October 17, 2004

70 Comments:

It's not really new-- a lot of this is repetition of old news, but it does a good job putting it together into a large picture perspective while still citing specific events.
It does bother me that so many people prefer dogmatism to discussion and are less trusting of facts and analysis than sweeping declarations. Unfortunately, emotions are more important than logic to a lot of people-- I see it every day in interactions, not just politics.
I don't know which bothers me more, really... all the instances in which there appears to be an attempt to rig the election, or the fact that there may be no need to rig it for Bush to win. No, I lie... I'd rather be disgusted by the opinions of the majority than be disgusted that the opinion of the majority can never be known.

If you all haven't heard about the fraud attempts, here are a few cited in an article by paul Krugman:
Earlier this week former employees of Sproul & Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach of America), a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors systematically tore up Democratic registrations.arlier this week former employees of Sproul & Associates (operating under the name Voters Outreach of America), a firm hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters, told a Nevada TV station that their supervisors systematically tore up Democratic registrations. The accusations are backed by physical evidence and appear credible. Officials have begun a criminal investigation into reports of similar actions by Sproul in Oregon.
... in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired an Idaho company to paralyze Democratic get-out-the-vote efforts by jamming the party's phone banks.
Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, tried to use an archaic rule about paper quality to invalidate thousands of new, heavily Democratic registrations.Ohio's secretary of state, a Republican, tried to use an archaic rule about paper quality to invalidate thousands of new, heavily Democratic registrations.

And in Florida, the list of tricks include only having one polling place open early (they are required to have some open early) in a largely black county, while other counties have multiple sites; police visits to voting activists who are black and elderly to ask them about 'voter fraud'; an attempt to purge the voting rolls with a felons list which left off most Hispanic felons; wrongly purged people being given exceptional difficulty getting back on the voting lists.

As for the 2000 election:Mr. Palast notes that in the 2000 election, almost 180,000 Florida votes were rejected because they were either blank or contained overvotes. Demographers from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission estimate that 54 percent of the spoiled ballots were cast by blacks. And there's strong evidence that this spoilage didn't reflect voters' incompetence: it was caused mainly by defective voting machines and may also reflect deliberate vote-tampering.

And then there is Diebold, manufacturer of electronic voting machines that are thought to be easily tampered with and have refused to allow their software to be reviewed. The head of Diebold is a Bush supporter.

I ask anyone undecided... please vote for Kerry-- because somewhere out there, an official is making sure someone else's vote for him doesn't get counted.

By  Anonymous, at 4:23 AM  

Here's hoping the American people don't have anymore "faith" in Bush and his cronies.

By  Anonymous, at 6:39 AM  

No, that article was completely asinine. For one thing, we didn`t start a war against Islam, a SECT of their religion with extremist views attacked us. And then have CONTINUED to attack peoples and countries all over the world for their own religion.

Here's an interesting, yet unsuprisingly unquoted, part of this article "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them." That is complete and utter bull, and anyone with half a brain realizes it. If we wanted to quote 'kill them all' we could just as easily nuke them, firebomb them, or any number of actions that would be much easier than guerilla tactics. But no, we actually take prisoners and treat them (for the most part) guite well, better than what the Geneva convention specifies. The article is wrong.

Your right, that is a scary article. Not for why you think it is, but because the New York Times would print or release such factless flotsam. It's opinionated drivel by a leftist extremist, which indeed has done it's job, to instill fear in it's readers to make them vote for their candidate.

By  Anonymous, at 10:48 AM  

No, that article was completely asinine. For one thing, we didn`t start a war against Islam, a SECT of their religion with extremist views attacked us. And then have CONTINUED to attack peoples and countries all over the world for their own religion.

Here's an interesting, yet unsuprisingly unquoted, part of this article "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them." That is complete and utter bull, and anyone with half a brain realizes it. If we wanted to quote 'kill them all' we could just as easily nuke them, firebomb them, or any number of actions that would be much easier than guerilla tactics. But no, we actually take prisoners and treat them (for the most part) guite well, better than what the Geneva convention specifies. The article is wrong.

Your right, that is a scary article. Not for why you think it is, but because the New York Times would print or release such factless flotsam. It's opinionated drivel by a leftist extremist, which indeed has done it's job, to instill fear in it's readers to make them vote for their candidate.

By  Anonymous, at 10:48 AM  

This is a pretty good example of why media, and the new york times in particulary, is in general, shitty.
This is a statment. I read about half of it, and found no direct illustrations of Bush thinking he was on a mission from god. OTHER people have said that, and he says he has an instinct. He also says he prays. Instinct + Praryer does not equal a man thiking he is a messiah.

By  Anonymous, at 11:46 AM  

Please. That article was the silliest load of liberal-bunk I've read in a good long time. Bush may not be right about everything, but no human on earth can boast that. Fact is, he is a moral man, and acts by those. Whether you like to admit it or not, Bush is a strong leader, and Kerry is an incredibly weak one. Just do everyone a favor and don't go accepting opinion articles from the NY Times as fact. That's only slightly less stupid than playing with downed power-lines.

By  Anonymous, at 12:33 PM  

Did you guys know George Bush also likes to eat uncooked babies for breakfast? It's bad enough that he does it, but raw?

This article is a great example of hypocrisy. It attacks Bush for being a singular minded fundy ignorant of analysis, while it appeals to people's narrow mindedness without providing analysis.

Just once I'd like to read an article that credits Bush where he did right, and points out clearly what was done poorly.

The article could even use a historical analysis of other presidents actions in similar situations to judge Bush.

Or Kerry backers could attack Bush and vice versa.

Vote 3rd party and help move the country past this sort of stupidity.

By  Anonymous, at 3:04 PM  

Voting 3rd party is what git Bush in last time. Think about these things before you throw your vote away.

By  Anonymous, at 5:00 PM  

so Kerry is an incredibly weak leader? where is your proof? what has he been leading recently? i'd like to see an example of his weak leadership. Bush sure is a strong leader what with his inability to end a war against a third world country, the fact he seems to have our own country divided in two parts if not more when we are supposed to be UNITED, and has sent the country into a huge economic downspin. Yeah, thats strong leadership right there.

By  Anonymous, at 6:24 PM  

"Just once I'd like to read an article that credits Bush where he did right".

OK, buddy, you first. I'm glad we went in and finished what his Dad should have done 13 years ago. AMERICA! Idiot Dad didn't have the brains/balls/whatever. But the last year+ has been horrible and it isn't getting any better. Idiot Son doesn't have the brains/sense/whatever to consent to a plan to get us the hell out. Since I'm not exorbitantly rich - I got a couple of $20 to rub together between paychecks - after four years I'll take my chances on Kerry.

By  Anonymous, at 7:11 PM  

"Bush sure is a strong leader what with his inability to end a war against a third world country, the fact he seems to have our own country divided in two parts if not more when we are supposed to be UNITED, and has sent the country into a huge economic downspin. Yeah, thats strong leadership right there. "

No, Clinton sent us into the downspin, and 9-11 beat that with a stick. But with Bush's leadership, our economy has stabilized from the quickest recession in world history. You wonder why we`re not United? It's because people with their own agendas are attempting to usurp power and control. The politics that Kerry talks about are not democratic, they`re socialist! If John Kerry gets elected, I guarantee that what you think is so bad with Bush won`t be 1/100th as bad as Kerry in office.

And already we`re talking about getting 'out' of Iraq. Hell, we`re not even out of Germany yet! We`re there now to keep the peace, and stabilize the country.

So let me put this to you: Give me ONE reason that Kerry should be elected, other than the monotonous moronic montra "He's not Bush" because there IS NOT ONE GOOD REASON TO VOTE FOR KERRY.

By  Anonymous, at 8:08 PM  

Kerry - One good reason - Pro-choice regardless of his personal feelings on the subject.

