Defining Social Justice

As the left continues its political ascendancy, their boldness increases to the point where I'm hearing more and more about how they plan to wield their power. One of the catch-phrases I keep hearing is Social Justice.

I've been hearing the term for just about as long as I can remember, but never really figured out how it was defined. My vague understanding was that it must have something to do with treating everyone fairly and not allowing the poor to be abused by evildoers.

Ask me to define Social Justice, and I might suggest it might be efforts at insuring that everyone have fair access to freedom and the American Dream. Nobody should be forced to live anywhere, told where or when to travel, what to eat or drink (aside from reasonable restrictions on public drunkenness), what they read or believe, or with whom they associate. Pretty much the Bill of Rights.

But as I've come to understand it, the prevalent definition of Social Justice by the Left is simply Socialism. They seem to be saying that Socialism is the only "fair" path to Social Justice. But Socialism by its very nature is opposed to freedom.

When the government bestows the "rich" label on certain citizens and proclaims all "rich" are evil and deserve to have their wealth confiscated, that's antithetical to Justice. When the government takes over half the income of the majority of its citizens, keeps most of it, and gives the rest to those who do not produce anything, that's not Justice.

When the government decides to give special privileges to certain people based on their skin color or behavior, threatening to prosecute churches who preach the behavior is immoral and businessmen who don't hire specific quotas of those groups regardless of qualifications and suitability for the jobs, that certainly isn't Justice.

We will always have poor. It seems to me that Socialism simply makes the poor minimally less poor in return for complete and total dependence on the government, while making everyone else much more poor by confiscating their wealth and taking their freedom.

It seems to me that instead of promoting Socialism and its direct opposition to the American Constitution, maybe government should focus on working with the citizenry to make sure the doors are open for anyone from any race, class, or gender to walk through if they're willing to work hard and prove themselves. Then perhaps others would be inspired to achievement based on the pioneering example of those who successfully pulled themselves up from poverty to success and happiness.

Sadly, it seems that most of our citizens have decided they are willing to lose their constitution, freedom and wealth to a corrupt Socialist government that will become the new "rich". And by then it will be too late to go back.

Stream of Consciousness

Even though I have work to do, it's mid-evening and I'm avoiding it.
So here I am on my blog, but I don't really have any burning topics to write about.

There's the flight yesterday where I was stuck on the plane while it sat on the tarmac in Indy for about 3 hours. Believe it or not, I actually arrived at my destination, even though it was about midnight.

TV is the default passive activity for the evenings out of town. But the primetime lineup is inane, and baseball's the only sport available. And I care about baseball, well, not really at all.

Something that worries me lately is that I find most of the people I meet on the road nice enough, but mostly stupid. Today I had a sort of secret panic that I might somehow let that attitude show, which doesn't bode well for a consultant. Are people really getting more stupid, or am I just getting intolerant? I really don't know.

Something sort of related to that last ramble is that lately everything has taken on a certain clarity. I feel like I understand things on an incredibly deep level, and suspect nobody else has a clue. It's not some sort of sudden arrogance; I despise arrogant people and hope never to come across as such. But I seem to have gained some weird insight on the world and God and history and people. But at the same time I feel constrained against sharing it.

I was really hungry last night. Probably from traveling 12 hours without the benefit of a meal. But tonight my survival instinct must have kicked in, because I've had dinner but still think I could eat another one. So part of the blogging is trying to stop thinking about eating, but you can see how well that's working.

Many times I have thought, wouldn't it be cool if I could go back to about age 14 and relive my life knowing everything I know now? But that's not the way life works, and instead of thinking about that, maybe I should start thinking about living the rest of my life the way I could look back and be pleased about. So when I realize how difficult that is, at least for me, I realize the whole going back to childhood idea wouldn't work.

Iyam what Iyam and thats All that Iyam. - Popeye the Sailor Man.

What I Know

Given the many years I've been around so far, there are a few things I know.

