Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 1:59 pm

VOTE MICHAEL BADNARIK --- Libertarian For President

http://badnarik.org/

(I can't believe he actually got on the California ballot!)

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:02 pm

samtzu wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
Q_ wrote:GOOD LEADERSHIP BEGINS WITH THE EXAMPLE OF WILLINGESS, SACRIFICE AND COMMITMENT.
Melvin Joel Weidinger 1979-1999... Illinois Army National Guard.
85-99 Fulltime Illinois Army National Guard.
97-98 Active Duty in support of Bosnia-Herzgovinia.

hey Q and anyone else, what about your service time?
Personal service means dick, unless you are running for the office of Commander in Chief.

sorry, we must agree to disagree... although there were moments that i did not enjoy in the service, i am a far better citizen because of it.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:08 pm

Simply Joel wrote: sorry, we must agree to disagree... although there were moments that i did not enjoy in the service, i am a far better citizen because of it.

You probably really needed the discipline. Most that go into service that way have disciplinary problems.

An area I had no problems with. Always the surviver I was/am.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:14 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
samtzu wrote:
Simply Joel wrote: Melvin Joel Weidinger 1979-1999... Illinois Army National Guard.
85-99 Fulltime Illinois Army National Guard.
97-98 Active Duty in support of Bosnia-Herzgovinia.

hey Q and anyone else, what about your service time?
Personal service means dick, unless you are running for the office of Commander in Chief.
sorry, we must agree to disagree... although there were moments that i did not enjoy in the service, i am a far better citizen because of it.

Different times. I didn't feel that the concerted effort of the Party in power (which ever party it was at the time. I served under both) trying to get me killed made me a better person... although it did, indeed, make me a better citizen.

And I will always agreeably disagree with you Joel. I respect your position, even if not your views. It is varying perseptions that keep us informed of what is going on around us. Nazi Germany managed to get everyone looking the same way, marching in step, and they all walked off the cliff together.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:15 pm

Same here, Joel. There is something to be said about taking a kid out of high school, sending him far away from mommy and daddy for a few years and bringing back an trained helicopter or jet aircraft machanic with years of experiance under his belt. Particularly for kids whose parents might not be able to afford college. It is how I got my start. Training, experiance, and greater confidence in my own ability to manage my own life. It really isn't a bad thing.

It still amazes me to see a picture of an aircraft carrier and think that the average age of the crew on that ship is 19 years old. I fired the Army when I was 24 but I am not sorry I had the experiance.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 4:01 pm

I'm 4F

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:22 pm

I can't believe that people are saying they'll be safer with Bush in charge. If anything, you'll be less safe because more people around the world will be pissed off, hating Bush and his arrogrant and bullying ways. Why can't people see that?! Or right, he's put the fear in to them and they'll believe anything. Stupid.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:50 pm

in a free world, everyone has the opportunity to voice an opinion, no matter how misguided it may turn out to be.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:53 pm

Simply Joel wrote:in a free world, everyone has the opportunity to voice an opinion, no matter how misguided it may turn out to be.

You mean no matter how misguided you may be huh?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 6:16 pm

DVD Burner wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:in a free world, everyone has the opportunity to voice an opinion, no matter how misguided it may turn out to be.
You mean no matter how misguided you may be huh?

i hope you said that while viewing your own image in the mirror.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:24 pm

no matter how misguided it may turn out to be

Exactly. Or perhaps, no matter how guided by propaganda it may turn out to be.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:26 pm

mispropagandaed!

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:29 pm

in a free world,

Oh, and I don't see how it is a free world when the election is decided by courts and when there are thousands and thousands of lawyers at the ready to take whatever happens to court. How is that a democratic process? It's fucked up, is what it is.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:51 pm

sparkletarte wrote:
in a free world,
Oh, and I don't see how it is a free world when the election is decided by courts and when there are thousands and thousands of lawyers at the ready to take whatever happens to court. How is that a democratic process? It's fucked up, is what it is.

and this statement from someone who lives in a commonwealth that still supports a monarchy... hmmmmmmmm?

