Our progressive neighbors to the north (Canada, not the DPRK) are light years ahead of the USA in the health care arena.  But The One is single-mindedly driving us to catch up quick.  So, let’s dispense with all the political bickering and hear from a genuine Canadian on what we have to look forward to one day soon:

When the pain in Christina Woodkey’s legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she’d need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she’d have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. “When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery,” said Woodkey, 72. “They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor.”

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.

“I don’t have insurance. We’re not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada,” Woodkey said. “It’s not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I’m happy to say the pain is almost all gone.”

Alrighty then.  Sign me up.  Besides, there’s always Mexico.

Comments (12) | Permalink

Well, who woulda thunk the French would ever be in a position to lecture the USA on showing some backbone in the face of threats from tyrants.  Claudia Rosett reports:

The setting was the special, summit-level Security Council meeting Thursday morning, chaired by Obama, in which the official topics were nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament for the entire world — but with no focus on any specific country. The meeting was advertised by the White House as “historic,” if for no other reason than that no U.S. President has ever before stooped to chair the often feckless and at times just plain sleazy UN Security Council — where the 15 members currently include Vietnam and Libya. For this particular occasion, Libya’s foreign minister attended (thus sparing the Council the risk of a replay of Qaddadi’s 96 minute performance the previous day on the General Assembly stage). The rest of the table was filled with presidents and prime ministers.

They began with Obama’s pre-packaged deal of unanimously adopting a “historic” resolution, which Obama said “enshrines our shared commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” etc, etc. etc (All very nice, but what does this have to do with the real world?). Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon kicked off the ensuing round of official self-congratulatory huffing and puffing (”…a historic moment…a fresh start towards a new future”). The canned diplo-speak continued, as each member spoke in turn – Costa Rica, Croatia, Russia, Spain, Austria, Vietnam, Uganda, China … and then it was the turn of the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy. Here’s his wakeup call, in the UN’s translation from the French (boldface mine):

“We are here to guarantee peace. We are right to talk about the future. But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises. The peoples of the entire world are listening to what we are saying, including our promises, commitments and speeches. But we live in the real world, not in a virtual one.

We say that we must reduce. President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions. [Ed note: Sarkozy then listed international proposals for dialogue with Iran attempted in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009.] I support America’s extended hand. But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusion are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to take decisions.

… Secondly, there is North Korea — and there it is even more striking. It has violated every Security Council decision since 1993. It pays absolutely no attention to what the international community says. Even more, it continues ballistic missile testing. How can we accept that? What conclusions should we draw? …”

Let the record show that from this day forward I have retired “surrender monkeys” from my vocabulary.

Comments (4) | Permalink

Lefty Howard Fineman in the leftist newsrag Newsweek has this to say about The One:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it. He’s a man with an endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East, you name it—but, as yet, no boxes checked “done.” This is a problem that style will not fix. Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he’s not going to be reelected, let alone enshrined in South Dakota.

The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words “I” and “my.” (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story.

There is only so much political mileage that can still be had by his reminding the world that he is not George W. Bush. It was the winning theme of the 2008 campaign, but that race ended nearly a year ago. The ex-president is now more ex than ever, yet the current president, who vowed to look forward, is still reaching back to Bush as bogeyman.

He did it again in that U.N. speech. The delegates wanted to know what the president was going to do about Israel and the Palestinian territories. He answered by telling them what his predecessor had failed to do. This was effective for his first month or two. Now it is starting to sound more like an excuse than an explanation.

Members of Obama’s own party know who Obama is not; they still sometimes wonder who he really is. In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won’t cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama’s measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care. Never much of a legislator (and not long a senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major “reform” bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its “leadership.” It’s not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

Will someone stick a fork in this guy?  Once he loses the press, what’s he got left of the left?

And the walls come tumblin’ down…

Comments (1) | Permalink

And I think this is a workout program I could sink my teeth into… (link not safe for work!)

Hat Tip: ROKDrop

Comments (0) | Permalink

Well, we faced off with the league leading gents from XOX at Friends Bar last night.  It was a bit of a grudge match for us as they had destroyed us 28-9 earlier this season.  We came out with a 20-17 victory which satisfied our thirst for revenge. 

I contributed a 6-6 effort, which although middling, I feel pretty good about.  I drew YK, their top ranked player, in both of my singles matches and came out 2-4.  For the most part I threw strong darts, but YK is tough to beat when he is on his game, and he was pretty much on his game last night.

The highlight of my night was in the final mixed doubles (501/cricket) match.  Dan and I took on HK and Mr. Lee and we beat them at their own game.  That is to say we pointed mercilessly in both cricket legs.   XOX is a Korean team and their style of play is more aggressive than most.  Generally speaking, most players will not continue pointing after they have a “comfortable” lead.  For me, that’s one bull (25+ points) for others it’s a two bull lead.  The XOX guys will continue pointing until you’ve closed the number.  I’m not sure it is a good strategy (although as mentioned, XOX is leading the league), but it can be damned disconcerting if you let it get into your head.   So, I think we surprised them a bit last night by giving them a taste of their own medicine. 

Anyway, it was a sweet victory indeed.

I said in my earlier post there was a lot of darts on tap this weekend.  There was, but not as much as I had anticipated since our Sunday make-up match against Kaibigan was once again postponed (this time at the request of Kaibigan).  The cancellation did not occur until game time, and we had been warming up at Gecko’s for over an hour so that kinda sucked.  Since the Rubbies were all dressed up and ready to play we played a little 301 game amongst ourselves.  DIDO, but with a little twist in that once you were under 100 points you had to double out on one throw.  Failure meant going back to 301 and adding another thousand won to the pot.  I really hated that game after a couple of hours of frustration.

Saturday’s league doubles tournament was a bit of a disappointment as we only had 8 participants.  So, the league leaders decreed that we would shift to a round robin format instead of double elimination.  That meant we got to play more darts which is a good thing.  Even better, all four teams would finish in the money (1st=120,000, 2nd=80,000, 3rd=60,000 and 4th=40,000).  The teams were David and Lonnie, Seung Youb and Chris H., Mike and Ron, and me and Lucky.  It turned out to be a very competitive match.  Seung Youb and Chris finished with 6 legs won and 1st place, while David and Lonnie and me and Lucky had 5 legs each and a playoff round for second place.  Which we won 2-1.  Yeah baby!

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention we picked up a new player on Rubbies to take the recently departed Dave’s spot on the roster.  While Dave was and is irreplaceable, we scored a major coup by picking up a former Rubbie–Billy.  He is a great darter and more importantly a good and comfortable fit for our team.  We are all feeling and playing with more confidence and have high expectations for success in the playoffs.

And that’s the way it is darts-wise.

Comments (0) | Permalink