People are capable of great good or great evil. Most of us are a little bit of both.

There is a God. Everybody knows it; some merely spend their lives hating or avoiding Him.

The world is an incredibly beautiful and amazing place.

Everybody mostly wants intimacy. I don't mean sex. Happiness is family and close friends.

Careers don't matter, unless you have one that impacts people in a significant positive way. Most of us have jobs to provide our family a roof, food, clothing, and hopefully a decent education and occasional nice vacation.

People live until they're done. Somehow it makes sense for most I've known who have passed.

We don't mourn our dead. We mourn for ourselves because we miss them terribly. Or didn't say or do something we should have before they passed.

Hatred is born of misunderstanding. Hateful people usually are too proud to put it aside.

Women and men are quite different. By design, to complement each other, not to fight over dominance.

Life is hard. If it were not, what would be the point? Then again, if we think we have it tough, we should try living 200 years ago. Or 1,000 or 2,000 or 4,000.

Even those who reject God adopt their own religions. Atheism seems the most dogmatic of religions.

Conflict is inevitable. It exists everywhere, only separated by degree. Conflicts cannot be resolved when the resolution chooses a winner and loser. We model conflict through sport, where each participant gives their all in a fair arena and the best competitor wins. The loser is able to say, "we'll get them next time". More serious conflicts don't offer that option.

The best legacy most of us could ever leave behind are our children. We don't take enough time to realize this fact and act accordingly.

America the Mental Hospital

Things continue to spiral out of control in this country, and it seems most of the citizenry is enjoying the ride.

Not me. It's already having an effect on my livelihood. Six months ago I had more work than I could accept. Suddenly I have to take less attractive assignments and go digging to just try to keep my calendar full enough to make ends meet.

Who is at fault? Our very own elected government. Yes, the same government that responds to $4 gas by promising to confiscate the profits of the oil companies while they stand guard over fields of oil and gas reserves within our own borders. They promise to raise taxes on me so everybody else can have free healthcare and college and whatever else buys them the votes of the ignorant.

Oh well, pretty soon there won't be anything left of me to tax. I suspect the same will be true of lots of other evil businesspersons. The cynic in me wonders whether it's all by design - once we're all forced to place ourselves at the mercy of our government for our very lives, they have achieved their objective.

Why, except for the price of gas, aren't millions of Americans converging on Washington to surround Capitol Hill to blockade congress until they come to their senses? Like opening up every possible source of energy to drilling and mining. Like allowing new refineries to be built across the country to meet the needs of our citizens and economics. Like putting a stop to the ridiculous spending that's killing every one of us.

Instead I see the masses of zombies drooling at the very sight of Barack Obama. They cannot possibly be using any faculties of reason, or they would understand he promises to make our lives much worse, not better.

Zombies, a few basic questions. Are you better off having your healthcare paid for by other people, but being unable to afford the car that would take you to the hospital? Are you better off having more of your paycheck confiscated by the government than already is today? Are you better off with all the new rules about what you can drive, eat, drink, do with your property, what ideas you may see on TV or listen to on the radio, or even where and when you can travel?

How do you like the ideas of illegal immigrants being given special rights, possibly even taking your job? In a broader sense, how do you like the idea of people getting preference over you for jobs and benefits based on their skin color or sexual orientation? How do you feel about new laws that punish your church for its "intolerant" teachings?

Don't believe me? Try reading some stuff. Not just blogs like mine, but actual statements by people like Obama, Clinton, Reid, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang on Capitol Hill.

Or you can continue the zombie thing. Maybe somebody from the government will take pity on you someday and reward you with a free appendectomy. Or lobotomy.

Fooling People is Easy

While at lunch yesterday, I happened on a speech Barack Obama was giving, I believe in Troy, Michigan. And I got a first-hand reminder of what serves as a winning strategy for winning the Presidency these days.

Speak clearly, sound intelligent, look good, and most importantly, promise heaven on earth.

