« Alabama: Leading the way once again | Main | Dollar going the way of the Dodo? »

December 06, 2004



Cmon Chrish:

You know me better than that.
The comment you quoted came from jj's response to my post, not me.


Thanks for getting me in trouble :)

>Canadian kids score in the top 10 in virtually every single category. Why the discrepancy? We should do as well as they, but for some reason, we don't.

In all fairness, I don't know why; I went to PS 104 in Brooklyn. But I can tell you that American hospitals love Canadian nurses because they are better educated than American nurses. Ironically, I'm told by a Canadain nurse friend that has worked in Idaho for 9 years that the Big Red Machine now requires ALL Canadian nurses to take prove their qualifications beyond the basic NAFTA requirement to "ensure thair standards are up to the par of American nurses."

This is as dumb as the moron pharmacist I met in Orlando who honestly believed that my wife's hospital in Calgary can't prove if their drugs are counterfeit or not.

>We should do as well as they, but for some reason, we don't.

Not that I'm sticking up for Bush, but I will agree that the education problem is bi-partisan. But No-Child-Left-with-anything-but-a-Behind will ceratinly not get American kids up to World standards. Canadian kids do seem to know much more about US history and geography than most American adults.

>Then again, that might explain why Canada didn't lose +55K soldiers in Vietnam or +1.2K in Iraq.

Interestingly enough, when Canada refused to support the Vietnam war, it was considered such a snub that Johnson never again had any meaningful diplomatic ties with Canada. Lester Pearson, the PM at the time, was considered way out there by questioning the world's mighty superpower. He also implemented most of the social programs including universal health care. Too bad for the US they had no way to punish Canada economically like a software lumber tarriff that violates NAFTA, a ban on beef for 18 months as retribution for not joining the colation (due to 1 case of BSE that in a cow that was raised in AMERICA) or a threat to let the country fend for itself in the event of an attack if they don't sign on to a weapons in space program.

I get the last laugh because even if I had to pay for my prescriptions, the American made drugs sold by American subsidiaries that the fearmongers tell America come from the Third World are sold at a 50% discount to the US. And they still make a profit.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think they profess how to put on a condom or alternative lifestyles in a province run by a guy that refuses to accept the Federal Government's decree that gay marriage is legal. Ralph Klein vows to defy the Feds and never ever legalize a gay marriage in Alberta. Sounds like a good replacement for Rumsfeld to me. Right wing, defiant and dumb.


Yeah, I heard about that nursing thing. Ridiculous!


>Yeah, I heard about that nursing thing.

One of the stupidest aspects about the fear campaign is how America is kicking itself in the ass with policies like this. It's bad enough to alienate the world abroad, but by doing dumb shit like this with an education system that's already not turning out very many professionals, who do they think will help prop up a health care system that can't take care of 25% of its citizens?

The obvious goal of a fear tactic policy like this one is to get everyone that's not American to leave. And within a decade or so, they will.

Elitist and very very stupid.


Oooops... jj, my apologies you are correct my response should have been to Rodi..

I find it sad that Our educational system was, past tense, one of the best if not the best in the world back in the 60's and now
look what it has become? A feeding ground
for those with their own personal agendas that have no relation to teaching kids how to read, write, nor do basic math. It's sad, really sad.

Yes, I agree there are short comings in Bush's No Child Left Behind but, at least he's trying to reverse the downward trend of Our educational system. That's something
that most of the so-called School Board members nor some principals seem to have an interest in doing.

On another subject I found this article on
the environment extremely interesting and
have to applaud the courage of those states
that have the cajones to do what they believe is the right thing to do.

It will be interesting to see how this goes

Perhaps other states will follow suit? Perhaps they will work together to truly seek out alternative sources of energy and
Oil and all of it's down sides will become
a chapter in the history books? One can only hope....