That alone shows that it may be possible to reason with him on civil rights as a whole.

By  Anonymous, at 10:47 PM  

No you got it backwards. Clinton was the one who fished our economy out of the toilet. Bush was the one who flushed it right back down again, in record time.

By  Anonymous, at 11:21 PM  

Oh yeah, I suppose that WAS during the times Enron, Citigroup, and other company's scandals. Of course the economy appeared up, there weren`t any checks going on in the business industry! Then add to that the selloff of 70% of our armed forces, which was the reason for our positive budget numbers. You wonder why we have a bad budget and a recovering economy? It was that 8 years of corruption!

As for the pro-choice stance, I can understand, if you feel that's important to you, then it's a valid reason. Truer still, women will probably be PAID to have abortions to help finance and manage stem cell research under Kerry's autocracy, but again, if that's alright with you then it's a valid reason.

By  Anonymous, at 11:56 PM  

And after Kerry pays all those women to have abortions to fund stem cell research he's going to found medical experiments (funded by fetuses) to be performed soaly on cute puppies, kittens and doe eyed orphans! ogabogabooga...OOOOOOGABOOOGABOOOGA!!!111!!1

Seriously if this is Bush’s contingency Kerry has nothing to worry about, seeing as the majority of voters will have IQ's above 86

By  Anonymous, at 2:54 AM  

Personal opinion, it sounds to me like we have a terrorist for a president. Now I only know what i hear, read, and look into and alot of this stuff isn't new to me, i've heard it before. But religious fervor is fine and all excpet when you base your leadership on it alone. That makes you exactly what Bin Laden is. Attacking another country for god.

By  Anonymous, at 9:05 AM  

Brilliant counter argument. Clearly the work of a superior mind. I shall consider well my choice this time around and think upon your witty reparte so that I might fully realize the depths of my error. You have shown me the light. Thank you. In honor of your vast and superior wisdom I shall name my first borne after you...or whatever I guess your name is.

By  Anonymous, at 9:06 AM  

Who ever you think your view line up with more, go to www.whynotvote.com
This site just presents all the issues and lets you see who you actually agree with more. I thought I was going to vote for one, then after doing this it turns out I only agreed with him on 5 questions, while agreeing with the other on the 20+ other questions. I surprised myself, dont be blind to the issues, learn for yourself who you agree with more.

By  Anonymous, at 10:35 AM  

Just a quick thought:

Socialism and democracy are NOT, nor have they EVER BEEN, mutually exclusive. Socialism means neat stuff like universal health care, well funded schools, higher education for all,etc. It tends to mean high taxes, a smaller military budget, strong unions and a political system that incorporates more than two parties.

You have been brainwashed.

Or maybe I'm a terrorist.

-ridl

By  Anonymous, at 8:30 PM  

Oh. My. Gosh.

By  Anonymous, at 9:48 PM  

Let's clear the matter with socialism up a bit: It CAN mean those nifty things you mentioned earlier (Like it did here in Sweden or Norway och Denmark or Finland) but it can ALSO lead to brutal opression, tyranny and massmurder (like in the old USSR, Kambodja during Pol Pot or Romania under Ceaucescu).

In the same way capitalism CAN lead to wonderfully successful and caring societies with strong educational systems and respect for the rights of others (like Holland or USA at its very best).
It can ALSO lead to complete disregard for human rights, ruthless exploitation of the weaker in society or an almost genocidal hatred of those too poor to consume. (Russia during the first decade after the fall of the Communist era, some Third World nations and so on).

Now, I know this is just a posting board and not a forum for extremely detalied analysis but I still figured I'd try and get rid of the worst simplificiations of the above debate. :)

As for Bush or Kerry... What do I care? My nation is a member of the EU. All we want to do is to isolate ourselves and exploit the rest of the world into oblivion... :P

By  Anonymous, at 8:47 AM  

This is a politically partisan article that is cleverly written to attribute more grandeur to actual quotes. Actual quotes from Bush and his aides are kept very close to the author’s own messianic language, so that an easily confused reader or one who is predisposed to a particular viewpoint will jump to inaccurate and groundless conclusions. Little of it is verifiable as well.
It is not meant to persuade through argument, but rather shore up support for a set group of party believes. What is most disturbing about this article is its wish to separate American people into two opposite groups. Also, it wishes to separate into two groups Republicans (Those who support Bush and those who are forced to). Polarization, while a natural instinct, is a fallacy and an oversimplification. This, of course, makes the article hypocritical.
While this article suggests that Bush is handing the country over to Christian fundamentalist with a wink and nod, it can be easily argued that Democrats are using the same wink and nod tactics for their party's only unifying factor: The "George Bush is evil" line. This is related to the opening paragraph that claims there is dissention in the Republican party. A "civil war" seems like pretty strong language to any reasonable, reality grounded person and this statement ignores the Democratic party's notorious lack of unity over the past four years (although, that has seemed to change specifically in regards to the presidential election, but the underlying problems in the party will still be there for congressional and local elections.)
Basically, this article is crap. It takes information that you already knew if you're informed, adds dubious "facts" and arranges them along with opinions in a wagon circling order. There are no arguments, just statements. It tries to appear argumentative so party loyal can still feel self-righteous and more educated than people who hold different viewpoints. The appeal of this kind of writing does not lie with rational, open-mined and thinking people, but with those who have given up their rationality to politics. These people are unfortunately the vast majority of American citizens.

-Gabe

As a side note, both parties are equally dispicable.

By  Anonymous, at 10:34 AM  

I'd like to comment about "throwing you vote away" with a third party candidate. Um, that's a cop-out for Democrats and typical of the party. They like to blame other people for their own failures. What percentage did Nader take? 3%? How much of that would have voted for Gore? 2% maybe, but it’s more likely that many of his supporters would have not voted at all. How many of those supporters are going to vote again in this election instead of apathetically sitting at home, but this time for Kerry? Sillyness.
Perot actually took a state (Texas, for Christ’s sake) in 92'. Do you hear Republicans bitching about that every chance they get when they aren't bitching about something else?

As for socialism. Socialism is crap. It's a lie and presents itself as a let's all hold hands isn't it great that we have all this stuff. And EVERYONE has it and there are no losers under that system. Stupidity. Here is the basic fact of reality (for all of you people who liked the article). There are a certain number of resources in the world and no governmental system will change that fact. You can fiddle with numbers and give some people more money and some people less, but when it comes down to it, stuff costs money and money is only as good a the an institution's ability to back the money with materials of real value or services. Free market increases baseline wealth by increasing efficiency and promoting innovation.

Economics and Bush: Umm, yeah, the country was in a recession for several months before Bush took office. Record number of jobs lost, yes. Record percentage of jobs lost, no. (more people=more jobs lost in a recession, it's pretty simple math). Record deficit, yes. Record deficit in comparison to GNP, no. Most people who know anything about economics will say the soundest strategy for ending a recession is to lower taxes and run a deficit. The democratic approach to ending recessions is basically nonexistent and it's a weakness of the party for sure. No informed or thinking person can honestly blame Bush for the recession or even Clinton, because the president has little to do with the economy to begin with.

Sorry, I guess this has been bashing Democrats a little more, but I'm sick of whining liberals talking to me like they've just discovered the cure for assholes, because they just watched Bowling For Columbine AND Fahrenheit 911 back to back and then again. 8 hour marathon, booyah! Criticism is for your own good.

-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 11:00 AM  

Quick comment on the EU. The growing rift between the EU and the United States is the greatest threat to global stability currently. I’m little one sided on this issue, because America is put on the defensive a great deal and as such I'm adapt at pointing out the EU's faults.
This is an issue that must be resolved though, because a strong alliance between the US and Europe is essential is maintaining world stability.
As a side note, my major beef with the UN and the EU is their willingness to view the US military as a tool of the UN and the workhorse of global peacekeeping. EU nations are claiming they want world peace, but all they offer for the cause is words, while the US provides the money and men willing to die (and kill). Almost like a friend you have because he's huge or knows karate. Now how does that friend feel when his weaker friend openly calls him stupid and greedy?

