constituents, JammieWearingFool faults Democrats like Ma’am (and the man who leads her party’s Senate caucus):

The Democrats are playing a very dangerous game here with the constant references to people being un-American, racist and evil-mongers, all simply for exercising their freedom of speech. A slippery slope they may not be happy to be riding down pretty soon if they don’t wise up and start respecting the very people they work for.

And Ma’am has shown no respect for the people she works for, slamming protesters while oblivious to our concerns.  All the same, were she to suddenly recognize the duties incumbent upon a responsible public servant and schedule town halls across the Golden State, it behooves us to show her the respect due a dignified legislator.

While signs should be allowed outside the meeting, they should not be allowed inside.  While we can chant slogans in the open, once inside, we should must listen when she speaks.  And thank her should she reply in a civil manner, addressing the question posed.  (And yes, this means thanking here even (indeed, especially) when she expresses an opinion different from our own.)  Unlike the SEIU (and other pro-Obama groups), we don’t seek to drown out out the views of our opponents.

And we would expect her to show us the same respect we show her, letting critics make their points without interruption and not limiting attendance to a pre-selected group of supporters.

Peggy may not deliver the same kind of acerbic jabs as does the acid-tongued Camille Paglia (the Hecate of punditry or the Medusa?) but, in her own gentle way, she reminds us of the President’s faults.

While she has been less critical of Obama than some on the right would like, she does get the essence of his “slippery” rhetoric:

When Mr. Obama stays above the fray, above the nitty-gritty of specifics, when he confines his comments on health care to broad terms, he more and more seems . . . pretty slippery. In the town hall he seemed aware of this, and he tried to be very specific about the need for this aspect of a plan, and the history behind that proposal. And yet he seemed even more slippery. When he took refuge in the small pieces of his argument, he lost the major threads; when he addressed the major threads, he seemed almost to be conceding that the specifics don’t hold.

The specifics don’t hold.

The president actually helped me stay fit today.  I did a little extra cardio after my workout so I could hear the balance of his town hall.  He told us that we can’t have “something for nothing,” yet with the various proposals all having price tags in the hundreds of bilions of dollars.  A few moments later, he reaffirmed his (long since broken) pledge not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000 a year.

He’s going to have a hard time covering the program’s cost by only increasing taxes on “the rich.”

Glenn links a report of a Mississippi man pleading guilty to posing as white supremacist on Facebook.  Dyron L. Hart of Poplarville “admitted creating a name and using a white supremacists’ photo to pose as a white man who planned to kill blacks because Barack Obama had been elected president.”

Since I won’t have much time to scan the left-wing blogs today, could any of you who do let me know if any criticize this Mr. Hart.  Or even note the story.

It matters in the current context because it’s another piece of evidence of staged hate rhetoric to show about all the nasty right-wingers out there.  Yeah, there are a number of nutcases on our side, but the universe of them is not as vast as lefties might think — or want.  It’s why I’m not yet ready to assign blame to an Obama critic for painting a swastika on the sign for Obama supporter Representative David Scott’s Georgia office.

Whoever did paint the Nazi symbol is clearly a crackpot who should be punished for defacement of public property.  And condemned for further corrupting public discourse.

Just read that some lefties plan on boycotting Whole Foods because it’s CEO John Mackey wrote a thoughtful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal opposing Obamacare and putting forward some sensible alternatives.  (Read his piece, print it out, familiarize yourself with his ideas to rebut the President’s charge that the alternative to the kinds of reforms he and the Democrats are proposing is doing nothing.)

Now, I had planned to get the cheese and olives I’ll be taking to the BBQ Leah is hosting tomorrow for our LA readers (and a visiting San Francisco one) at Monsieur Marcel in the Farmer’s Market.  (It’s not too late to RSVP.)  And while their cheese selection is great–and they have some wonderful Spanish olives–parking at the Farmer’s Market can be trying.

And there’s a Whole Foods Market just a few block away, almost within walking distance for an Angeleno (it is more than three blocks way).  I think I’ll go there first.

Given her strong and frequent defenses of Sarah Palin, Camille Paglia certainly merits consideration for the coveted title of Grande Conservative Blogress Diva (soon to be renamed as the Ethel).  She is tart-tongued and witty, speaking her mind.  She never minces her words.  While claiming to be of the left, does not allow herself to be pigeon-holed.  In truth, she subscribes to no political ideology, acidly taking potshots at even her ostensible allies.

She’ll not only take them on if she doesn’t agree with them, but also if she doesn’t like the way they’re playing the game.  She doesn’t let partisan labels or political worldview prevent her from calling things as she sees them.  She may love Barack Obama, but she’ll lambaste her beloved Democrat when she believes he’s governing badly–or surrounding him with tone-deaf advisers.  And she doesn’t soft-pedal such criticism, even of an ally.  Even it if means being labeled “C**tzilla.”

I have long been a fan of this gifted scholar and social critic, having met her in 1994 at a reading/book-signing organized by the D.C.. bookstore Chapters. Her book Sexual Personae has been an invaluable resource for my dissertation on the goddess Athena.  My readers–and almost never the liberal ones–regularly alert me to her columns.  In short, this Obama supporter has gained the respect of gay conservatives, thus, in my mind, at least, qualifying her for the coveted contest.

