Fahrenheit 9/11 reaction thread

[RGA]

I saw this as a local matinee - Friday was Sold out both shows in my town and pretty full for a Sat Matinee.

I have to say whether I agree with Michael Moore aside his films are damn entertaining. This time he's not in it very much at all and basically lets the politicians let them contradict themselves. It's humourous, sad, angry and unabashadly anti - George W. Bush.

There is nothing necessarily new about most of what has presented - but the advantage of any two hour film is that Moore can get what one person said on tape in 2001 and then what the same person says now - nothing new about Politicians who say the exact opposite things but most people do forget when 2 or 3 years go by.

Some parts he does not follow up - and leaves it more inuendo than fact - but it's rarely weak inuendo and there are a lot of things that should get Americans questioning certain aspects of the film. I would be surprised quite frankly if even die-hard Republicans would not find much in here to at the very least raise an eyebrow at a number of things. Moore managed to get some pretty interesting documents and interviews with cabinet members.

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers - So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped - especially certain documents that he attained before the white house blacked out certain sections - CNN got that copy and fed to the people Moore got the uncensored version that we now get in this movie.

Making Bush look silly isn't tough nor is it a real strength in the movie as we all know he is a terrible communicator - but some things you just have to chuckle at.

One weakness is when he talks about the coalition of the willing - he needs to be careful not to weaken his position with omission. Not including the entirety of the facts is a lie of omission and if there is an issue this is it. I can give him a bit of a break because it would be tough on this film-maker's resources to be able to dig in OTHER countries records and that undertaking would be gigantic. He is saved too by the fact that Bush himself was never overly open about it himself.

This is one of the best movies for a movies sake I've seen in a long time - I don't buy all the arguements - some however are undeniable and the film does what you want from an entertainment - Can upset you in one scene and make you laugh out loud a few minutes later. It is one of the few that I've been to that have had people clap at the end. You anti-Moore people just go and have a laugh. I'm probably more left being from Canada but I still enjoy a good joke from Dennis Miller.

[jeskibuff]

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers

Oh yeah? From someone who saw it Friday night... (http://www.conservativeunderground.com//forum/phpBB2//viewtopic.php?t=7069&start=0)
LIE #1

The Saudi Royal Family has $850 Billion of their own money invested in the US alone, an amount roughly equal to 10% of all business investment in the US.

FACT: King Fahd is only worth approx. $30 Billion, or less than 1/20th what is claimed in the movie. Oh, and only a small portion of that is invested in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/374776.stm


So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stoppedTrying to get it stopped because it tells the truth? That can't be true. Mooron has been caught in too many lies to consider any of his work to be of any worth. Trying to stop propaganda? That may be true, as propaganda is truly a danger to people who love their freedom and want to maintain it, so it is worthwhile to identify and counteract propaganda whenever possible.

[RGA]

Actually Michael Moore did not say that - he responded to a congressman or senator who he was intervieweing who said something along those lines. That is a very different thing.

I was watching CNN and they had people on saying that Moore is claiming that Saudi's control the US - that is not said in the movie - It is inferred that because Saudi's invested 1.4 billion into Bush Sr. company as opposed to the $400,000 he gets paid as president that there is a conflict of interest - and there is. Moore implies more to this of course being on the far left - but if you don't thinkmoney and power cprrupt just because you happen to be a republican and an American than you surprise me. Money and power are the name of the game to most corporate types - and if a few people happen to die oh well.

[Woochifer]

Plan to see it next weekend. Most of the reaction I've seen thus far seems to point out that Moore's not presenting anything new, just connecting a lot of dots that haven't been connected in one sitting. Most of the major points that I've read about is verified by at least one other source, so it's not like he's making stuff up and taking poetic license with the sequencing like he did a lot of in "Roger & Me". The information's been out there for a long time, but not necessarily widely reported by U.S. media. Moore's just rounding it all together into one spot and forming an argument around it.

The "fact checking" seems to focus on Moore's points about the Saudi family, which relied a lot on the Craig Unger book. However, the "corrections" about the post-9/11 flights by members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family turn out to be false (most notably in the Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff, who went on Bill O'Reilly's show last week to reiterate this point), as the Tampa airport now confirms that flights with Saudi nationals on board did occur while the national airspace was still closed to commercial flights.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

Considering how fervent the right wing propaganda against this film has been this week, obviously it's having the intended effect of stirring debate and getting a lot of previously underreported issues out into the open.

[Woochifer]

LIE #1

The Saudi Royal Family has $850 Billion of their own money invested in the US alone, an amount roughly equal to 10% of all business investment in the US.

FACT: King Fahd is only worth approx. $30 Billion, or less than 1/20th what is claimed in the movie. Oh, and only a small portion of that is invested in the US.

In 2002, the value of Saudi investments in the U.S. was estimated at $750 billion. And the Saudi royal family has about 9,000 total members, so your "fact" about King Fahd is not the whole story either.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0208/02082002TGR.asp


Trying to get it stopped because it tells the truth? That can't be true. Mooron has been caught in too many lies to consider any of his work to be of any worth. Trying to stop propaganda? That may be true, as propaganda is truly a danger to people who love their freedom and want to maintain it, so it is worthwhile to identify and counteract propaganda whenever possible.

You seem to talk about this Mooron guy an awful lot, no one I'm aware of goes by that name. If he's such a liar, then why do you keep bringing him up? I've never heard of him, so what's to counteract?

If you hate propaganda, then you must not like Bill O'Reilly very much either. Every time I've ever tuned into his show, the facts go fast and loose. Similar to how documentary film director Michael Moore takes creative license to make a point, but at least Moore is entertaining and has a sense of humor. O'Reilly was sort of funny when he hosted Inside Edition (or am I thinking of Maury Povich?), but lately he just seems like a bitter grumpy guy. He needs to laugh more. People who laugh more live longer, someone should tell him that.

You should try watching Michael Moore's movies sometime, but just be aware that you should do your own fact-checking after watching his films. Some of those fact checking sites that claim to "correct" what he presents are in need of fact checkers of their own.

[Bryan]

Interesting contrasting viewpoint of Farenheit 9/11. (http://slate.msn.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2102723)

Note: I haven't seen the film.

[piece-it pete]

I haven't seen it but the commercial I saw tells the story:

After the attacks on 9-11, the Sauds were flown out of the country by the gov't. Why is GWB up to this conspiricy/coverup?

What absolute crap. Of course, the ACTUAL MOVIE will be different (yeah, right).

Pete

May I refer to an earlier post:

[RGA]

Plan to see it next weekend. Most of the reaction I've seen thus far seems to point out that Moore's not presenting anything new, just connecting a lot of dots that haven't been connected in one sitting. Most of the major points that I've read about is verified by at least one other source, so it's not like he's making stuff up and taking poetic license with the sequencing like he did a lot of in "Roger & Me". The information's been out there for a long time, but not necessarily widely reported by U.S. media. Moore's just rounding it all together into one spot and forming an argument around it.

The "fact checking" seems to focus on Moore's points about the Saudi family, which relied a lot on the Craig Unger book. However, the "corrections" about the post-9/11 flights by members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family turn out to be false (most notably in the Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff, who went on Bill O'Reilly's show last week to reiterate this point), as the Tampa airport now confirms that flights with Saudi nationals on board did occur while the national airspace was still closed to commercial flights.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

Considering how fervent the right wing propaganda against this film has been this week, obviously it's having the intended effect of stirring debate and getting a lot of previously underreported issues out into the open.

You'll notice in the new one Moore stays away from a lot of numbers compared with Bowling fo Columbine. For this movie he claims to have hired a team of fact checkers and a lawyer to go every point he makes in the film - and will fight every claim by the right about his "false facts."

I'm also glad you beat me to it - the Saudi Royal family is very large.

Microsoft is worth more than Bill Gates is worth for example.

It is typical to discredit an entire movie off of a few points. But man if one did that with the Bible look out. The same thing happened with JFK - people attack it on a micro level - but what aboth the macro level. I have the newer DVD and Stone admits that since the movie came out some of the films facts which were guessed at are wrong - but as he points out what about the other 50 they don't question.

The main point Moore seems to make is that this is not about some moral good - that this was an agenda and that agenda was about making money for the cream of society - and there is a strong case here. I don't know why that would surprise anyone - money and power have throughout history been placed above human life.

[Resident Loser]

...together well chosen snippets and do a hatchet-job on any person, place or thing...and his rep precedes him, eh!

...Haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to...however, I did see MM on the teevee and quite contrary to his avowed reluctance to appear, he certainly is all over!

IMO, he is just an opinionated, egocentric, windbag...just another "celebrity" like Howard Stern who thinks they are America's knights in shinning armor who will "educate" the rabble and masses as to the evils of Dubya...maybe they should get real jobs, then they wouldn't have so much time on their hands...

jimHJJ(..."meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."...)

[piece-it pete]

Jim,

I'm not so certain they'd hold up well in real jobs, BS only goes so far in business. Maybe they could sell used cars.

What gets me about this whole hoopla is this: people don't even CONSIDER the source anymore. Historians, detectives, businessmen & prosecutors all know that to judge the info received you've got to look at the source, and their motivation.

Pete

PS Sadly, we probably will be fooled again.

[Woochifer]

According to David Letterman, Dubya didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11 either. Here's why...


Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11"

10. That actor who played the president was totally unconvincing.

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported.

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger.

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true.

4. Not sure - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe.

3. Where the hell was Spiderman?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth.

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball!

[piece-it pete]

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.



LMAO!!!

Pete

[RGA]

It's funny last time I checked being a writer, director and producer were all real occupations - Micheal Moore is all three of those things. The fact you don't agree with his politics or like anything about him does not mean one can LIE that his films do not have technical merits or that he is not a gifted filmmaker for film "ART" sake - that most movie makers would give their right nut to possess his ability.

Michael Moore's 9-11 is different than the last one which had problems factually - nothing wrong with making a totally biased film and skew it to your own point of view - since in the first dozen lines of the new film he states that it is the way he sees and doesn't pretend otherwise.

He doesn't have to say much when he simply lets the major players put their own foot in their mouth. The average person - who the film is intended for - does not remember what Rice or Powell said in early 2001 about Iraq compared with what they say later when deciding to go to war. Not everyone watches 12 hours a day worth of news. Moore is simply putting up both statements before and after and you can see for yourself.

If the right can seriously state thet Bush is totally altruistic a human being as you can find and that there is no fact whatsoever in what Moore is saying or implying - then you have deep blinders on about the way power corrupts. It is irrelevant - the best thing the film will do is create debate - get people to THINK about issues - to investigate the points Moore makes is the best thing for a society. Democracy and fascism are on a line closely drawn and when a society doesn't pay attention to its own democracy it can lead to the latter.

Fahrenheit 9-11 is a film from a concerned citizen - concerned more about the apathy of her population than this president directly - even though Moore doesn't really know it. When half your population doesn't vote like they don't here - then perhaps something needs to get people a kick in the pants. Moore may be viewed as a visionary or rabble rouser - either way if he gets people to CARE about what is going on in society again the result is worth that.

[Chris]

I knew this one would be coming... I'll have to see the flick before I can comment. I'm sure I'll have fun reading the responses here though :)

[Chris]

I'm not so certain they'd hold up well in real jobs, BS only goes so far in business.
Then how the hell do politicians stay employed?

[Resident Loser]

...What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!

Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please.

Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art.

If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job.

One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it.

jimHJJ(...mark my words...)

[Keith from Canada]

...What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!

Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please.

Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art.

If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job.

One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it.

jimHJJ(...mark my words...)

Did you not state earlier that you had not seen the film? If that is the case, I see very little merit in your argument against MM. You can complain all you like but until you see THIS film, I don't think that you have any right whatsoever to critique it or it's creator.

If "democracy in action" is a weakness then I think we all have much bigger problems than MM. If the US cannot exercise democratic freedoms, then the terrorists have already won.

[Resident Loser]

...MM is what he is. I did not critique the film, as it is completely irrelevant in my opinion of him...and the scope of my words is inclusive of all those who fit the "type"... he is not my only target.

Re: "democracy in action"...did I say it was a weakness? NO! It was simply a pre-emptive response to answers I tend to expect 'round these parts. Furthermore, I said there are those who will perceive their actions to have been complicit in an administration change and thus a victory(a la Spain)...much the way they see strapping some nails, scrap metal and plastique around themselves and taking everyone out in the immediate vicinity as divine retribution. You can't defend their mindset with yours. No one is looking to restrict the exercise of domestic freedoms...MM can say whatever he wants to...just as I can.

Pre-P.S.: Couldn't help but notice you ignored everything else I posted.

jimHJJ(...maybe we should get him to apply his film making integrity re: independence for Quebec, eh?...)

[piece-it pete]

Then how the hell do politicians stay employed?

lol!!



Did you not state earlier that you had not seen the film? If that is the case, I see very little merit in your argument against MM. You can complain all you like but until you see THIS film, I don't think that you have any right whatsoever to critique it or it's creator.

His reputation precedes him. He don't quote numbers in this one 'cause he got bruised badly when he did. He is also a blatant racist, but since it's in the accepted liberal PC way he don't get hunted or hated for it, rather encouraged!

I will see it, when it comes on TV, undoubtably a couple of days before the election, but I won't give him a red cent.

As far as terrorists & freedom here go, no need to worry (yet). I'll be more worried when the hate speech laws (regulating freedom of speech) start to pass. As Reagan said, we're still the only country where a citizen can challange city hall - and win. We are also heavily armed.

We will continue to hunt down and kill terrorists.

Pete

[Keith from Canada]

In response to your Pre P.S. ...

"What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!"

-- All I can say is that if Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the folks over at a place like Townhall get to have a say, then so should MM. I have spent some time reading the 'arguments' that the right-wing 'commentators' make on a daily basis and hey, if they can spout jibberish and make blatant straw-men arguments, then MM can take the time to make a movie. There is considerably more 'fact' in MM than in the majority of articles that I've read from the right. Like they often say over at Townhall, if you don't like the arguments, then don't listen.

"Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please."

-- Yeah, I'm amazed how many times the 'sheep' fall for the argument that lower taxes and less social programs will improve your lives argument. People are sheep and they are manipulated by a number of arguments. Generally speaking, the more simplistic the argument, the easier it is to sway them. This is a tactic used by both the left and the right because it is effective. I don't think you'd want to argue that the right isn't guilty of trying to manipulate the 'sheep' for their own gain would you?

"Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art."

-- Not sure I follow your argument here. Are you saying that people who support a non-Republican system don't work? Last I heard, there were a number of anti-Bush supporters even in the military. And if you're referring to Moore himself, I find it difficult to take stock in that argument. The Right is supported by some of the richest people in America who certainly wouldn't put themselves in harms way.

"If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job."

-- I think Moore has made it abundantly clear what he represents. What would others have done after 9/11 is hypothetical and lacks any merit for debate. The fact is that Bush has done what he has done and should be accountable for every decision. People like Moore are calling him on those decisions and G.W. should be able to defend them. In regards to what Kerry will do, I think that it's vital that people ask him that very question. I think everyone is in agreement on that point.

"One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it."

-- Yes, Spain 'blinked', there is no denying that. Despite the arguments of the right, I don't think there are very many on the left that are hoping the US doesn't succeed in Iraq. I find it quite appauling that the commentators on the right tell people that MM and others cheer when they hear that American soldiers are killed. That is perhaps the most disgusting 'straw-man' argument that I have ever heard. Nothing would please people more than for the US to 'win' using their current course of action. The people on the left are simply arguing that this current course will make things worse in the long run, not better. I personally like what Moore said in an interview...he said that the difference between the left and the right in the US is that immediately after 9/11, the only question the right asked was "who?". The people on the left added another question of equal or greater importance..."why?".

[piece-it pete]

-- All I can say is that if Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the folks over at a place like Townhall get to have a say, then so should MM. I have spent some time reading the 'arguments' that the right-wing 'commentators' make on a daily basis and hey, if they can spout jibberish and make blatant straw-men arguments, then MM can take the time to make a movie. There is considerably more 'fact' in MM than in the majority of articles that I've read from the right. Like they often say over at Townhall, if you don't like the arguments, then don't listen.

-- Yeah, I'm amazed how many times the 'sheep' fall for the argument that lower taxes and less social programs will improve your lives argument.



Sorry to keep butting in Keith, but.

I agree 100% about the Rush thing, MM is always free to speak as he sees fit, but we don't have to respect him. We haven't come here and talked about the "latest thing" Rush has said, and I've certainly never defended the guy.

Lower taxes and less social programs: have clearly and absolutely worked, we are a wealthy nation. The proof is in the pudding, and our pudding's been pretty darn good!

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...the bits and pieces, just some generalizations...

Who do you think gets more attention? A "Rush Limbaugh"-type or someone like a Susan Sarandon...Why might that be? The liberal mass-media et al holds more sway over the sheep...OOOH, entertain me and tell me what I should think or wear or drink or drive...I doubt Rush has as much impact as Jenifer Anistons hair...he would seem to be preaching to the choir...the only press the Right gets is when some Liberal-type b!tches about it...

Like it or not, less government IS better government...although, I thought the tax cut useless towards any end...

" Are you saying that people who support a non-Republican system don't work?"

No, I'm saying this:

"Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art."

...no more, no less...BTW, I think nearly all politicians are swine and all the ones who are lawyers even more so...

The liberals asked "...why?..."

My response: Israel. We(the U.S.) have brought it on ourselves by supporting nazis of a different stripe...bet you won't see many of the liberals come up with that as an answer...nope, nope, nope, it's all Dubyas fault...

jimHJJ(...nope...)

[RGA]

Throughout history artists have use their art for political discussion from Shakespeare to Ibsen to Twain to Michael Moore. It is to get people to think and to eventually act. I can imagine the audiences first watching A Dolls House or Hedda Gabler shocked that a woman would exhibit free will - what a backlash of society to allow women a voice - the right wing religious types would have lynched Ibsen a decade earlier. Naturally such individuals today are saying the same thing "Yo Ibsen, Shakespeare get a real job" We don't want our women thinking they can be free - and 60's America we sure as hell don't want black folk to think they can be free - no our right wing interests would rather keep them down - but it was LEFT artists and thinkers who got these things overturned in large part - the Right? hell the Right are those that allow Hitler to sneak in and who are the root of stepping ont he throats of the poor to keep their riches and power intact - throughout history.

Yes you can promote, like Bush, this anti-academia - I mean Hitler wanted books burnt so it's hardly surprising - it is after all only a a few generations later - History is a good way to teach people to perfect violence and control of media - and Jerry Fallwell doesn't want people to live their lives as they see fit - no because the bible is telling us all what to do.

