I got to see the doctor right away! And that's because I use the private health care system

For some unknown reason, I developed some significant pain in the pall of my right foot last Friday. I was simply toughing it out, when my darling bride (of 36 years, 5 months and 24 days) noticed it and insisted that I make an appointment to see the doctor. She’s a registered nurse, so I do listen to her about these things.

On Monday, I called the physician’s office and asked for an appointment with Dr E______ as late in the day as could be scheduled. I was told that Dr E______ wasn’t in the office that day, but one of the other physicians could see me late that afternoon; my doctor wouldn’t be in until Tuesday. Well, since Dr E_____ already knows me, and she has the prettiest green eyes in the world,1 I said that I’d wait until Tuesday, and an appointment was scheduled for me for 4:40 PM. Simply put, I could have seen the doctor that day, but chose to wait one additional day.

Then there is single=payer Canada and this report is from the Canadian Institute for Health Information:

Access to care—particularly wait times—is often the focus of intense media coverage and public debate. Although still far from perfect, the information available on wait times today is much better in terms of quality and quantity than in early 2006 when CIHI released its last overview report on the subject. Health Care in Canada, 2012: A Focus on Wait Times presents what is known about wait times in Canada, within the context of access, across the continuum of care.

The report opens by acknowledging that Canada’s current wait time performance is poor compared with that of other countries, and presents a brief history of the evolution of wait time measurement in Canada. A discussion about waits for routine care follows. Although access to primary care is important for preventing and managing most conditions, Canada fares poorly when compared with other countries. For example, a 2010 comparison of 11 countries showed that Canada ranked lowest for wait times to see a doctor or nurse when sick. Canadians also reported the longest waits for a specialist appointment, with 41% reporting waits of two or more months.

Despite access to and waits for family physicians in Canada being long by international standards, most Canadians report that their wait times are acceptable. It is access to and waits for specialists where Canadians were more likely to report challenges. Despite the best preventive efforts, many people still require care in hospitals. The report next presents information on waits in emergency departments (EDs) and acute care settings. Waits in Canadian EDs are longer compared with those in other countries, and compared with ideal response times recommended by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Among 11 international comparators, Canada has the largest proportion of adults waiting in the ED for 4 hours or more before being treated (19% higher than the international average). Overall lengths of stay in the ED are just over 4 hours, with 90% of visits completed within 8 hours.

And the numbers2:

Although not alone in its challenges to providing appropriate and timely access to health care services, Canada lags behind other countries. A 2010 survey ranked Canada lowest among 11 countries for wait times in the following areas:

  • Seeing a doctor or nurse when sick: 33% of patients surveyed reported waiting six days or more for an appointment, 5% more than the country ranked second-lowest;
  • Seeing a specialist: 41% reported waiting two months or more, 7% more than the country ranked second-lowest; and
  • Having elective surgery: 25% reported waiting four months or more, 3% more than the country ranked second-lowest

The government’s own inspector general recently reported that over 300,000 veterans have died while awaiting care from our own single-payer Veterans’ Administration, but Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesn’t really think it’s all that serious. From The Wall Street Journal:

Hillary Clinton Vows to Fight VA Privatization

But Democratic hopeful says private providers should deliver some care

By Laura Meckler and Ben Kesling | Updated Nov. 10, 2015 9:11 p.m. ET

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered her vision for veterans’ health care Tuesday, promising to fight full-fledged privatization while allowing the government to contract with private providers for a range of health services.

In her proposal, Mrs. Clinton struck a balance between support for traditional government-run veterans health programs while acknowledging that many veterans want to access care from private providers as well, given the system’s failings.

The former secretary of state also promised a continued push for changes in the management of the embattled Department of Veterans Affairs, which has been excoriated for long waiting times, inconsistent care, and a bloated bureaucracy.

After appearing to play down problems in a recent television interview, Mrs. Clinton is now describing the agency’s troubles as deep-rooted.

“These problems are serious, systemic and unacceptable,” Mrs. Clinton said at a discussion with veterans in Derry, N.H., a day before the nation marks Veterans Day on Wednesday. “They need to be fixed and they need to be fixed now.”