Barack's message is simple. End war, improve education, give healthcare to everyone, give jobs to those who don't have one and higher wages to those who do, give every child a great education and pay for their college tuition, solve energy and environmental problems, right every wrong and punish every evildoer.

It's mesmerizing and easy to be fooled by a smooth-talking candidate. He tells us it won't cost us anything - the money will come from ending war and making the evil rich pay taxes.

I imagine that's the sort of rhetoric that led to the rise of the Soviet Union and Communist China. Since they don't really teach history in the schools anymore, I suppose most of the foolish people worshiping at Obama's feet don't know anything about such things.

It seems we're all about to get a firsthand look at what happens when Socialist/Communist politicians take control of government. Maybe I'll get to spend my golden years in some Alaskan Gulag where the Obama government hopes to get my mind right.

Sounds chilly.

Stupid Pop Culture

While flying home this weekend, the flight attendants were discussing the Sex in the City movie that must have just hit theatres. They were gushing over it, talking about how the women cheered and clapped. They also said the vast majority of people in the theatre were women, with only a few unhappy boyfriends that got dragged in and some gays.

As an actual guy, I clearly don't get it. And if you're guessing I won't be caught anywhere near that movie, you can bank on it.

I admit I've never invested time in the HBO series on which this thing was based, other than surfing past it enough to pick up my perception that it's a shallow, amoral, hedonistic and narcissistic portrayal of single women in New York. If it's anything close to an accurate portrayal of actual women in New York or anywhere else, well, I'm glad I'm not young and single.

Why can't there be movies that both men and women can see where they're cheering and applauding heroic or uplifting stories instead of a gang of NYC rich single sluts?

Just asking.

Misplaced Anger

Tell me whether any of this is factually untrue:

The United States has vast untapped oil reserves in Alaska and just off our coastlines.
We also have vast coal reserves that can be converted to a synthetic oil for well under half of today's market price.
There's oil shale in the west ready to be dug up and added to the oil supply.
Refinery capacity has been exceeded, forcing the US to import refined gasoline to make up the difference in demand.

I think I've got the facts right.

So why aren't we exploiting every possible option like those listed above to ease the burden on every one of us of $4 a gallon gas?

Because our own Congress won't allow it.

OK, so why haven't millions of Americans marched on Washington and blockaded Capitol Hill until our elected representatives finally pass changes to the laws that would permit us to use our own country's oil reserves?

Could it be because the country is populated by idiots who think the high prices are nothing more than "big oil" greed? The same idiots that will vote for Barack Obama, thinking when he slaps down those greedy oil companies with confiscatory "windfall profits taxes", that will somehow bring back $1 gasoline?

In the meantime, the same congress mandates most of our food go to making ethanol, driving food prices through the roof and starving people all over the third world. And they're proud of that!?

The congress and their elitist minders try to tell us that we will just stop using gasoline when the new "alternative" fuels are ready? Does anybody out there drive a car or truck that will run on any of these mythical "alternative" fuels? No, the only way we get to move to, say, a Hydrogen Fuel Cell or Electric vehicle is to buy one after they come on the market.

Who but the elites will have the cash to pay, what, double? triple? the price of a gas-powered new car if and when these amazing new vehicles appear?

Does anybody out there have a brain?

What, me worry?

Worry is a waste of emotional energy, but many of us do it anyway.

How much time is spent stewing about things that might or might not happen? I wonder, if someone were to keep track of everything they worried about for a year, what percentage of those worries actually came to pass? And those that did, were the consequences worthy of the amount of time and emotional energy spent worrying about them?

I wonder how often our worries become self-fulfilling prophecies?

Sure, it's easy for me to point out a number of very legitimate worries in my own life. After all, I'm self-employed with no guarantee I'll have enough work to pay the bills. Health insurance is a nightmare. I'm one lawsuit or accident or illness away from bankruptcy.