Your apology is accepted even though you apologized to jj instead of me :)

While I see positive things in that article, the reality remains the same: California and the Northeast ALWAYS lead the way when it comes to middle of the road progressive approaches to issues that really matter like the environment, pollution and global warming. Unfortunately, no red state citizen, senator or congressman is going to look at their example and say

"Oh, I guess Bush is wrong; Perhaps there is a reason why the entire rest of the world supports Kyoto."

You are an optimist and I applaud that. I am more of a realist. Visting Florida showed me what will be at least until 2008. Bushies will not alter their loyalties regardless of how many more thousands of troops die or how many more penguins can't breed due to their ice caps melting. And California will continue to offer alternative ideas that will be debated but often supported by both parties in the state's government. In My America, actions like the one you cite speak louder than Republivan Right Wing rhetoric (ie: all we care about is gay marriage, the degraradtion of moral values and rights for illegal immigrants) Makes me proud to call myself a voter from California.

But until California forms its own country, nothing changes. Republican seanators and congressmen have to support Bush and the 8 states you mention march to their own beat. Personally, I could give a shit less if the rest of America chooses to stagnate in their own stupidity as long as I know that more intelligent viewpoints prevail in my America.


>Personally, I could give a shit less if the rest of America chooses to stagnate in their own stupidity as long as I know that more intelligent viewpoints prevail in my America.

I second that fully. I don't really care about how stupid Americans choose to be, either. I'm not about making them smarter or provide them with a better life. Unfortunately, their stupidity affects both you and me, as it does the rest of the world. The last 2 elections have shown that.



All we can hope is that there will be no major revolution against US policies before he's outta there. Too bad polluted US air sometimes crosses into Canada depending on the wind


Oooops again... So how about I just apologize to both you, JJ, and to Rodi
and leave it at that?

Well, I'm not going to get into a discussion
on whether people, of which I'm one, voted for Bush or didn't vote for Bush are stupid or who's stupid. All of that is stupid in and of itself. Nor, at this time, going to
debate the failings of those who are empowered to protect our borders. The whole thing about Illegal immigration is exploitation on both sides; Democrat & Republican.

Let's just say there's disagreement and that's really what its all about; disagreement.

Getting back to the other topic I found this
article to also be of interest and cannot, for the life of me, figure out what this
so-called devastating impact to the economy is supposed to be about?


Rodi, you asked in a post if anyone had seen
that movie The Day After Tomorrow? Yes, I saw it and, while a Sci-Fi of sorts, it would seem to me an extremely plausible scenario, extremely plausible.

One has to wonder what good would the economy of any country be should another ice age start and all because of human actions or should that be inaction?

Please note that this isn't just a Bush thing but, cuts across both parties. In short, Our politicians, as always, are playing politics with what could be a global
catastrophe. Again, Common Sense would dictate that "it's better to be safe than sorry." The logical solution, in my opinion, would be to cut greenhouse emissions and to intensify R&D for cleaner alternative sources of energy *now* rather than later.



As usual, you are such an eternal optimist. I sure wish I shared your sense of hope.

As for what you say about the global warming scenario, I beg to disagree. While not the answer to everything, the world needs to start somewhere. the Kyoto Accord was ratified by EVERY SINGLE industrialized nation and a host of not so first world nations. Every single sensible leader in the world agrees 100% with what you said. What good is a dominating superpower that hands the next generation a world that without resources?

Bush's MAIN and ONLY real opposition to Kyoto is how it would "devastate America's economy." God forbid he could have the humanity to think about the human race instead of his short sighted financial gain and his overbearing wish to leave historians looking back on him as some sort of Superior Savior of the World.

Bush has made dumbass comments as "Who cares? I'll be dead." when pressed about the long term effects of his policies. Virtually any organization in the world with a smattering of scientific credibility has already branded him as the worst president for the environment in US history.

Face it, he simply does not care about the future. He is on some mission that he says is from God to accomplish whatever he thinks the Almighty wants for the world. The scary part is that virtually nobody on Earth can stop him until 2008. Carte Blanche with your life and mine.