As Bill Maher said there are people who vote Republican and then there are the sane people. There are no gray areas with Right Wing types(as there isn't in religion) everything is either black or white (good and evil - Heaven how many morons in the US were lapping up "We're going to get the Evil doers" statements? Bush's tag lines were to simplify like in poor melodramas the black hat versus the white hat - evil doers and the champions of democracy and freedom? Freedom - now that's a whole other thing. We're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq - be serious. What we are bringing is profit to Haliburton - and Michael Moore has a nice inside track on that as well - nothing new there that has already been proven. What does Haliburtan do again? And who uused to be the CEO and no doubt has loads invested? Oh but that is merely coincidence.

[piece-it pete]

Throughout history artists have use their art for political discussion from Shakespeare to Ibsen to Twain to Michael Moore. It is to get people to think and to eventually act. I can imagine the audiences first watching A Dolls House or Hedda Gabler shocked that a woman would exhibit free will - what a backlash of society to allow women a voice - the right wing religious types would have lynched Ibsen a decade earlier. Naturally such individuals today are saying the same thing "Yo Ibsen, Shakespeare get a real job" We don't want our women thinking they can be free - and 60's America we sure as hell don't want black folk to think they can be free - no our right wing interests would rather keep them down - but it was LEFT artists and thinkers who got these things overturned in large part - the Right? hell the Right are those that allow Hitler to sneak in and who are the root of stepping ont he throats of the poor to keep their riches and power intact - throughout history.

Yes you can promote, like Bush, this anti-academia - I mean Hitler wanted books burnt so it's hardly surprising - it is after all only a a few generations later - History is a good way to teach people to perfect violence and control of media - and Jerry Fallwell doesn't want people to live their lives as they see fit - no because the bible is telling us all what to do.

As Bill Maher said there are people who vote Republican and then there are the sane people. There are no gray areas with Right Wing types(as there isn't in religion) everything is either black or white (good and evil - Heaven how many morons in the US were lapping up "We're going to get the Evil doers" statements? Bush's tag lines were to simplify like in poor melodramas the black hat versus the white hat - evil doers and the champions of democracy and freedom? Freedom - now that's a whole other thing. We're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq - be serious. What we are bringing is profit to Haliburton - and Michael Moore has a nice inside track on that as well - nothing new there that has already been proven. What does Haliburtan do again? And who uused to be the CEO and no doubt has loads invested? Oh but that is merely coincidence.

RGA,

This is aperfect example of the mean spiritedness that elements of the left encourage.

You have intentionally referred to me, and other "insane" people here, as:

Bookburning Hitlerites,
Sexist throwbacks,
Lynching racists,
Exploiters of the poor,
Religious zealots,
Anti-academians,
Haters of all that's good in general.

Gosh, RGA! SO tolerant. What a kind person. I'll teach my kids to be just like you, a paragon of liberty and freedom in a hard, hard world.

WE aren't pushing regulation of free speech - you are. And we've done far more to help the average Iraqi - regardless of the reason - than YOU have, including the lives of our soldiers and the fruits of our labor. You? Hot air.

History? I figure you resort to petty name calling 'cause you have no legitimate argument. Prove me wrong, or go spout your hate elsewhere.

Pete

[RGA]

Ahh nice try. Michael Moore and acedimics are called useless wind-bags because they fight for a cause artisitcally and were referred to as not getting a real job. ARTISTS therefore = waste of space. Do you not see anything wrong with that equation. Should life be all about teaching children to make money and become accountants?

I am not equating every person on the right as those things - history has shown that those things ARE however derived from right wing ideals. Because things are put into boxes of good and evil because God told them so we don't get gray area arguments. You commit a crime - does not matter the reason stealing is ALWAYS wrong - hang him - Abortion is ALWAYS wrong - America is ALWAYS right in whatever the decision the president makes he's a Christian so nothing he does is EVER WRONG.

I make no bones about being anti-religion - I am not anti-God. It's not that I HATE religious people - but I do hate religious people telling me how to run my life. Sorry if I want to drink MYSELF into a stupor and smoke cigarrettes and Pot and subscribe to every porn magazine on the market and I want to have sex orgies with 12 people 7 nights a week then damn it I will. I don;t need some religious goon to tell me that because God says -- err a book written by man says -- that this year Alcohol is illegal and creates a bunch of stupid laws based on majority rules invented and put to a constitution buy a bunch of hethans 200 years ago that this applies today.

The governement's job is to stay the hell out of my business. The government's job is to keep people treating others the way others wish to be treated. The only RELEVANT commandment invcented way before religion or Christianity is "Treat others the way you wish to be treated." We would like others to help us if we're sick and we would do the same = Medical care. We don't want people to kill us or steal from us = a police force and a justice system that attempts to right wrongs. To oversee the building of roads and buildings. And DEFENSE not an OFFENSIVE military just in case other societies like Iraq have a nut-job in charge that does not believe in the basic live and let live philosophy.

Homeland security in your United States is an example of ONE STEP closer to destroying the fundamental thing America supposedly stands for and supposedly believes in and you don't even see it because God, GUNS and BUsh will protect you. You wouldn't need any of these if you followed the only commandment above that matters - the rest are all man made and redundant if people actually used a brain and reason. "Though shalt not Kill" no freakin kidding because that's not the way I would wanted to be treated??

I don't mind if people want Religion running their life - I have no doubt it is comforting to believe that after death there is more and that you can be forgiven by some entitiy all your sins. So if I kill thousands to keep my hummer on the road hey I will be forgiven because I accepted Jesus as the true saviour. That is just nut-so scary stuff to me. And that is what is in charge of the most powerful weaponry on the planet. And if your so scared of terrorist attacks then please refute the part of Moore's film about the coastal defense along Oregon's coast line.

Here is the future of the United states under Homeland Security:

Ordering Pizza in 2008:

Operator: "Thank you for calling Pizza Hut. May I have your national ID
number?"

Customer: "Hi, I'd like to place an order."

Operator: "I must have your NIDN first, sir?"

Customer: "My National ID Number, yeah, hold on, eh, it's
6102049998-45-54610."

Operator: "Thank you, Mr. Sheehan. I see you live at 1742 Meadowland Drive,
and the phone number's 494-2366. Your office number over at Lincoln
Insurance is 745-2302 and your cell number's 266-2566. Email address is
sheehan@ home.net. Which
number are you calling from, sir?"

Customer: "Huh? I'm at home. Where d'ya get all this information?"

Operator: "We're wired into the HSS, sir."

Customer: "The HSS, what is that?"

Operator: "We're wired into the Homeland Security System, sir. This will add
only 15 seconds to your ordering time"

Customer: (Sighs) "Oh, well, I'd like to order a couple of your All-Meat
Special pizzas."

Operator: "I don't think that's a good idea, sir."

Customer: "Whaddya mean?"

Operator: "Sir, your medical records and commode sensors indicate that you
ve got very high blood pressure and extremely high cholesterol. Your
National Health Care provider won't allow such an unhealthy choice."

Customer: "What?!?! What do you recommend, then?"

Operator: "You might try our low-fat Soybean Pizza. I'm sure you'll like it.


Customer: "What makes you think I'd like something like that?"

Operator: "Well, you checked out 'Gourmet Soybean Recipes' from your local
library last week, sir. That's why I made the suggestion."

Customer: "All right, all right. Give me two family-sized ones, then."

Operator: "That should be plenty for you, your wife and your four kids, and
your 2 dogs can finish the crusts, sir. Your total is $49.99."

Customer: "Lemme give you my credit card number."

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid you'll have to pay in cash. Your
credit card balance is over its limit."

Customer: "I'll run over to the ATM and get some cash before your driver
gets here."

Operator: "That won't work either, sir. Your checking account's overdrawn
also."

Customer: "Never mind! Just send the pizzas. I'll have the cash ready. How
long will it take?"

Operator: "We're running a little behind, sir. It'll be about 45 minutes,
sir. If you're in a hurry you might want to pick 'em up while you're out
getting the cash, but then, carrying pizzas on a motorcycle can be a little
awkward."

Customer: "Wait! How do you know I ride a scooter?"

Operator: "It says here you're in arrears on your car payments, so your car
got repo'ed. But your Harley's paid for and you just filled the tank
yesterday"

Customer: Well I'll be a "@#%/$@&?#!"

Operator: "I'd advise watching your language, sir. You've already got a July
4, 2006 conviction for cussing out a cop and another one I see here on
September for contempt at your hearing for cussing at a judge." "Oh yes I
see here that you just got out from a 90 day stay in the State Correctional
Facility. Is this your first pizza since your return to society?

Customer: (Speechless)

Operator: "Will there be anything else, sir?"

Customer: "Yes, I have a coupon for a free 2 liter of Coke".

Operator: "I'm sorry sir, but our ad's exclusionary clause prevents us from
offering free soda to diabetics. The New Constitution prohibits this.

Thank you for calling Pizza Hut!"

[Beckman]

Lower taxes and less social programs: have clearly and absolutely worked, we are a wealthy nation. The proof is in the pudding, and our pudding's been pretty darn good!

Pete

What about the great depression? That pudding didn't taste too good. Lower taxes and less social programs clearly and absolutely didn't work.

All that I know for sure is that:
Bush is a crook.
Kerry is a crook.
Michael Moore is a crook.

[okiemax]

Sorry to keep butting in Keith, but.

I agree 100% about the Rush thing, MM is always free to speak as he sees fit, but we don't have to respect him. We haven't come here and talked about the "latest thing" Rush has said, and I've certainly never defended the guy.

Lower taxes and less social programs: have clearly and absolutely worked, we are a wealthy nation. The proof is in the pudding, and our pudding's been pretty darn good!

Pete

The Bush Administration has reduced taxes without offsetting reductions in spending, thus increasing the National debt. Reductions in tax rates have been greatest for the wealthy, but future taxes for payment on the debt will be a liability for Americans at all income levels. In effect, the poor and the middle classes of tomorrow will be paying for what today's wealthy are enjoying. This is a "Robin Hood in reverse" tax policy.

[RGA]

The Bush Administration has reduced taxes without offsetting reductions in spending, thus increasing the National debt. Reductions in tax rates have been greatest for the wealthy, but future taxes for payment on the debt will be a liability for Americans at all income levels. In effect, the poor and the middle classes of tomorrow will be paying for what today's wealthy are enjoying. This is a "Robin Hood in reverse" tax policy.

And why would Bush and everyone working for him care - their companies are the ones gaining BILLIONS of dollars - when Bush is out of office what does it matter if the economy is horrible - Bush/Cheney etc got theirs.

Would the democrats be any better? Can't say - Michael Morre in his book blasted Clinton too...have not read his book - a look inside the whole system might be in order. Why you only have two parties is silly - get some new blood in there...maybe a Communist party just for fun

[Mash]

"Would the democrats be any better? Can't say - Michael Morre in his book blasted Clinton too...have not read his book - a look inside the whole system might be in order. Why you only have two parties is silly - get some new blood in there...maybe a Communist party just for fun"

Yea- you would get a LOT of new blood with the Communists, considering what Mao-ze-dingdong did in China and what Uncle Joe Stalin did in the Soviet Union.... Uncle Joe beat out Uncle Adolph in the Kill-a-Citizen Contest by three to one. So.... you would maybe like a free all-expenses-paid Gulag Vacation?

[RGA]

Okay - Marxism instead of communism.

All the isms seem to develop out of each other - none of them are worth a damn.'

The best one is Star Trekism. And the fact that humankind can dream it - then with some work we can make it happen. Idealism? you bet but what a sad little world it would be without a healthy dose of that.

[Keith from Canada]

...the bits and pieces, just some generalizations...

Who do you think gets more attention? A "Rush Limbaugh"-type or someone like a Susan Sarandon...Why might that be? The liberal mass-media et al holds more sway over the sheep...OOOH, entertain me and tell me what I should think or wear or drink or drive...I doubt Rush has as much impact as Jenifer Anistons hair...he would seem to be preaching to the choir...the only press the Right gets is when some Liberal-type b!tches about it...



Who gets more attention...let's see...Rush Limbaugh is played across the country everyday and has access to an estimated 20 million people EVERY DAY. Susan Sarandon makes a comment or two one day and is wiped under the rug the next.

This notion that the 'liberal mass-media' controls the thoughts of the nation is just about the biggest bit of conspiracy theory that has been trotted out by the right IMHO. In terms of mass television media, all I can say is that CNN, America's "most watched" news source is far more right leaning and biased than anything that we get here in Canada. If you want to see the 'other' side of the war in Iraq, you best start watching the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage because you sure aren't going to see that type of reporting on CNN or any other US news station for that matter. A few nights ago, I watched a documentary that analyzed the rising number of religious radicals that have surfaced throughout the Middle East since the US war on terror began. Over a year ago, I watched a documentary that outlined virtually all of the facts used in MM's film. I watch CNN and other US news broadcasts nightly and have never heard that kind of reporting. As far as I'm concerned, the US networks, especially CNN, are very one-sided in their coverage and that one-side leans to the right, not the left as so many conservatives have argued.

[piece-it pete]

Just a quick note....

Looking back over this thread, it's great, the thing that stands out is our freedom to say what we believe.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

... " Michael Moore and acedimics are called useless wind-bags because they fight for a cause artisitcally and were referred to as not getting a real job..."

I stated MM and other media-types...academics never came into the picture, watch dem Ps&Qs...If I remember me Monty Python correctly, it was Oscar Wilde who said : There is only one thing worse than being talked about and that is NOT being talked about". That's MM in a nutshell...He stands to make a profit in all this, and Lord knows he couldn't buy better ad time...Oh yeah sure, his is an honorable fight, altruism at it's purest.

"...ARTISTS therefore = waste of space. Do you not see anything wrong with that equation..."

That wasn't said either...art has it's place...but it surely doesn't put a roof over the heads of those who need one, nor food in the belly or knowledge in yer head.

"...Should life be all about teaching children to make money and become accountants?..."

Never was said, your inference is self-serving...children should be taught how to build those houses, plant those crops and further, taught so they might teach the others that follow...

"...I am not equating every person on the right as those things - history has shown that those things ARE however derived from right wing ideals. Because things are put into boxes of good and evil because God told them so we don't get gray area arguments..."

Something wrong with the simplicity of good and bad? It's those gray areas that let individuals apply misguided reasoning to daily life...no one is looking,should I bother to stop for the STOP sign, should I eat this snack in the store and not pay for it? That sort of thing, like "...it all depends on what your definition of is is..."

"...You commit a crime - does not matter the reason stealing is ALWAYS wrong - hang him..."

YOU are the one oversimplifying things...stealing IS always wrong...extenuating circumstances are handled by the legal system...with full admittance that no system is fool-proof.

"... Abortion is ALWAYS wrong..."

When used as an after-the-fact method of birth control, yes it is IMHO...personal responsibility and/ or abstinence plus the availability of pre-conception methodology renders it so.

"...America is ALWAYS right in whatever the decision the president makes he's a Christian so nothing he does is EVER WRONG..."

Eisenhower was wrong...we should have kept our distance from the zionist nazis in Israel...

Kennedy was wrong...in selling Hawk missles to the zionist state, in the Bay of Pigs, in Vietnam...

Johnson was wrong...in Vietnam...

Nixon was wrong...for being a fool with Watergate...

Carter was wrong...for being ineffectual...

Regan was wrong...for Iran/Contra...

Bush Sr. was wrong...for not finishing-off Saddam the first time...

Clinton was wrong...just plain wrong...for any number of things...

Dubya???...I wouldn't give his troubles to a monkey on a rock!...only history will tell...

"...I make no bones about being anti-religion - I am not anti-God. It's not that I HATE religious people - but I do hate religious people telling me how to run my life. Sorry if I want to drink MYSELF into a stupor and smoke cigarrettes and Pot and subscribe to every porn magazine on the market and I want to have sex orgies with 12 people 7 nights a week then damn it I will..."

Drink all you want, just stay out of your car...and don't run to the government, health insurance or me lookin' for that new liver...be my guest...God(if there is one) allows you that freedom of choice...smoke all you want, just don't subject me or anyone else to your toxic 2nd-hand stench...ditto on the car when your doin' herb...screw all you want, drain yourself dry, maybe you'll aquire the gift that keeps on giving or something worse...we could stand to thin-out the herd...

"...I don;t need some religious goon to tell me that because God says -- err a book written by man says -- that this year Alcohol is illegal and creates a bunch of stupid laws based on majority rules invented and put to a constitution buy a bunch of hethans 200 years ago that this applies today..."

Now, now...remember that separation of church and state...the Mosaic food laws and other guidelines had valid reasons to be codified...Heathens a mere 200 yrs. ago? Hmmm...actually they say it was the "Age Of Enlightenment" and the Constitution is often reffered to as a living document...but what does everyone else know compared to YOU?

"...The governement's job is to stay the hell out of my business..."

Oh, so you ARE a closet Republican and a conservative one at that!

And with regard to your Pizza-Hut bit...your phone number and drivers license ID can provide a ton of info on you...all that data pre-dates 9/11 AND Homeland Security...

jimHJJ(...and your "golden rule"...guess where it comes from...the Bible...New Testament...and BTW, Afghanistan and Iraq can be considered DEFENSIVE now, can't they? Maybe if GORE did it?...and those guns? There may come a time you will be ever so grateful to the NRA...)

[Justlisten2]

My 20 year old son saw the movie a week before I did, I just saw it yesterday. He warned my wife and I, that there was horrible graphic war footage that upset him. After viewing the movie, I had a revelation. The film didn't seem all that graphic to my wife or myself. However, we were raised watching the Vietnam war on television while eating dinner. Dead and mutilated babies were not new to us. The revelation I had was this: It seems that the lesson our government learned from the Vietnam war was to control the media. If you control the media, you can control what people see and hear, thereby control how the think and respond. No more field reporters and cameras on the battlefield. We'll just tell the media that our weapons are clean and 'surgical', and they can pass the word on to our constituants that we're just killing 'bad guys'. No need to see for yourself, we're your government, you can trust us..... ;)

That's why my son was so stunned, he'd never really seen war on TV. The media is under government control now. So when the govenment says this will not be another Vietnam, you have to believe them. It's all in their control. They learned their lesson, don't let civilians see the war.

[piece-it pete]

Justlisten2,

Just look :) for the BBC world news. War is always hell.

Pete

[RGA]

Treat others as you would have treat you - was put to paper but was already being lived. The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless.

Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property.

Michael Moore is an artist - the film in that realm is terrific. It happens to be about a subject matter some people won't like - well the War Zone is about insest and was probably one of the best 10 films I saw during the 1990's - so was Pulp FIction and some would be turned off by its violence - but they are artistically crafted.

Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years - since his high school days fighting what he felt was injustice then. You may disagree with him that is fine - but he believes in what he says - this film is making a lot of money so. It's the same stupid argument that a small hick band is great but as soon as they sell a million copies they're now considered a sell-out band.

Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada. No staying out of my business is being a Libertarian.

Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true.

There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions.

Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system.

On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different.

