Broadcasting News

The plans you are discussing embody my core belief that Americans should have better choices for health insurance, building on the principle that if they like the coverage they have now, they can keep it, while seeing their costs lowered as our reforms take hold. But for those who don't have such options, I agree that we should create a health insurance exchange -- a market where Americans can one-stop shop for a health care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose the plan that's best for them, in the same way that Members of Congress and their families can. None of these plans should deny coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition, and all of these plans should include an affordable basic benefit package that includes prevention, and protection against catastrophic costs. I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.

By plunging into the details of the reform rather than cheering from the sidelines, as he has done for months, Obama raises the political stakes for the summer?"s big legislative battle, and will hearten liberals who have yearned for his intervention to put a public sector option on the table.

We are thrilled to see President Obama's strong, unambiguous commitment to reform that includes the choice of keeping private health insurance or joining a new public health insurance option. The choice of a new public health insurance plan is the only way to control costs, guarantee coverage, ensure quality and transparency, and set a benchmark by which patients will know whether their private health insurance is truly giving them what they're paying for.

There is tremendous unity among President Obama, key committee leadership in both the House and the Senate, the broad coalition represented by Health Care for America Now, and the American people for reform based on the choice of private or public health insurance plans. It is now clearer than ever that this choice will be a fundamental part of the reform sent to the President's desk this year.

In February, I found myself bobbing around the Caribbean for a week with about 70 supporters of the National Citizens Coalition and half a dozen other talking heads.

One of the other chattering types was my National Post colleague, David Frum. Over post-dinner drinks one evening, David and a clutch of guests started talking about airlines. Much to the guests' chagrin, David gave a very spirited defence of Air Canada, claiming it was either the finest or one of the finest airlines in the world.

Only in Canada (or at least among a gaggle of Canadians cruising a tropical sea) could a discussion of which carrier provided the most legroom in economy class or the best buy-on-board treats or the most on-time departures become a symbol for a broader political debate.

To this day, conservatives -- especially Western conservatives -- dislike Air Canada. Our enmity comes from the way the former state airline was forced on us in the bad old days of airline regulation. You say you want to fly to Ottawa, Mr. Hick. Well, you'll do it when we tell you and pay what we tell you. And you'll fly through Toronto both ways, even though there's no special need to. And when you get home, you'll pay added income tax to subsidize keeping our head office in Montreal to encourage Quebecers to vote Liberal.

All of this was compounded, too, by the way the shelter of regulation bred sneering indifference for customers among Air Canada's staff. The eye-rolling sigh of the ticket agent at an extra-heavy bag. The perceptible harrumph of the gate agent when posed a simple question. The tongue-click of the flight attendant asked for a drink refill.

We were giddy, then, when we got the chance to fly WestJet instead. Not only was it a point of regional pride, there were leather seats, cheap fares and the flight attendants were like the cool-kid waiters at your favourite hip-casual restaurant. They liked the fact you were on board. You weren't an impediment to them enjoying their day.

And they joked about having to play a recording in French of every announcement they made live in English. (Yeah! Rage against the bilingual machine!)

But come closer now. This is just between you and me: David was right. Air Canada is a pretty good airline.

Having had to make several cross-continent junkets this year on American air carriers, Air Canada looks like limousine service by comparison. U. S. airlines offer buses with wings. They leave late, a lot. They manage to turn a four-hour flight into a 12-hour ordeal by routing you from Edmonton to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Charlotte, Charlotte to Atlanta or Charleston or Fort Lauderdale. And there's no food on board, not even for purchase and not even if they make you so late there's no chance for even a fast food dinner before your connecting flight.

Meanwhile, on a recent 10-hour, transatlantic flight with my family, Air Canada had an exceptional service crew, fantastic seat-back entertainment choices, a couple of decent meals and even ice cream midflight.

I am still a dedicated WestJet customer, but I would fly Air Canada without hesitation.

Still, that's not why I want Air Canada to survive. As a consumer, I want the competition so prices are kept in check. In fact, there is nothing that says that competition has to be Air Canada. Some successor airline or airlines would do. Open Skies -- a policy in which any airline, Canadian or foreign, could fly all-Canadian routes -- would suffice, too.

Heck, I don't even trust wonderful, funky, casual-Fridays-seven-days-a-week WestJet to stay lean and innovative in the absence of other choices for passengers' dollars.

As a taxpayer, I don't like Air Canada, or WestJet or any other airline enough to bail them out and keep them in the skies. Making you and me give billions to air carriers through our taxes so we can save a couple hundred dollars on our next ticket to Montreal makes no sense.

Still, if there are going to be other options for my flying dollars, I think Frum is right: Air Canada is a good one. And I never expected to say that.

National Post

Tonight, the Bradley Foundation will honor the winners of the 2009 Bradley Prizes. They are: historian Martin Gilbert, economist Arnold Harberger, William Kristol, and the Federalist Society. The Federalist Society honorees will be the Society's four founders -- Spencer Abraham, Steven Calabresi, David McIntosh, and Lee Liberman Otis -- and its two long-time leaders -- Eugene Meyer and Leonard Leo.

Herb London, in the Washington Times, explains why the Bradley prizes matter. In essence, they fill the "cultural void" created by the fact that just about all of the other glittering prizes in contemporary America routinely are awarded to those on the ideological left.