As JJ and I have said, California will always pass its own rules and regulations in a sensible attempt to protect what is left of the environment. (in California anyway) Since nobody can possibly make Bush see how dangerous his blatant rejection of Kyoto is, why fool ourselves into thinking Bush will ever do anything besides protect the fat cat Republican financial oil interests in the Middle East. that is his one and only major concern and his actions, not my opinions, speaks for itself.



I don't recall reading the statement "Who cares? I'll be dead." when pressed about the long term effects of his policies."?
Where and when did he make those comments?

Yes, California has taken steps to protect
the environment but, that's about as far as
it has gotten. But, even those who pounded
their chests about how they passed "sweeping
legislation" to protect the environment ALSO
were stuffing their pockets from
"contributors". Gov. Gumby (Davis) comes to mind. He was one of those who pounded his chest with one fist while the other hand was taking "contributions" from a
company so they could dump dioxin into the
San Francisco Bay. The Legislators were
pushing a tax hike on SUV's in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions while they, themselves, were driving leased SUV's and
other big cars at $450 a month + $165 week
for "gas and auto expenses" paid for by Us, the taxpayers. And, check this out, those
who were pushing that tax hike were
Democrats not Republicans.

Republican or Democrat I really don't see much of a difference when it comes to stuffing their pockets and pandering to the Special Interest Groups they serve.

Seems to me the Democrats were in control for eight years, so what did they do to encourage, fund, or push R&D for alternative, cleaner sources of energy? They certainly had enough time to, at the very least, get the thing really rolling. This whole thing with oil and carbon emissions from fossil fuel isn't something that suddenly appeared overnight.

Who was in control of things then?

This article dates back to 1995

Again, who was in control of things then?

As can be expected there are also those
"experts" who say otherwise.

For me I would prefer to follow that old addage "better to be safe rather than sorry".

As far as I can see both Democrats and Republicans have been dragging their feet, sitting on their brains, and blowing a lot of hot air when it comes to doing what common sense would dictate.

You have Special Interest Groups with their
one issue agendas making a big stink about
their one single concern and everybody falling all over themselves who are either for or against it.

Meanwhile, the ice caps continue to melt at an ever increasing speed and those same one issue Special Interest Groups will be yapping about *Their* grievances and to hell with everything else.

Whether it be Bush, a Republican, or whoever, a Democrat, both sides need to get off of their dead asses, give their brains a chance to catch a breath of fresh air and start exercising some common sense and intelligence with regards to this planet's environment. Where the hell else can we go?

I don't fault Bush on this I fault ALL of them.

Besides Rodi, look at it this way if, due to
human interference and the scenario plays itself out, we go into another ice age most
of the red states will be under ice. Oh wait a minute that would include the blue states as well. LOL!! Scratch that last thought.

Besides Rodi, look at it this way if, due to human interference and the scenario plays itself out, we go into another ice age
most of us will be under ice and frozen so this will all become a mute point. :o)
A few hundred years later the ice age will end and those who survived, hopefully, will
take better care of this planet for themselves and their future generations.

I, at least, hope to God they are wiser in whom they allow to be put in power. Who knows, maybe they'll abolish Democrats AND Republicans. Now wouldn't that be a kick.



Once again, you are the voice of reason. I agree with all your comments, but unfortuantely, in the American system, we all have to choose one party. Yeah, they both suck when it comes to the environment. Some administrstions are a tad better than others.

Praying to God like you do that they all get their act together is great but will probably not help our grandkids inherit a planet that's not devoid of wildlife, clean air and fresh water. Not that I have the answers, mind you. Perhaps a serious stab at some sort of a legitimate third party might make a difference, but as you say, the special interest groups have quintupled since 1970 (according to the book I'm reading called "Boomer Nation.")

Also, there are several major political parties here in Canada. Except for pandering to the Americans, the current Federal Liberal government displays little in the way of enacting meaningful social change. The result is that like California, my home province of Alberta elects a different political party every election and passes much of its own legislation that is contrary to Federeal policy. Great for my wife and me but not for the nation as a whole. Or humanity, for that matter.