[piece-it pete]

Treat others as you would have treat you - was put to paper but was already being lived. The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless.

Interesting that that drivel is the basis for the highly successful system enjoyed by the western world.


Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property.

Apparently the Founders' view of separation of Church and State is different from your own.


Michael Moore is an artist - the film in that realm is terrific. It happens to be about a subject matter some people won't like - well the War Zone is about insest and was probably one of the best 10 films I saw during the 1990's - so was Pulp FIction and some would be turned off by its violence - but they are artistically crafted.

Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years - since his high school days fighting what he felt was injustice then. You may disagree with him that is fine - but he believes in what he says - this film is making a lot of money so. It's the same stupid argument that a small hick band is great but as soon as they sell a million copies they're now considered a sell-out band.

You are calling MMs' work fiction? Then what is this all about?


Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada. No staying out of my business is being a Libertarian.

So the benefit is OK regardless? Isn't that the fear of "Mob rules"?


Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true.

Lieing about the reason. The reason is oil. "Real" instability in the ME would lead to the death of 100s' of thousands, if not millions, due to lack of aid money from weathy nations, due to worldwide depression. Of course those in wealth countries would not starve.


There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions.

Not everyone agrees with, say, gay "marriage", but you would have the courts force that one. A or B? Or are you pulling a Kerry?



Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system.

See comment about the civilization in which you live, above.


On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different.

What about incest, man/boy love, etc? And don't give me that crap about it being different. It's only a matter of degree, not of kind, it is still gov't cohersion.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

...talkin' a furrin' language!

"...Treat others as you would have treat you..."

In the New Testament..."Love thy neighbor as thyself"

"The Bible is for people afraid of death wanting something to look forward to. Drivel - well witten drivel but drivel nevertheless..."

No, that's religion... Marx's panacea for the masses...the Bible is history, geneology, codification of laws and precepts, analogies and lessons using rudimentary and simplistic styles tailored for it's audience, that sort of thing...never read it didya'?

"Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property"

What war did the US start over religious reasons? Tell me, as a history student I musta' had chicken pox or something, missed that one...Imperialism, Manifest Destiny, States Rights...got me on that...More wars have been fought in the name of God than any other reason, none started by the USofA. Ali Baba and the boys, that's a whole other thing...

"...Michael Moore is an artist..."

LOL - so was the chimp with a paintbrush whose "work" sold a Sotheby's for a tidy sum...

"...Documentarys make pathetic money - he's been doing this for years..."

Obviously pays well enough to keep him fed...

"Keeping the government out of my business is not a Right wing thing - it can be because they tout smaller government but offerring free medical and free prescriptions drugs is not really in MY business but it is a benefit to me. And of course it's not free because the left will tax higher to spread these bbenefits around - see Canada..."

You seem conflicted on this one...ever consider politics?

"...Black and white - yes some issues are some are not - it's all black and white to the religious right. Going into Iraq - Saddam is an evil doer...that would be fine if it were true. I'm glad they got the bastard - but please don't lie to me about the reason why - and yes the reason is important. Plenty of other dictators who are not sitting on oil are just as bad if not worse than Saddam. America is happily sucking 3 million gallons(or was it 3 million dollars worth - either way) of oil per hour out of Iraq as we speak - heck even CNN reported it so it must be true..."

If Gore had done it, would it be okay? If getting Iraq's economy going to pay for the work we do re-building their infrastructure(in shambles long before our invasion) is a problem, I don't see it. Is CNNs sources as reliable as the NY Times?

"...There are black and white laws built on the basis that everyone agrees - stop at a stop sign to protect yourself and others (treat other as you would have them treat you) which is not slamming into you at interestions. Moral issues are not as clear cut - they may be all set in tone according to Bible thumpers - but some of us are intelligent not to rely on such voodoo nonsense. It was perfectly acceptable for them to string up black folk and burn people they thought were witches. Interestingly there is a witch on my campus - nothing to fear from their religious belief system...."

Bible folk did lynchings? You mean the KKK? Oh, the burning crosses...I think their "religion" was secondary at best...there are extremists in every group....perhaps it was the just Scots-Irish and English, perhaps religion played no part...simply terror, intimidation....Witches weren't burned, they were hanged, generally...one in Salem was pressed...them pesky Puritans...they were burned and drowned and tortured in Europe, not here...

"...On issues of abortion my BELIEF is that it should be a last resort and shouldnot be used as birth control because some idiot forgot to buy a condom. But MY belief is irrelevant - it's up to the party concerned not me sticking my nose into their business because MY belief is different..."

Well, like the song says "...you have to believe in something or you'll fall for anything..."

jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

[karl k]

...talkin' a furrin' language!


"...Treat others as you would have treat you..."
In the New Testament..."Love thy neighbor as thyself"
"Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church. :D



"Separation of church and State - looks good on paper but not a reality - War is fought over religion and property"

What war did the US start over religious reasons? Tell me, as a history student I musta' had chicken pox or something, missed that one...Imperialism, Manifest Destiny, States Rights...got me on that...More wars have been fought in the name of God than any other reason, none started by the USofA. Ali Baba and the boys, that's a whole other thing...
Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life.


"...Michael Moore is an artist..."

LOL - so was the chimp with a paintbrush whose "work" sold a Sotheby's for a tidy sum...
Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with.


jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

[karl k]

I saw this as a local matinee - Friday was Sold out both shows in my town and pretty full for a Sat Matinee.

I have to say whether I agree with Michael Moore aside his films are damn entertaining. This time he's not in it very much at all and basically lets the politicians let them contradict themselves. It's humourous, sad, angry and unabashadly anti - George W. Bush.

There is nothing necessarily new about most of what has presented - but the advantage of any two hour film is that Moore can get what one person said on tape in 2001 and then what the same person says now - nothing new about Politicians who say the exact opposite things but most people do forget when 2 or 3 years go by.

Some parts he does not follow up - and leaves it more inuendo than fact - but it's rarely weak inuendo and there are a lot of things that should get Americans questioning certain aspects of the film. I would be surprised quite frankly if even die-hard Republicans would not find much in here to at the very least raise an eyebrow at a number of things. Moore managed to get some pretty interesting documents and interviews with cabinet members.

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers - So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped - especially certain documents that he attained before the white house blacked out certain sections - CNN got that copy and fed to the people Moore got the uncensored version that we now get in this movie.

Making Bush look silly isn't tough nor is it a real strength in the movie as we all know he is a terrible communicator - but some things you just have to chuckle at.

One weakness is when he talks about the coalition of the willing - he needs to be careful not to weaken his position with omission. Not including the entirety of the facts is a lie of omission and if there is an issue this is it. I can give him a bit of a break because it would be tough on this film-maker's resources to be able to dig in OTHER countries records and that undertaking would be gigantic. He is saved too by the fact that Bush himself was never overly open about it himself.

This is one of the best movies for a movies sake I've seen in a long time - I don't buy all the arguements - some however are undeniable and the film does what you want from an entertainment - Can upset you in one scene and make you laugh out loud a few minutes later. It is one of the few that I've been to that have had people clap at the end. You anti-Moore people just go and have a laugh. I'm probably more left being from Canada but I still enjoy a good joke from Dennis Miller.
because I wanted to see if something would happen. Simply put, I was looking for the moment that someone would be opinionated enough to "ban" the film (that would inevitably be a big hit at the box office) from being viewed by the public. I got wind of such action on my vacation this weekend.

http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=72652&t=16

I recall the same thing happening to "The last temptation of Christ" back in the late 80's or early 90's by Multimedia Cablevision Inc. I think it's a shame that someone has to be the lookout for the moral and ethic welfare of myself and others instead of allowing me and others the right/priveledge of making up my own mind about such things.

How much longer will we be able to experience fiction/non fiction in whatever form before someone out there decides they know what's best for me and institutes total control over what myself and others will experience?

Censorship like this is always targeted at preventing people from asking questions and forming their own opinion. Here's something I ran across in a search for the previous link. It is an interesting read from "A" Michael Moore.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/070504F.shtml

I haven't seen the movie and therefore have no opinion on it's content except for that I should have the oppurtunity to view it and decide for myself whether and to what degree it is factual or not.

[Woochifer]

Got to check out Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend and here's my overall reaction to it.

It's got some rough spots, but for the most part it airs out a lot of relevant items that simply have not seen the light of day. Most of what was presented in the movie I have either read before or seen citations through other articles. The information's out there, it's just not easy to find and does not get a lot of attention through the conventional media sources. Michael Moore's not reinventing the wheel, but he is rounding together a lot of information from a multitude of sources, most of which have been verified by more than one source. Having all these disparate bits of underreported information woven together with more well-known and widely reported stories IMO forms a very coherent set of arguments. You can accept it or reject it, but most of what the film presented is simply developing a thesis and supporting the argument. I haven't seen too many credible contradictions pointing out factual errors in the film, and unlike Bowling for Columbine, this movie does not focus on statistics that can be easily contradicted.

To me, the most damning parts of the film are simply letting Bush and his staffers deflate their own arguments in their own words. Seeing Condi and Powell in their pre-9/11 assessments of terrorism and the Iraq threat is pretty devastating, as is the set of mixed messages shown in how citizens should respond to terrorist threats (do we live our lives, or do we change our ways due to elevated terrorist threats?).

The other effective aspect of the film is pointing out who pays the price for war, and who benefits from it. Interviewing wounded veterans at a VA hospital is something that I've hardly seen at all on TV, and that is a sorely needed perspective. Also, very interesting to hear a soldier, who earns less than $2k/month while getting put in harm's way on a daily basis, talking about how Halliburton's contractors earn $10k/month driving "the same 2 1/2 miles every day". And seeing all those businesses just talking about Iraq as an opportunity to make a boatload of money came across to me as both brutally honest and very distasteful.

Less effective, I think, are some of the arguments about the Saudi connections and the Afghan pipeline. This heavily relies on the Craig Unger book, and a lot of the contentions presented there remain controversial, with not all of it independently verified.

But, the one part of the Saudi story that I thought was thought provoking was the question of why members of the bin Laden family were allowed to leave the country while the national airspace was grounded. This has been one of the stories that right-wing commentators have cited as a factual reach, but in fact last month, officials at Tampa International Airport verified that a flight with Saudi nationals on board had in fact left the airport with special clearance from somebody in the executive branch. As one of the interviewees pointed out, in a murder investigation, the prime suspect's family members are almost always at least interviewed, and to this date, none of the bin Laden family members have been interviewed by U.S. officials.

I also thought that some of the war footage was tacked on for shock value, rather something that adds to the overall argument. And the "before" shots of Baghdad were not necessary at all, and really the only part of the film that I thought played right into Moore's critics.

Another nitpick is that Moore did not point out any of the connections between the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), whose signatories read like a who's who of Bush's foreign policy team, and Bush's foreign policy. Just citing some of the passages from the PNAC statement of principles is eerie in terms of how it lays out a blueprint for how the Administration reacted to 9/11, and the real goals for a post-Saddam Iraq. To me, this is much more persuasive than a lot of the Saudi arguments.

Not a lot of Moore's typical "man on the street" interviews either. In general, they were not as effective with what Fahrenheit 9/11 was trying to present. The only "man on the street" parts of the movie that I found amusing were when he corraled the ice cream truck in D.C. and read the Patriot Act over the megaphone, and when he tried to get congressmen to enlist their kids in the military while pointing out that only one member of Congress has a son serving in Iraq.

Overall, this is a different movie from what Moore typically puts out. It has its share of Moore's trademark sarcasm and gotcha interviews, but it has an edgier and more serious undercurrent to it. In a way, it's more persuasive precisely because Moore took more of a hands off approach to making the argument than his previous movies. The first half of the movie was a pretty typical Moore approach of making sarcastic voiceovers and generally presenting the administration officials as hypocritical buffoons in their own words. The second half of the movie got overly preachy at times, but there's no doubt that in Moore's view, this is a story that must be told. And frankly, I think a healthy debate over the substance of the movie's message can only be a good thing in an election year. If the movie's detractors decide to quibble about nitpicky details, rather than focus on the merits of the big picture, then they only serve to reinforce Moore's arguments by default, which would be a shame.

[Woochifer]

Moore's Public Service
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: July 2, 2004
Since it opened, "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been a hit in both blue and red America, even at theaters close to military bases. Last Saturday, Dale Earnhardt Jr. took his Nascar crew to see it. The film's appeal to working-class Americans, who are the true victims of George Bush's policies, should give pause to its critics, especially the nervous liberals rushing to disassociate themselves from Michael Moore.

There has been much tut-tutting by pundits who complain that the movie, though it has yet to be caught in any major factual errors, uses association and innuendo to create false impressions. Many of these same pundits consider it bad form to make a big fuss about the Bush administration's use of association and innuendo to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Why hold a self-proclaimed polemicist to a higher standard than you hold the president of the United States?

And for all its flaws, "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service. It would be a better movie if it didn't promote a few unproven conspiracy theories, but those theories aren't the reason why millions of people who aren't die-hard Bush-haters are flocking to see it. These people see the film to learn true stories they should have heard elsewhere, but didn't. Mr. Moore may not be considered respectable, but his film is a hit because the respectable media haven't been doing their job.

For example, audiences are shocked by the now-famous seven minutes, when George Bush knew the nation was under attack but continued reading "My Pet Goat" with a group of children. Nobody had told them that the tales of Mr. Bush's decisiveness and bravery on that day were pure fiction.

Or consider the Bush family's ties to the Saudis. The film suggests that Mr. Bush and his good friend Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the ambassador known to the family as Bandar Bush, have tried to cover up the extent of Saudi involvement in terrorism. This may or may not be true. But what shocks people, I think, is the fact that nobody told them about this side of Mr. Bush's life.

Mr. Bush's carefully constructed persona is that of an all-American regular guy — not like his suspiciously cosmopolitan opponent, with his patrician air. The news media have cheerfully gone along with the pretense. How many stories have you seen contrasting John Kerry's upper-crusty vacation on Nantucket with Mr. Bush's down-home time at the ranch?

But the reality, revealed by Mr. Moore, is that Mr. Bush has always lived in a bubble of privilege. And his family, far from consisting of regular folks with deep roots in the heartland, is deeply enmeshed, financially and personally, with foreign elites — with the Saudis in particular.

Mr. Moore's greatest strength is a real empathy with working-class Americans that most journalists lack. Having stripped away Mr. Bush's common-man mask, he uses his film to make the case, in a way statistics never could, that Mr. Bush's policies favor a narrow elite at the expense of less fortunate Americans — sometimes, indeed, at the cost of their lives.

In a nation where the affluent rarely serve in the military, Mr. Moore follows Marine recruiters as they trawl the malls of depressed communities, where enlistment is the only way for young men and women to escape poverty. He shows corporate executives at a lavish conference on Iraq, nibbling on canapés and exulting over the profit opportunities, then shows the terrible price paid by the soldiers creating those opportunities.

The movie's moral core is a harrowing portrait of a grieving mother who encouraged her children to join the military because it was the only way they could pay for their education, and who lost her son in a war whose justification she no longer understands.

Viewers may come away from Mr. Moore's movie believing some things that probably aren't true. For example, the film talks a lot about Unocal's plans for a pipeline across Afghanistan, which I doubt had much impact on the course of the Afghan war. Someday, when the crisis of American democracy is over, I'll probably find myself berating Mr. Moore, who supported Ralph Nader in 2000, for his simplistic antiglobalization views.

But not now. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is a tendentious, flawed movie, but it tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain, and the ordinary Americans who paid the price.

[RGA]

Other than the whole oil argument which while not provable is interesting from a Haliburton/Cheney perspective. Sonce They're pulling so much oil out as we speak on some argument of Iraq paying for the war they didn't start - you wonder.

The film was enjoyable - if all it does is get people voting and arguing and TALKING about issues instead of sports teams and reality tv shows your country and all countries are better for it. You have the most powerful country in the world which affects MY country and the rest of the planet - And for this I would at least hope that those of you in your country would spend a few minutes and VOTE. If not for your sakes then the rest of the world's. When people look at Bush as a dictator who stole the election with the help of Jeb and fellow cronies - whether it's true or not if the other half of the voting public had actually voted we might not be complaining.

The voting process here is so much easier and when all that hanging chad crap happened I was thinking - "why not start again" a "Do Over" especially in a close race.

Most people who don't vote are I bet are the poorer parts of your country - and most of them probably vote Left.

And as an aside have you seen what has gone on in Florida lately about the thousands of people left off the voters list - and the percentage of them who are Black Democrats. Shocking in my opinion and something that adds more fuel to a conspiracy fire.

[Lord_Magnepan]

Well i just cant wait until the movie gets to germany. I hope it does, otherwise my buddy needs to send me a copy as soon as it gets on DVD.

Over here in germany we all think those are the reasons for why Bush went into Iraq.

1. He wanted the oil
2. Daddy told him so
3. He used the "Terror" argument and abused the state of shock in the US

Some Facts

1. There was absolutly NO fact that proves that Iraq was a threat to the US in the
connection with Terrorism !
2. The US abandoned his partners over here in Europe
3. The Iraq people will never be Democratic !! There whole sosiety was based on a
dictatorship
4. 99% are religious fanatics. Women have a lower social class and it will never end.
5. The US made a breeding place for Terrorism.
6. The world aint saver now then it was before.

The thing that really pi**es me off is that America put themselves over the rest of the world. We are the best, We are right and you are wrong. The American News coverage is a joke, members of the US Army pissed people. Sexually abused prisioners, stopped the Red Cross from helping prisioners which were held in captivity for no apperant reason.

Now, i hate terrorism and i hate religious fanatics. But the US needs to get the facts straight.

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?

The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war. You guys stuck a bees nest and it will swarm you now, and if you wouldnt have put your thick head over the world, then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money.

Just my opinion.

PS: I do hope that you guys get out of there quicky and save. I used to live in the US for 5 yeras, and i think that the word "freedom" does not apply.

[Resident Loser]

""Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church. :D "

You know what I and the quote mean, the Bible has been dismissed as so much religious claptrap(which it may or may not be)...I merely pointed out the seeming dichotomy of the poster's statement: mentioning it, oblivious to its' Biblical roots...

"Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life."

Funny, I thought it was the totalitarianism of Stalin and statements like Kruschev's when he said "We will bury you", the Iron Curtain...more of the socio-political ideology as opposed to any particular religious bent...Any mention of "godless communism" was simply to further highlight the differences between those ideologies. You interpret it a some sort of "crusade"?

"Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with."

Discredited? How? I merely compared the work of two of the greater apes...a dictate of my muse...it's your interpretation of my artform that so characterizes it as anything else...

"jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)

It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."

One needs guidelines...the only sets I'm aware of in the Bible are the Ten Commandments in the Old testament and the New Testament's reduction of them to two by Christ, namely: loving God and loving ones neighbor as one self...Like the US Constitution, the last may open to some level of interpretation, but they provide the basis of recognizing good and bad, on or off, zeros and ones....

jimHJJ(...it's amazing how so many can criticize the Bilble without the slightest familiarity with it...)