I'd like to keep this conversation civil and informed, because finding common ground is quite important to me.
My first offer to a solution is this opinion: I think a lot of European leaders are using anti-Americanism to increase their support in unpopular and ineffective administrations. (Please don't respond that Bush is using terrorism in the same way. I'm well aware.)

-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 11:15 AM  

> As for socialism. Socialism is crap.

The problem with U.S. citizen is that they got brainwashed for so much time with their "fear" of marxism they fail to see the difference between the USSR dictature and the socialism concept.

In Europe, in the end of the 19th century, life under "capitalism" was a HELL for the people. They had to work 80 (eighty) hours a week for a salary that did not even enabled them to survive. At the same time, an "elite" of rich people were living quite confortably, and were doing everything possible, including using religious or political influence, to keep it that way.

Can you believe that, at some time, capitalism elite considered working *only* 70 hours to be an outrageous privilege for the workers?

Socialism was a reaction to that (read Emile Zola's novels for more information... "Germinal" is a must).

A bad or a good reaction, it depends on the viewpoint.

The fact I'm working 37 hours a week with 5 weeks of paid holidays, and with a social and medical care considered among the best (if not the best) in the world is the direct consequence of those poor people revolting against the hell what some call "savage capitalism". So I'm quite happy with the "reaction".

Of course, some people would tell it can't work and it will crash sooner or later. My answer is that it works since decades, and that my country is not the one with a national debt of $7,500,000,000,000 and growing daily.

Of course, some people would answer that socialism is the reason european countries are not as rich/powerful than the U.S.A., but I would anwser I don't care about who is peeing farther. I only care about how happy my nation's citizens are (including me).

You can call it "crap" as long as you like, but most european countries have a long history of state supported social care, and have less people living under the poverty line than the U.S.A.. Of course, unemployement in Europe is greater than in U.S.A. but... Even our own unemployed are living better than some workers in the U.S.A..

Well, the only problem with european citizens is that the rich europeans are not as rich as the rich U.S. citizens...
Big deal...
; p

(western) European countries were at a time or are today ruled by socialists gouvernments, and nothing disastrous happened to them, despite all claims from neocapitalism assholes and U.S. politicians.

What most U.S. people fail to see is that Socialism is as important as Capitalism in the concept of Democracy, and each side cannot peacfuly exist without the other: You need to have both freedom as an individual (capitalism), and responsibilities toward your nation and the nation citizens (socialism).

Perhaps it is a kind of idealism, but idealism is a worthy goal we should all strive to reach.
And it works (even if it could get better...)

Anyway, if you want to understand a concept, please study it, and its historical references.

And try to avoid both USSR and USA books.

> Free market increases baseline wealth
> by increasing efficiency and promoting
> innovation

This is theory.

In practice, innovation comes with the free circulation
and use of informations and ideas.
Today's "free market" is hiding information behind ridiculous patents.

Two real-life proofs:

1 - The Humane Genome project resulted in 84% of the human DNA free to access to any laboratory, because it was paid not by "free market", but by people, and researched by public institutions. "free market" hid some of these parts behind patents.

2 - The Open Source movement has resulted in high quality and innovative software (Linux, Mozilla, Firefox, Apache, Etc.), despite the fact it was not motivated my "free market", but more by "freedom of access". The only threat to Open Source Software is Microsoft's FUDs, closed standards, and abusive patents (look at the SCO stupid claims about owing UNIX). In the other hand, the most successful "free market" software is full of security issues (i.e.: there are more Microsoft servers who get screwed than Apache ones... And there are more Apache server than M$'s on the Internet, go figure...). The only way M$ hopes to keep its income is to destroy what was freely given to everyone (Open Source Software), be it by false claims about security, economical value, or even corruption and abusive legal sueing (Microsoft is behind SCO's action, it seems...)


> The growing rift between the EU and the
> United States is the greatest threat to
> global stability currently

It is one opinion.
Other viewpoints exists.

Poverty, for example, breeds crime and terrorism.

Another is the Israel/Palestine war.

Another is the genocide wars in Africa (where half a million were hacked to pieces in Rwanda without anyone caring... And were dozen thousands died because of religious wars in Sudan).

Another are the countries abused by multinational corporations (no, no one believe the "crap" explaining those corporations are "helping" those countries).

Another are the countries whose gouvernment is victim of "coup d'etats" supported by rich countries (for example, the 11 september is the anniversary of the death of Salvador Allende, first among the thousand victims of a C.I.A. sponsored dictatorship...)
etc..
etc..

Now, to drive the point home, as a proof as nothing is so simple...

The good point is that the Talibans are no more.

The bad point is that Pakistan, who helped the Taliban to take over Afghanistan, got out of this affair without a sratch. (The same for the Saudi.)

It should be noted than Massud, an afghan leader, enemy of the Taliban, had warned the world about the danger of terrorism ONE year before the attack on the WTC. But Pakistan supported the Talibans, and U.S.A. supported Pakistan (and the Talibans), so, Massud died the 9 september 2001, without almost any one caring about it... And no one would remember him, if not for his death foreshadowing the WTC attack.


Well... All in all, I believe "The growing rift between the EU and the United States" is the least of this world's problems.


> Polarization, while a natural instinct, is
> a fallacy and an oversimplification.

True, true...
And WHO is using the "you are with us or against us" thing?
WHO is using the "It's a crusade of GOOD against EVIL"?

Note, too, the real difference between a "terrorist" and a "resistant" is probably in the eye of the beholder...
(Nazis called "terrorists" the french resistance...)

Oversimplification is quite a seducing alternative to looking straight at reality.


> because America is put on the defensive a great
> deal and as such I'm adapt at pointing out the
> EU's faults

WHAT?

1) U.S. citizens should understand that calling themselves "Americans" can be quite annoying, or even insulting to the citizens of other nations of America (i.e.: the continent)...

2) The U.S.A. are on the OFFENSIVE.

They went to war without hearing the advice of their allies. They used, as Gabe called it, "Polarization" to bully the others into joining them, and insulted those who were most vocal about their doubts.

EU's fault was simply not believing the false U.S. intelligence about W.M.D.. Were the European wrong?
No. THEY WERE RIGHT!

Did the U.S. apologize for their mistake (i.e.: their lies)?
No. They changed the "official reasons" to go to war.

Did the U.S. apologize for using demagogy and insult to make their point (up to and including invoking distorted historical facts)?
No. Is Kerry still called "the french" by Bush?

EU has a lot of faults, but in this problem, the U.S.A. did all the shit alone, and hurt the EU in doing so.
Not the other way around...

R.

By  Anonymous, at 4:23 PM  

Well, technically the UK are members of the EU and France had economic reasons to oppose the invasion of Iraq (as USA had economic reasons to be in favor of it).
Germany said "No" to join in because....*dramtic pause* THEY KNOW WAR IS S**T!
So blaming Germany for not signing upo for war is sort of rude. As for the French...well, they helped create the US of A (Lafayette anyone?) and USA helped the french to kick the nazis out (oh and the german empire out back in the first World War as well).
USA did however leave the french to rot in the fight for Indochina back in 1954 (No B-29's showing up at all, guys). So USA and Eurpoe has little cause for playing the blame-game when push comes to shove.

As for EU losing on the Mid-east situation? Not really. Just our big corporations who are not contracted by the occupational authorities to rebuild/steal/whatever. But since Trans National Corporations aren't really regionally based it's not like USA gains anything from it either.

My conclusion: Most of us lose. Some other guys win, but it sure as poop ain't none of us posting here.