As for Gray Davis, yeah, I knew all that since I lived in SF for 12 years. I certainly make no claims that Dems govern California better than Repubs. It's just that they know how to work together better to TRY to enact laws that at least make some sort of sense for the poplulation of the state. And blue staters don't go around waving their rah-rah flags and bumper stickers beacause quite simply, we march to our own beat.
Co-existing and attempting to question things instead of denying the state of the world like the idiots I saw in Florida on vacation makes a lot more sense to me.

That comment by Bush was made but I can't honestly say I can come up with the time and place without an extensive internet search.

More than likely, very little of Bush's remaining agenda (other than having more Americans die in Iraq) will get passed. I'm hopeful that the 2006 Senate elections will speak for themselves. Thousands of special intersets expect to be paid back for the extra few million votes they were able to get for Bush. Not even Bush can pander to the gun, oil, entertainment, financial, religious, pharmacutical, defense and educatiion lobbyists all at once. Not to mention the seniors, married women and minorities that bought into his fear mongering lies.


Rodi -
You're thinking of Bush's thoughtful reply to Bob Woodward, when asked how history will judge the war in Iraq:

"History. We don't know. We'll all be dead." Shrug.

Very thoughtful and confidence-inspiring, as usual.


Who cares? these guys might care...


I venture to guess that he wouldn't simply shrug his shoulders if his daughters were off fighting in Iraq.




Thank you for remembering that intelligent quote form our illustrious leader.

Chrish, it's mighty hard to remain optimistic when a Pulitzer prize winning journalist asks a serious and legitimate question and gets a response that is so clearly ignorant and self-indulgent.

Gotta love the way CNN keeps this scorecard, complete with pictures, bios and graphs. Kind of makes it all look like the board game "Risk" that I used to play when I was a kid. Statistically, I guess we won't match Vietnam unless the insurgents get hold of some secret weapon. That should be good news, but you know they'll all just use that as evidence that Iraq is not a "quagmire".

With all the comments made on this board about how "Fahrenheit 911" has so many inaccuracies, one fact from that movie remains just that. A fact. That would be the total number of family members any member of Congress has actually defending their "war for freedom" (1) Or the number who said they'd be willing to send a relative to Iraq (we don’t know because they all refused to answer)

Sorry to drill in the truth but once again I have to draw attention to the stark political similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.

The other day I tuned into Dr. Phil (yeah, I know that's pathetic but I work 6:30 Am to 3 PM so I'm home early) Anyway, they did a story dedicated to family members of those who had casualties in Iraq. While the theme is to be commended, something REALLY irritates me. EVERY single family member made comments to the effect of:

"He died fighting for our freedom."

I often feel like a broken record stuck in 1971. Let me shout it out to the victims of the brainwashed Bushwacked:


I often wonder if I would have been a draft dodger had I been 19 during those years (I am a first year member of "gen X") Then I hear comments like that and remain convinced that I'd fight if some dictator posed a VIABLE threat to democracy in America. And perhaps even throughout Europe and Asia. But once again, they have totally lied and twisted the story into something that involves American freedom.

And after being caught in red-handed lies about every single item they claimed was the reason for a war in Iraq, they remain liars to this day, somehow insisting that an election in Iraq defends American freedom.

Even worse, those of you following the "liberal media" (ie: truthful news reports) will note quotes from the Bush leaders claiming that they are very unhappy about the probable result of the Iraq elections. They expect over 60% of those who vote to support a Sunni leader that is totally unsympathetic to any American interest. So in all probability, they'll research some pages from the Reagan Playbook on Displacing Democratically Elected Leaders in the name of American Political Interests (ie: Nicaragua, Chile, Grenada) and quietly launch a covert CIA operation to displace whoever winds up in charge.

Ya know, I have no problem with defending our real interests abroad. But there hasn't been a serious threat since The Cuban Missile Crisis. And don't give me that pile of crap about terrorists. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of time. If anything, American advances in technology like the Internet, instant electronic banking and cell phones that can almost live your lives have exasperated the terrorists cause. You can't beat down an ideology. Why not try some real solutions like preserving what's left of the environment, providing real health care to at least most of the domestic population and embracing the real economic concerns of this century like China's enormous and inevitable rise to what will soon be the number one economy on the planet?