[piece-it pete]

Well i just cant wait until the movie gets to germany. I hope it does, otherwise my buddy needs to send me a copy as soon as it gets on DVD.

Over here in germany we all think those are the reasons for why Bush went into Iraq.

1. He wanted the oil
2. Daddy told him so
3. He used the "Terror" argument and abused the state of shock in the US

Some Facts

1. There was absolutly NO fact that proves that Iraq was a threat to the US in the
connection with Terrorism !
2. The US abandoned his partners over here in Europe
3. The Iraq people will never be Democratic !! There whole sosiety was based on a
dictatorship
4. 99% are religious fanatics. Women have a lower social class and it will never end.
5. The US made a breeding place for Terrorism.
6. The world aint saver now then it was before.

The thing that really pi**es me off is that America put themselves over the rest of the world. We are the best, We are right and you are wrong. The American News coverage is a joke, members of the US Army pissed people. Sexually abused prisioners, stopped the Red Cross from helping prisioners which were held in captivity for no apperant reason.

Now, i hate terrorism and i hate religious fanatics. But the US needs to get the facts straight.

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?

How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?

The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war. You guys stuck a bees nest and it will swarm you now, and if you wouldnt have put your thick head over the world, then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money.

Just my opinion.

PS: I do hope that you guys get out of there quicky and save. I used to live in the US for 5 yeras, and i think that the word "freedom" does not apply.

Lord Magnepan,

Great name!

You guys thought the same thing thing about Reagan.

I'm not going to go point-by-point, I've done that and gotten NO responses other than "Bush is a bad guy".

The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis.

We've stationed troops in your country since ww2. Have we raped and looted it?

What about Russias' info? How much DON'T we know? I figure it'll be 15-25 years before all the facts come out.

And please explain why we here are not free.

Pete

PS Where's the swarm??

[Keith from Canada]

"The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis."

-- Again, this depends on how you look at it. The American military and the majority on the right view the war on Iraq as an "unmitigated success". Those who opt to take a critical stance argue that history will indeed tell the tale. If it is correct that the war has spawned an entirely new faction of religious fanatics throughout the Middle East and only worked to exacerbate hatred of the US and the West, then I would have to say that the war was an unmitigated failure. I for one find it incredibly difficult to believe that the war has in fact achieved its target and reduced the number of terrorists and their backers especially when you consider the fact that very few of the religious fanatics that make-up the terrorist organizations actually come from Iraq. The schools of hatred are continuing unabated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In regards to the political end, I quite agree, it is up to the Iraqis. If I were to cast a critical eye on that however, I would argue that the Iraqi people are not ready to govern themselves in a 'democracy'...especially one that is viewed as being backed by the US government. In doing so, the US is asking them to go against historically engrained religious and cultural beliefs that have been in place for thousands of years. I do not see a democracy unfolding anytime soon in Iraq.

Of course, on both accounts, I hope that I'm wrong...

[piece-it pete]

"The war in Iraq is an unmitigated success, and will go down in military history books. The political end? Up to the Iraqis."

-- Again, this depends on how you look at it. The American military and the majority on the right view the war on Iraq as an "unmitigated success". Those who opt to take a critical stance argue that history will indeed tell the tale. If it is correct that the war has spawned an entirely new faction of religious fanatics throughout the Middle East and only worked to exacerbate hatred of the US and the West, then I would have to say that the war was an unmitigated failure. I for one find it incredibly difficult to believe that the war has in fact achieved its target and reduced the number of terrorists and their backers especially when you consider the fact that very few of the religious fanatics that make-up the terrorist organizations actually come from Iraq. The schools of hatred are continuing unabated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

In regards to the political end, I quite agree, it is up to the Iraqis. If I were to cast a critical eye on that however, I would argue that the Iraqi people are not ready to govern themselves in a 'democracy'...especially one that is viewed as being backed by the US government. In doing so, the US is asking them to go against historically engrained religious and cultural beliefs that have been in place for thousands of years. I do not see a democracy unfolding anytime soon in Iraq.

Of course, on both accounts, I hope that I'm wrong...

Keith,

I wasn't very clear, I meant the actual "war" and the way it was handled will go into the books. As far as the terrorists, I agree, time will tell, we're just guessing to a large degree, and honest men can disagree.

The gov'ts of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now cracking down hard on these folks, they're a threat to those regimes as well. Again, who knows what the outcome will be?

We're on the same page with the Iraqis, as well. It seems doubtful that a true democracy will emerge. Look at the current Prime Minister, it's been said that he doesn't think so, either. However I think the Iraqis will be much happier under a benevolet dictatorship than Saddam or Iran. And frankly we're not too worried about that, we just need a non-aggresive Iraq for regional stability. But it IS the common Iraqis' big chance, I hope too that they succeed.

Pete

[Resident Loser]

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by beating your prisioners ?"

This from the country that practically invented concentration camps and ghettos!

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?"

Like Poland's threat to the Reich?

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by having a president which says that "GOD" told him so? <-- sorta fanatic isnt it????"

Didn't Uncle Adolph have a fortune teller?

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by putting yourself over the rest of the world?"

"Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles"...I think that's how the song goes...

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by abusing prisoners, beating prisoners, sexually abusing prisoners?"

"Dr. Mengele, paging Dr. Mengele"

"The war was and is a complete disaster, more people died after the war than in the war."

Who said that? Goebels? Himmler? Eichmann?

"... then maybe you would have some allies that stand beside you cause they think your right, and not becuase they need your money..."

Stop taking it then. If not for us "thick headed" Americans, Europe probably wouldn't exist...If not for us, there would still be TWO Germany's...that's of course if we didn't stop bombing you back into the stone-age!

jimHJJ(...Just MY opinion, Lord Magpie...)

[karl k]

"Loving thyself" is looked down upon by most in the church. :D "You know what I and the quote mean, the Bible has been dismissed as so much religious claptrap(which it may or may not be)...I merely pointed out the seeming dichotomy of the poster's statement: mentioning it, oblivious to its' Biblical roots...The two quotes(yours and RGA's) are one in the same. Whether it is quoted in the Bible or not, in the old or new testiment is irrelevent to me. Loving thyself as thy neighbor IMO leaves room for interpretation where "do unto others" does not... as much. FWIW, I do agree that what is written in the Bible does contain more than "religious claptrap".

"Loving thyself"... just having a little fun. :) An example of what can happen when you take the "word" too literally instead of figuratively.



"Seems to me the "Cold War" was essentually a war between the Christian way of life and the Athiest/Communist way of life."Funny, I thought it was the totalitarianism of Stalin and statements like Kruschev's when he said "We will bury you", the Iron Curtain...more of the socio-political ideology as opposed to any particular religious bent...Any mention of "godless communism" was simply to further highlight the differences between those ideologies. You interpret it a some sort of "crusade"?Isn't it also funny that difference, in that context, was brought up by us? I was only implying that WE used religion in an effort to rally support for that war and insite patriotism in our society. Don't kid yourself, there were alot of references to "Godless Communism" back in the 50's and 60's. Now that we look back on it, we tend to forget those moments for some reason much like we will forget about not finding the big cash of WMD's in another 50yrs.




"Art is always subjective. This doesn't mean it should be discredited because it is not understood or agreed with."Discredited? How? I merely compared the work of two of the greater apes...a dictate of my muse...it's your interpretation of my artform that so characterizes it as anything else...Touche'! Being a person of sarchasm myself, I should have recognized the artform.



"jimHJJ(...P.S.moral issues NEED to be as clear cut as possible...otherwise you get the Billary and Bubba Show...)


It seems you're implying a specific set of morals should be accepted by all in an effort to make life easier. While a noble cause, I maintain it is not a practicle one in light of the fact that everyone is an individual with their own belief and goals. I would also maintain that for humans to survive, the only clear moral needed can be expressed easily with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."One needs guidelines...the only sets I'm aware of in the Bible are the Ten Commandments in the Old testament and the New Testament's reduction of them to two by Christ, namely: loving God and loving ones neighbor as one self...Like the US Constitution, the last may open to some level of interpretation, but they provide the basis of recognizing good and bad, on or off, zeros and ones....Agreed. Although, the Bible also uses the stories within to backup the basic rules and expand on them so in reality, the whole book and its content are the set of guidelines... not just the commandments. While I am a believer in the commandments as a good guide to successfully living ones life, interfacing with others, and promoting the continuation of the human species, I don't subscribe to rest of the Bible as a black and white guide as others sometimes do.


jimHJJ(...it's amazing how so many can criticize the Bilble without the slightest familiarity with it...)It is also amazing how someone can be so familiar with it considering it's inherent openess to interpretation through the language it uses.


jimHJJ... is that Jim H junior junior? :D

[piece-it pete]

Karl,

That's not censorship, that's a private business and we have the same right to tell him what he can and can't play as he has to tell us what we can and can't watch!

I read that MM article, too. He makes it sound like we're living in the stone age, when actually we're living in a golden age. I wonder if he's actually picked up a history book and seen the misery that is the norm for us.

I will now go fly my flag as a weapon against those who question Americas' course, and as a muzzle to stuff in peoples' mouths.

Pete

[Lord_Magnepan]

This from the country that practically invented concentration camps and ghettos!

Thanks for riding in the past :-) Lets bring up who trained "Bin Laden", what about the Vietnam War. The first gulf war.

"How can you teach a "true" and "democratic way" by invading a country with "0" facts that this country is a threat to you ?"

Thanks again for bringing up the past, Vietnam, the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nakasaki after the war

Didn't Uncle Adolph have a fortune teller?

I dont know, but since Adolph had one i am sure that Bush suffers the same Mental desease

"Deutschland, Deutschland Uber Alles"...I think that's how the song goes...

Well sorry but you are a LAMER !!! Most of you guys salute the flag all morning, the biggest Patriotism in the world

"Dr. Mengele, paging Dr. Mengele"

Correct, and its great that you guys do the same

Who said that? Goebels? Himmler? Eichmann?

Noone, but 54% of all Americans questioned

Stop taking it then. If not for us "thick headed" Americans, Europe probably wouldn't exist...If not for us, there would still be TWO Germany's...that's of course if we didn't stop bombing you back into the stone-age!

For a complete moron, a little History lesson. We exist a hell of a lot longer than you, America is a big amount of colonys founded by immigrants from Europe

jimHJJ(...Just MY opinion, Lord Magpie...)

Thanks for insulting me, this truly shows your well educated level ;-)

[RGA]

Religion is a way to keep power - only morons need a book to help them be moral citizens. The First Nations here were living more morally than any white(CHRISTIAN) folk who came here and butchered them for land. One only needs to talk to religious people to find the height of intolerance.

The notion of do unto others as you would have them to unto you was around before Christianity - may not have been written down but for ANY society to work - and they did before a single GOD was created to make things easier - that notion expressed in written form or not existed.

The fight against communism was also about religion - the Godless commy threat - the Domino theory. When Vietnam and Ho chi min(SP?) read the American Constitution and read the freedom for all bit brought that to the Americans to get Freedom from France - But Freedom in America was only applied if you were a White Christian - not a black and definitely NOT if your were Asian. The Vietnamese were then regarded as communist - which is untrue - they turned to communism for finances and America had it not been for greed along with France would have not had a war to start with. Try reading non American history writers. He was no communist and neither in fact is Castro.

The 1900's have been all about shifting balances of power from those like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner.

If you listen to what Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said about Iraq before 9-11 and what they say after 9-11 it paints an interesting picture. Why was Bush flying the Bin Laden family home when all planes were grounded - and this according to the FBI. They claimed they didn't know who did it at first - hmm.

History will look at a precedent that the American government invaded a sovereign Nation. No one is saying he's a good guy - and if I were in charge as soon as the guy gassed all those people I would have flattenned the bugger - only when Saddam did that America was giving him the weapons. Obviously Regan gave a rats ass about the 200,000+ people gassed to get a few American out of Iran. Lets give Saddam weapons of mass destruction. Then you wait 2 decades and try and get them back. Bin Laden - has all that money and the capability to hit the trade towers - WHY? because America set him up with all that money and all those weapons.

The rest of the world sees and then wonders - Gee everytime you do something it ends up making huge profits for certain people in your country and then creates a hell of mess later.

On the one hand I'm glad America went in and took down Saddam - and the Taliban. But I'd much rather you not set those guys up in the first place - and use American guns and gas to kill people - I realize capitalism is all about profit and a CEO would rather kill a million people to make $4.8 billion a month rather than a paultry 4.7999 billion a month - but please don't tell me that this system is "Good." It may look it - but Goebbles made it look like Germany was running smoothly.

[Resident Loser]

...we can dish it out but we can't take it eh? Oh, little schnitzle, poor, poor schnitzle...

Like Truman said(you know the guy who dropped 'em) "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen..."

Wilson's idea of isolationism was a good one...we should have let you all go about your little "family feud"(commonly refd. to as WWl) and stew in your own pudding...incestuous maggots...

"...For a complete moron, a little History lesson. We exist a hell of a lot longer than you, America is a big amount of colonys founded by immigrants from Europe..."

And you're doing a bang-up job of it...lessee, how many wars and such...should we start with Caesar and the Romans and Hadrians Wall, War of the Roses, Hundred Years War, the Hessians, Attila and the Huns, the Gauls, the Angles, the Saxons, Goths, Visigoths, Barbarossa, Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Kaiser Wilhelm, the Crusades, feudalism, Louis and Marie, Imperialism, introduction of slavery into the New World and the introduction of unknown diseases to it, the Spanish Armada, the Inquisition, dynamite,Vegemite, mustard gas, U-boats, Xylon, blitzkrieg, Daimler-Benz and Messerschmidt and BASF and don't forget it was Bayer who invented heroin, the Reformation, the Hugenots, Marx, Engles, the Guillotine, purges, pogroms and my all-time fave: ethnic cleansing...Kandinsky, Cubism and overbearing perfumes, Edith Piaf, IKEA, the rack, the wheel, thumbscrews, the Iron Maiden, the broadsword, the stilletto, the mace, Lucretia Borgia...all wonderful examples of Europe at it's finest...

And at our earliest opportunity chose to sever the relationship with the motherland or fatherland hoping we could do better...guess what!...we did! and it galls you to no end...too friggin' bad...

"Thanks for insulting me"

No, no, it was my privilege...

"...this truly shows your well educated level..."

How nice of you to say so...

jimHJJ(...now bugger off...)

[karl k]

Karl,

That's not censorship, that's a private business and we have the same right to tell him what he can and can't play as he has to tell us what we can and can't watch!

Pete
All your doing is justifying the act with your statement. I'm sure he isn't being told what to show in his theaters and if he is, then that's wrong as well. IMHO

While I can appreciate the man has an opinion, and the means to do something about it, to me, it's more a case of "should he". I recall a song... American Pie... that was censored by one of the radio stations here in Kansas(if you can believe that) where the part at the end, "the father, son and the holy ghost" was omitted from play because of religious overtones. Truly wrecked the song IMO and should not have happened. It wouldn't matter to me what the subject or content is, if it is available, and targeted at adults, it should be made available to all and let the mass's decide whether to see it or not.(on an individual basis of course)

I would also say that I disagree with the reasons cited for the removal of this movie... so much so that I would almost consider calling him a lier and a hypocrite.

Here's to freedom... in what ever form I can get.

[Resident Loser]

..get your sh!t together...

FYI, the "first nations" imbued everything with a spirit...what do you think "medicine men" did, dole out aspirin? They and the shaman were the links to the supernatural.

Cave men had gods...the sun, the moon, the stars...early civilizations had multiple gods, Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks...Hindi still have, as do others...

Israel was monotheistic but had a dark side with the old "eye for an eye routine", it wasn't until Christ said to "turn the other cheek" that the "golden rule" or whatever you want to call it came to being...before that there was little regard for "thy neighbor" except to take his land or his food or just smite him for the fun of it...

With regard to Vietnam, Europe was imperialist...The US interests were strictly a balance of power...

And that's how we got into the mess we are in today...Egypt had ties to USSR and as a balance we(quite stupidly IMO) went against previous policy re: Israel. Prior to our selling them Hawk missiles in '62, the US State department considered Israel a "zionist state' because of it's bellicose attitude with it's neighboring countries...that balance of power presence has cost us dearly...

jimHJJ(...Castro not a communist? Funny, he and his programs sure seem to fit the profile...)

[piece-it pete]

Religion is a way to keep power - only morons need a book to help them be moral citizens. The First Nations here were living more morally than any white(CHRISTIAN) folk who came here and butchered them for land. One only needs to talk to religious people to find the height of intolerance.

Yes, the Indian culture was very successful, at both supplying the needs of their citizens and protecting their culture. Aren't you living on their land, enjoying the fruits of their natural resources? Evil, hateful. Or hypocritical?

And I for one have not found a more smug, self righteous set than the ivory tower Libs.



The notion of do unto others as you would have them to unto you was around before Christianity - may not have been written down but for ANY society to work - and they did before a single GOD was created to make things easier - that notion expressed in written form or not existed.

These other cultures had a higher value of human life than we do, right?



The fight against communism was also about religion - the Godless commy threat - the Domino theory. When Vietnam and Ho chi min(SP?) read the American Constitution and read the freedom for all bit brought that to the Americans to get Freedom from France - But Freedom in America was only applied if you were a White Christian - not a black and definitely NOT if your were Asian. The Vietnamese were then regarded as communist - which is untrue - they turned to communism for finances and America had it not been for greed along with France would have not had a war to start with. Try reading non American history writers. He was no communist and neither in fact is Castro.

Yes, like many still do the Reds needed to destroy the authority of the Church because it was in their way.

Many of the signers of the Constitution despised slavery. They, like Lincoln, believed the Union was more important than a single issue. We fixed this, with our blood.

Vietnam was in keeping with our stated policy of containment. If you read American historians writing about American history you would know that it was considered at the time to be SE Asias' breadbox, we were concerned that if Vietnam fell it would mean the Communization of most of SE Asia, including Japan. If you don't want to call vicious, bloody dictators supported by Communist dictators Communist, that's fine. There were no boat people coming from Vietnam before they took over.

And please clue me in - what was our financial reason for keeping Vietnam under our Capitalist heel?


The 1900's have been all about shifting balances of power from those like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner.

Stalin said the LEFT WING was wrong? What about that whole Communist/gulag thing?



If you listen to what Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell said about Iraq before 9-11 and what they say after 9-11 it paints an interesting picture. Why was Bush flying the Bin Laden family home when all planes were grounded - and this according to the FBI. They claimed they didn't know who did it at first - hmm.