I'm pretty sure this year's elections will install a government that will be hostile to business. The new President and congress are most likely going to be socialists who may damage the economy enough to dry up my business, not to mention will probably raise taxes to a level I can't sustain.

But do I lose sleep over all that? Ha! Me, lose sleep? You probably don't know me if you think that.

Sure, I think about those things sometimes. I also have a variety of concerns about my family. But I don't let any of it dominate my thoughts or interfere with my day.

I've learned this simple truth about worrying. There's absolutely nothing worry can do to help avoid something bad. If you work hard and pay attention to detail, you've already done all you can to keep the bad things you can control from happening. All that's left are the bad things you can't control. If those happen, you just deal with them. Worrying didn't help.

So now the economy has slowed considerably, and it's beginning to show in my business activity. Sure, I'm concerned, and it is only prudent to begin thinking about what options I should consider if things slow down to the point where I have to close down. But I'm not worrying or stressing over any of it.

Maybe it's time to think about getting a job to tide me through to retirement anyway. All will work itself out in time.

Web Control

The various companies I visit in the course of my profession range across the entire spectrum when it comes to granting employees access to the internet.

At one extreme, I have a client that only allows web access to Managers and above. They won't even give email to the rest of their staff.

At the other extreme are clients who place no restrictions at all on their employees related to internet activities. However, I believe some of those clients do monitor web activities of employees and will deal with excessive browsing or visits to inappropriate sites.

For me, the restrictive companies seem counterproductive. I've directly observed the inefficiency of being unable to communicate with staff members in the company that denies all web access to employees.

Many companies restrict access to certain types of sites, such as game sites, porn sites, social networking sites and blogs.

It reminds me of when an old employer of mine implemented a no-smoking policy. Employees could not smoke in the office, but could only smoke in designated outdoor smoking areas.

There was a high percentage of smokers in the operations department. Since it was a trucking company, those employees were responsible for taking customer and driver calls, coordinating pickups and deliveries and giving instructions to drivers.

So the smoking ban sent those folks outside for their nicotine fix. Problem was that they were spending almost as much time away from their post on smoke breaks as at their desk performing their duties. Naturally, their non-smoking co-workers became offended by a perceived special treatment that allowed the smokers much longer and more frequent breaks.

Of course, technically those smokers were not permitted any more or longer breaks than anyone else. They simply were taking them on their own initiatives to feed their nicotine addictions.

So rather than dealing with the problem by cracking down on enforcement of scheduled breaks, their managers decided to rescind the non-smoking policy for that department. By allowing the smokers to resume their habits at their desks, important calls were no longer missed and business went back to normal.

One little problem with their approach to that problem: People were hired during the non-smoking policy under the promise of a smoke-free workplace. Some of those people were intolerant of cigarette smoke with specific respiratory problems. Guess what happened when the managers of the operations department rescinded the non-smoking policy.

I think restriction of web access for employees is something of a parallel to the smoking ban. Shutting down web access is lazy management. Managers don't want the responsibility or the conflict of having to deal with an employee who might be abusing the priviledge of web access at work, so they choose to shut it down completely.

I like to listed to web radio at work, which is blocked by many companies. Perhaps if it's blocked due to a possible bandwidth problem, I could see the logic of that policy.

But otherwise, employees should be treated like adults. Tell them up-front that they will have web access, but are expected to limit web browsing and avoid inappropriate sites. If they visit inappropriate sites or their web browsing affects their job performance, they will be verbally warned the first time, receive a written warning to go into their Personnel file the second time, and will be terminated the third time.

Very simple, but lazy managers don't want to be bothered.

Supreme Insight

What was most troubling for me about the Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voting identification law was that three justices actually dissented.

As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.

The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.

Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.

So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.

News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".

Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.

Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.

So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.

Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.

Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.

Academic Freedom?

I had a chance to see the Ben Stein film, Expelled.

Rather than summarizing the film here, I'll just suggest you go see it yourself. For me it clarified an issue that had intrigued and puzzled me before.

