Midweek briefing ...
Don't look now but the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says her country's "public" health-care system "is imploding." And Anne Doig tells The Canadian Press that there could be a role for private health-care delivery to save it. Simply put, Ms. Doig says the Canadian system "is not sustainable." We just thought you'd like to know. ... Vanderbilt University law professor Carol Swain takes to task the oft-quoted (by liberals) Southern Poverty Law Center for falling mute about the poll antics last November of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. Ms. Swain reminds that the center once classified the Panthers as a "hate group," something it regularly chides conservative groups as being. So, why is the SPLC giving the Panthers a pass• ... Reasons 1,592 and 1,593 that the "Cash for Clunkers" program is "dumb," courtesy of National Review magazine: "It subsidizes the switch from relatively fuel-inefficient cars to relatively fuel-efficient ones but doesn't take into account the energy consumed in manufacturing new cars or the environmental impact of disposing of the old ones." Additionally, "It is obviously impossible to build wealth by wantonly destroying assets, even if the asset is a 1994 Chevy Blazer with 140,000 miles on the ticker." Liberals will dismiss this as "ideology." What a pity they don't recognize it as fundamental economics .
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.