Recall that we have defined a diva as a strong, confident woman who commands the respect of men.  And of the Grande Conservative Blogress diva, I have written:

She need not be conservative herself . . . , but must by the the power of her prose, the eloquence of her expression and the intelligence of her ideas have earned the enmity of the angry left and so endeared herself to gay men like us who admire strong women who speak their minds, even at the expense of encomia from those in the entertainment industry and the MSM.

Being called C**tzilla suggests earning enmity from the angry left.

So, my friends, I put this question to you, in December, when we again began the process of selecting the most (cat) fought-over title in the blogosphere, should we consider Camille Paglia for Grande Conservative Blogress Diva?

For a slightly more nuanced view of Paglia, please make sure to read Endora-winning blogress (AKA Conservative Blogress Diva Regent) neeneocon’s take on the Obama-supporting diva.

*And Bush-critic.

This comes to me from the Fort Walton Beach, FL area.  Tea Parties are blooming in those parts.

========

REPRINTED IN FULL:

This is a letter I submitted to our Representative Jeff Miller (FL-1) at a sort of-Town Hall meeting on Wednesday. If anyone would like to copy and paste and edit or whatever and send to your Reps, Senators, President, whoever may need to know that we are concerned with what is taking place, please feel free.

AUGUST 12, 2009

Representative Jeff Miller,

The Declaration of Independence serves as a model declaration for expressing our grave concern about the actions taken by the Federal Government recently, which is causing the People of Fort Walton Beach and throughout the United States to rise up and express our sincere outrage over the abuses of power, reductions in freedom, irresponsibility with our nation’s finances, lack or transparency and accountability by our duly elected officials and representatives and general disregard of the constraints of government power guaranteed us by the Constitution of the United States of America.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to voice our concern with the current direction of repression and irresponsibility from our Federal government, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to rise up in mass and ongoing protest.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are institutes among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter it and to elect new Government, which is most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Prudence will dictate that Governments long established should not be protested and confronted continuously for light and transient causes. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to rise up and confront such a Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such as been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to confront and challenge the current elected representatives.

The history of the present President and Congress of the United States and past elected officials is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They have created, campaigned and championed divisions within our nation based on race, gender, age, income, religion, political connections, and industry.

They have weakened the Sovereignty of the States through excessive regulation by loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, by Unconstitutional federal environmental and labor laws, and by using federal tax revenues to create incentives for the States to enact Federally-desired laws.

They have eliminated competition between the States through a tax code that does not allow local choices for State spending priorities and policy strategies.

They have ignored the proper role of the Federal government in usurping powers reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

(more…)

I already have.  You should too.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I highly doubt the leaders of Maine Freedom (sic) to Marry will solicit my advice (or that of any other gay conservative for that matter) on how to oppose the “people’s veto” slated for the Pine Tree State’s ballot this fall.  Indeed, just by checking their website, it seems they’ve already subscribed to the various mantras of the gay left, with their slogan, “Protect Maine Equailty.”

It appears they’re about to repeat the mistakes of the “No on 8″ campaign here in the Golden State.

Lt me offer my advice (thought I doubt it will be heeded) on how they can veto this people’s veto of legislation passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected Governor.

Fist, their guiding principle should not be protecting Maine Equality (whatever that means), but making the case for gay marriage–and not demonizing those who oppose it.

Second, unlike the California campaign, they should feature same-sex Maine couples in TV commercials, telling us that they understand the responsibilities of marriage and are ready to make the commitment.*  (Or something similar.)  Perhaps, even include gay couples together with straight married siblings.  Maybe even have their parents present.

In short, they should talk about marriage not as a right, but as an institution, whose traditions they respect (even revere) and whose obligations they are ready to assume.

If they focus on the rights angle, contending a “Yes” vote (to veto legislation recognizing same-sex marriages) means the state would be taking away their rights, they will come across as whiners.  Most people, at least those who take marriage seriously, don’t see marriage as a right.  And if gay activists comes across as whiners, wavering voters may assume all gay people are so petulant and thus not worthy of marriage, hence the idea of featuring confident people in commercials, couples saying they’re “ready” for the responsibilities of marriage.

*Yes, this represents a shift in my position.

Up until today, it seemed that whenever I walked, wherever I drove in Los Angeles, I would spot a car (or two or three or four or many, many more) sporting an Obama bumper sticker.  But, yesterday, something strange happened.

I drove for thirty minutes — on  my way to dine with a friend in Calabasas –without seeing a single Obama sticker.  And then I saw one; that would be the only one I saw all evening, even on my drive back, cutting from the 101 freeway across the heart of Hollywood.

Maybe, as people see just how much this Democrat plans on expanding government, they’re having second thoughts.

The times they might be a-changing, even in liberal Los Angeles.

UPDATE: This looks like a good post to share a photo I snapped a few weeks ago on the way to class. I was surprised and amused to see a “NIXON/AGNEW” sticker on a car that didn’t look 30+ years old to me. This really isn’t about anyone’s views on the late Prez and Veep, just that because they served so long ago seeing a bumper sticker for them struck me as being a lil’ unusual this day and age. – John (Average Gay Joe)

Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!