By  Anonymous, at 1:00 AM  

Again, socialism presents itself as bringing happiness to all people, but the government defines for the people what makes them happy. The problem I have with socialism is increased socialization. It creates a system where an individual's power over his or her own life is limited. Socialist like to say that it doesn't, but I've never heard an argument that challenges this statement. My argument is against modern socialism and the increase of modern government’s role, not against already failed systems. Most people know that the USSR was not communism or socialism, but rather a dynamic form of government that depended on who was in power to form what "type" of government it was.
As a side note here, Stalin engaged in what is called "state capitalism".

The United States does not have unfettered capitalism or even the least regulated economy in the world (I live in South Korea right now and my tax rate is around 5 %.) and no one in the world operates under a free market system or ever has.
As for me being and other Americans being brainwashed. Well, that's just simple bigotry and stereo-typing. It's irrelevant to my generation as well. I was only nine when the cold war ended, so, I've spent the majority of my life not worrying about nuclear war. Also, it can be argued on the same grounds that you are "brainwashed" into thinking that terrorism, poverty and multinational corporations are the greatest threat to world security.


Ummm, it's not just people from the United States who call us Americans and The United States is called "The United States of America." Do we call South Koreas "Republic of citizens."?

Do the Dutch live in "Dutchlandy"? Do we have to call people from Whales and Scotland "UK citizens"? Let's get really technical here.

If Canada were called "The Canadian Commonwealth of America", perhaps, the US would be called something else, but since the US is the only country with "America" in its name and "US citizen or resident" sounds stupid, I think I’m not being obtuse when I call myself an American or that I’m from America. Not only that, I’m from the US, so I can call my country Chimbuckarootia if I want.
What a silly thing to get annoyed or insulted about.

My comment about the US being on the defensive is that the US is held to a higher standard when it comes to using military force. The UN loves the US military because it does its dirty work, but why can't the US use its military for its own self-interest? The astronomical amounts of money spent on it are an investment. The existence of the US military has helped create the world's second and third largest economies and allows the very social programs in Europe that you are trumpeting. Europe does not need a large army because the US has one. Kerry is against redeploying foreign troops abroad for fear of angering US allies. Why are other nations considered members of the UN and US considered a servant?
The US did not go alone into the invasion of Iraq. Many countries supported it. Many opposed it too. France and China did have economic reasons for opposing the war. I think Germany would have been uncomfortable with a preemptive strike and I'm not sure their constitution would even allow it. (I think Kosovo was the first time German troops had left Germany since the end of WW II). I suppose what bothers me about Schroeder on this is that he could have just said that and it would have been excepted, but instead it manipulated the war for political support. Schroeder was not very popular before the war and I think he's slipped since then...

(This is kind of a new subject.) I do agree with something that many leftist whiners like to complain about though. Why does the US support Israel? It’s pretty obvious that creating that country was a mistake in the first place. It would be like if Irish Americans were killed off by the millions in the US and then we said, “You know what? Why don’t you give us Northern Ireland? We deserved it, because my great great grandfather lived there. It’ll be great! Northern Ireland will love being ruled by displaced Americans.” The only difference would be that I would have a greater claim to land in Ireland than the Jews did to Palestine and Irish Americans would have to bomb some stuff in Belfast first too. I understand that you can’t reverse time, but the Israelis need to be willing to make some real progress with peace, which means giving up some land. I don’t know why the US hasn’t been more of an asshole to Israel about this, what with the planes flying into buildings and all.

As for health care. What nation has the best health care in the world? The United States by far. If you can afford it.

-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 4:53 AM  

Gabe:
The important words being "if you can afford it". ;)
And I would also beg to differ. Switzerland have the best medical facilities on the planet to my knowledge.
However, wether it is paid for by taxes, insurance or in hard cash I cannot tell...

By  Anonymous, at 8:56 AM  

CLINTON'S FAULT BUSH'S FAULT KERRY'S FAULT everyone just shut the HELL up for once, will you?

When will people begin to understand that it honestly does not matter who's fault past transgressions are and focus on the here and now? The fact is that we're all up shit's creek with little to no veritable options for pulling ourselves, both as America and the human race, out of this giant mess.

The thing that divides us this election year should be our beliefs in a resolution versus the major candidates', not pointing fingers at Bush or Kerry for things they've done in the past. Vietnam, flip-flopping, oil, what the hell ever, we are currently engaged in WAR. WAR, PEOPLE. It does not MATTER at this present time.

Honestly, people, we need to throw aside petty arguments and spin over whodunit and work proactively towards a SOLUTION (which in no way means vote third party, a distastrous move despite one's ideals for utopian society, nigh impossible ANYWAY, during this dire time of war.)

That, my friends, is the problem with Americans today.

If we can understand that we will all die one day, I wonder if we would hate each other so much.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 9:34 AM  

Also, one thing, you speak of Switzerland's health care as if it came free with everybody getting along.

You might also want to research Switzerland's obligatory life-commited military service for all males over 18 (optional for females) and its nuclear facility system, along with the requirement that all households have a loaded M16 in possession at all times.

Yes, the countryside is beautiful (especially up towards Luczern, Alps), the people are friendly, their crime rate is at 0%, and it's the most sanitary place I've ever been, but that comes with a hefty price tag of responsibility, one Americans don't have a good sense for.

You all wish for pure forms of government and society that actually *can* be achieved, believe it or not, but Americans are too diverse to agree on one thing and too spoiled to go along with any of it.

Honestly, what do you think would happen in Congress tried to pass an Compulsory Military Service bill? It would be shot down in seconds by people unwilling to sacrifice for what they claim to want (and we won't even go INTO the feminist uproar it would cause)

And put an M16 into the hands of every American. Or rather, DON'T. We can all imagine the price to be paid with THAT.

On that note, we're all intelligent people here, though how informed or wise we are is up for debate, but we CAN differentiate, so I like to think, between fantastic and realistic solutions. And, in my opinion, a state that would obviously never work because Americans are willing to sacrifice neither their pride nor freedom is NOT a veritable solution.

So yeah.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 9:47 AM  

I think that the "problem" with the US is not that everyone isn't putting aside their petty differences for "this dire state of war", but that everyone thinks we are in a dire state of anything. There is on more "war" in Iraq, it is an oppcupation, there is no war on terror, that's just a metaphore.
The "problem" as I see it is that too few people are willing to vote third party and buy into the campaign of fear that the two major parties subscribe to.

(Side note on health care. We agree, except I'm a person who think that health isn't a god-giving right and that you should have to pay for it, or ask someone to provide it for you, not force them. Show me how state health care doesn't force people to provide health care I'll vote for it.)
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 8:27 PM  

Eh, my personal views on health care itself are neither developed nor informed enough to argue.

One thing, though: It is very much a war on technicality in that Congress okay'd it as such. But that aside, do remember that BECAUSE of our occupation, such threats as Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and around twenty other nations now DO threaten our national security. (North Korea was already a given, but everyone seems to ignore them. Kim is so ronery!) Which, in my opinion, is most definitely classified as a dire situation.

In any case, in every election previous to this that I have been aware during, I have always supported voting third-party, though this year I have strongly urged all that I meet against it, most especially Ralph Nader (who may have done great consumerism work back in the day, but his agenda has switched to himself).

Politics, unfortunately, is not about my ideals for utopian society, but rather a system of using one's means to achieve one's ends, whatever those may be. My ends, specifically, are pulling out of this giant mess o'potamia and getting back a sense of global stability.

Bush can't do it, obviously, and I don'y know if Kerry can. Do I think someone else running third party could do it ten times better? Sure as hell, I do! But I know realistically that despite my grandest efforts, people will not vote third-party in an election regarded as importantly as this one, so I will throw away my pride do what I think will improve the country and world immediately, since immediate action is what we need.