Oh, yeah. We'll all be dead by the time that happens according to Bush.


> EVERY single family member made comments to >the effect of: "He died fighting for our >freedom."

Rodi, there is a term for the type of attitude these guys display: "indoctrinated."

As far as I am concerned, they can serve with all the honor they want, as long as it's not me out there fighting for their wacked-out idea of freedom.


Chrish, I think most of us are aware of blame that can be put on both parties... Nader was fairly accurate when he said that the difference between Bush and Gore would be the speed at which they fall to their knees before rich corporations.

What can be blamed on Bush alone is the complete and utter fiasco in Iraq, creating lots of dead people and more hatred of America obviously creating more terrorists, utter failure to predict anything correctly in Iraq, incessant lying on why we went to war, our record breaking and dollar breaking budget deficits, splitting the American populace like the Red Sea, and relentless pandering to corporate greed.

You can wax eloquence in all these other issues that you want, on the war, the economy, and fiscal sanity, Bush couldn't have done worse, invading a country he didn't know jack about and lying to cover up his mistakes under the veil of patriotism. Bush would be thrown into shackles if he were a CEO under all the accounting guidelines... oh wait, he is the CEO... of the country.

I presume that you've seen the logic used by other Bush supporters on this site, ranges from complete refusal to acknowledge or use facts to utter childishness. You're the one person on the other side that I respected and listened to... so I hope for your sake that years from now if things have gotten much worse (or not better) and the country is bankrupt that you don't wake up one day wondering, how could I have turned the other cheek when the warning signs couldn't be clearer?



"you don't wake up one day wondering, how could I have turned the other cheek when the warning signs couldn't be clearer?".
I assure you Jeff I do listen to your's
Rodi's, and jj's arguments and continue to
seriously consider what you're all saying.
I also have the utmost respect for you three
and you're truly convincing arguments. They do give much to think about and consider.

I continue to read articles and news reports
published by both sides of the aisle.

Oh, BTW Jeff, I've not had much time to read
the article you've been nagging me about but, should be ready to butt heads with you after the New Year's. :o) Is that OK?

In the meantime I do hope and wish you all
a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.



Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.

Like Jeff, I agree that you are pretty much the only voice from the other side that has the dignity to respect and read all of our comments. While you are still entitled to your opinions and viewpoints, if I can convince even one person that Bush is simply not good for America, or even get you to think about it, I feel like I've succeeded and brought something good to a bad situation.

I still hold the notion that history will judge this decade's leadership as one of deception, lies and arrogance. much like the Johnson administration. The big difference between now and the '60's (in terms of the popular vote) is that the bulk of the nation that votes are Boomers this time around. All the same people that protested and learned to distrust the governemnt in the 1960's have become more conservative and lean right of center as the financial and family commitments mount up.

And Gen Y, today's youngest voters, are products of the decade of prosperity. Technological advances have made them more willing to use the Internet setting up websites that sell anti-Bush paraphanelia than actually voting for change. Perhaps they don't understand why they should want change. Many of them come out of college with lots of opportunities in pharmaceutical, defense and oil/gas companies. The same can not be said of the Nixon era, when the US was mirred in recssion, nobody could afford a mortgage and the future looked bleak.

In an age when the "greatest generation" (pre-Boomers) are able to use patriotism as an excuse for their political agneda, it saddens me that the nation remains stuck in some bizarre state of denial. Do we need them all to die out before the country wakes up and realizes the consequences of pissing off the entire world? You stay that both Dems and GOPers need to get their acts together. But all we have done this decade is widen the gap between the 1% of the nation that controls 95% of the wealth and the 99% that represent the bulk of the population, yet control virtually nothing.

If I had my way, I'd lock out the government just like the NHL owners have done to their players.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003