There’s a lot more at the link, but these two paragraphs further down indicate her mind-set:

At the same time, she emphasized her opposition to outright privatization, as some Republicans have proposed.

“Privatization is a betrayal, plain and simple, and I’m not going to let it happen,” she said.

Remember, this is the same Hillary Clinton who wanted to impose penalties for wealthy people using their money to “get around” waiting times in the system in her 1993 health care plan proposal! Yet we are supposed to trust her to put together a plan to reduce extended waiting times at the VA, for veterans who have served our country, while I was able to get an appointment almost immediately in the private care system.

Here is Mrs Clinton telling us that the problems have “not been as widespread as it has been made out to be:”

The problem is really very simple: in a single-payer system, the government has to attempt to control costs, and that is why appointments at the Veterans’ Administration have been dragged out so long. If a veteran who needs four appointments in a year can have his appointments stretched out so that he is seen only thrice, the VA saves the money his fourth appointment would have cost in that fiscal year. And, to be blunt, if the patient happens to die, the VA saves even more money. This can’t be “fixed,” because it isn’t something wrong with the system but an essential part if it: that’s how single-payer systems work!

  1. Hey, I’m a normal male, and I notice and appreciate things like this!
  2. On page 20 of 108 in the report.

The Great Debate The solution to most of our problems is simple, but none of the candidates have addressed it

From The Wall Street Journal:

Republican Debate Analysis: A Pivot to Policy From Personality

Elected officials get a chance to reassert themselves over anti-establishment campaigns

By Janet Hook | November 11, 2015 12:01 a.m. ET

Republican presidential candidates decided to try something different Tuesday in the latest nationally televised debate: focus on policy.

After three presidential debates that were marked by personal attacks and sniping, the candidates gathered in Milwaukee for the most concerted test yet of their mettle on economics, finance and foreign affairs.

The result was a spirited debate that was a refreshing contrast from the shouting matches and backbiting that have been a major part of campaign ads, stump speeches and the first three debates of this long primary season.

The turn to policy gave a fresh opportunity for elected officials such as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Gov. John Kasich of Ohio to reassert themselves over the political novices whose anti-establishment campaigns have set the tone of the primary contest.

In the process, the debate laid bare fundamental differences that face the Republicans, not just in attitude and style, but in policy directions.

There’s more at the link, but I wish to stress something which never seems to get any attention: the only way to deal with illegal immigration is to reform welfare! The candidates clashed over Donald Trump’s stated position that he would “uproot the roughly 11 million immigrants in the country illegally and deport them to their countries of origin,” but offered no real solution to the problem. As long as we have a system in which American citizens who are physically and mentally able to work can still survive, on government largess, without having to work, we will have illegal immigration.

The point is simple: when we are told that the illegal immigrants will do the work that Americans will not, it is because able-bodied Americans have the choice of not working at all and still surviving. As long as the option of not taking that unpleasant job, if it is all that is available, exists, we will have illegal immigrants to fill those jobs. Make it a choice between taking the undesirable job and starvation, and Americans will take those jobs.

Sound harsh? Well, I’ve done some of those hard, hot, nasty jobs. I’ve stood in a field at the Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, in August, squaring out the bottom of a footing with a square-end shovel, because that was what had to be done. I’ve poured concrete when it was 95º F out in the sun, and 12º F in the winter, because that was what had to get done. I’ve roofed a house, I’ve worked on high steel, forming and then wrecking the forms, for bridge decks, and if I could do it, then so can anyone else. Even today, at my near-retirement age, I still have to shovel under conveyor belts, strip and reset concrete block forms, clean out dust collectors, grease equipment and climb up and work on the tops of high cement silos, and if I can do it at 62½ years old, then so can anyone else who is not actually handicapped. As you might guess, I have a great deal of respect for men and women who go out and work for a living, and none, none at all, for those who could, but will not.

From 2 Thessalonians, Chapter 3:

7 For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8 nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9 We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. 10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

In our zeal to do good, to be charitable, we have lost our way. In our desire not to let the infirm suffer, we have allowed the willfully idle to leech off of those who will work.

