http://www.canada.com/…

A new report by the Fraser Institute shows Canada-wide wait times for medical treatments have dropped markedly for the first time since the conservative think-tank started tracking health-care delays 15 years ago.

For the country as a whole, the median wait between being referred to a specialist and receiving treatment fell to 17.3 weeks in 2008 from 18.3 weeks last year - the longest delay recorded since the think-tank began studying the issue.

Ontario had the shortest total wait at 13.3 weeks, followed by B.C. (17) and Manitoba (17.2). The longest delays were found in Saskatchewan (28.8 weeks), Nova Scotia (27.6) and Newfoundland and Labrador (24.4).

Among the various medical specialties, the shortest total waits were for medical oncology (4.6 weeks), radiation oncology (5.8) and elective heart surgery (7.3), while the longest were for orthopedic surgery (36.7 weeks), plastic surgery (35.5) and neurosurgery (31.7). The median wait for a CT scan rose slightly from 4.8 to 4.9 weeks, while the same wait for an MRI fell to 9.7 weeks from 10.1. The median wait for an ultrasound rose from 3.9 to 4.4 weeks.

I’d provide comparison numbers with the USA but I couldn’t find any in a quick Google search. Looking up “usa mri wait times” results in just articles from the UK and Canada about long waits in their system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Starting next year, there will be four new pennies to collect, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln.

The obverse (or heads) part of the coin will stay the same, showing the 16th president facing to the right.

But the reverse (tails) part of the coin will show different times in the life of Lincoln, who is widely considered to be one of the country’s greatest leaders for freeing the slaves and saving the Union during the Civil War.

The designs for the new pennies were shown for the first time yesterday near the Lincoln Memorial.

The first new penny will be available Feb. 12, Lincoln’s 200th birthday. It will show a log cabin to honor his birth and childhood in Kentucky.

The others will show his life as a young man in Indiana, his professional life in Illinois and his presidential years in Washington (when the U.S. Capitol was being built).

The other side of the penny will continue to show the likeness of Lincoln designed by Victor David Brennan. It was introduced on the Lincoln penny 100 years ago.

A Lincoln commemorative silver dollar also will be issued next year.

Abraham Lincoln did not really free the slaves. The 13th Amendment did. The Emancipation Proclamation said “all persons held as slaves within any States, or designated part of the State, the people whereof shall be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” Only those slaves captured by the North by that point were set free. Maryland and Delaware were both slave states and not on of the supposed rebel states. While not recognized by any other government the Confederate States of America was a separate nation with it’s own government defined by their own (though heavily borrowed from the USA) constitution. Therefore from their perspective the Emancipation Proclamation meant as much as if it had come from England. Lincoln also said this of the Corwin Amendment, “[H]olding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.” which read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

As for saving the Union… a highly questionable action. Even if ruled unconstitutional there is plenty of evidence that such a claim is incorrect from a legal standpoint. For example: When ratifying the new constitution, Virginia (1788), New York (1788), and Rhode Island (1790) included clauses indicating they were free to leave the new federal government confederation should it become oppressive. It seems obvious that they would not have joined if they believed it was a one way trip. From a moral standpoint its reprehensible. The Declaration of Independence clearly says:

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 instituted 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 or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Lincoln was in no way a great leader but a statist who put his beliefs in keeping together a union of people who did not wish to be under the same government umbrella above the lives of over 600,000 individuals.

For more information read Thomas DiLorenzo’s books Lincoln Unmasked and The Real Lincoln. Many complain his views are one sided but given the works written in excess of Lincoln’s greatness I think that’s excusable. You can also find a decent interview with DiLorenzo on CSPAN’s Q&A at Google video.

http://nationalserviceact.org/

This website presents information for both voluntary and mandatory National Service.  This begs the question of which type of National Service does ANSA prefer.

Neither.

Americans for a National Service Act supports whichever program works best and gets the job done.  Our fundamental belief is that the key to solving our Nation’s problems and strengthening our democracy is more involvement from average Americans, not less.  We also believe that in order to sustain that involvement there needs to be a system.  Other than that, we try to collect and present as many ideas for National Service as we can get our hands on.  We assert that all plans should be thoroughly considered and discussed.  That being said, it’s ultimately up to you to debate and decide which ideas and programs you like best.  As part of this we encourage you to take the ‘Choose Your Own National Service Act’ Survey.  The results are being compiled.

This is new. Also changed… the Affiliates page (http://nationalserviceact.org/11.html) is gone. I should have made a complete backup yesterday but I didn’t. Google does have a cached version though.

Seems to me this answer “Neither” is bullshit. If you spend any amount of time reading over their site, unless they have altered it in the past week, you can clearly see that they want voluntary as a stepping stone to mandatory.

Look at the cached version vs the current version [backup] of the FAQ page in “How is voluntary National Service any different than our current system?” These sentences were removed just since yesterday:

Also, remember that the initial purpose of voluntary national service is not to provide an end-state solution but to motivate millions of Americans to serve.  This will begin the cultural transformation that will put us on the road to becoming a nation of universal national service.

It looks like that’s the only thing that has changed on the FAQ unless otherwise noted.

http://nationalserviceact.org/10.html

I had noticed this the other day but thought I just hadn’t paid close enough attention to it originally. xyz this morning independently noticed new sections on their FAQ. It appears to have been updated the 1st or there abouts:

What if I don’t want to do any service?

This is a superb question.