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:10 pm

What are you saying?

Do you think that having a historical bond with one of the countries largely responsible for settling ours with Eurpoeans somehow makes us not free or not democratic? hahaha.

I don't see the point you are trying to make, aside from that, nor do I think you know what Canada's current relationship to the UK is.

We have the Queen on our money, you have God. Your point again was...?

SilkenTofu · Post by **SilkenTofu** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:26 pm

sparkletarte wrote:We have the Queen on our money, you have God. Your point again was...?

shhhh...Jesus lurks around the eplaya, we don't want to piss his Dad off again.

CoworkerLurker · Post by **CoworkerLurker** » Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:27 pm

Now I see which thread this comes from! (and where it belongs)

CoworkerLurker wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:and another point, off topic and somewhat unrelated... i have issues with other people posting service records of public officials with an opinion on another thread, yet those same people never served themselves...

that activity seems... hypocritcal.
I think there's still validity in the activity. It's not even hypocritical as long as they are not trying to suggest that there's something wrong with a lack of military service per se. To me, it's about the pattern and its meaning. Is it a coincidence that the most most gung-ho supporters of the war never saw combat themselves? Is there a value in having plenty of key foreign policy decision makers who understand the military and war firsthand? Is the hypocrisy really in the group who didn't serve, when they question the patriotism and courage of those who did? Are these questions that can only be validly asked by current or former members of the armed forces? Is this a topic that belongs in a different thread?

(In the interest of full disclosure, I've never served in the military, never intended to, glad I haven't- in most ways. I worked in a 90%+ Navy environment for a year and a half, and that was enough. I have a lot of respect for people who serve in the military in what I consider a positive way.)

and now I see where your charge of hypocrisy comes from. "Example of willingness, sacrifice, and commitment." Myself, I've always held that there are plenty of ways to exemplify those three qualities besides military service (not that I'm a shining exemplar myself- far from it).

Anyway, the pattern brings up a host of possibilities. Is military service conducive to being Democrat? Does it turn people away from being Republican? (seems unlikely on both points) Does it turn Democrats toward politics and Republicans away from it? Democrats welcome veterans as politicians and Republicans shun them?

Why so many top Democratics with military service and so many Republicans without. Is the list selective? What the hell does this pattern mean?

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:10 pm

Joel! So quiet on this thread! What's the matter, didn't google give you good enough info on the Queen's relationship to Canada? Or is it the God on your coins that shut you up?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:23 pm

sparkletarte wrote:Joel! So quiet on this thread! What's the matter, didn't google give you good enough info on the Queen's relationship to Canada? Or is it the God on your coins that shut you up?

see below in bold.... the Queen is the chief of your executive branch.

Remind me again, when do you vote for her? and how often?

have a nice day.

sincerely,

joel

http://www.state.gov/www/background_not ... 7_bgn.html

Canada

Official Name:
Canada

PROFILE

Geography

Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1 million). Other cities--Toronto (4.2 million), Montreal (3.3 million), Vancouver (1.8 million).
Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
Climate: Temperate to arctic.

People

Nationality: Noun and adjective--Canadian(s).
Population: 31.0 million.
Ethnic groups: British 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Indian and Eskimo 2%, mixed background 26%.
Religions: Roman Catholic 42%, Protestant 40%.
Languages: English, French.
Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over have at least a ninth-grade education.
Health: Infant mortality rate--5.5/1,000. Life expectancy--76 yrs. male, 83 yrs. female.
Work force (15 million): Trade--17%; manufacturing--15%; transportation and communications--8%; finance--6%; public administration--6%; construction--5%; agriculture--4%; forestry and mining--2%; other services--37%.