/two cents.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 12:54 AM  

Yeah, if I were voting, I'd vote Libertarian. Honestly, in the bizzaro world where they could win an election, I doubt they could put together a cabinate or get anything done, but hey not getting stuff done is the next best thing to getting things done.
I'd never vote Green. Nader is a socialist.
As a side note, voting for Democrats or Rebulicans is voting to throw away your civil liberties. Most people don't care about freedom though.
Freedom is not just a luxury, but the only safeguard against mass tradgedy. Think about this before you give up on yourself.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 7:10 AM  

First of all, I agree that this article does not present any valid arguments or proof, but with all sorts of little problems like this floating around, it does raise a lot of concern.

I think that to the current (and perhaps others in the past) president looks at the position he now holds as a job title, not a responsability. I'm not calling Bush a wholly irresponsible leader, but he has made some rather questionable decisions. Just to name an example, I'm of the mind that allowing the assault weapons ban to expire will just create a lot of problems that could have been prevented with just a few strokes of a pen.

Now, let's say that he does run the country like a business, won't the deaths of several police officers and citizens cost them a lot in both party faith and money? If you run a business, you don't want to be losing money needlessly, especially when you can clearly forsee and prevent the losses. If he is a responsible leader, than this was an irresponsible decision. If he is a businessman, you have to wonder if he even knows what he's doing...

Socialism, like any other system of government ever concieved, is NOT crap, NOR is it perfect. Just like any other system, it can positively or adversly affect those governed by it. The problem lies with those who ABUSE the system for their own gain and only see the position of leader as a financial oppertunity and not as a responsibility.

Next on the chopping block, all of the political positions and parties; liberal, democratic, republican and socialist. Fuck anyone who is faithful to ANY ONE political party or position. The whole reason you have these differences is so that you can choose either one, or the other, and all points in between. That's what America is supposed to personify; freedom of choice. You don't have to choose a candidate based on their political orientation, but instead based on what's important to YOU, as an INDIVIDUAL!

Yes, I dare to use the 'I' word rather than use my political affiliation to justify my views. I don't care what either party wants, I care about what I want, and that's the only viewpoint you need to take into consideration on 'V'-day: your own.

So fuck the narrow-minded, stubborn republicans, fuck the cowardly, indecisive democrats, fuck the conservatives, the radicals, the liberals and the socialists. I despise anyone who thinks that any one group is superior, or more correct, than another. It took all of them and more to screw things up, and it's going to take everyone to set things right again.

America isn't great because they have the best army (though even when they spend over one hundred million on a 'smart' bomb, it still doesn't always hit the intended target). America isn't great because of it's economy (what comes after trillion?). America is great because it's supposed to be a place where different people with different opinions can state and debate their views freely, then make mutually beneficial and informed decisions. It should not be a place where you just take to being annoying and loud so no one else can get a word in edgewise. It should not be a place where when one party is elected, it completely ignores the views and concerns of all others concerned. It should be and should not be a lot of things, but as lemmings often demonstrate, blindly following someone is always a bad idea. (Especially when the head lemming has its head up its rectal cavity.)

Now for a quick opinion on the candidates. Bush can stick to his guns, but he's shooting blanks right now and needs to do things differently or risk increasing anti-American sentiment worldwide. As a democrat, Kerry shouldn't be trying to win the election, but rather he should be trying to force Bush to do things differently in order to keep his job. If the voters do not believe Bush will make the changes they want, then they should elect another candidate that will at least be more flexible. The country should not be divided over each candidate, but it seems to me that they are letting the candidates dictate what changes will or will not be made. This is flat-out wrong: The people should dictate what the candidates decide, it's the whole purpose of this election!

All in all, I'd vote for the dems this year because they seem less shady than the republicans and because their candidate seems to be more able to admit his mistakes and make changes as the situation and the people dictate. Too bad I live in Canada, where a corrupt 'liberal' party has been in charge for far too long... Do some research on it sometime, because America might end-up in the same position if any one party is allowed to get away with it.

By  Anonymous, at 9:41 AM  

CAN I HEAR AN AMEN?!

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 12:27 PM  

1-"Hello I am a murderer, I enjoy the act of killing."

2-"I do not enjoy the act of killing but I will kill you in order to stop you from killing"

1-"You must be a murderer as well for killing me in order to stop me from my original intent"

2-"Isn't it better to kill one person than to have that one person kill many and then kill him?"

3(uninvolved)-"BLAST YOUR REASONING ABILITIES I WILL CALL YOU EVIL FOR ALL KILLING MUST BE BAD OR ELSE MY FUNDAMENTALS WILL BE IN GREAT JEOPARDY"

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

By  Anonymous, at 7:51 PM  

I agree with almost everything you just said. What I dislike about politics (and it relates to not only the parties, but also the American people) is the lack of repect for other reasonable views.
This is why I like the Libertarian party, because they do focus on protecting civil liberties, the rule of the constitution and individual responsibility. Do I think that there should be no government? That would be great, wouldn't it? Of course, that can't work or at least not now, but the problem is that so many people don't even believe in protecting their freedom anymore. Anything that's worth while can't exsist under such the intrusive form of government that both major parties are moving towards.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 6:28 AM  

Hehe, I used the "word" repect...

By  Anonymous, at 6:31 AM  

A side note on this election. It's a bad time to be a Democrat any way you look at it. If Kerry wins, he'll be facing a Rebulican Senate and House and he will only be able to blame Bush for tough decisions he will have to make. Also, the democratic party outside of the presidential election is in virtual shambles. Who's going to come out to vote Democratic when they aren't voting against Bush?
It's really win/win for the Rebulicans and a lot of them are probably praying the Bush loses, just because of the liability that he is to the party.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 6:35 AM  

What political parties are available for the voters of USA?
Republican
Democrat
Liberal (Nader is a liberal, right?)
I seem to recall there is this teensy weensy little communist party.
Are there any others at all?

Oh, and now for something else:
About compulsory military service: Excepting the extreme costs of such an army, why WOULDN'T US citizens want to serve in the army?
I've gotten a general impression that most USAnians (A friend of mine made that word up) are very dedicated to their country and are quite willing to sacrifice both time and devotion for the good of the nation.

And isn't it just a little bit prejudiced to assume that just because you put a gun in the hands of a person he or she will immedeatly go on a postal spree on account of that person coming from USA?

Such an army would truly be "Of the People, For the People and By the People" and in my book that is the way an army should be.

Or am I being swedishly naive here?

By  Anonymous, at 3:09 AM  

Well, if you're talking about the draft, people have bad memories of Vietnam. Also, drafted armies tend to suck.
Personally, I think it's a great idea giving every US citizen an M16 (you know, provided they aren't crazy).
The parties availible are Democrat, Republican. Then there are third parties. The most popular is the Green party which is lead by Nader. Then there is the Libertarian party, the Communist party, i'm sure there's a socialist party, probably a facist party.
These parties are really small though and the number of party memebers in the federal government numbers under ten i'm sure.
Hope that clears that up a little.
Hey, you're a Swed, my last name is Bengtsson.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 5:09 AM  

Hi Bengtsson. Karlsson here. :)

No, I'm not talking about the draft. That, as you stated, sucked in the case of USA. Wether this was because the institution of drafting as such (It served USA very well indeed in WWII and Korea for example) or because of other, less obvious reasons is another matter.

What I'm talking about is really complusory military service. Every ablebodied, reasonably sane person (usually males only but in some nations female formations are mustered as well) are obliged to serve for a certain amount of time in the armed forces. In the case of Sweden it's between 7,5 months-18 months depending on what duties you're tasked with.
Officers and certain specialists are normally professionals.

Advantages: HUGE reserve of people trained in the use of arms in case of national military crisis. Many who serve learn to cooperate and work together as a team. Many youngsters with social problems in their homes find the routine and discipline taught a reassuring factor helping them to mature. Civilian skills are incorporated into the military. The people as a whole feel a closer bond with the army.
Exceptionally dedicated in defence of home territory.