For starters, at first NO ONE knew what was going on. As far as removing the Sauds - a cursory inspection of history will show that the stupid powerhungry Americans were an exception to the rule - we didn't go on a vengeance spree killing arabs. Duh.



History will look at a precedent that the American government invaded a sovereign Nation. No one is saying he's a good guy - and if I were in charge as soon as the guy gassed all those people I would have flattenned the bugger - only when Saddam did that America was giving him the weapons. Obviously Regan gave a rats ass about the 200,000+ people gassed to get a few American out of Iran. Lets give Saddam weapons of mass destruction. Then you wait 2 decades and try and get them back. Bin Laden - has all that money and the capability to hit the trade towers - WHY? because America set him up with all that money and all those weapons.

Aren't yous a member of NATO? What about Bosnia? And international politics is a tough game where the players are ALWAYS changing.



The rest of the world sees and then wonders - Gee everytime you do something it ends up making huge profits for certain people in your country and then creates a hell of mess later.

Do you have rich people in your country? You've got a good stereo - obviously you're doing at least OK, which means to most of the world population you'd be considered stinking rich, which must mean by default that your every action is to get more money.

The world system in place was largely created by the US and is certainly policed by it, at a VERY LARGE expense. It has lead to the greatest general prosperity that has EVER existed. Wow. That's one hell of a mess.

Of course, the bad guys out there are bad because of our actions.



On the one hand I'm glad America went in and took down Saddam - and the Taliban. But I'd much rather you not set those guys up in the first place - and use American guns and gas to kill people - I realize capitalism is all about profit and a CEO would rather kill a million people to make $4.8 billion a month rather than a paultry 4.7999 billion a month - but please don't tell me that this system is "Good." It may look it - but Goebbles made it look like Germany was running smoothly.

Athough I doubt that you couldn't find a few, I think you're pulling a Moore with the "kill a million people" for a paltry sum.

As Churchill said, Democracy is the absolute worst form of Gov't, except for all other forms ever tried. Capitalism is the same, we've got more MRI scanners in the greater Cleveland area (AND they're available to the poor), than a whole large wealthy unnamed country, that has a Socialist medical system.

Pete

[Bryan]

What is neccessary and needed at the time isn't always what is the best thing to do. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight about 10/1000 if your lucky.

Dropping the atomic bombs was neccessary in order to stop WWII. All that people seem to want to remember is the US dropped them on Japan. They forget the reason behind it. The Japanese are a determined people and would have eventually succeeded in invading the US. The first atomic bomb shocked them. The second broke their spirit and resolve.

What has the US historically done with countries and places we have blown to kingdom come? We go back and rebuild them. Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples.

Where would the world be without the discovery of America? Would it be better off or worse off?

If you wish to blame the USA for the ills of the world then you can take aim at Columbus and the Spanish government for they financed his journey.

[Woochifer]

The film was enjoyable - if all it does is get people voting and arguing and TALKING about issues instead of sports teams and reality tv shows your country and all countries are better for it. You have the most powerful country in the world which affects MY country and the rest of the planet - And for this I would at least hope that those of you in your country would spend a few minutes and VOTE. If not for your sakes then the rest of the world's. When people look at Bush as a dictator who stole the election with the help of Jeb and fellow cronies - whether it's true or not if the other half of the voting public had actually voted we might not be complaining.

Believe it or not, the last election was one of the highest voter turnouts in recent decades. Unfortunately, not enough people look at voting as a civic responsibility. If anything, the Watergate scandal fundamentally changed the public perception of politics. It's always been a dirty business, but the level of cynicism that the scandal brought forth has poisoned the waters ever since.


The voting process here is so much easier and when all that hanging chad crap happened I was thinking - "why not start again" a "Do Over" especially in a close race.

Because if Florida in particular did a revote, Al Gore would have won. Every poll (except for the one from Fox News) that the major news organizations did had Al Gore winning. Knowing a little bit about statistical validation procedures, it's very hard for that kind of statistical consensus to be wrong unless you have other intervening factors. And those factors we now know all too well -- hanging chads, butterfly ballots resulting in an abnormally large vote for Pat Buchanan in one county, voters getting purged off rolls, etc.


Most people who don't vote are I bet are the poorer parts of your country - and most of them probably vote Left.

And as an aside have you seen what has gone on in Florida lately about the thousands of people left off the voters list - and the percentage of them who are Black Democrats. Shocking in my opinion and something that adds more fuel to a conspiracy fire.

Most politicians have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Anything that expands the voter registrations and potentially shifts the demographics of the voter pool threatens the status quo. That's why all these ideas that would make voting easier, such as "motor voter" laws that place registration cards with drivers license renewals, and on-site same day voter registration get shot down. The typical reasons are that it's too complicated, too expensive, too much potential for trouble, etc.

That status quo is also why the two major parties have such a vested interest in keeping third parties from emerging. It certainly keeps things more stable and less chaotic than a multiple party coalition-based parliamentary system, but it also ensures that a very large segment of the voting population will remain underrepresented.

[Lord_Magnepan]

What is neccessary and needed at the time isn't always what is the best thing to do. Hindsight is 20/20 and foresight about 10/1000 if your lucky.

Dropping the atomic bombs was neccessary in order to stop WWII. All that people seem to want to remember is the US dropped them on Japan. They forget the reason behind it. The Japanese are a determined people and would have eventually succeeded in invading the US. The first atomic bomb shocked them. The second broke their spirit and resolve.

What has the US historically done with countries and places we have blown to kingdom come? We go back and rebuild them. Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all examples.

Where would the world be without the discovery of America? Would it be better off or worse off?

If you wish to blame the USA for the ills of the world then you can take aim at Columbus and the Spanish government for they financed his journey.

I dont agree that the US rebuilds his countrys. Yes they did help Germany, but you guys sure didnt do very much to us. Same as Afghanistan, they still have no electricity or running water. All the homes and cities are gone. The US left Afghanistan becuase it was very unstable very fast. Same situation in Iraq, there are suicide bombings almost everyday, most of the Iraqis say that the US should leave them. The majority doesnt want the US in there. And Bush knew that more americans were against "staying" in Iraq so he uses this moment to chicken out of there and leaves the country with some troops and no running ifrastructure because it was bombed. Arent elections sometimes soon?

Before the US invaded Iraq there were far less "suicide bombings", and a lot of less soldiers killed. Noone every reported any threat from Iraq for a long time, but the Bush administration simply wanted to bring down Iraq and made up reasons and false facts about the threat of "Terrorism and used the shock from 9/11 in order to go over the NATO to get what they want. This was wrong and noone in the great US ever aknowledges it.


PS: I have my own opinion, as do all others. The world supposely created from the US is not save. I just wait for the next war against North Korea, and more sleepers to wake up and terrorize the entire western world which was created by the US. Thanks guys, great job!!

[piece-it pete]

I dont agree that the US rebuilds his countrys. Yes they did help Germany, but you guys sure didnt do very much to us. Same as Afghanistan, they still have no electricity or running water. All the homes and cities are gone. The US left Afghanistan becuase it was very unstable very fast. Same situation in Iraq, there are suicide bombings almost everyday, most of the Iraqis say that the US should leave them. The majority doesnt want the US in there. And Bush knew that more americans were against "staying" in Iraq so he uses this moment to chicken out of there and leaves the country with some troops and no running ifrastructure because it was bombed. Arent elections sometimes soon?

Before the US invaded Iraq there were far less "suicide bombings", and a lot of less soldiers killed. Noone every reported any threat from Iraq for a long time, but the Bush administration simply wanted to bring down Iraq and made up reasons and false facts about the threat of "Terrorism and used the shock from 9/11 in order to go over the NATO to get what they want. This was wrong and noone in the great US ever aknowledges it.


PS: I have my own opinion, as do all others. The world supposely created from the US is not save. I just wait for the next war against North Korea, and more sleepers to wake up and terrorize the entire western world which was created by the US. Thanks guys, great job!!

No, we don't rebuild countries. The Marshall Plan cost us (that's American taxpayers)almost 12 BILLION dollars, that's 1950 dollars, including $1,173,700,000 to Germany, and that was a GRANT, not a loan. Even the "liberal" Nobel guys gave him the Peace Prize.

And we're supposed to build an entire infrastructure where there wasn't one before? To a country that had just attacked us so cowardly? World history says we would have wiped them off the map. Fortunately for the Afgans, we're not like 99% of countries that have existed from time to time.

We're still in Afganistan.

If you guys stepped up to world security, by funding your army at the same percentage level we do, you'd have a lot more say in what happens. Also, what's this about a inquiry into the Iraqi oil-for-food program?

As far as the world being "safe", I respectfully suggest you read a history book outside of your schools.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

BTW, that 12 billion in 1950 would be, adjusted for inflation, over

**NINETY-ONE BILLION** today, almost 9 billion to Germany.

Pete

[Bryan]

We bombed Afghanistan into the stone age. They were below it before and now are better off. All the homes and cities? Every single one? Not hardly. We were in Germany and helped rebuild it. What about Japan?

In terms of suicide bombings, it is not the majority of Iraqi people. Most of the Iraqis are happy to have us there as a stabilizing presence. Yet even they know we do not plan on staying. We do the job and get out. Rebuilding their infrastructure would go alot faster without extremists doing suicide bombings. Leaving would be much easier than staying and finishing the job. Additionally, we are trying to introduce democracy into a country that had a dictatorship. Changing an entire political system and the way a population views their government takes time. It takes many years. This is not something you can do overnight. How about putting that into your perspective? Even after elections are held we will remain there. We want to ensure a stable government and police force are in place prior to pulling out. This is never was intended on being a quick fix. Our soldiers would characterize this as a failure if we left soon without finishing the job.

This war on terrorism is one that will not be fought in traditional manners. If you think it will be you are sadly mistaken. What 9/11 did was wake up the US to the other dangers in the world, mainly terrorists who only want to see the destruction of this nation.

Lest we forget the eastern world had its share of terrorists even without the US and our "western world". When will you wake up and realize we are not the problem? Sure, we do mess up but we also try and make things right. Open your eyes and see the big picture rather than focus soley on the "evil USA".

[piece-it pete]

Unfortunately, not enough people look at voting as a civic responsibility.

No kidding. I once read an immigrants' guide to being naturalized written in 1934 - it said the FIRST duty of an American citizen is to vote.




Because if Florida in particular did a revote, Al Gore would have won. Every poll (except for the one from Fox News) that the major news organizations did had Al Gore winning. Knowing a little bit about statistical validation procedures, it's very hard for that kind of statistical consensus to be wrong unless you have other intervening factors. And those factors we now know all too well -- hanging chads, butterfly ballots resulting in an abnormally large vote for Pat Buchanan in one county, voters getting purged off rolls, etc.

You know, Buchanan appeals to a LOT of older folks.

Anyway, the whole Florida thing:

...the Miami Herald, which yesterday said that if the recounts had been allowed to continue, then "under almost all scenarios, Bush still would have won." The particulars are as follows: Bush officially won by 537 votes. If Gore’s more liberal counting standard prevailed and all dimpled and hanging chads had been counted, then the Bush lead jumps to 1,665. If dimples only count where other races are dimpled (which would suggest a uniform error by the voter or by the machine, rather than a voter changing his or her mind before perforating the chad), then the Bush lead is 884. If two corners of the chad must be perforated, this being the predominant standard for recounts throughout the country, then the lead is 363. Finally, if only clean punches count, then Gore wins by 3 votes.
__________

The National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago conducted the six-month study for a consortium of eight news media companies, including CNN.

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

_________________________

RGA, a LOT of people don't vote, not just here, but worldwide.




Most politicians have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. Anything that expands the voter registrations and potentially shifts the demographics of the voter pool threatens the status quo. That's why all these ideas that would make voting easier, such as "motor voter" laws that place registration cards with drivers license renewals, and on-site same day voter registration get shot down. The typical reasons are that it's too complicated, too expensive, too much potential for trouble, etc.

Agreed. The smaller the voter pool is the easier it is to manipulate. This is why it would be better, IMHO, if everyone voted, even if they just guess.


That status quo is also why the two major parties have such a vested interest in keeping third parties from emerging. It certainly keeps things more stable and less chaotic than a multiple party coalition-based parliamentary system, but it also ensures that a very large segment of the voting population will remain underrepresented.

"less chaotic" may be an understatement. Look at the Italian Parliment. "Winner take all" has worked very well for us.

Just my .02 (or is it up to .50 by now ?? :) )

Pete

[FLZapped]

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

Just my .02 (or is it up to .50 by now ?? :) )

Pete

Isn't it interesting that Gore never gets accused of trying to hijack the election process over this strategy?

If I remember correctly, at least three newspapers here have since recounted the vote independantly of each other and Bush won every time.

Another forgotten fact is that the infamous "butterfly ballot" was designed by Democrats for Democrats who run the election office in West Palm Beach.

Of course, the whole Florida thing would have been moot had Gore carried his own territorial area........starting with his home state.

And we can't forget that the purging of felons from the voter roles suddenly became disenfranchizement....

-Bruce
(A registered Demo who thinks Gore is a cry baby and Kerry is so Scary!)

[piece-it pete]

Bruce,

I think it was Kansas ? where they actually had all the paperwork for a lawsuit all typed up, found someone willing to be the plantiff, didn't even have time to fill in the "he/she" and "him/her".

What gets me the most about youse Dems :) is WHERE IS A STRONG CANDIDATE?? You'd probably win, with Bush not a strong speaker, and it's better for all of us when both candidates are good. Keeps the parties on their toes.

If Kerry loses this one, what's '08 going to be? Powell vs Hillary ? Now THAT'S a race!!

Pete

[FLZapped]

Bruce,

I think it was Kansas ? where they actually had all the paperwork for a lawsuit all typed up, found someone willing to be the plantiff, didn't even have time to fill in the "he/she" and "him/her".

What gets me the most about youse Dems :) is WHERE IS A STRONG CANDIDATE?? You'd probably win, with Bush not a strong speaker, and it's better for all of us when both candidates are good. Keeps the parties on their toes.

If Kerry loses this one, what's '08 going to be? Powell vs Hillary ? Now THAT'S a race!!

Pete

OUCH! Pete, you're making my head hurt......I'm so sick of all the campaigning. The heck with campaign finance reform, limit the campaigning season to 6 months prior to the election!

I'm pretty disgusted with the Demos. They seem to have been overrun with outright socialists at the national level, with King Teddy as their leader. And what is even worse is that folks in the party don't seem to think it's a bad thing that Kerry has the endorsement of France and Germany......France(a socialist government) alone should scare the hell out of them, in my opinion. But it seems all to boil down to sour grapes about 2000 and a real hatred for Bush on a personal level, to hell with what may actually be best for the country...no thought seems to have been put into that, the way I see it.

I agree, Bush isn't an eloquent speaker, although from time-to-time, he has come up with some real zingers. The other day, right after Edwards was announced a reported asked him what the difference was between the Cheney and Edwards, and he immediately shot back that Cheney could be president - taking a que from Kerry's earlier statements regarding his now seemingly spotless running mate......anyway......

I'd be really happy to see a strong third party contender for a change. (No, I'm not thrilled with the Repubs either, you should see the blatently un-constitutional state law they pushed through here to "protect" the orange industry.) Nader is just another socialist when you get right down to it. So why anyone would want to trade one extremist for another is beyond me. To each their own, I suppose.

How about Hillary and Condi going at it? Let's throw in Jessie "The Body" Ventura as an indie to make it interesting.....now pass the extra strength aspirin, please.....

BTW - It has been my observation that any serious political sniping along party lines doesn't begin until the state level and and takes a quantum leap at the national level. You see it that way?

-Bruce
(Kerry is so Scary!)

[piece-it pete]

Bruce,

I grew up in (and still live in) an overwhelmingly Dem county (Kusinich is one of our areas' reps), sometimes the GOP doesn't even run candidates here, so I can't speak to the local issue. On the individual level, though, that hated of Bush shows through. However, the county treasurer is currently going through a wife beating thing (again! I think he's finished this time) and the head of the GOP office is being very nice (like, he has flashes of brilliance but you can't beat women). Partisan, but nicely. Maybe you're right.

I hear you about the "new" Dems. I knew some New Deal Democrats (all dead now :( )and, though we had fundamental differences, they were generally capitalists and really, truly wanted to make a difference, not just tear down the system.

Bush can be good, it seems when he's comfortable, and sometimes connects with people. I just wish he'd make a better effort at explaining our foriegn policy, I realise there are things he can't say 'cause of the world press but believe he's still too low key. I also worry that the GOP is not taking this election seriously enough, that there's not enough effort at the lower levels.

The GOP rules Ohio, and to me has this same problem, the worst example is legalized gambling, it has gone to the ballot 3 times. 3 times it was soundly defeated, but try to keep policitians away from money!! Their backroom attempts to pass it anyway, like midnight votes! Cronyism, jeez, it's bad. I'm not arguing for or against, but the people have clearly spoken, they must be hard of hearing. Just why I wish the Dems could come up with at least a strong contender...

Hillary/Condi.... wrestling! No, boxing! THAT would put up some impressive ratings lol! Jesse could run with that prostitute that ran for Gov. in California as the vp. The body and the body.

I'll take a Guiness or two with that aspirin.

Pete

[FLZapped]

Jesse could run with that prostitute that ran for Gov. in California as the vp. The body and the body.

WOWZERS Batman! Well, I dunno, Larry Flint might get her on his "ticket" first......I think we're working our way up to the Kentucky stuff at this point to wash that aspirin down!

-Bruce

[FLZapped]

BTW - Have you been following our adventures with the Broward County Elections Supervisor? (The infamous county in which I reside)

She was finally suspended after missing an election. Now she is suing to get her job back. The report on her ineptitude was seven pages long, can you imagine! And then to have the unmitigated gall to think she deserves her job back! Thankyou, but I'll keep Brenda Snipes, she's done an amasing job of getting that office back on track.

Uhm, I just couldn't resist this next one any longer....speaking about the Cali election:

If Gary Colemen and that prostitute were on the same ticket, would they run as the Stump and the Hump?

(I know, massive groans)

If memory serves me correctly, the Italian Parliment had a female Porno Star elected to a term a while back.

-Bruce
(I think we're up to Wild Turkey now, wanna try for Moonshine?))

[RGA]

Yes, the Indian culture was very successful, at both supplying the needs of their citizens and protecting their culture. Aren't you living on their land, enjoying the fruits of their natural resources? Evil, hateful. Or hypocritical?

We are in the process of making reparations - there is not much I can do being born on this particular land. And these people also know this.



Yes, like many still do the Reds needed to destroy the authority of the Church because it was in their way.

True one dictatorship wants to stop the religious dictatorship that ruled the though process of their people.



Many of the signers of the Constitution despised slavery. They, like Lincoln, believed the Union was more important than a single issue. We fixed this, with our blood.