Government

Type: Confederation with parliamentary democracy.
Independence: July 1, 1867.
Constitution: The amended British North America Act of 1867 patriated to Canada on April 17, 1982, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and unwritten custom.
Branches: Executive--Queen Elizabeth II (head of state represented by a governor general), prime minister (head of government), cabinet.Legislative--bicameral Parliament (301-member House of Commons, 105-seat Senate). Judicial--Supreme Court.
Political parties: Liberal Party, Canadian Alliance, Bloc Quebecois, New Democratic Party, Progressive Conservative Party.
Subdivisions: 10 provinces, 3 territories.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:47 pm

Is that the best you can do? I could have told you that. She is a figurehead with no actual powers, you know, like your eagle, or your Uncle Sam, or like your celebrities, which is probably a better example. Oh wait, you guys elected an actor to be a president and a governor, so it's not really like that....

The governor general is like a marketing agent of the federal government- she travels to other countries, talks about Canada, takes business people on trade missions, hands out medals, heavy stuff like that.

I'd love you to show me one example within the last, say, 50 years, where the Queen actually did something other than come over for some tea and wave at a few people.

In your country, on the other hand, not many things are done by the government that god wouldn't approve of, or at least that the dollar doesn't like.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:54 pm

and our president isn't a figurehead?

of course, to most here, he is George Bush, the Boogey Man....

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:55 pm

For those of you interested in going to Canada:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... ID=6705456

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:02 pm

George W Bush is the right hand of God. God came to him one night and said, "George, I need you to be president." And so it was, George became president. And curses were lifted in his name, football teams that needed to win lost, but George still prevailed.

But not all were happy... but that is a story we will save for another day.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:05 pm

Figurehead as in mascot is what I meant, which, okay, does apply to your prez as well!

Geeky, from that article:

But statistics show a gradual decline in U.S. citizens coming to work and live in Canada, which has an ailing health care system and relatively high levels of personal taxation.

I love how they always try to put a negative spin on it. Yes we have more taxes, duh, we also have more social programs, which is how we like it! There's more to life than your take home pay.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:18 pm

They forgot high unemployment too. Sure, I guess every country goes that route at least once in their history. If you don't mind high taxes and unemployment it's a gas. I guess it isn't so bad up there since the country is frozen half the year anyway ... not much work going on since everyone is huddled in their igloo.

Comparing Canada with other industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that provide universal access to health care, a study released by The Fraser Institute in May revealed that Canada spends more on its system than other nations while ranking among the lowest in several key indicators, such as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.

The study identifies one of the major reasons for this discrepancy. Unlike other countries in the study that outperformed Canada - such as Sweden, Japan, Australia, and France - Canada outlaws virtually all private health care. If the government says it provides a medical service, it's illegal for a Canadian citizen to pay for and get the service privately. In practice, this means a patient must linger in line for hospital treatment - an average of 17.7 weeks in 2003, according to an annual survey on hospital waiting list published by the Fraser Institute.

In 1999, Richard F. Davies, MD, described how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, 71 patients died before surgery and another "121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery;" 44 left Ontario and had their CABG elsewhere, such as in the USA. In other words, 192 people either died or were too sick to have surgery before they worked their way to the front of the waiting line.

One of the reasons Canadians are slow to acknowledge the problems with their system is that general practitioners have been relatively easy to access and reasonably efficient at providing everyday services for common complaints, such as colds, sprains, aches and pains.

As time passes, however, more and more Canadians are confronted by the halting quality of their system when they face complex and expensive medical problems. They often cannot get timely or appropriate care for bone fractures, prompt treatment for cancer, or non-emergency surgery such as hip replacements. Their doctors complain that they are unable to help them and the government pleads shortage of funds.

International and Canadian data confirms their concerns. In a 2004 article in the journal "Health Affairs," Robert Blendon reports an international survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the USA and Canada. When asked for the average waiting time for biopsy of a possible breast cancer in a 50-year-old woman, 21 percent of administrators of Canadian hospitals said more than three weeks; 1 percent of American hospital administrators gave the same answer.

Half (50 percent) of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man who requires a routine hip replacement was more than six months; in contrast, no (as in zero) American hospital administrators reported waiting periods that long. 86 percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients have this brief a wait.