The solution to illegal immigration is simple: if we require able-bodied Americans to work, they will displace the illegal immigrants who have jobs, because it is a lot simpler, and safer, for an employer to have workers who speak English and do not leave him in the position of having to worry about ICE.1 If we restrict welfare to solely those American citizens who are physically or mentally unable to work, the illegals will self-deport, because they will be unable to survive in the United States.

Real, serious welfare reform really is the solution to most of our problems. Requiring American citizens to work or starve means greatly reduced federal expenditures, as welfare costs are dramatically reduced, and government revenues would rise as American workers paid taxes. Having the illegal immigrants leave would reduce the expenditures on state and local governments, as they would no longer have to provide educational and other services to their children. And having all able-bodied Americans working would mean that we would have more community respect and sympathy for all of our neighbors.

  1. The American workers who would need those jobs would help in this by reporting employers who keep illegals on the payroll.

University of Missouri President Tim Wolfe wimps out If you are unwilling to fight for your job, you do deserve to lose it

For the Social Justice Warriors, the responsibility for any offensive act must be pushed up to the highest ranking normal white male1:

U. Missouri president resigns over handling of racial incidents

By Susan Svrluga | November 9 at 12:01 PM

University of Missouri president Tim Wolfe resigned on Nov. 9 following protests and strikes over his handling of racial incidents on the Columbia, Mo., campus. “Use my resignation to heal and start talking again,” he said. (University of Missouri System)

The president of the University of Missouri resigned Monday amid escalating protests over racist incidents on campus and how he had responded to students’ concerns.

Tim Wolfe announced Monday morning at a special meeting called by the Board of Curators, the university system’s governing body, that he would step down immediately.

“My motivation in making this decision comes from love,” Wolfe said. “I love MU, Columbia, where I grew up, the state of Missouri.” But after thinking greatly over the situation he concluded resigning “is the right thing to do.”

Tensions were high on campus Monday — with a student on a hunger strike, others camped out in solidarity, faculty members canceling classes and members of the football team threatening to boycott the rest of the season. In the morning, the MU undergraduate student government association formally called for the removal of the university’s president.

There’s much more at the link.

So, what happened that has cost Dr Wolfe his job?

Was Dr Wolfe a decent President for the University? I really don’t know, but his job performance wasn’t bad enough for the Board of Curators to have met about it prior to the “strike” by the black players on the Missouri football team; that got some attention. How Dr Wolfe was supposed to be responsible for the actions of some people, who may or may not have even been Missouri students, in a red pickup2 is beyond me. but, for the SJWs, apparently he is. How Dr Wolfe is in any way responsible for the death of Michael Brown, 116 miles away, or would have any knowledge about the events beyond what the rest of us can read in the media, escapes me completely.

But, he’s apparently a heterosexual3 white male, and that makes him responsible for the acts of other people who are not under his authority, and thus he had to go! Considering that he was unwilling to fight for his position, perhaps he really should have resigned.

Nevertheless, this incident shows just how poorly American colleges are preparing students for the real world. Payton Head, the Student Government president who had been called the horrible “n” word, will eventually be graduated and have to leave Mizzou to begin a career in the business world, and there won’t be any university president to blame when the next red pickup drives past and someone yells offensive stuff to him.4 He’ll have to just man up5 and get on with his life.6 When he finds himself competing with other people to move up the corporate ladder, to get that next promotion, if he is unable to simply disregard insults, if he gets all flustered and upset, he won’t be able to compete to the best of his ability,7 and he will fall behind. That’s life in the real world! Whining and bitching and complaining does not get you ahead; in the end, it gets you left behind.

  1. Note that this formulation excludes President Barack Hussein Obama from any responsibility whatsoever.
  2. It must have been a Chevy or a Dodge; General Motors and Chrysler make pickups, but Ford builds trucks!
  3. He has a wife named Molly, and two children.
  4. Mr Head has apparently been called names for being homosexual as well, but the article is unclear as to whether he is actually homosexual.
  5. Apparently, telling someone to “man up” is offensive at the nearby University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
  6. If an actual threat is made against him, he would have the basis for a complaint to the police, and action could be taken against someone who threatened him, but simple name-calling, regardless of how offensive, is not a crime.
  7. Making complaints to Human Resources that someone is being mean to you might work one time, but it tells the top management that you are an employee who needs to go away.