That may be so - not much use having a document that sounds good and to which no one follows. The Final solution was not written down and detailed but everyone knew what was the "goal."



Vietnam was in keeping with our stated policy of containment. If you read American historians writing about American history you would know that it was considered at the time to be SE Asias' breadbox, we were concerned that if Vietnam fell it would mean the Communization of most of SE Asia, including Japan. If you don't want to call vicious, bloody dictators supported by Communist dictators Communist, that's fine. There were no boat people coming from Vietnam before they took over.

Call it what you like this is the doimino theory. A theory that when one nations fell to communism the next and the next would fall like dominos. But Vietnam would never have been communist if it were not FOR THE US and FRANCE. Then blaming them for wanting freedom by getting supplies from China et al is ridiculous - and not realizing the differences amongst communism - it ain''t all the same - was another fatal mistake. And there were those who noted that at the time that Vietnam and China would NEVER ever have become any sort of coalition.



And please clue me in - what was our financial reason for keeping Vietnam under our Capitalist heel?

No this was the other reason - American paranoia over the domino theory - which would have negative impact on future finances no doubt but in this case just paranoia.



Stalin said the LEFT WING was wrong? What about that whole Communist/gulag thing?

Please this is as far from what Marx intended as it can possibly get. The regime still had a class system anyway you slice it - hierarchies and paranoia of the loss of power. All of which Marx never intended but for which greed can quicklly ruin - and it did.



For starters, at first NO ONE knew what was going on. As far as removing the Sauds - a cursory inspection of history will show that the stupid powerhungry Americans were an exception to the rule - we didn't go on a vengeance spree killing arabs. Duh.

After the second plane everyone should have known what was going on - except the president who sat around forever with a bunch of shool kids - nice proactive leader. His little dog Bin Laden bit him for some reason - Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with those planes. Proof? Or is it Guilty until proven innocent? Can't even follow your own rules.



Aren't yous a member of NATO? What about Bosnia? And international politics is a tough game where the players are ALWAYS changing.

My government's incompetance is beside the point. Bodies like the UN and the League of Nations etc are about as corrupt as it gets which are painfully slow at agreeing to anything anyway - all have their own special interests - the point?



Do you have rich people in your country? You've got a good stereo - obviously you're doing at least OK, which means to most of the world population you'd be considered stinking rich, which must mean by default that your every action is to get more money.

No I have credit. I have access to education which will hpefully allow me a chance to have a very nice life. I am very lucky in this regard - and I try like hell to ensure that the things I purchase and the way I live impacts as little as possible on other people and the environment. I do not deliberately need to make billions of dollars on the backs of slave labour. [/QUOTE]



The world system in place was largely created by the US and is certainly policed by it, at a VERY LARGE expense. It has lead to the greatest general prosperity that has EVER existed. Wow. That's one hell of a mess.

It only polices areas that offer a financial GAIN after the expense of policing it however. Who controls all of the contracts of oil in Iraq? Iraq owns the oil after all of this that is true - American companies however are the ones who dictate WHO can buy it and at what price. But Iraq owns it.



Of course, the bad guys out there are bad because of our actions.

Ahh now you're getting it. They would have no reason otherwise.



As Churchill said, Democracy is the absolute worst form of Gov't, except for all other forms ever tried. Capitalism is the same, we've got more MRI scanners in the greater Cleveland area (AND they're available to the poor), than a whole large wealthy unnamed country, that has a Socialist medical system.

Pete

And given the cost to people for such things and OVER testing to compensate for lawsuits and ridiculous insurance costs - you're people don't live as long as Canadians or the Japanese where costs are far lower.

And ask your elderly citizens why they need to come to Canada or Brazil in order to be able to afford their drugs. Incidentally the EXACT same drugs made in the exact same plants - and Canada is NOT subsidizing them - they're worthless. You want to talk about a sham people should not be on here *****ing about cable mark-ups they should be asking why drug companies are using sufferring to turn a tidy profit.

And if all of the poor have all this free access to everything as you claim and can get it without paying - then why would they come to Canada/Mexico/Brazil for drugs?

The population in Canada is smaller than the state of California. But we are spread out over a Country larger than America. It is impractical and impossible to have an MRI machine in every hospital in hick towns. In such circumstances people are flow to the major hospitals with such facilities.

I live in a town of around 90,000 My dad has to go to Victoria about an hour and a half away due to Lung Cancer treatments because the hospital here does not have the orthoscopy machine nor does it have a cancer treatment specialist. While it is a pain to have to make the trip - my dad on his pension gets all of it done free.

My friend's dad went to Las Vegas and had two heart injections while there costing $6,000.00 US for two injections - JUST the drug and 10 minutes to inject - not including the two days in the hosptial. Why is it so expensive because they have to pay for the MRI machine unecessarily placed in every hospital.

[Keith from Canada]

As Churchill said, Democracy is the absolute worst form of Gov't, except for all other forms ever tried. Capitalism is the same, we've got more MRI scanners in the greater Cleveland area (AND they're available to the poor), than a whole large wealthy unnamed country, that has a Socialist medical system. Pete

O.K., I guess I'll have to throw my hat in the ring on this one and note that an MRI in the US is not something that is available to the masses (yes, the poor can get one, they just can't afford one). In terms of the US Health Care System, I would simply point out that OECD studies indicate that, out of 23 industrialized nations, the US ranks 19th in life expectancy, 20th in infant mortality, and has the lowest health care satisfaction rates.

Your privatized system may have sufficient equipment but I'm afraid that in this case, profit takes the lead role over patient care. I for one am quite proud that my country puts people before profits when it comes to the most important social program a country could have.

[piece-it pete]

O.K., I guess I'll have to throw my hat in the ring on this one and note that an MRI in the US is not something that is available to the masses (yes, the poor can get one, they just can't afford one). In terms of the US Health Care System, I would simply point out that OECD studies indicate that, out of 23 industrialized nations, the US ranks 19th in life expectancy, 20th in infant mortality, and has the lowest health care satisfaction rates.

Your privatized system may have sufficient equipment but I'm afraid that in this case, profit takes the lead role over patient care. I for one am quite proud that my country puts people before profits when it comes to the most important social program a country could have.

Keith,

Oh yes they can!

Folks on welfare over here get the best healthcare available, bar none. I for one am ABSOLUTELY ENVIOUS of their benifits, FAR better than mine. Also, anyone can go to any emergency room, they have to take you. If you need an MRI you will get one.

As usual, don't believe the hype.

The big problem here is that the poor folks will not go in for preventitive care, regular checkups, etc.

In merry ole England me merry ole Gran :) had to wait a year for an appointment for cataracts, and another year for the surgery. Of course she didn't have to pay for it directly.

If you look back through my old posts you will find that I have said stuff like, "That's fine, I'm not slamming anyone, it works for them...." relating to other countries. I have specifically mentioned Canada as a great place that I've always enjoyed. I'm not apologising, just pointing out that I'm not telling you guys what to do, or what's best for you. Your system works for you. Our system works for us. I get (have got, have gotten? :D ) upset when told by some we (the US) are the last word in evil. I suspect you would too.

Pete

[piece-it pete]

BTW - Have you been following our adventures with the Broward County Elections Supervisor? (The infamous county in which I reside)

She was finally suspended after missing an election. Now she is suing to get her job back. The report on her ineptitude was seven pages long, can you imagine! And then to have the unmitigated gall to think she deserves her job back! Thankyou, but I'll keep Brenda Snipes, she's done an amasing job of getting that office back on track.

Uhm, I just couldn't resist this next one any longer....speaking about the Cali election:

If Gary Colemen and that prostitute were on the same ticket, would they run as the Stump and the Hump?

(I know, massive groans)

If memory serves me correctly, the Italian Parliment had a female Porno Star elected to a term a while back.

-Bruce
(I think we're up to Wild Turkey now, wanna try for Moonshine?))

Bruce,

As much as I love the shine, I'm all out of joke ideas (though I bet if one went back through the candidates for Cal. governor..).

I haven't heard of her suing for her job back. Now we know what to do if we ever lose our jos lol.

Speaking of shine, if you or anyone, even the Dems and Socialists :) , ever get to this neck of the woods, even passing through, drop me a line and we'll have a shot or two of the finest moonshine West Virginia has to offer (no blindness juice here), and talk about...... well how about stereo equipment??

Pete

[piece-it pete]

We are in the process of making reparations - there is not much I can do being born on this particular land. And these people also know this.

Reparations? For the untold suffering, rape, and death?


True one dictatorship wants to stop the religious dictatorship that ruled the though process of their people.

Whoops, I forgot, the US is now and has been run by a religious dictatorship. "?"




That may be so - not much use having a document that sounds good and to which no one follows. The Final solution was not written down and detailed but everyone knew what was the "goal."

Comparing the Declaration to the final solution? Many died for that document. Willingly.




Call it what you like this is the doimino theory. A theory that when one nations fell to communism the next and the next would fall like dominos. But Vietnam would never have been communist if it were not FOR THE US and FRANCE. Then blaming them for wanting freedom by getting supplies from China et al is ridiculous - and not realizing the differences amongst communism - it ain''t all the same - was another fatal mistake. And there were those who noted that at the time that Vietnam and China would NEVER ever have become any sort of coalition.

You are saying that the Communists were not an imperialistic threat? As far as the "freedom" that bloodthirsty regime in Vietnam imposed, again, why the boat poeple?


No this was the other reason - American paranoia over the domino theory - which would have negative impact on future finances no doubt but in this case just paranoia.

Yes, we were VERY paraniod about the now somehow debunked threat of the USSR. Undoubtably Eastern Europe was somehow our fault, too.



Please this is as far from what Marx intended as it can possibly get. The regime still had a class system anyway you slice it - hierarchies and paranoia of the loss of power. All of which Marx never intended but for which greed can quicklly ruin - and it did.

YOU said, "....Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner."

Actually you sound like a Communist sympathiser, here. Hasn't it been discredited in your eyes? Or was it just the implementation??



After the second plane everyone should have known what was going on - except the president who sat around forever with a bunch of shool kids - nice proactive leader. His little dog Bin Laden bit him for some reason - Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with those planes. Proof? Or is it Guilty until proven innocent? Can't even follow your own rules.

I respect Bush for finishing with the kids. After the second plane all we knew was that we were under attack.

In his 1st tape "Bushs' little dog" said he was fighting to get the infidels out of the holy land - that was US troops in Saudi Arabia, there to loot that country. Right?



My government's incompetance is beside the point. Bodies like the UN and the League of Nations etc are about as corrupt as it gets which are painfully slow at agreeing to anything anyway - all have their own special interests - the point?

You said: "History will look at a precedent that the American government invaded a sovereign Nation." Well guess what - we didn't set the precedent.


No I have credit. I have access to education which will hpefully allow me a chance to have a very nice life. I am very lucky in this regard - and I try like hell to ensure that the things I purchase and the way I live impacts as little as possible on other people and the environment. I do not deliberately need to make billions of dollars on the backs of slave labour.

That credit is based on your ability to repay, available only in a system based on trust and order. It's a shell game in this circumstance. You benifit from the system you hate, and I don't hear you complaining about it. It's OTHER people doing it, not you.



It only polices areas that offer a financial GAIN after the expense of policing it however. Who controls all of the contracts of oil in Iraq? Iraq owns the oil after all of this that is true - American companies however are the ones who dictate WHO can buy it and at what price. But Iraq owns it.

Beepbeep-beeep-beepbeep news flash - not only you are benifiting from it, but people all over the world, including millions of the desperately poor.



Ahh now you're getting it. They would have no reason otherwise.

So, if I shoot my nieghbor, it's someone elses' fault! That's great, I really, really want his stereo :) .

Well since in your eyes we're bad, who's to blame for that? By your reasoning it MUST be someone else's fault, no personal responsiblity.


And given the cost to people for such things and OVER testing to compensate for lawsuits and ridiculous insurance costs - you're people don't live as long as Canadians or the Japanese where costs are far lower.

And ask your elderly citizens why they need to come to Canada or Brazil in order to be able to afford their drugs. Incidentally the EXACT same drugs made in the exact same plants - and Canada is NOT subsidizing them - they're worthless. You want to talk about a sham people should not be on here *****ing about cable mark-ups they should be asking why drug companies are using sufferring to turn a tidy profit.

And if all of the poor have all this free access to everything as you claim and can get it without paying - then why would they come to Canada/Mexico/Brazil for drugs?

The population in Canada is smaller than the state of California. But we are spread out over a Country larger than America. It is impractical and impossible to have an MRI machine in every hospital in hick towns. In such circumstances people are flow to the major hospitals with such facilities.

I live in a town of around 90,000 My dad has to go to Victoria about an hour and a half away due to Lung Cancer treatments because the hospital here does not have the orthoscopy machine nor does it have a cancer treatment specialist. While it is a pain to have to make the trip - my dad on his pension gets all of it done free.

My friend's dad went to Las Vegas and had two heart injections while there costing $6,000.00 US for two injections - JUST the drug and 10 minutes to inject - not including the two days in the hosptial. Why is it so expensive because they have to pay for the MRI machine unecessarily placed in every hospital.

Our system is expensive - as far as drugs go we are subsidizing R and D. The truly poor in this country don't go to Canada for drugs - they're paid for by people like me. We have tons of MRIs' for convenience sake, and because we loot the world we can afford it. He paid for the quality of care that millions of people travel here for yearly.

Lawsuits are an issue but every time we try to get tort reform passed the Dems scream "it's for the greedy corporations!!"

I will pray for your father, I'm sorry to hear about that. I lost my Grandmother and Aunt to that same terrible disease.

Pete

[Keith from Canada]

I just have to get a few things off my chest...

"YOU said, "....Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner."

Actually you sound like a Communist sympathiser, here. Hasn't it been discredited in your eyes? Or was it just the implementation??"

-- First off, I find it incredibly annoying when people start mixing the terms "Marxism" and "Communism" around like they are interchangable (this goes back to both posts). Fact of the matter is, Marx would not have been a Lenninist and most certainly wouldn't have been a Stalinist. In fact, when asked about how his theories were being used during his own lifetime (specifically referring to Germany at the time), he stated "...all I know is that I am not a Marxist". He would have been appauled to see his vision turn into what we saw in the 20th century which was nothing like the democratic 'utopia' that he wanted.

I think that it is imperative that people understand that capitalist societies in Marx's day allotted almost zero rights to the working class. Children were working along side their parents or in mines, there was no mandatory school system, the average shift for a labourer was 15 + hours per day, an average days pay was almost enough to keep a family alive, police forces were brought in as a tool to control the masses, and the rich were get richer in ways that we could not dream of today. Marxism and the 'spectre' of Communism (that is, the idea of it) fundamentally changed capitalist societies for the better. Labour unions, child labour laws, pay increases, the middle class etc., all owe their birth to a general societal fear in this thing they called "Communism". This 'spectre' was fundamentally altered by the Soviet regimes of the 20th Century.

Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.

In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.

[JSE]

[QUOTE=Keith from Canada
Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.

In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.[/QUOTE]



I tell you what. You keep your system and I'll keep ours. Both have their merits. Which one is better, well that's up for debate. But, I can tell you that if I ever have a serious ailment like Heart Problems, Cancer, Brain injury, etc. My butt is staying right here in the good ol' USA for care. Health ins. or no Health ins. We are generally considered to have the best doctors in the world. I am lucky in that I live in Houston. We have a medical center that is larger than most cities made up of Hospitals, Clinics, Research Labs, Trauma Centers, etc.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the avg. life expectancy is lower here in the US than in Canada. OK? I doubt our helthcare system has that big of an impact on that. I'm guessing McDonalds and it's Big Mac has a larger effect.

You and RGA are Canadian. Freakin Great! Myself and other's are American. We can argue all day who's better than who. The fact is, I'm not moviing and I doubt either of you will either. Enjoy life! That will make you live longer than anything else you do.

Sorry for the rant! :D

JSE

[piece-it pete]

I just have to get a few things off my chest...

"YOU said, "....Stalin - all presented themselves charismatically and used propaganda the left wing parties were wrong and we will "TAKE ACTION" and not talk about things in a rational manner."

Actually you sound like a Communist sympathiser, here. Hasn't it been discredited in your eyes? Or was it just the implementation??"

-- First off, I find it incredibly annoying when people start mixing the terms "Marxism" and "Communism" around like they are interchangable (this goes back to both posts). Fact of the matter is, Marx would not have been a Lenninist and most certainly wouldn't have been a Stalinist. In fact, when asked about how his theories were being used during his own lifetime (specifically referring to Germany at the time), he stated "...all I know is that I am not a Marxist". He would have been appauled to see his vision turn into what we saw in the 20th century which was nothing like the democratic 'utopia' that he wanted.

I think that it is imperative that people understand that capitalist societies in Marx's day allotted almost zero rights to the working class. Children were working along side their parents or in mines, there was no mandatory school system, the average shift for a labourer was 15 + hours per day, an average days pay was almost enough to keep a family alive, police forces were brought in as a tool to control the masses, and the rich were get richer in ways that we could not dream of today. Marxism and the 'spectre' of Communism (that is, the idea of it) fundamentally changed capitalist societies for the better. Labour unions, child labour laws, pay increases, the middle class etc., all owe their birth to a general societal fear in this thing they called "Communism". This 'spectre' was fundamentally altered by the Soviet regimes of the 20th Century.

Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.

In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.

I'm really not familiar with Marx, so I won't argue there. I've heard he believed that government would eventually disappear under his system (I believe I picked this up from the Gulag Archipelago - should be required reading), and that sounds utopian to me.

I do know workers' conditions have been dreadful throughout most of history, this is why I steadfastly defend our (that's all of ours here) system, it works, it's far, far more of a workers paradise than others' systems tried. I believe any changes should be gradual, and heavily examined. It's a lot easier to screw something up than get it right in the first place.

I disagree that Communism was the driving force behind the changes, at least here in the US. Our presidents were elected, and the big change came during the depression.

I'm not going to argue our health care is perfect - nothing is perfect. As far as complaints about HMOs, etc, remember we're not used to waiting here and will complain. I belong to an HMO and don't have a problem.

I will repeat, however, that it works for us. Even the uninsured working (deserving) poor cannot be denied medical attention. This is exactly what I mentioned before: when out of my county I would NEVER tell the citizens of country a or b what to do. I will (and have, as here) explain if asked. I will listen to their opinions. I will defend our position if necessary. In the face of disagreement comparisions become necessary, of course.

It comes down to this: If we as citizens decide if we're willing to pay more, for complete medical coverage run by politicians, that is an internal affair, as is our choice of leaders, and will stay that way. Hate Bush, hate Kerry (which is certainly what will happen if he's elected, do you think he's going to do these various foriegn nationals bidding? He too will absolutely continue to kill terrorists, just not as effectively :) ), in the final analysis it's up to US citizens what the US is going to do.