Now that I know what Intelligent Design actually is, I have perhaps a better perspective on why it is so loudly vilified and excoriated by academics.

The larger story is about academic intolerance. Academia has become the home for left-wing radicalism, and Ben Stein's exploration of the big flap about ID is merely a single example.

How many times have you heard the phrase,

The science on this matter is settled.

or

This is the consensus of the scientific community.

If you are a scientist who dares question one of these "settled" or "consensus" hot button issues, you do so at the risk of your career.

How can you be denied tenure? By sexual harrassment of students in your class? Probably not. By pointing out the flaws in Darwin's Origin of the Species? In a heartbeat.

How can you be fired from your position in government or even The Weather Channel? By pointing out the flaws in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Unemployment line, here we come.

How many scientists have lost tenure or research funding at our universities only because they've tried to stay true to the mission of science; which is to always question and explore? I'm not sure anybody knows for sure, but Ben Stein seems to suggest it's widespread and endemic.

I wonder how much this academic intolerance spills over into other courses of study? If biologists and climatologists are not permitted to pursue their professions unless they toe the party line, how about others? Are musicians, historians, engineers, chemists also required to fall into lockstep with the Marxist politics of today's universities if they hope to attain and keep their tenured positions?

It would seem so.

Messianic

Starting Saturday, when I returned home from my last work trip, through today, the local Republic newspaper has been running one fawning story after another on Barack Obama. The candidate visited Columbus last Friday and spoke at East High School.

All the newspaper articles, dominating the front page through the weekend and continuing to take space on Monday and Tuesday, have been uniform in their worship of the Democrat candidate from Illinois. They feature quotes from teachers and students, local Democrat politicians and activists, all gushing over Senator Obama. The praise for the candidate is so over the top that one would believe he is a Messianic figure. The star-struck supporters believe he will end war, end poverty, end racial divisions, and right all wrongs.

What's interesting is that there is not a single word in any of the articles from Obama's opponents, whether from supporters of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. Which brings me to wish for a visit from John McCain.

If such a visit were to take place, how much would you be willing to bet on something I think would be inevitable? That the Republic's coverage of the event would be remarkably different. I'd bet that the newspaper would first of all restrict their coverage to the day after the event, rather than the next 5 days. I'd also bet that the articles would be much less star-struck, and would be salted heavily with negative comments from local Democrat Party activists.

Too bad it's an empirical study that won't be possible. But I'm guessing nobody will be willing to take me up on my bet.

The other striking observation I made after reading every one of the newpaper articles was their total lack of coverage of Obama's actual policy proposals. I found it hilarious that one of the Obama worshippers interviewed gushed about how clearly he stated his positions on important issues. The natural question arising from that quote was, "and what positions were those, exactly?".

All that newsprint, and somehow the Republic managed to forget to share with us the specifics of Obama's policies. Aside from the famous Obama stuff about "hope" and "change". Or was it "change" and "hope"?

Have we really become so shallow and ignorant as a people?

Thought Police

Homosexual behavior is deviant and morally wrong.

By posting the above statement in this public forum, I have now subjected myself to the sanctions of a very real Thought Police.

If I were a holder of public office, I could be driven from that office because I wrote that sentence. If I were to decide to run for public office in the future, that sentence in the blog post would most certainly be used against me by political rivals to ascribe a wide range of horrible and untrue characterizations of my beliefs.

If I were an employee of one of a list of certain corporations, I would be subject to sanctions or possibly termination, should a co-worker report my posting of that sentence to management. A gay co-worker would likely be successful in charging me with sexual harassment for that one-sentence statement.

It is even conceivable that this blog could be blocked or flagged as one containing offensive material because of that sentence.

For evidence, a relevant case. It's from Canada, which is admittedly well to the left of the United States on the liberal scale.