Rule 5 Blogging: American soldiers!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as posting photos of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Katy Perry in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: American soldiers protecting our county.

Lance Corporal Kristi Baker, 21, US Marine with the FET (Female Engagement Team) 1st Battalion 8th Marines, Regimental Combat team II patrols with other Marines on Nov. 20, 2010 in Musa Qala, Afghanistan. (Paula Bronstein/ Getty Images) Click to enlarge.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: American soldiers!’ »

From Around the Blogroll Why Da'ish do not fear America edition

We’d expect this from Berkeley or Harvard, but the University of Nebraska?

Nebraska university tells students not to say ‘crazy,’ ‘ghetto’ and other bad words

By Deena Winter / November 4, 2015

The University of Nebraska-Lincoln has launched a campaign to get students to stop using certain words and phrases including “man up,” “no homo,” “retarded,” “ghetto,” “crazy” and “rape” (out of context).

In fact, students may notice one of 300 student volunteers wearing brightly colored T-shirts with the banned words emblazoned on the back. A pink shirt informs students that saying “man up” only “reinforces masculine stereotypes that are unhealthy for everyone.”

A purple shirt tells students saying “no homo” just “devalues love and sexual identities.”

A blue shirt says the word retarded “suggests disability and stupidity are interchangeable.”

A red shirt says the phrase “that’s so ghetto” only “misrepresents the experiences of others and negatively stereotypes minority groups.”

A green shirt informs others that saying “you’re crazy” just “minimizes human emotion and those affected by mental illness.”

And finally, orange shirts warn that saying rape out of context “ignores the reality of sexual assault.”

The campaign, launched Oct. 22, was organized by University Housing’s Multicultural and Diversity Education Committee to encourage students to “think before they speak.”

“We often hear students say things like, ‘That test raped me,’ or that something is ‘so ghetto,’” said Melissa Peters, assistant director of residence life for student leadership and diversity initiatives, in a university announcement. “The vast majority of students aren’t using these words to be malicious. But, intended or not, these are words that have impact and can hurt.”

It’s going to be tough on the students who are graduated from Nebraska when they are graduated, and have to leave their cozy campus and find jobs out in the real world.

There’s a lot more at the original, including documentation concerning similar programs at Michigan, Michigan State and Duke.

But this is why Da’ish do not fear the United States. It’s not just that they know that President Barack Hussein Obama is a pussy, or that we’re more probable than not to replace him with another ineffective weakling in Hillary Rodham Clinton, though those facts matter. The bigger picture is that the next generation of American leadership is being trained in “sensitivity” and weakness, and that means that the United States is going to continue down the path of weakness for as far as anyone can reasonably foresee.

And now, on to the blogroll!

Who knew that the Speaker of the House in Kentucky was as stupid as Amanda Marcotte?

Yesterday’s election results bothered the lovely Miss Marcotte no end!

These are not the only nuts: Tea Party governors and anti-LGBT statutes win when we stupidly stay home

How did conservatives crush a popular anti-discrimination ordinance in Houston? Urban legends and low voter turnout

By Amanda Marcotte | Wednesday, November 4, 2015 | 11:14 AM EST

While everyone—and I’m as guilty as the next political writer—was focusing heavily on the 2016 election, conservatives were able, yet again, to exploit the low voter turnout in off-year elections to keep racking up wins despite the general unpopularity for conservative policies. Nowhere was this more evident than in the city of Houston, which voted on Tuesday on the question of whether to repeal an anti-discrimination ordinance passed by the city council back in May.

The ordinance banned discrimination based on many things, including race, age, sexual orientation, and military service. But it was the ban on discriminating against people based on gender identity that opponents used as a wedge to attack the ordinance broadly, falsely claiming that by letting trans women use women’s restrooms, cis men would dress as women to rape women in public bathrooms.

The claim stinks of an urban legend—public bathrooms have snakes in the toilets and dress-wearing rapists in the stalls!—and city-wide polling data showed that citizens weren’t buying it. A few weeks ago, polling showed that the ordinance was up 6 points over repeal, with 43 percent of voters supporting it and 37 percent of voters opposing it. But somehow, on Election Day, the ordinance went down in an election that wasn’t even close.