Hopefully, enough people will volunteer to serve so that individuals not interested in National Service can be accommodated. How many people is enough? That’s tough to say. How many more good teachers and tutors do we need to make American education globally competitive again? The Iraq War may have been a war of choice but the next war may not be. What happens if the volunteer force isn’t big enough? If global climate change is what some scientists say it is, how many Americans need to be involved in conservation and disaster relief? How much time should you devote to your community so it’s the type of place your family is happy to live in?

There is a simple choice here. We can do these things or we can pay someone else to do it for us (which typically means higher taxes and putting more trust in bureaucracies). And don’t be surprised if you don’t like the results when you relinquish your opportunity to make a difference to someone or something else.

Some people feel affronted by the idea of National Service because they view it as surrendering to government. Obviously, we don’t agree. We see it as average citizens taking back their civil institutions and actualizing government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” At present, we’re having a difficult time keeping Americans (particularly young people) interested in and focused on the affairs of local, state, and federal government. This inattention has resulted in many abuses in the last few years. Our solution is to get more Americans involved via National Service (more ‘skin in the game’ if you will). Implied in this idea is a lack of faith that voting alone provides adequate accountability, responsiveness, and results. After all, what is casting a vote compared to doing?

All that being said, if you don’t want to serve then we hope you understand that American democracy will be poorer and less effective without the direct participation of your talent, intellect, and abilities.

Is mandatory National Service constitutional?

Yes.

The United States has practiced several forms of mandatory National Service throughout its history. The Militia Act of 1792 and the Selective Service System (a.k.a. the Draft) are the two most referenced examples. Probably the most commonly experienced form of mandatory service is jury duty. Also, it can be argued that paying taxes is a form of mandatory National Service.

One can reference dozens of US Supreme Court Cases that weighed individual rights versus civic obligations. The most prominent case on this matter is Butler v. Perry (1916). In this instance the Court ruled that the 13th Amendment does not apply to mandatory national service. For further information on the legal precedence of National Service click HERE.

So I checked Google Cache and found that as of June 24th, 2008 12:41:40 GMT the above two sections were not on the site. I’ve uploaded a snapshot from Google Cache here in case Google updates.

Notice they don’t answer the first question and the second question makes the assumption that just because something is constitutional it’s OK. It also assumes that just because the US Supreme Court says it’s constitutional it is. While in the legal system that may be true the 13th Amendment seems pretty clear to me.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

If I must participate in some service against my will it seems to me to be by definition involuntary servitude/slavery. The 13th Amendment forbids that. I don’t care what some people in black dresses say. Conscription is both unconstitutional in that it violates the 13th Amendment and it goes against the concept that government is created at the consent of the governed to protect their rights. If the 13th isn’t enough you can take a look at the 5th and 14th too.

The reason these additions are noteworthy is that xyz had emailed them directly requesting what would occur if an individual refused to serve. She has yet to receive a personal reply but the FAQ as we have seen has been updated with a poor answer.

If there is no punishment for failing to participate in the “mandatory service” then it’s not mandatory just like “mandatory” participating in the census is in fact not.

http://www.freedomworks.org/…

Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd’s 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill’s managers without debate this week, would require the nation’s payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.

Call Congress and Tell Them to Oppose The eBay Reporting Provision in the Housing Bill: 1-866-928-3035

FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey commented: “This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay’s PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America’s small businesses are breathtaking.”

“Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government’s purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access? Many small proprietors use their Social Security number as their tax ID. How will their privacy be protected? What compliance costs will this impose on businesses? Why is Sen. Chris Dodd putting this provision in a housing bailout bill? The bill also includes the creation of a new national fingerprint registry for mortgage brokers.

From the Senate Bill Summary:

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

That third party exception appears to apply to places like Paypal but don’t many people use credit cards for their money source? Seems the government would end up getting that info anyway from the first party sources. Not to diminish how serious this proposal is but even if that isn’t the case having this on the books would just give them an incentive to expand on the idea later. I can see the reasoning now: “We need to make sure that terrorists aren’t laundering money through these payment proxies. Don’t worry… the data will be secure. We won’t use this for anything else. You’ve nothing to worry about if you’ve done nothing wrong. Right?”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Three full months after GOP-Libertarian candidate Ron Paul announced his presidential campaign would be “winding down”, he’s actually throwing in the towel for real. Yes, the man who spent over a year pledging to dismantle the United States military has finally ended his quest to be elected its Commander in Chief. Often times portrayed as “crazy”, “batshit crazy” and “absolutely freaking nuts”, Paul marched to the beat of his own drummer. A drummer that supported building a 700 mile fence along the Mexican border because immigrants are the cause of all our welfare problems.

Ron Paul never did get his chance to abolish the IRS, but his hilarious cranky old man antics certainly did abolish a little bit of the sadness in all our lives. Let’s take a look back at the magical year we shared together.

I understand that 23/6 is a satirical site. However, while some may disagree, The Huffington Post isn’t. Do a search for Ron Paul on huffingtonpost.com and you’ll find this supposedly satirical story along with legit news. At least Google News has the decency to include a “satire” tag on all sites which are. This is nothing more than a pot shot and an obvious one at that. For being the only anti-war candidate to make it this far you’d think they’d at least show some support. I suppose their desire for more powerful centeralized government overtakes their supposed wish not to kill innocent individuals who posed no threat to any of us and any idea of individual freedom.

They could have at least been factual in their smear. He does not support building a fence. He supports ending welfare, for everyone in the long run and illegal immigrants in the short term, to remove any basis for blame on them for the ailing welfare state and then allowing far easier means to cross the border. Anyone who paid any attention to his dialog noticed he treaded lightly on the subject in order to pander to both sides. Did it bother me he kept his position a bit ambiguous in order to pick up support? Yes. But that doesn’t change the fact his true position was pro-immigration.