Pete

[RGA]

Pete(thanks for your wishes)

Firstly I am not anti-American - what people including myself seem to expect is that America be perfect - which is of course ludicrous to expect. Death rates and all that are similar anyway - it's not like you all die at 47 and we live to 97. The numbers are probably 2-3 years apart. Higher gun deaths at an early age(and wars) probably impact negatively these numbers(if they're included).

Health care arguments while I can see what you're saying - a homeless person may be able to get into one of your hospitals an ER - will he be able to get the best care or the care from the cheap place? In other words I am a student making no money and just recently got a family doctor after moving to Vancouver Island. My dad on his pension has had to pay no money to get all these tests and drugs etc. Well it's not totally free they dinged him $15.00 to get one of those disabled parking cards for the rearview mirror?? The drug industry is a disgrace and R&D is a bit much - Canada buys the drugs off you guys but we're paying next to nothing and in turn we give it to patients for next to nothing. My parents know seniors in the US who claim they're forced to go without the drugs because they can't afford them - so if they will be provided free then Americans need to get that info because they tell outsiders how bad it is - and then the media says it too and suddenly people outside the US think your system is rather heartless. This may be incorrect as you say but a lot of Americans themselves may not realize your medical system is totally free. Indeed, everyone should refuse to pay Blue Cross - why pay if you'll get it done free anyway?

The insurance companies from what I have read are the real drain on the US system.

I am not sympathizing wirh communism but Marxism is another matter - not that I buy that either --- All the isms were invented way back and in high gear during the interwar period. Stalinism was his way of supposedly crushing the class system and of course crushing religion - his competition for power - made sense. Nevertheless he had a dream to compete on a world stage and be an educated and industrialized society.

I am more of a centerist. I agree with some of the right proposals and generally social issues on the left. I am pro gay marriage - pro choice(to a degree) - Pro universal healthcare and education(ie everyone has the same chance financially to go to ANY university in the country). In other words if I'm a straight A student and that is the entry requirment then I can attend U of T or UBC. I know several Americans on my Campus that only go here because they could not afford your schools - and these Americans are NOT subsidized like I am. My total 5 and half years will run around $55,000.00Cdn - but this is Tuition/books and living allowance and I have gone to summer school during this period as well so 3 semesters per year. Am I not wrong to say that some universities in the US that $55,000.00 Cdn would only get me through one year? Yes there is prestige but really Shakespeare is the same whether you learn it at Malaspina University College or at Harvard - and knowing a professor here who taught at big Ivy Leagues in the US he said the marking here is actually tougher due to the special interests impacting some of those schools - no one needs to look much past the athletes to see that it would be wise to give this persona pass in English because he is the star of the team even if he can't read his own name.

None of this is to say that there is no corruption here - different countries different philosophies and atmospheres - I like to travel because I like to see the way other countries do things - London has a certain feel Paris a certain vibrancy - and then there's Australia mate. The US is interesting because you can't really judge it as a country but more like separate countries - Oregan is nothing like California which has a different feel than Arizona which is different from Florida and from Hawaii(this is like a whole other place) and I should think Alaska is quite a bit different as well. It was too long since Detroit and New york to remember much - and Washington State is similer to BC in may ways.

We are all living history - at the turn of this century Britain and France and Germany were the world powers. During the first and second world wars these countries were borrowing heavily from the United States in rebuilding their countries and other financial reasons such as Germany trying to make reparations to France as part of the Versailles treaty. When the colonies began to gain independance from Britain such as India and to a point Ireland The great British Empire began to collapse - and with war also. Those countries ***** and complain because they have to pay America back for those loans - those 5 billion loans plus interest head back to the US at 10billion - but no one forced them to take out the loans.

Canada has had large militaries in the past given our population size was tremendous in WW2 - and kept the lifeline open to Britain - which wopuld have fell a good 3 years before D-Day without them. And as my Canadian Military history instructor noted - you can't dictate policy on a world stage without a strong military presence. Canada has basically handed over our foreign policy to the United Nations - they protect us - err America Protects us.

We are so anti nukes anti this anti that that we can't be taken seriously. Does America really care about what we have to say - if we had 80,000 nuclear weapons and a 20 million man army they sure as **** would - and there would be no softwood lumber argument with your country right now. This whole affair is nothing but America punishing us for not siding with you IMO.

I don't think going into Iraq is all about finances - but Pete I also would not put all your faith into the notion that it was totally altruistic - or all about worry about an iminant danger to your country from Saddam Hussein - there is something more to it than both left and right are arguing. Is it about oil totally no - but every country that relies on oil would have to be interested in it to some degree - and that includes France Germany and Canada who have their own interestes to seeing Saddam stay in power. (especially France and Germany). I would also try and find what these people thought about Iraq before and after 9-11. This can't be just chucked out - and I think the Haliburton connection needs some real focus.

But taking down Saddam hussein and people like Milosovich are imo NEVER bad things - Their killers and need to be held accountable on a world court. The UN is that world court - they found him guilty, incidentally, and America imposed the punishment because they were sick of giving him a 100 warnings. On the other hand you need to be sure your evidence is sound - that Saddam was financing Biny and they have weapons they were going to use against ALled interests. All directions pointed and still do to Saudi Arabia Iraq some flea bag country with a lightweight who your top people said was completely contained and had no capability to make weapons and the previous administration also said this and were more in the know.

But hey does it matter - it's done now and everyone on this forum talking about it won't change world policy.

[piece-it pete]

Pete(thanks for your wishes)

Firstly I am not anti-American - what people including myself seem to expect is that America be perfect - which is of course ludicrous to expect. Death rates and all that are similar anyway - it's not like you all die at 47 and we live to 97. The numbers are probably 2-3 years apart. Higher gun deaths at an early age(and wars) probably impact negatively these numbers(if they're included).

I would add JSEs' comments about diet, as well, I can vouch that we eat a LOT of junk. The gun (at least outside of the getto) and "war" death count is negligible.

I often defend America as if she were perfect. I know only too well that is not true, as well.



Health care arguments while I can see what you're saying - a homeless person may be able to get into one of your hospitals an ER - will he be able to get the best care or the care from the cheap place? In other words I am a student making no money and just recently got a family doctor after moving to Vancouver Island. My dad on his pension has had to pay no money to get all these tests and drugs etc. Well it's not totally free they dinged him $15.00 to get one of those disabled parking cards for the rearview mirror?? The drug industry is a disgrace and R&D is a bit much - Canada buys the drugs off you guys but we're paying next to nothing and in turn we give it to patients for next to nothing. My parents know seniors in the US who claim they're forced to go without the drugs because they can't afford them - so if they will be provided free then Americans need to get that info because they tell outsiders how bad it is - and then the media says it too and suddenly people outside the US think your system is rather heartless. This may be incorrect as you say but a lot of Americans themselves may not realize your medical system is totally free. Indeed, everyone should refuse to pay Blue Cross - why pay if you'll get it done free anyway?

No, the homeless man will not get as good of care as, say, Dick Clark (does that guy age backwards?), but he will get "adequate" care, and let me assure you that "a cheap place" doesn't exist here outside of free clinics.

The pharmaceutical companies here make an average of 4-6% larger net margins than industry in general, which tell me that, yes, they're charging a bit much. But what should we do? In our experience regulation stifles. These companies are pumping out new life saving drugs at an astonishing rate! I don't know if a senior up there gets the 15-20 prescriptions they do down here, more all the time, this is why the costs are going up so much. It's something new, and I have no doubt that we will get a handle on it eventually, out of necessity.

I didn't say our system was free (nothing is truly free) but that the poor do not have to pay. Folks on the dole here get excellent coverage. I get excellent coverage, that I and my employer pay for (which is the same as saying I pay for), though not AS good and not 100% paid for.


The insurance companies from what I have read are the real drain on the US system.

It's this stink'en greedy attitude - stub my toe on the wall and I'll sue the guy who built my house - it's amazing. And the medical malpractice lawsuits - if someone dies (and everybody will!!) - it was the doctors fault and he has to pay - a LOT.

Not to say doctors don't make mistakes but it's getting way out of hand. And with so many former trail lawyers in Congress (you could say the lawyers' union is running the country) it looks like it's only going to get worse.

I should add, though, that our system IS very expensive. I can't believe what palaces our hospitals are becoming. The last one I was in was so palatial I got a bad, bad, feeling. Something like decedent. Ditto for our schools, etc, most foriegn nationals don't quite understand how much money we as a society have, and that excess is not healthy for a culture. I believe this is at least starting to happen in some other 1st world countries, as well.


I am not sympathizing wirh communism but Marxism is another matter - not that I buy that either --- All the isms were invented way back and in high gear during the interwar period. Stalinism was his way of supposedly crushing the class system and of course crushing religion - his competition for power - made sense. Nevertheless he had a dream to compete on a world stage and be an educated and industrialized society.

Yes, he had a dream, all right. Have you read The Gulag Archipelago?

I strongly recommend it to everyone reading this, the whole story is told in the first chapter, then expanded on. If you read one book this year suggested by an Audio site, make it this one :D .



I am more of a centerist. I agree with some of the right proposals and generally social issues on the left. I am pro gay marriage - pro choice(to a degree) - Pro universal healthcare and education(ie everyone has the same chance financially to go to ANY university in the country). In other words if I'm a straight A student and that is the entry requirment then I can attend U of T or UBC. I know several Americans on my Campus that only go here because they could not afford your schools - and these Americans are NOT subsidized like I am. My total 5 and half years will run around $55,000.00Cdn - but this is Tuition/books and living allowance and I have gone to summer school during this period as well so 3 semesters per year. Am I not wrong to say that some universities in the US that $55,000.00 Cdn would only get me through one year? Yes there is prestige but really Shakespeare is the same whether you learn it at Malaspina University College or at Harvard - and knowing a professor here who taught at big Ivy Leagues in the US he said the marking here is actually tougher due to the special interests impacting some of those schools - no one needs to look much past the athletes to see that it would be wise to give this persona pass in English because he is the star of the team even if he can't read his own name.

Here you would not be considered centrist.

Yes, education here is expensive. I recently sent my daughter-in-law to school, she stopped after roughly two years.

I was amazed at the cost. I was also amazed at the aid available, the majority from private sources. Middle class people get hit the hardest, the poor get heavy subsidies and the rich, well, they're rich!!

I wouldn't have minded if she took some classes up north, although you'alls might have posioned her mind with your hippie thinking lol!

The athlete thing is nothing new - but quotas still are sinking in. The Cleveland Orch. had a conniption when they were told that listening to potential recruits behind a screen - to prevent racial profiling - was unacceptable. To prevent degradation by hiring less talented people they hired a black announcer, who is very good btw. Not that by hiring a black guy (or girl) would have automatically been bad, just that there are still few who play at that level as of yet, and so are in great demand. I have no doubt that the passing of time will help level this (and other) disparities.


None of this is to say that there is no corruption here - different countries different philosophies and atmospheres - I like to travel because I like to see the way other countries do things - London has a certain feel Paris a certain vibrancy - and then there's Australia mate. The US is interesting because you can't really judge it as a country but more like separate countries - Oregan is nothing like California which has a different feel than Arizona which is different from Florida and from Hawaii(this is like a whole other place) and I should think Alaska is quite a bit different as well. It was too long since Detroit and New york to remember much - and Washington State is similer to BC in may ways.

One thing my Gran mentions every time over here is that Europeans have no idea how big we are. I would guess this is true of your country, as well, as you have a great area.

She says, they (the Europeans) think there should have been another election ('00), they don't realise it just wouldn't work.

And the difference inside states, I live in Cleveland, which is rust-belt little sleepy Chicago, two hours south is Columbus, nice clean and modern (and growing) but with a more rural feeling, two more hours south and you're in Cincinnati, the Queen City, which feels very much southern.

The difference in accents is noticable.

I think we share this, driving to Toronto from here first you get the Falls, then the wine country (love it), then urban Toronto, all pretty darn quick.



We are all living history - at the turn of this century Britain and France and Germany were the world powers. During the first and second world wars these countries were borrowing heavily from the United States in rebuilding their countries and other financial reasons such as Germany trying to make reparations to France as part of the Versailles treaty. When the colonies began to gain independance from Britain such as India and to a point Ireland The great British Empire began to collapse - and with war also. Those countries ***** and complain because they have to pay America back for those loans - those 5 billion loans plus interest head back to the US at 10billion - but no one forced them to take out the loans.

I realize we have made many loans but the figures quoted above RE: the Marshall Plan include grants only, no loans.

The Brits tell me it was ww2 that broke the camels' back, with many other reasons (including yours, I'm sure). Amazing what a large part of the world the Commonwealth covers, and many Americans, myself included, consider GB the "Mother Country", easy to see why, as it really is.

My SO sat for an old invalid German lady, who still adored Hitler. She believed all the bad stuff was lies. Although I obviously wouldn't agree she also told stories of wandering about various countries with her mother (father killed in ww1) between the two wars, how they had to beg for food and were ridiculed and persecuted where ever they went for being German. She remembered being put in stocks for taking an apple from a tree. I did a little research (a while back now) and no wonder they backed the first guy who said they were somebody. It was an awful time, not commonly known, and had a LOT to do with ww2.


Canada has had large militaries in the past given our population size was tremendous in WW2 - and kept the lifeline open to Britain - which wopuld have fell a good 3 years before D-Day without them. And as my Canadian Military history instructor noted - you can't dictate policy on a world stage without a strong military presence. Canada has basically handed over our foreign policy to the United Nations - they protect us - err America Protects us.

This is my biggest beef with Europe. Do you think the the UN can really protect anyone from, say, a coyote? If they want to talk the talk, and they obviously do, and I for one would welcome it, if they would walk the walk! Show me the money!!


We are so anti nukes anti this anti that that we can't be taken seriously. Does America really care about what we have to say - if we had 80,000 nuclear weapons and a 20 million man army they sure as **** would - and there would be no softwood lumber argument with your country right now. This whole affair is nothing but America punishing us for not siding with you IMO.

This wood thing has been going back and forth for a long time now. It's a protectionist policy on the part of the States and I for one totally disagree.

I also think we (both of us) have to bend over backwards in consideration of each other, what with that "longest peacetime border in history" thing going on :) . Good for us!


I don't think going into Iraq is all about finances - but Pete I also would not put all your faith into the notion that it was totally altruistic - or all about worry about an iminant danger to your country from Saddam Hussein - there is something more to it than both left and right are arguing. Is it about oil totally no - but every country that relies on oil would have to be interested in it to some degree - and that includes France Germany and Canada who have their own interestes to seeing Saddam stay in power. (especially France and Germany). I would also try and find what these people thought about Iraq before and after 9-11. This can't be just chucked out - and I think the Haliburton connection needs some real focus.

Altruistic? Enlightened self interest is sure not altruistic! This is Realpolitik, the only kind that works over the long haul. And Haliburton, same deal. most people including Americans don't realise that the invasion would not have gone off so smoothly without them, they did a LOT that the armed forces used to do themselves, it freed up military guys to fight.

My dad did a lot of work with contractors, and handling contracts, working for gov't here for decades.

Anyone that's even had a house built knows the score. It goes like this: Bid a contract. Get the job. The MINUTE there's an extra the contractor puts in for his upcharge, and particularly with the gov't but often elsewhere it is a ridiculously huge, overstated sum. The game begins, back and forth, offer and counteroffer, it happens every day.

Not to say Haliburton hasn't done some crappy things. It's a company, it will put profit first. Liars and criminals in business should always go to jail.




But taking down Saddam hussein and people like Milosovich are imo NEVER bad things - Their killers and need to be held accountable on a world court. The UN is that world court - they found him guilty, incidentally, and America imposed the punishment because they were sick of giving him a 100 warnings. On the other hand you need to be sure your evidence is sound - that Saddam was financing Biny and they have weapons they were going to use against ALled interests. All directions pointed and still do to Saudi Arabia Iraq some flea bag country with a lightweight who your top people said was completely contained and had no capability to make weapons and the previous administration also said this and were more in the know.

But hey does it matter - it's done now and everyone on this forum talking about it won't change world policy.

Yeah the fur's sure flying over THAT! You know :) I support this war for many reasons but must say I believe this issue was handled badly - very badly. I believe the Sauds are doing very well, now.

BTW, I don't believe we can impose justice on the world, (and I don't think we [the US] has the right), maybe a semblence of order occasionally, keep roads open, etc. No looking for dragons to slay, they should have to come to us.

And yes, we're really kind of pathetic, but at least we all care enough to be concerned, maybe we'll all learn something, who knows?

Pete

[JSE]

It's this stink'en greedy attitude - stub my toe on the wall and I'll sue the guy who built my house - it's amazing. And the medical malpractice lawsuits - if someone dies (and everybody will!!) - it was the doctors fault and he has to pay - a LOT.

Not to say doctors don't make mistakes but it's getting way out of hand. And with so many former trail lawyers in Congress (you could say the lawyers' union is running the country) it looks like it's only going to get worse.Pete

Very good point. My wife is a medical malpractice attorney (ok, start the jokes now) who defends Doctors, Hospitals, Nurses, etc. Suits have gotten out of hand. Here in Texas, we just recently past some Tort reform but it could be a lot better. People sue for everything. Attorney's look for any mistake regardless of whether it had anything to do with the incident in question. They sue everyone. A nurse could have given the wrong medicine to a patient that may or may not have caused any side effects and the patient will sue the Nurse, the Doctor, the Hospital, the Group the doctor belongs to, the radiologist, the doctor's dog, etc. It's crazy. Things go wrong, it's a fact of life. Doctors are not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. People just seem to forget that and see dollars signs glowing in front of them. If you think you pay alot of helthcare insurance, you ought to see what some doctors pay. It's staggering!

RGA, insurance companies are not the problem. People complain about the high cost of coverage. Fine, let's lower the cost and see how long your bills get paid. Insurance companies can only pay out as much as they bring in. Simple math. Insurance companies charge what it needed to cover losses or benefits plus an extra amount (reserves) that is ususally mandated by individual states. Insurance companies have to keep the doors open in order to provide covarage. Cut back on frivalous (sp?) lawsuits and make the looser pay and our insurance rates will go way down.


JSE

[karl k]

Lastly, in terms of health care, I don't want to get into the details surrounding the problems that you have with Medicaid and HMO's, I would just point out that despite your systems, there are still over 10 million people who are not covered under any insurance plan in the US. In fact, a large percentage of the 'working poor' in the US currently find themselves in a wasteland where they can't afford insurance and they can't afford to go on welfare.

In regards to MRI's, I would point out that there are a large number of complaints in several US states that indicate that HMO's and Medicaid pre-approvals take just as long as a standard Canadian waiting time. With the cuts to State funding proposed by Bush, I can't see this getting any better.