What happened? Simple: Bigots were able to turn out the vote while non-bigots mostly stayed at home, assuming that this was a “small” election in an off-year and therefore one they could sit out.

If Miss Marcotte can freely label her political opponents as bigots, I suppose I can call her what she is as well: an idiot.

To be clear, this election had higher voter turnout than usual for off-year elections in Houston, but that appears to be largely because opponents of the anti-discrimination policy were able to rally their own voters. Knowing that very few ordinary people who generally support non-discrimination laws would turn out to vote, the religious right could hammer their own people, who are notoriously gullible, with tall tales about fantastical rapes by men in dresses. Off-year elections are candy to conservatives, because they can have this kind of disproportionate influence on the ballot.

This election was high turnout for a municipal election, with 27 percent of registered voters turning out. That was nothing compared to the 59 percent voter turnout in the presidential election year of 2012.

It’s not unreasonable to think the larger Houston population is smarter about these issues that the people who showed up to vote. The mayor of the city, Annise Parker (who advocated heavily for this anti-discrimination law) is not just a Democrat but is openly lesbian. Texas may be a red state, but Houston is actually quite liberal. If voters actually show up to the polls, that is.

Or, perhaps, the opinion polls were wrong. Erick Erickson noted that the pre-election polls have been pretty notoriously wrong for a while now, and, for amusement, I checked the Lost Kos, a hard-left website which tracks elections pretty closely:


Morning Digest: Conservative pollster musters up a tie for Matt Bevin

by Daily Kos Elections for Daily Kos Elections

Just days ahead of Kentucky’s gubernatorial election, GOP pollster Vox Populi released the first survey since June—and just the second one all year—that does not show Republican Matt Bevin losing to Democrat Jack Conway. Vox’s poll has the two leading candidates tied at 44 apiece, with independent Drew Curtis at 6.

Election junkies know that there’s been precious little polling out of the Bluegrass State, but Conway’s led in the last six surveys in a row—including in Bevin’s own internal. The only time anyone’s actually found Bevin ahead came over four months ago, when PPP, interestingly, put him up 40-38. That was a long time ago, though, and until now, no one had put up any numbers to contradict this string of a half-dozen polls.

But the question is, could Vox be right? It’s certainly possible. Last year, as a brand-new firm, Vox performed well, predicting much more success for Republicans than most other outfits. However, was this because they accurately understood the nature of 2014’s GOP wave? Or did they naturally lean in the direction of their partisan inclinations and just get lucky? We’ll find out on Tuesday.

Matt Bevin won by eight percentage points, and all of the statewide Democratic candidates underperformed what the polls said they would do. The Lost Kos wrote as though it was only because Vox Populi is conservative in orientation that they came up with a tie for Mr Bevin, an underhanded way of saying that the results should be discounted.

And so we come to the Speaker of the Kentucky House, Greg Dumbo Stumbo:

Kentucky Democrat Claims Matt Bevin’s Win Was A Defeat For Christ

By: streiff (Diary)  | 

The Democrat Speaker of Kentucky’s House of Representatives, Greg Stumbo, was on a roll last night as it became obvious that Matt Bevin had not only won but had effectively curb-stomped the Democrat, Jack Conway. To hear him tell it, it was a rejection of God Himself.

“Let me tell you,” Stumbo said. “I am going to admit I have not read the holy book from front to finish like some of you probably have, but my reading of our Bible shows that the word Republican or Democrat isn’t used, and people sometimes ask me … ‘What would Jesus have been if he were alive? Would he have been a Democrat or a Republican?’

“Democrat,” audience members said.

“I don’t know,” Stumbo said. “Nobody knows. The Bible doesn’t tell us that, does it? But I believe the Bible is a book of parables … I don’t know whether Jesus would have been a Democrat or Republican, and nobody else does, but I know this. He was a carpenter and a teacher, and I bet every carpenter and teacher I know are pretty good Democrats.

“And the other thing I know is that if in fact the Bible is a book of parables, like I believe it is, think about this: Mary did not ride an elephant into Bethlehem that night. So you go home and you go to your church and you tell people, I’m a Democrat, I’m a God-fearing Democrat. I’m a Democrat that believes in the principles of the Bible that become the principles of our party, that this wealth accumulation in America has to cease, that people have to have a right to have an equal education opportunity, that people have a right to have health care, that people have a right to enjoy the American Dream, and we will rebuild this party starting right here in Kentucky.”