Drawback: EXPENSIVE! let me repeat that: EXPENSIVE!!!!!! To my knowledge only USA (and possibly China, since their economy is climbing like frigging crazy these days) have the fiscal means to have such an army these days. Usually not willing to go out on romps of offensive warfare. See Soviet performance in Afghanistan as an example of this or Italian forces in WWII.

In certain extreme cases, though an army like this CAN be horrendously effective in agressive warfare (Wehrmacht 1939-1945) but that's pretty much the only example of that I've found in modern times.

And seeing as most USAnians are peaceful and friendly people with a great love for their nation, but not very keen on going abroad to die for oil/fighting weird-a** commies in a jungle this would be the perfect army for USA. Or am I way wrong here? Have I missed something about the US mindset completely?

By  Anonymous, at 7:10 AM  

You forgot that the USAnian society and army can BOTH breed an equal amount of psycotic, gun-totting assholes. Mostly all the army is looking for is someone who can shut-up, take direction and pass all of the physical tests. It's these type of people that caused the prisoner abuse scandals over in Iraq. Although it was a rather samll percentage of the USAnian army, their WHOLE army has lost a lot of trust in Iraq and beyond because of it. As it stands now, it's easier to weed out most of the USAssholes with a voluntary system rather than a mandatory one.

The constitution's second amendment is 'right to bear arms', right? Maybe if the mentality was 'right to bear arms and to do so responsibly' instead of 'if you're not armed, you're not responsible' and 'if everyone had a gun, there'd be less shootings', we'd have less trigger happy USAssholes misrepresenting their country at home and abroad. Besides which, I'm tired of these so-called 'friendly fire' incidents that probably happen way more often than we know.

A draft right now means that any able-bodied person with just about ANY state of mind could get into the USAnian army. Without proper planning and preparation, this could be a monumental disaster...

Luckily, a draft is one of the last things a great majority of USAnians are willing to put up with because they don't want to be sent into a political mess like Iraq against their will. This point of common sense displays that there is still hope for the USAnians and their country, but if they keep trading away their freedoms for more false illusions of security...

By  Anonymous, at 8:50 AM  

You people want complaints about Bush? Surf over to http://shrillblog.blogspot.com/ (The Official Blog of the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill) and you will read rants against Bush from the best and brightest. They even channel H.P. Lovecraft ("Aaaiii! Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Joshua Micah Marshall R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn! Aaaiii!!!")

The Young Marquis

By  Anonymous, at 1:30 AM  

But with a compulsory army you would get a wider spread of people to choose from and so it would be easier to fill the wanted military numbers since one can afford to turn the less pleasant people away.
I really don't think a modern army like the US has actually wants unthinking order-robots. That went out of style years ago. But then again, a drafted army might not have done as well as the professional army did in Iraq. (Militarily at least).

As for the sad and gross happenings with prisoner abuse, those things are probably unavoidable regardless of what military system you have. Humans can be (and usually are) a**holes regardless of gender,color or creed.

Oh well... the question is sort of moot now. What has happened cannot be changed. The best we can hope for is damage-control.

By  Anonymous, at 3:41 AM  

Yeah, that's why the US doesn't do that. Too much money. I wouldn't want to do it anyway. I have enough character to not need some asshole screaming in my face. Yes, the US military does screw up a lot of people. Personal expierence, but a lot of people go into the military normal human beings and come out grade A proper assholes.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 4:46 AM  

How very strange. My personal experiences during my military service seemed to focus mostly on learning to use our weapons responsibly and to be good teammembers.
This included our officers in the team, mind you.

Agreed, there was some amount of shouting going on but that was because there was alot of privates and just a few drillinstructors who had to make themselves heard and we never had malicious or deliberatly humiliating training routines (albeit very boring!).

I find it hard to believe that the US army would conduct its methods of training in such an unenlightened manner as you hint at, but because you have direct, personal experience from it I must take your word for it since I have few other sources to rely on in this matter.

/Karlsson

By  Anonymous, at 2:44 PM  

Yeah, I don't know what the armed services does, but it really turns a lot of people into assholes. Not everyone, some people come back better or the same. I think with some people the problem they have is that the military is a place with real expectations and they don't really except a half-ass job (well, they're trained that way though.) So, that either messes someone up because they can't perform or makes a person frusterated when they come back to civilian life where medocrity is the standard.
This is, of course, just speculation.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 8:55 PM  

You know, if American foreign policy wasn't the nightmare it is now, or (hopefully) if Kerry and Edwards have any brains, perhaps there is hope: Try fixing some of the relations with other countries, help foster healthy and beneficial relationships between America and its neighbours, and worldwide resentment for them will begin to drop.

Simply put, if there are less people that hate America, then there will be less kamikazee assholes willing to kill themselves in order to damage, injure, destroy or kill anything red, white and blue. I think that like the KKK and Black Panthers, there will always be groups who religously hate America, because mankind will always find stupid reasons to pick up guns instead of passing the wine...

For the hardest of the hardcore terrorists, bombs and guns may be the only option. However, if less people hate America, then they will begin to lose their naive and blind followers, dealing a critical blow to terror rather than just chasing it into another country. I know this sounds idealistic, and maybe it is, but don't America and the world as a whole at least deserve better than what they've gotten over the last four years?

By  Anonymous, at 2:12 PM  

Sigh, you're trying to appeal to emotions that I don't have.

By  Anonymous, at 11:00 PM  

Compulsory military service doesn't mean the we get to pick and choose who goes, because then the military is right back down to the numbers it was before. Compulsory service means EVERYBODY GOES.

And to the last anon... Even if the terrorists aren't cut down, with less of the world hating us, at least more of the world will be able to aid us.

I hope to every god I've never believed in before that Bush doesn't win.

I'm sick of living in constant fear of a fiery attack at every corner.

I'm sick of the growing apprehension that the environment I'm growing up in is slowly going to shit.

I'm sick of constantly worrying about my grades so that I don't lose scholarship because my family's income has been reduced in half since 2000 but I can't apply for financial aid because our gross is too high, yet still in 33% bracket.

I'm sick of the fact that my grandmother, a decorated veteran from World War II and Korea, isn't able to pay for a knee replacement or cataract surgery to continue walking and seeing.

I'm sick of not having the reassurance that there will be a sane world, if a world at all, when I'm twenty-five.

I'm just sick and tired of it all. And do you know what the worst part is? Our nation is so divided today that me simply stating how I've been affected by this adminstration sounds self-righteous and asking for pity. The case against George Bush is so strong, I believe, that simply stating the facts sounds partisan.

And that truly scares me.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 9:25 AM  

Come live in Canada my friend, and you'll do your finances and health a world of good. Up here, if you get hit by a car, they do their best to fix you and you don't need a major credit card or a winning lotto ticket. They don't tax anything you win up here, either, so a million dollar jackpot IS a million dollar jackpot. War? We try not to participate unless the world is in danger or it is a just cause.(WMD? I don't think so.) Otherwise, we basically provide extra troops for the United Nations because we're generally in the business of helping others and not ourselves. We've got a mall so huge that it has its own highway and more fully functional submarines than our navy. Need some cannibus for medicinal or personal reasons? Not a big problem up here, and the fine for posession is only something like $150.00 Canadian. As for being divided over which guy gets elected, we're all on the same page; we hate every asshole that gets elected one way or the other and just pray that he doesn't touch anything while he is in power. We will never be attacked on our native soil by terrorists because quite frankly, if they we're going to they would have done it by now. We hardly need an army, a terror alert system or a missle defense system to make us feel safe because the world loves us and would gladly come to our aid if we needed it. Plus, if you move up here, 'dubya' will never be able to find you on a map...