Canadian physician frustration with their inability to provide quality and timely care is resulting in a brain drain. According to one poll, one in three Canadian doctors is considering leaving the country. A doctor shortage looms, as the nation falls 500 doctors a year short of the 2,500 new physicians it needs to add each year to meet national health needs, according to Sally Pipes, a policy expert formerly with the Canadian Fraser Institute.

Another casualty of the lengthy waiting periods is Canada's much-vaunted equal access to medical treatment. Even though medical emergencies allow some people to jump ahead in the waiting line - making others wait longer - a survey published in the Annals of Internal Medicine medical journal found that more than 90 percent of heart specialists had "been involved in the care of a patient who received preferential access" to cardiac care based on non-medical reasons including the patient's social standing or personal connections with the treating physician.

Luckily, 90 percent of Canadians live close to the border with the States and can come south to fill in the gaps in their health care system with American doctors and hospitals.

If the U.S. adopts the Canadian health care dream and it turns into a nightmare, where will we go for medical services? To Mexico?

The Medicine Men think we already suffer from enough Canadian-style, centrally-controlled government health care. For example, American Medicare's slow acceptance of medical innovation, exacting paperwork requirements, delayed and low payment of claims, and the threat of overzealous prosecution by Medicare cops are driving doctors out of the Medicare system. As a result, patients on Medicare find they have fewer medical options.

And this pretty much echoes what I have heard from most Canadians. You are one of a VERY FEW I have ever heard of that actually LIKES the system. Maybe it is because you are healthy.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:30 am

Please, don't listen to what the Fraser Institute has to say. They are a very right wing organization that wishes for everything in Canada to be sold off to the highest bidder. Anything that is in the public realm they pick apart and make a case for it to be sold. They are very biased and supported by big, conservative industry.

And that claim that people go to the US to 'fill the gaps'? I've lived within a couple hours of the border for the last 15 years and I've never heard of anyone doing that, save the very rare occassion it will be on the news that someone coldn't get such and such so they went to the states for it to be done. What is far more common is just to go to another province to have it done.

Most Canadians treasure our health care system, although we do know there are problems with it, but on the whole we like it, and also like to complain about it. It's a hot topic here and anytime any government official even hints at changing into a two tier system, combining public and private options (they would never even suggest turning the whole thing private for fear of people having their heads), people get very, very upset about it. Most of us consider it to be one of the things that defines us as Canadians.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go replace one of the ice blocks in my igloo- it fell out last night as I was sleeping under my polar bear skin and I'm cold.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:39 am

Yeah, please, again, don't listen to what the Fraser Institute has to say. I can't believe of all the reports you had to read and believe it was their's. They probably aren't that right wing in the US, but they are very much so here and anyone involved in any sort of social or environmental group just laughs as them. (All of our politicians, even our 'rightest' ones, are quite a bit to the left of yours.) The FI isn't listened to very closely up here, although I know they are given more consideration in the US because their values more closely align with yours. But that's part of what makes us different. And that's part of why we are so perplexed that Bush could ever possibly be elected.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:50 am

and now, a few words from a curmudgeon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 4, 2004
The Dangers of Lopsidedness
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Washington

Nobody "blew" it. Both the Kerry and Bush campaigns successfully turned on and turned out their troops, resulting in the kind of massive vote - the highest percentage of eligible voters taking part since 1968, also a wartime election - that should make America proud.

Fierce partisanship, rooted in policy disagreement and driven by 2000's "we wuz robbed" resentment, left the former voter apathy dead. This year's hot competition served a great purpose in putting millions more selves in self-government.

But there is a rhythm to politics - a time to divide and a time to unite. Kerry's heartfelt and eloquent concession speech yesterday, hoping "to bridge the partisan divide," was in stark contrast to the fire last time. President Bush, re-elected with a substantial popular majority, properly responded with "a new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation."