I can only believe that either alcohol and/or narcotics were involved in this. The only other explanation is that [A typographical error keeps us from seeing that only other explanation, but I’d suggest outright stupidity.]

No one is deserving of humiliation more than anyone who would claim their political party embodies very essence of Christ. When your party makes a fetish of pissing on the Ten Commandments and the Gospels becomes offensive. Not to put too fine a point on it, the Democrats are the party of infanticide, they are the party of sodomy, they are the party of covetousness, they are the party of theft, the are the party of sexual licentiousness.  I’m not saying the GOP is holy by any stretch of the imagination but, Merciful Heaven, we haven’t accepted actively hostility to Christianity as one of our principles.

I’m trying to figure out if Our Lord would join the party which supports abortion up until natural birth . . . if not after.

Returning to Miss Marcotte, she stated that conservative ideas, that Republican principles, “are generally unpopular,” but that Republicans are still doing well at winning actual elections. Perhaps her view that conservative principles “are generally unpopular” is informed by the same polls which have gotten actual election results so wrong. Harry Enten wrote:

Just as in 2014, the polling underestimated Republican candidates in Kentucky in 2015, but did so in a fairly uniform fashion. On average, SurveyUSA and Western Kentucky University (WKU) missed the final margin by 13.4 and 11.1 percentage points, respectively, in the elections for agricultural commissioner, attorney general, auditor, governor, secretary of state and treasurer.

Agriculture commissioner -7.0 -7.0 -20.2 +13.2 +13.2
Attorney general +12.0 +6.0 +0.2 +11.8 +5.8
Auditor +8.0 +5.0 -3.9 +11.9 +8.9
Governor +5.0 +5.0 -8.7 +13.7 +13.7
Sec. of state +13.0 +11.0 +2.3 +10.7 +8.7
Treasurer -2.0 -5.0 -21.3 +19.3 +16.3
Average +13.4 +11.1

A look at the table above reveals that the polls and the results for the different races were highly correlated (0.96 for WKU and 0.97 for SurveyUSA). It’s as if the the electorate became about a dozen percentage points more Republican between when the polls were taken and Election Day.

It’s not yet clear whether pollsters simply projected that more Democratic voters would show up than actually did or whether undecided voters broke overwhelmingly for the Republican candidates. The former suggests an electorate modeling problem that could be a big problem during the presidential primaries, when turnout is low. On the other hand, trouble modeling the electorate would be less of an issue in the 2016 general election, when turnout is at its highest.

Even in the two statewide races that the Democrats won, the winners were scions of longtime Kentucky political families — Andy Beshear, son of the outgoing Governor, won the race for Attorney General, while Alison Lundergan Grimes held onto the Secretary of State’s job — and they won by much smaller margins than the polls had predicted.

I had previously noted the silliness of Brad Friedman, who has claimed for years that the pre-election polls were the true vote counts, and that the actual elections were fraudulent. It’s just too bad for the left that, as we have noted before: the only polls which actually mean anything are the ones conducted on election day.
Cross-posted on RedState.

Common sense and normality win in Houston

From the Pirate’s Cove:

Houston Voters Say No To Houston LGBT Ordinance

William Teach | November 4, 2015 – 7:26 am

A win for common sense and rationality:

(NY Times) A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city’s lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.

The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded, following a lengthy court fight, in putting the matter to a referendum.

The Times seems a bit upset that citizens would be allowed to vote on this.

Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents said the measure would allow men claiming to be women to enter women’s bathrooms and inflict harm, and that simple message — “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms” — was plastered on signs and emphasized in television and radio ads, turning the debate from one about equal rights to one about protecting women and girls from sexual predators.

In reality, this ordinance was all about pandering to the tiny LGBT community and the liberals who support them, and creating yet another class of people who are protected over others. There was nothing in this about equal protection. Strangely, the Times, like so many other news outlets, forgets to include the voting results. Let’s check the AP

There’s more at Mr Teach’s original.