By  Anonymous, at 6:21 AM  

Yep, if Kerry gets elected it sounds like you'll feel a lot better. I'm not be sarcastic when I say that is the true purpose of current US government: To make people feel better.
Most people don't live in a real world anyway, so why even bother trying to fix problems with realistic solutions? If you feel good that's all that matters. So, I hope Kerry is elected, because, odds are, it won't matter either way to my life and it will at the very least make you feel better.

Canada is so much like the United States that you really can't tell the difference between it and their northern US counterparts. Also, the reason Canada doesn't need a missle defense system or a large army is becuase they're next to United States. I also doubt the Czech Republic would come to your aid. I'm throughly impressed by the fairness of Canada's lottery system.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 7:04 AM  

The fact that Canada is next to the USA works both ways. Like you just said, the USA is right there next to it, providing a handy shei-er, ally to protect them. However, if someone attacks the USA with so-called WMD, Canada could get hit with flaming pieces of old glory. Both nations trade electricity back and forth, so an attack on the right part of the USA would affect Canada as well. Despite decreasing trade and less-friendly relations between the two under 'dubya', being next to the USA is becoming far more of a potential liability to Canada than a tactical advantage. This also an example of how decisions made by the American president have an impact on other nations and not just his electorate. I hope that whoever wins the election will keep this in mind, because it is all a part of the responsibilities that come with being president.

By  Anonymous, at 10:43 AM  

The same can be said of Canada's relaxed stance on immigration. Maybe when a few maple leaves float over the border so do a few terrorist or the WMDs that you speak of. I don't agree with that, but I think it's obvious that Canada gets far more benifits out of having the US as a neighboor than the potential libilities. And the US gets, well, our 19 and 20 year olds get to drink there and what is it? 18 in Ottawa or Quebec, right? I grew up next to Ontario where it was 19.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 8:05 PM  

Haha, whoops, Ottawa isn't a province, how silly. Must be Quebec where the drinking age is lower.

By  Anonymous, at 8:07 PM  

The province of Quebec also has a capital city by the same name. I should go off on a rant about how Americans do not know enough about the rest of the world or the subject of geography as a whole. The only reason I mention this is because you are obviously sitting at a computer with literally unfathomable amounts of knowledge at your fingertips. Oh, and the drinking age is 19 no matter which province you are in, as is the smoking age, and yes, in the land of the maple leaf, budwiser is considered a soda. Honestly, I think the main ingredient in American beer is the piss from drunk Canadians...

As for the benefits you have mentioned, between SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome for those who've forgotten), mad cow disease (less than ten out of thousands of cows, by the way) and their so-called soft immigration policies, Canada has lost a lot of money due to the bad press American television gives it. About ten times more people were killed by handguns in America last year than were killed globally by SARS. Mad Cow Disease, though unpleasant and costly to contain, has not infected a single human during this latest 'epidemic'. As for the lax stance immigration, Canada does not like turning people in need away, and even if a terrorist did come to live there, it is much harder for him to get a machine gun there than in America. Yet despite all of these 'yellow alerts', most Canadians are much more afraid of paranoid Americans with newly legalized assault weapons. Bush is obviously not serious about peace, since he's alienated one of the most tolerant and peaceful nations on earth, only adding to the undue reputation Canada now has globally. They've lost hundreds of millions (even in American dollars) in tourism revenue because although American media reported these problems and more, they failed to report how quickly and easily they were handled. America is not safer now, just more dangerous and paranoid.

Still, I suppose tolerance and understanding won't do well in a nation where the first two amendments basically amout to 'shut-up or I'll shoot you'. Don't believe me? Americans are now afraid of the FLU! They are so scared in fact, that the mafia is now stealing flu shots and selling them on the black market and probably making a handsome profit off of American paranoia. Want to have your shot even if you're not at risk? Volunteer at an old folks home! Hell knows that they could use some extra care and attention now that Bush plans to screw with their social security... and they'll have you vaccinated for free! Bush also stopped the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada because they're supposedly 'not up to the standards of American drugs', as well as flu shots. If Canadian drugs weren't safe, then Canadians wouldn't be taking them! There is still a waiting list for flu shots, but just to give an example of how you can get around it, if you're living with a cancer survivor or a person in a high-risk group, you get your shot!

In fact, many Canadians do not even get their shot despite the gratuity. Why? It's the FLU! It's a very minor risk when you consider that it can be cured with chicken soup, dayquil and 7up, yet Americans are, as usual, terrified of getting sick for no good reason. As George Carlin once said: "What do you think you have an immune system for? It's for killing germs! But it needs practice, it needs grems to practice on." He goes on to say that an inexperience immune system will not help you when the next super virus comes along, because you will get sick and die from an entirely treatable disease. In the early 90's, he also said that less than 9000 Americans die of food poisoning every year. In a nation of nearly 1/2 billion people, it's a very minor risk and in his words, America needs to "Relax, take a fucking chance!" because that's less than a fraction of a percent of the total population.

Now, for Bush to let the assault weapons ban expire and to vote not to make cheaper perscription drugs and flu shots from Canada available, somehow I do not think he is in favor of a safer, healthier America. I also do not think that he cares about a potential solution to shaky USA-Canada relations, or about a potential windfall for another country whose economy has already suffered greatly due to his words and actions. Why? Well, several high-ranking republicans probably own stock in the major U.S pharmasutical companies and gun manufacturers, that's one explaination, but I have a better one. He's right when he says that the economy is on the rise, but if he were to make America feel at all safe, then even that wouldn't be true. Why? When people are afraid, they consume. What are all Americans buying a lot of since September 11th? Medicine and guns. It's classic business strategy: For the drugs, it's 'supply and demand', so he creates a scarcety in the supply to drive the demand and the prices up. Next for the guns, it's 'if there is no immediate demand, create one'. With America already afraid of box-cutter weilding terrorists, all he has to do is keep this terror alert rainbow bullshit up to raise gun sales. "The economy is strong", but only as long as America's culture of fear and paranoia is perpetuated, and the only ones making money are the upper 1%.

America has let Bush sweet talk them, then screw them, only to roll over in the morning to find that what he promises isn't really there. This toxic relationship needs to stop for the good of the American people, but on November second, they'll probably vote to endure yet another four year long, clumsy, unlubricated ass-fuck as the republican party's bitch in a prison of fear and a false sense of security. Word of advice, don't drop the soap on election day...

By  Anonymous, at 7:05 AM  

The only true WMDs are fear and hate. - Infamous 370

By  Anonymous, at 7:07 AM  

Wow, what a silly rant. Ummm, gun manufactures are not very rich companies. As for medicine, yes, it is silly how worried they are about it. I know Canadians like that too though. One of my co-workers was just complaining about flu shots here and how she wants one. She's 25 years old.
Canadian drugs not up to US standards.. ummm, that's crap, I agree and it’s not for that reason.
To be honest US drug firms have the right to charge whatever they want for their medicine. I have no clue why drugs would be cheaper in Canada. Is it state aid or higher production of generic drugs? Either way, US companies have the right to protect the sale of their drugs. They paid a lot of money to develop the drugs and many times more developing drugs that didn't work. They need to make money, so they can spend money to make new drugs. Unfortunately, that's how it works. You can’t get something for nothing. Other countries should not bitch about it either, because the US is the country that bends over on the whole deal.
Assault weapons. Does all of your information come from Bowling for Columbine? A assure you that letting the assault weapon band expire will not change the crime rate in Canada or the US. Also, Bush is for extending the ban. (Even though I'm not.)