During my rather long wait for my flight out of Toronto yesterday, I spent some time watching the news reports on the flat screen television next to my gate. The lead story was about a member of the Canadian parliament who had been embarrassed by a 17 year old video in which he reportedly made offensive remarks about homosexuals.

The report showed clips from the video without sound, but did not provide any information about what the unfortunate politician actually said. His remarks from the old video were simply characterized as insensitive, intolerant, hurtful, and offensive. The reporter, who could be reasonably described as exhibiting the appearance and mannerisms consistent with the homosexual community, seemed emotionally involved in the story, reporting that "people" were terribly upset by the remarks and wanted the offending politician to resign his office.

The politician made a very public, very humble apology on the floor in front of the entire assembly, but of course it made little or no difference to his political foes and the reporter.

A contextual hint in the story was that the video was made during a party 17 years ago. Although no attempt was made in the report to put the fellow's comments in context, it seems reasonable to consider they could have been an off-color joke or a drunken faux-pas. Maybe he was simply stating something similar to the opening sentence in this post. The reporters of the story have no curiosity about any of that.

Here's where we've arrived. We live in a society where one is more likely to be severely punished for their words than for their actions. The idea is further illustrated by the modern prevalence of "Hate Crime" laws, where a crime is punished severely only if the perpetrator can be presumed to have committed the crime because of hatred of the victim because the victim belonged to a specific interest group.

Have sex with an intern, commit perjury about it and persuade others to lie about it in court? No problem, assuming you're of Liberal persuasion. Say something that might offend someone who is a member of an aggrieved interest group? Off with his head! (Assuming you're of Conservative persuasion.)

Gotta go now. I think the cops are knocking on my door.

Throwing things at CNN

Why do I let it get to me? Whenever I go to Canada, my only source for news is CNN. Even knowing that CNN is the United States' modern equivalent to the Soviet Pravda, I watch anyway. Eventually after awhile I can't stand it anymore and turn it off or turn to something else.

This week I decided to try an experiment. On the news programs, whenever they did a segment on politics and the presidential race, I decided to try keeping track of some basic questions:

Did they spend more time on Democrats or Republicans?
Did they present any usable information about candidates' stands on issues?
Did they tend to be positive or negative in reporting about each candidate?

Here's what I gathered, between their morning program with John Roberts and Kieren Chetra (sp?) and Wolf Blitzer's program in the evening.

From a time perspective, they spend more time talking about Hillary and Barack than about McCain. My estimate on the ratio is about 4 to 1.

Issues? No. I learned nothing about any candidates' positions on issues. With the two Democrats all they talked about the fighting between the Obama and Clinton campaigns and fretted about how it was bad for the Democrat party. I laughed in one segment where they had all their "policital analysts" on, not one of them a conservative, and the "analysts" let slip more than once an "us" or "our" when referring to the Democrat party.

When they talk about the flaps over Barack's pastor or Hillary's big Bosnia lie, they are mostly focused on urging the campaigns and the rest of the media to shut up about both. They fret openly that the big fights on the Democrat side might open the door to a McCain victory, which they have made clear is their vision of Hell on Earth.

Interestingly, the only policy stuff I got to hear was a sound bite from McCain. He was talking about why he feels it is so important not to abandon Iraq at this critical time. I thought, "wait for it..." and they didn't disappoint. They brought in their "panel", the most vocal of whom was their own communist curmudgeon Cafferty, who pretty much just made fun of McCain's stance and denounced him as just another George W. Bush. With nobody even giving a thought to offering a counter argument to his rants.

Policy information about Obama and Clinton? None. Nada. Oh sure, platitudes like Obama's continued themes on "hope" and "change". And general vague statements about Hillary's wonderful plan to fix Healthcare. Nothing of substance.

No wonder Canadians have such a skewed view of the US. CNN being their only source for US news, they have no idea how badly CNN and their media cousins distort things, let alone that there are actually points of view on current events that strongly differ from those so carefully propagandized at CNN 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.