The mayor of Houston, Annise Parker, is a lesbian, “married” to another woman,1 and the people of Houston were aware of that fact when they elected her on 2009; she has been re-elected twice now, so it’s obvious that the voters in Houston don’t have a problem with that. Yet, with 95% of the vote counted, the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance was defeated by a very wide margin, 61% to 39%. Perhaps HERO’s supporters ham-handed attempt to subpoena the sermons of Christian pastors opposed to it2 might have had something to do with the defeat.

But the most important component to the Houston vote was the attempt by the “progressives” to force normal people to comply with the demands of a mentally ill few. The ordinance would have allowed transsexual individuals to use the public restrooms of their choice, not of their biological sex, and the advertising campaign had images of adult males following little girls into the bathroom. Does this happen much? The supporters of HERO would tell you that no, it does not, but there have already been too many lawsuits by these mentally ill people to force normal people to go along with their delusions. And, as you would expect, the Obama Administration has sided not with the normal people, but the mentally ill ones, trying to force the public schools, where students, most of whom are minors, are legally compelled to attend, to allow transsexual students to use the restroom of their delusions rather than their sex. And Hillary Clinton tweeted her support for this junk:

The difference between Houston thrice electing a lesbian mayor and the landslide defeat of HERO is really pretty simple: Americans don’t really care than much about what other people do, as long as they keep it to themselves and don’t try to force it on others. But the homosexual/ transsexual rights movement is not, and will never be, happy with that distinction, and thus they feel the need to keep pushing, to try to force compliance by other people, to shove it down their throats. Had HERO exempted public restrooms, it might have even passed.

The problem with being nice, the problem with being understanding, of the left’s agenda, is that, given an inch, they will sue you for the mile, and demand that they can educate your children to agree to the next mile beyond that.
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. Though Miss Parker and Kathy Hubbard went through a legal marriage ceremony in California, The First Street Journal does not accept the cockamamie notion that two people of the same sex can be married, regardless of what the law and the Supreme Court might say, and thus the quotation marks.
  2. Mayor Parker claimed to have been unaware of the subpoenas, and, of course I believe her!

Ben Carson surges to the lead The obvious question: will it last?

From The Wall Street Journal:

Ben Carson Vaults to Lead in Latest Journal/NBC Poll

Retired neurosurgeon overtakes Donald Trump for lead among Republican presidential candidates

By Patrick O’Connor | November 2, 2015 | 6:30 p.m. ET

Dr Ben Carson

Retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has overtaken businessman Donald Trump as the top pick of Republican primary voters to be the party’s presidential nominee, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

The result marks the first time since June that the Journal/NBC News poll has found a Republican other than Mr. Trump to be leading the GOP field. Some 29% of GOP primary voters rank Mr. Carson as their top choice, while 23% favor Mr. Trump.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rank third and fourth as the top pick of 11% and 10% of Republican primary voters, respectively.

Some 8% prefer former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. No other Republican garners more than 3% support.

There’s more at the original. Unfortunately, my preferred candidate, Carly Fiorina, is stuck down at 3%; she built up her support following the first two debates, but was unable to maintain that enthusiasm, and a pedestrian performance in last week’s debate on CNBC hurt her. Where she was average, Senators Rubio and Cruz were better, a lot better.

The real news, however, is that Ben Carson is now outpolling Donald Trump. Is it an aberration, or has Mr Trump’s popularity really started to wane? Mr Trump’s performance in the CNBC debate was not that great either, but Mr Trump has the advantage of not needing campaign contributions; he can finance his campaign out of his own wealth, and has promised to do so.

The next debate is scheduled for November 10th on Fox Business Network. Jeb Bush tried to knock out Mario Rubio in the last debate, and it backfired on him; he’s got to make a top-flight performance next week, or he’s toast. Mrs Fiorina got her surge in the polls from the first and second debates; she needs to duplicate those performances next week, or she’ll be effectively out of the race. Mr Trump will be taking aim at Dr Carson — all of the candidates will be taking aim at Dr Carson — but he was doing that in the last debate, and it didn’t work for him.

Fifteen candidates is too many for the GOP going into the Iowa caucuses; the herd has to be thinned before January.