It would be foolish to deny the continued reality of that divide. On foreign policy, it pits hawk vs. dove, idealist vs. realist, uni- vs. multi-. On domestic affairs, liberals and conservatives will clash, now more one-sidedly, on taxes and paternalism. On cultural values, 11 states rose up against gay marriage, which had much to do with mobilizing the evangelical right.

Can Bush stick to principles that elected him while taking some of the poison out of the political atmosphere? The atrophy of the usual checks and balances requires a certain internal restraint.

Danger comes from the temptation to bull ahead that awaits lopsided government. Bush has the re-legitimated White House power backed up by a more rightist House of Representatives, now bolstered by a Senate with a 55-to-45 Republican majority. On top of that array of political muscle, a Supreme Court already tilted slightly rightward will soon be ready for an infusion of new justices.

This imbalance will ultimately trigger Rayburn's law: "When you get too big a majority," said Speaker Sam Rayburn, a Democrat, after F.D.R.'s 1936 landslide, "you're immediately in trouble."

Another danger to Republican self-restraint is the Democratic Party's post-Clinton ideological split, the central cause of its widespread losses this year. The isolationist, union-financed Deaniac left will unfairly attribute Kerry's defeat to his ambivalence on Iraq. This will erode the minority discipline that had been enforced for a decade by the Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who was just trapped in the G.O.P.'s senatorial avalanche.

Republicans are hoping that Democrats will pick Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, a well-liked journeyman politician who is only fair on television, to replace Daschle as minority leader. A stronger choice to speak for the Democrats and dicker with the majority leader Bill Frist for compromises on Bush's initiatives would be Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The strongest choice would be the well-known John Kerry, world-class TV debater, who now understands where the nation's power center lies. (Bush should offer a domestic cabinet post to Daschle, an understanding pol who can be depended on to turn it down.)

What initiatives would bridge the divide while keeping campaign promises? Legislation to set up personal retirement accounts in Social Security, along with appointing a commission that would recommend raising the retirement age to 70 for those now under 50. In Iraq, follow Kerry's campaign advice to attack Falluja, the terrorist haven, and take up Kerry's suggestion of a cordial summit with Chirac, Schröder and other allies seeking rapprochement before their own dreaded election tests.

Then I would urge the further development of the president's thoughtful compromise of two years ago granting federal support for research using lines of discarded embryonic stem cells. This would not double-cross Bush's base; on the contrary, it would be a natural progression of his cautious, ethical policy. And for the Supreme Court, find a brilliant, moderate female Hispanic strict constructionist from Massachusetts.

Elections are wondrous things. Yesterday's losers of squeakers, as I recall from 1960, can come back to win another day. At the moment, we are on a democratic election roll: the recent victories of John Howard in Australia, Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and Bush in the U.S. augur well for a democratic election a few months from now in Iraq.

In democracies, the pendulum always swings. Cheer up, this week's saddened losers, and take heed, this week's euphoric winners - Hillary Clinton's restoration campaign is already under way.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:01 am

OKay Geeky, here you go:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/care/rom ... c0403.html

This is a link to the Romanow Report. Roy Romanow, once the premier of Saskatchewan (I lived there when he was) was commissioned by the government to examine the Canadian health care system and figure out what needs to be changed to make it better. Roy is a very fair, smart, and thoughtful person from what I could tell when he was premier. People give a lot of weight to what he has to say. If you want to learn more about our health care system, it's problems and it's beneficial aspects, read that.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Nov 04, 2004 10:18 am

I have yet to meet a canadian who did not dig beeing canadian. Can't say the same for the U.S.A..

Also, regarding healthcare, Geekster, if you would like I can dig up the link that compares STs orthopedic adventure in the great white north to mine down here in the land of milk and honey.

Our healthcare system sucks. Read that as written. Did I say we did not have the best doctors and facilities? No, I did not. I said our healthcare system sucks. I am in a top 2% earner household with a good PPO and I still got ganked.

Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....

~

~

~

Re: ~

~

Re: ~

~

Re: ~

~

~

~

~

~