Why does everyone have to link policy to come sort of conspiracy theory? Come on, there are much easier answers than that. Yes, Bush is hoping people will be afraid and will spend more money on guns and medicine in order to revive the US economy.
Also, the US media that you think is specifically out to glorify the US and destroy Canadians in their peaceful world loving sleep, is the same media that has destroyed US exports of beef because of their even more unfounded report of mad cow disease in the US. The one cow they thought had it, didn’t even have it, but US exports of beef stopped for more than a year.
I agree with SARS though, it wasn’t just directed at Canada though. Not only that I can’t think of a practical difference between SARS and just regular pneumonia. The death rates are pretty close. Does Canada really depend on tourism that much that SARS ruined the Canadian economy?
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 4:00 AM  

Influenza. You want to talk about flu?

Last year when I was in high school, we had to release school a week early, totally mutilating my grades, because two kids died (one of which I knew pretty well) of the flu.

There had been a giant outbreak the month prior, and its economical effects on my moderate-size community were devastating, what with everyone out sick and unable to work.

People died.

Because you know what? The flu is a lot more dangerous from a medical standpoint than people think. The nationwide outbreak caused death, and thus mass panic.

So don't smart off about things you are clearly uniformed about, thank you.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 10:47 PM  

Na dude, the flu isn't that big of a deal. The only reason it kills so many people is because of its prevalence. It can be nasty and it was a bigger problem like a hundred years ago. It just happens. Flu-shots really aren't for people who are healthy. Also, just because people died of the flu in your town, doesn't mean you know anymore about he flu than anyone else.
-Gabe
God damn it, why didn't Badnarik win? I almost voted... and for him nonetheless... what kind of world is this?

By  Anonymous, at 3:59 AM  

Gabe:

Na dude, the flu isn't that big of a deal. The only reason it kills so many people is because of its prevalence.Yeah, duh. That would be why people need flu shots so outbreaks, or mass widespread disease, don't happen. When one person has it it might not be a "big deal", but when 20% of a population does, that's pretty fucking big.

Flu-shots really aren't for people who are healthy. Healthy people get sick. That's the whole point.

Also, just because people died of the flu in your town, doesn't mean you know anymore about he flu than anyone else.Excuse me, what? Medically, no, I don't. But someone who has experienced outbreak death firsthand generally knows more about it than someone who stands on the sidelines shouting "no big deal!"


Don't be an ass, sweetheart. I respect you well enough, please don't ruin that with a bad rebuttal.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 2:05 PM  

Dammit, formatting. Oh well, gets the point across.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 2:07 PM  

The only way you'd could have firsthand death experience with the flu is if you died of the flu. Probably the people who know the most are doctors. And doctors don't consider the flu to be a major problem for healthy people. People dying at your school was a freak occurrence for flu outbreaks. Very few people (who don't have something else) die of the flu. This isn't an obtuse statement.
If you're talking about personal experience, I've had the flu, I know many people who have had the flu, none of the them have died from it. Does mean I know more about the flu? No. Just the same way that you knew people who have died of the flu doesn't make you any more knowledgeable of it. It may be a little insensitive to say, but it's true. Now, if the outbreak lead you to do more research on the topic, then, yes, you would know more and maybe people who knew people who died of the flu may be more likely to do research on it. But it's the research that makes the person know more about it, not knowing someone who died of it.
I guess I made a statement that was easily read into, because that was really my only point. It's pretty simple logic. Knowledge of the flu isn't like riding a bike, you don't get betting at it by doing it.

Oh, I think it was in this field that someone took a jab at American ignorance to geography. That's a stereotype and unappreciated if you were actually serious. Keep in mind that you’re talking about one of the most, if not the most, diverse nation in the world and that in the stereotyping game (which I don’t care to play, because it’s silly) the US is most certainly the hardest to typify.
-Gabe

By  Anonymous, at 4:17 AM  

The only way you'd could have firsthand death experience with the flu is if you died of the flu.

Oh my god, are you serious? You have to be shitting on me. I have firsthand experience of death caused by the flu because I watched people die. If this does not equate to you, let me put it in terms you can comprehend more easily:

A WWII Holocaust survivor is considered a firsthand account of the death camps, yet obviously this person did not personally die. The point is that the victim observed the events.

So please, just shut up. That personally hurt me.

Probably the people who know the most are doctors. And doctors don't consider the flu to be a major problem for healthy people.Yes. Yes they do. That is why there is always such mass panic for flu shots, becuase an OUTBREAK OF THE FLU is a THREAT. Check your statistics, boy.

People dying at your school was a freak occurrence for flu outbreaks. Very few people (who don't have something else) die of the flu. This isn't an obtuse statement.A quick Google search tells me that you are full of it. The flu death count average 36,000 an outbreak nowadays, and while that may be a relatively small number, for a disease we fully have the cure for it is quite dangerous.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 5:38 AM  

Listen, this is the last I'll say about this. The odds of a healthy person of the flu is extremely low.

By  Anonymous, at 6:15 AM  

And this is the last I'll say about it as well:

I have fact-checked, myself. I wonder about you.

The vaccination of healthy people is contested not because of its success rates, but rather its economic benefit to society.

Children of all health ranges should get the influenza vaccination, as proved by a Dr. Hurwitz of the CDC, because it significantly reduces the levels of febrile respiratory illness which can later affect one in life significantly.

For adults, as proven by a Dr. Carolyn Bridges, when the vaccine strain is well-matched to the virus, the net cost of flu shots is a mere eleven dollars ($11) per person. If no adults were given the flu shot, it's success rate of (average) 86% would be voided and considerably more people would fall ill, thus taking a quick downswing in the economy, what with too many sick to work and an average 36,000 deaths a rate (THAT IS WITH VACCINE).

Then there is the issue of selecting those in good health from those who are not.

How many people in the US, do you think, are completely healthy? Obesity rates are sky-high, pollution in this country is disgusting, and flu season generally falls right in with cold season.

Furthermore, what exactly defines "healthy"? Are smokers considered "healthy"? What about people with high cholesterol? High blood pressure? People that don't work out? And what about regional outbreak hotspots? Is age a factor? Sex? Race?

I personally am generally very susceptible to the flu when it comes through, but my blood pressure, cholesterol, heart rate, et al are all in perfect shape. Does this make me healthy or not healthy?

The issue is much more complex, you see, that just a mere black and white "healthy-not healthy".

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

By  Kinneas - Your Friendly Reality Check, at 9:45 AM  

Na, we pretty much agree. Let me rephrase, because that was an oversimplification. There is not a reason to get a flu-shot if you are not a child (under the age of 12) or have a health condition that would make a flu infection worse. Basically, just asking your doctor is a good idea.
I still stand by my statement that the odds of you dying of the flu between the ages of 12-60 are extremelely low and the odds of you getting the flu at least once between those ages is pretty high. I think the death rate for the flu would be higher in the summer, since dehydration would a primary complication (I'm assuming).
Allright, enough of this, it's a silly debate that we pretty much agree on anyway. I don't care either. If everbody wants to get a flu shot and there's a shortage, it doesn't hurt me, because I won't be getting one. I know I'm taking my life into my own hands, but I like to live on the edge.

By  Anonymous, at 1:31 AM  

To Gabe:

SARS did not ruin the Canadian economy, but it sure gave it a kick in the old beer nuts with the help of American media. I'm not blaming them because they have to make a living and this stuff was ratings gold at the time. A conspirasy is quite unlikely I'll admit, but showing Canada courtesy is just that, a courtesy. It is America's closest neighbour without a big set of fences separating the two, and with so much anti-Americanism in the world today, a little courtesy to a courteous nation would go a long way. Besides, as far as screwing up our economy goes, that's why we keep re-electing our 'Liberal' party. Other than that, thanks for the reply.

By  Anonymous, at 6:56 AM  

Sorry, didn't mean to start a big arguement like this. To Kinneas, I'm sorry about the loss of those around you, but I won't blame Influenza and Pneumonia for their deaths, not completely. Other factors contribute to a person contracting either one other than a lack of vaccine, some of which we are largely unaware of or have no control over. I'm glad we ha