North Korea?"s underground detonation of a nuclear device on May 25 has rattled the global community and confronted President Barack Obama with a major national security challenge. It seems every so often that the regime in Pyongyang engages in provocative behavior, so as to bind world attention. ?SWe are unpredictable and dangerous, so world, you better pay attention to us,? appears to be the radioactive clarion call being uttered from North Korea. In the past, these unorthodox tactics on the part of the ?SDemocratic People?"s Republic of Korea,? or DPRK, have been employed as an effective means of blackmail. In the wake of the DPRK?"s first nuclear test, in October 2006, then U.S. President George W. Bush agreed to American concessions to North Korea that seemed inconceivable based on his prior rhetoric. Many of these concessions involved economic support for the ailing North Korean economy, especially with regard to the supply of energy and foodstuffs.

The latest nuclear escapade by North Korea is being interpreted as continuity with its longstanding policy of using its possession of weapons of mass destruction as a means to creatively employ economic blackmail. However, the North Korean political economy is so dysfunctional, I think there may be a much more radical calculation emanating from Pyongyang.

There are few countries on the planet that have economies as shattered as North Korea?"s. Officially a Marxist-Communist state, its reality is in fact much different. Peculiar for a nation supposedly based on Marxism, North Korea is ruled by a family dynasty. The founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, is worshipped as a God, and his lifeless corpse is constitutionally still the president-for-life of the DPRK. The son of Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-il, is the current ruler of North Korea and it is rumored that one of his sons is also being groomed for political succession. Like his father, Kim Jong-il is also deified, and referred to in every proclamation as ?Sthe Great Leader.? However, despite his exalted status, his people have endured repeated famines that have snuffed out the lives of millions, according to international relief organizations. Furthermore, with the demise of the Soviet Union and the termination of its subsidies to North Korea, the nation?"s industrial infrastructure has essentially collapsed. Men still show up for work in the factories, but nothing is produced, for the most part, and the pay is a pittance. It is the women who actually run the economy of North Korea, largely through the black market. Though theoretically illegal, this otherwise draconian police state largely tolerates the female-dominated black market, estimated by some observers to represent 80% of the DPRK?"s meager economic output. The women of North Korea are the breadwinners in that society, having rediscovered entrepreneurial skills and are engaged in craft production and trading goods smuggled into the DPRK from China.

Having a national economy largely based on the black market is actually in conformity with other aspects of North Korea?"s unique political culture. Another example is how its communist-indoctrinated diplomats are expected to engage in profitable capitalism while posted abroad, so as not to bother Pyongyang with inconsequential and mundane matters, such as paying the rent on their embassies. For that reason, numerous North Korean diplomats have been expelled by their foreign hosts for engaging in activity ?Sincompatible with their status.? That term usually means espionage; in the case of the DPRK, the diplomats were expelled for engaging in narcotics trafficking.

In this basket-case of an economy, North Korea has had only one export commodity that has consistently been a strong earner of foreign exchange; armaments. In the past, ballistic missiles have been a hot export commodity for the rulers in Pyongyang. However, many of North Korea?"s traditional missile buyers, including Iran, now manufacture their own rockets. With demand for its medium range missiles potentially drying up, North Korea must look at new products that will stimulate demand. Long range ballistic missiles that can strike targets in the United States are one example of product diversification that may explain the DPRK?"s recent test of a supposed satellite launch. However, the crown jewel in North Korea?"s product portfolio is its nuclear weapons capability.

Though most analysts believe that the recent detonation of a nuclear device by North Korea was just its traditional blackmail-driven saber rattling, I think there may be a far more dangerous motive behind the atomic weapons test. North Korea?"s first nuclear test in 2006 is widely viewed as being a dude. While the basic concept of creating a nuclear blast is relatively simple-bringing together a critical mass of fissile materials-the means of achieving full yield requires sophisticated physics and engineering. The small yield of the blast in 2006 revealed that the DPRK had not yet mastered the technique of ?Sextending the generation,? meaning prolonging the natural onset of a nuclear explosion by a ten millionth of a second. What seems like an insignificant time factor makes all the difference between an explosion that is in the same category as a large conventional bomb, and a blast on par with the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945. Until the DPRK had demonstrated its ability to ?Sextend the generation,? potential foreign buyers of nuclear weapons would have little faith in North Korean nuclear weapons technology.

The May 25 nuclear test by the DPRK was, by all accounts, successful. The Russians estimate that the device detonated by the DPRK had a yield of between 10 and 20 kilotons, on par with the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Potential customers, including both rogue nations and non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda, have now received a ?Sproduct demonstration? that is convincing.

While my theory that North Korea?"s recent actions are based on a policy decision to begin surreptitiously marketing nuclear weapons technology, and possibly fully assembled nuclear weapons to the highest bidder, may seem far-fetched, there are signs that key decision-makers in the U.S. national security establishment have adopted a similar viewpoint. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security has abandoned plans to place radiation detectors in most ports of entry to the United States. This decision was based on the conclusion that technology does not exists that would reliably detect a well-planned attempt to smuggle a nuclear weapon or its components into the United States. However, there is another area that the Department of Energy, in particular, is aggressively moving forward on. A new field has been invented, called ?Snuclear forensics.? It is based on the belief that a nuclear detonation is so unique, post-blast analysis can reveal the origin of the fissile materials that were used in the weapon. This seems to be the new deterrent doctrine; if a country such as North Korea sells a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization that then used it to destroy an American city, the U.S. will be able to scientifically determine the point of origin of the nuclear device, and launch a retaliatory response against the offending nation. The Obama administration considers North Korea a major nuclear proliferation threat

As if the Global Economic Crisis was not enough to worry about, we now may be witnessing the emergence of nuclear proliferation as an export-based strategy for capital formation. It makes one hope that nuclear blackmail is all that North Korea is truly interested in. President Obama will have many sleepless nights worrying about North Korea.