I tell you what. You keep your system and I'll keep ours. Both have their merits. Which one is better, well that's up for debate. But, I can tell you that if I ever have a serious ailment like Heart Problems, Cancer, Brain injury, etc. My butt is staying right here in the good ol' USA for care. Health ins. or no Health ins. We are generally considered to have the best doctors in the world. I am lucky in that I live in Houston. We have a medical center that is larger than most cities made up of Hospitals, Clinics, Research Labs, Trauma Centers, etc.

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that the avg. life expectancy is lower here in the US than in Canada. OK? I doubt our helthcare system has that big of an impact on that. I'm guessing McDonalds and it's Big Mac has a larger effect.

You and RGA are Canadian. Freakin Great! Myself and other's are American. We can argue all day who's better than who. The fact is, I'm not moviing and I doubt either of you will either. Enjoy life! That will make you live longer than anything else you do.

Sorry for the rant! :D

JSE

At least what's being said, towards us, in a negative fashion has possibility for merit where as what others are saying has absolutely no merit!

Speaking as one of those 10mil. who doesn't have any coverage under our current system, I haven't seen anywhere, that I can recall, anyone is dissing the "quality" of health care but instead are dissing the "availability" to all citing affordability as the main reason. Affordability is the reason I don't have coverage now and haven't had most of my adult life(20yrs). Not saying I just don't make enough, just saying life wouldn't be the same... to say the least.

Besides, we got other things to be more worried about than a healthcare system that at least works for the 80% or so of Americans that are privately insured. :D

[karl k]

Very good point. My wife is a medical malpractice attorney (ok, start the jokes now) who defends Doctors, Hospitals, Nurses, etc. Suits have gotten out of hand. Here in Texas, we just recently past some Tort reform but it could be a lot better. People sue for everything. Attorney's look for any mistake regardless of whether it had anything to do with the incident in question. They sue everyone. A nurse could have given the wrong medicine to a patient that may or may not have caused any side effects and the patient will sue the Nurse, the Doctor, the Hospital, the Group the doctor belongs to, the radiologist, the doctor's dog, etc. It's crazy. Things go wrong, it's a fact of life. Doctors are not perfect and make mistakes from time to time. People just seem to forget that and see dollars signs glowing in front of them. If you think you pay alot of helthcare insurance, you ought to see what some doctors pay. It's staggering!

RGA, insurance companies are not the problem. People complain about the high cost of coverage. Fine, let's lower the cost and see how long your bills get paid. Insurance companies can only pay out as much as they bring in. Simple math. Insurance companies charge what it needed to cover losses or benefits plus an extra amount (reserves) that is ususally mandated by individual states. Insurance companies have to keep the doors open in order to provide covarage. Cut back on frivalous (sp?) lawsuits and make the looser pay and our insurance rates will go way down.


JSE
Yes, that was a very good point. I'm 100% with you guys on this one. Ya know, there is so much we can do in our everyday lives that could reduce the visits to the hospital... and that is one of them. Recognizing that our own health is something we can influence to a large extent is the first step to a safe and prosperous life. It's a shame that the integrety of some of these people is such that they would be willing to defraud the system for personal gain(or recovery).

But let me also tell you that the insurance industry is not exempt from blame on the current state of our healthcare system. While you are correct in your statement about spending what you take in, I would maintain that they haven't made a very good effort to limit the spending on their part. If you provide a service(as a hospital), and you were guaranteed payment(because the payee has the assets) what would stop you from slowly raising the "cost" for same service over time? The only thing the insurance co has to bargin with is volume. But does that keep the cost down? It does for the insurance co! It doesn't do anything for me as the hospitals give discounts to the base rate instead of lowering/maintaining a reasonable base rate. I'm left with making too much per yr to qualify for help, making to little to pay for assistance and paying FULL price on my services I or my family do receive since I don't generate any volume. Now, it's people like me who are blamed for the law suits and the bankrupcies and the moneys lost by the hospital but when you think about it, how much help are we really receiving in an effort to pay the bill?

I'm going through a little thing with the hospital and support staff now for a surgery my wife had back in Feb. I've been doing a little research about the proceedure(gall bladder removal), it's risk's, and it's cost both past and present. In the last 5yrs, the cost of said proceedure has doubled in my part of the country. As far as safety, it's considered to be one of the safest invasive surgeries a human can have. It's also on one of the most useless organs you have. This kind of surgery used to be done in the Dr's office not to long ago. Almost a walk in the park. Yet that same proceedure(surgeons and hospital) will cost you almost $15K in the midwest and close to $20K on either coast. Five or six yrs ago that same proceedure cost the insurance co AND the recepiant about $5K or so. Now, insurance co's pay anywhere from 50% to 80% or more of that bill and the rest is written off as a cost of doing business in an effort to gain more business. Hospitals have succeeded at raising the cost for the same service, knowing that the insurance co will still guarantee payment(which is still higher even with the discount), and the insurance co will pay that increase knowing that they will regain their losses/increase their profits by increasing the premiums of those who feel they can't live w/o insurance coverage. And where do I fit in? I get stuck with the full bill while everyone who can afford it still get a discount because they at least payed for part of the bill through their paying the premiums. At best all I can do is convince the hospital and the surgeons that the money I can pay is better than nothing at all and get my discount that way. While not very noble(and I really hate having to deceive anyone) it is sometimes effective and necessary. Above all, I do pay ALL the bills in what ever amount.

Ultimately, it is up to us, and what we are willing to pay to not have to pay. Insurance used to mean help with a catastraphy, now people use it for anything and everything no matter how minute the expense citing that they are paying for it anyway. Until insurance companies are willing to stop paying for the trivial stuff, and the public begins paying for their own way more often, things will only get worse... if the government doesn't step in first with a tangeble solution.(not holding my breath on that one either)

Thanks for listening J :D

[piece-it pete]

Karl,

Yep I don't see a way out of it till people get a grip. It's hard, though, 'cause when it's your family member that needs that procedure, or test, etc. And the way dollar signs light up in peoples eyes - I've hit the lawsuit lottery!! Justice = compensation.

A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.

It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.

The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!

Yikes!

I hope things get better for you. Does your church know?

JSE,

Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)

Pete

[JSE]

JSE,

Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)

Pete


BRING IT ON!

I'll be there! :D

JSE

[karl k]

Karl,

Yep I don't see a way out of it till people get a grip. It's hard, though, 'cause when it's your family member that needs that procedure, or test, etc. And the way dollar signs light up in peoples eyes - I've hit the lawsuit lottery!! Justice = compensation.

A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.

It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.

The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!

Yikes!

I hope things get better for you. Does your church know?

JSE,

Friday. Sharp. Lawyer jokes. :)

Pete
out with MM and end up with healthcare! Maybe MM can do a piece on healthcare next! LOL

Does my church know? Funny you would ask that since the hospital is a church based hospital that is supposed to be "not for profit"! In fact, that was the only reason I went to this hospital because it was recommended for that fact. It doesn't really matter anyway as most churchs here only provide compassion and understanding... maybe some help with applications to assistance that I still wouldn't qualify for. Anything else and you get the "God only helps those who help themselves" bit. You have to loose a baby or a house or something to get much else. Besides, I'm not asking for, nor would expect any help in paying my own way. What I would like is to pay at the same rate as everyone else whether it be an individual or a corperation, the proceedure should cost the same reguardless. All I am saying is that for various reasons, a number of people and organizations have made the american healthcare system less and less accessible to the general public over recent yrs. By that I mean that due to the cost of receiving healthcare or insurance coverage in this country, more and more people are having to decide whether the risk of getting sick is high enough to justify the cost of insurance. People are seeking out alternatives to traditional insurance all the time in an effort to have some kind of affordable assistance. Most have very little luck in that endeavor. I myself have had coverage off and on based on my ability to pay for such services and finally last year I couldn't keep up and had to drop it again. In the last 5yrs, my premiums for the same "family" coverage have increased from $160/mth to almost $400/mth and that's "my half". I would also say that at $400/mth, that's about 12%-15% of my pre tax income(depending on overtime). Another way of putting it... After I pay all the bills for the house, elect, water, trash, gas, food, clothes, and the rest of the simple "necessities" of life, insurance would be over 1/2 of what's left every month.(BTW, I have never owned a new car or a new house)

I don't know if Canada has the answer or not but I would like the ability to decide on my own through being able to participate in such an experiment here if the oppurtunity were to present itself.

"A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.

It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.

The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!

Yikes!"

Two things...

1) He lived... didn't he?

2) Was that here, or in England? Here, even 50yrs ago, that would have been done with a general anesthetic in the local Dr's office. Man, your gramps was one tough little man!

[piece-it pete]

out with MM and end up with healthcare! Maybe MM can do a piece on healthcare next! LOL

Does my church know? Funny you would ask that since the hospital is a church based hospital that is supposed to be "not for profit"! In fact, that was the only reason I went to this hospital because it was recommended for that fact. It doesn't really matter anyway as most churchs here only provide compassion and understanding... maybe some help with applications to assistance that I still wouldn't qualify for. Anything else and you get the "God only helps those who help themselves" bit. You have to loose a baby or a house or something to get much else. Besides, I'm not asking for, nor would expect any help in paying my own way. What I would like is to pay at the same rate as everyone else whether it be an individual or a corperation, the proceedure should cost the same reguardless. All I am saying is that for various reasons, a number of people and organizations have made the american healthcare system less and less accessible to the general public over recent yrs. By that I mean that due to the cost of receiving healthcare or insurance coverage in this country, more and more people are having to decide whether the risk of getting sick is high enough to justify the cost of insurance. People are seeking out alternatives to traditional insurance all the time in an effort to have some kind of affordable assistance. Most have very little luck in that endeavor. I myself have had coverage off and on based on my ability to pay for such services and finally last year I couldn't keep up and had to drop it again. In the last 5yrs, my premiums for the same "family" coverage have increased from $160/mth to almost $400/mth and that's "my half". I would also say that at $400/mth, that's about 12%-15% of my pre tax income(depending on overtime). Another way of putting it... After I pay all the bills for the house, elect, water, trash, gas, food, clothes, and the rest of the simple "necessities" of life, insurance would be over 1/2 of what's left every month.(BTW, I have never owned a new car or a new house)

I don't know if Canada has the answer or not but I would like the ability to decide on my own through being able to participate in such an experiment here if the oppurtunity were to present itself.

"A little sidenote: My dad remembers when his dad went in for "minor" surgery, I think it was the appendix.

It was done right in the Doctors' office, no drugs. He was told to bring a button to keep the cost down.

The Doctor only sewed up the inside of the skin, then pulled the outside and lapped it over, then sewed the button on - unsanitized - to keep the stitches from pulling out!!

Yikes!"

Two things...

1) He lived... didn't he?

2) Was that here, or in England? Here, even 50yrs ago, that would have been done with a general anesthetic in the local Dr's office. Man, your gramps was one tough little man!

Karl,

On health care, I wouldn't mind an experiment, but it just won't happen that way, you know?

Yep the cost for all of us, I think, is going up, a lot. I don't know the answer to that.

I have never bought a new car or house, either, even if I could afford it the immediate depreciation looks like a bad deal, to me!

That surgery happened in Chicago in the late 30s'. Apparently he got a bit better, then started turning green, he STILL WORKED (as a railroad mechanic), right up to the bitter end.

I'm kinda glad it came up, I'll ask good old dad for a refresher on the details the next time I see him, I'll post under "Surgery in the '30s".

I hope I'm not too far off!!

Pete

[Woochifer]

Mark Fiore's latest political cartoon pretty much parallels Moore's theme of the Administration distracting from the news by creating an atmosphere of fear and contradictory messages. Pretty funny depiction of Tom Ridge actually (never thought of him as the masked superhero type!)...

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/fear.html

[dean_martin]

At the risk of instigating a riot, I must step in and defend my profession. I am a trial lawyer and am very proud to be one. For the most part my practice involves helping injured workers get the workers' compensation and medical benifits they're entitled to under the law. The workers' comp system in our state is arcane and comp insurance companies often use it to their advantage which results in unfair and even inhumane treatment of injured workers. My fee is capped by statute, but it's very satisfying to drag a comp insurance company into court and have the judge order it to provide the very treatment its own hand-picked doctor recommended. I used to ask myself several questions, eg, is the insurance company practicing medicine w/out a license?, why does the court have to order them to pay for something they are already obligated for under the law?

My practice also includes motor vehicle accident cases. I screen cases to determine 1) fault and 2) whether the potential client has a permanent injury. Juries, even if they believe the other driver to be at fault, generally do not award damages for what is known as a soft tissue injury such as whiplash eventhough whiplash is real. Insurance companies know this as well and many such as Alfa and State Farm have used this knowledge to deny small claims and force the claimant to sue. They have further adopted a policy of trying these smaller cases rather than settling for a reasonable amount (often less than $10, 000). Their rationale is that eventually plaintiff lawyers will figure out that it's not worth it to take these cases. But, where does that leave the injured driver who may have missed a week of work and incurred medical bills?

For those of you who actually believe the frivolous lawsuit myth, I encourage you to go to www.snopes.com which has a section on legal urban legends. You'll find that it's predominantly propaganda. There's no way I would file a medical malpractice lawsuit if I wasn't sure that I could prove that the doctor in question breached the applicable standard of care AND that I could find a reputable medical expert to testify to such. Believe me, it's very difficult to find a doctor who will testify against another doctor. It is also very expensive to bring such a lawsuit and under my standard fee arrangement I front all the fees. Therefore, the injury must be severe enough that the potential damages make it worth pursuing. My method of evaluation is not unique and any pragmatist trial lawyer who expects to have a long career would employ this type of evaluation. (BTW, don't kid yourself either. Many people more wise than us decided a long time ago that an award of money is the best way to compensate those injured by the negligent, wanton, reckless or intentional act of another.)

In addition, there are mechanisms in our civil justice system that weed out lawsuits that have little or no merit. They are motions that test the legal theories behind the claims asserted and the evidence upon which the claims are based. There's nothing quite as daunting as having a motion for summary judgment entered against one of my clients. It's like saying my client doesn't desreve a trial by jury. It's not always easy to determine up front whether all the facts as stated by your client will be supported by the evidence once discovery begins.

I have on occasion filed lawsuits or entered into presuit negotiations with the intention of filing for the very purpose of challenging a law unfavorable to my client. Immunity for government officials based on the outdated premise that the King can do no wrong is one of my favorite targets. Within the rules and ethics I must follow I am allowed to bring a lawsuit to challenge the very law that prevents my lawsuit if I am able to make a good faith argument that the law should be changed, modified, or held unconstitutional.

I am amazed at the criticism civil juries have received as of late. It's like everyone now believes that our bought-and-paid-for congressmen know better than our neighbors. Much of this sentiment has to do with the propaganda being spread such as that addressed in the link above. You don't hear much talk about Kellogg suing Exxon over the tiger, or Fox News suing Al Franken over the phrase "fair and balanced" (I take that back - I think Franken made sure people knew about it), or Victoria's Secret going after a KY store called Victor's Little Secret which went all the way to the Supreme Court, or Enterprise Rent-A-Car suing several rental cos. for using the phrase" we'll pick you up" because when Enterprise uses it they mean "we'll pick up your spirits" too! If we continue on the present course, the courts will be left to the elite. They were envisioned as a level playing field for the weak and strong. It's the only branch of our government in which we get to participate directly by serving on juries.

I do have some statistics, studies and reports debunking the myth that lawsuits are the cause of the recent medical malpractice liability insurance "crisis". I've said enough for now but will share them soon. I'll even provide you some facts on the McDonald's hot coffee case if you're interested. Speaking of McDonald's, do you think they would have added a healthy menu and changed their cooking oil if some nutty law professor and his students in the northeast hadn't sued them and other fast food chains for making someone obese. That lawsuit was thrown out, but the Justice Dept. is after McDonald's now. Although I don't often agree, the courts have been used many times in attempts to propagate social change. Read some of your civil rights cases such as those extending the commerce clause of the constitution to eliminate private racism at hotels and restaurants near interstate highways. I'm here to tell you that the system is not perfect because it relies on people and it can stand to be tweaked every once in awhile, but it's the best system in the world and wholesale changes are not the answer. If anything, we should be vigilant watchdogs of our right to trial by jury and should be especially suspicious of efforts to weaken it (such as taking important questions that should be case-specific out of the hands of jurors and putting the answers in legislation).

[piece-it pete]

At the risk of instigating a riot, I must step in and defend my profession. I am a trial lawyer and am very proud to be one. For the most part my practice involves helping injured workers get the workers' compensation and medical benifits they're entitled to under the law. The workers' comp system in our state is arcane and comp insurance companies often use it to their advantage which results in unfair and even inhumane treatment of injured workers. My fee is capped by statute, but it's very satisfying to drag a comp insurance company into court and have the judge order it to provide the very treatment its own hand-picked doctor recommended. I used to ask myself several questions, eg, is the insurance company practicing medicine w/out a license?, why does the court have to order them to pay for something they are already obligated for under the law?

My practice also includes motor vehicle accident cases. I screen cases to determine 1) fault and 2) whether the potential client has a permanent injury. Juries, even if they believe the other driver to be at fault, generally do not award damages for what is known as a soft tissue injury such as whiplash eventhough whiplash is real. Insurance companies know this as well and many such as Alfa and State Farm have used this knowledge to deny small claims and force the claimant to sue. They have further adopted a policy of trying these smaller cases rather than settling for a reasonable amount (often less than $10, 000). Their rationale is that eventually plaintiff lawyers will figure out that it's not worth it to take these cases. But, where does that leave the injured driver who may have missed a week of work and incurred medical bills?

For those of you who actually believe the frivolous lawsuit myth, I encourage you to go to www.snopes.com which has a section on legal urban legends. You'll find that it's predominantly propaganda. There's no way I would file a medical malpractice lawsuit if I wasn't sure that I could prove that the doctor in question breached the applicable standard of care AND that I could find a reputable medical expert to testify to such. Believe me, it's very difficult to find a doctor who will testify against another doctor. It is also very expensive to bring such a lawsuit and under my standard fee arrangement I front all the fees. Therefore, the injury must be severe enough that the potential damages make it worth pursuing. My method of evaluation is not unique and any pragmatist trial lawyer who expects to have a long career would employ this type of evaluation. (BTW, don't kid yourself either. Many people more wise than us decided a long time ago that an award of money is the best way to compensate those injured by the negligent, wanton, reckless or intentional act of another.)

In addition, there are mechanisms in our civil justice system that weed out lawsuits that have little or no merit. They are motions that test the legal theories behind the claims asserted and the evidence upon which the claims are based. There's nothing quite as daunting as having a motion for summary judgment entered against one of my clients. It's like saying my client doesn't desreve a trial by jury. It's not always easy to determine up front whether all the facts as stated by your client will be supported by the evidence once discovery begins.

I have on occasion filed lawsuits or entered into presuit negotiations with the intention of filing for the very purpose of challenging a law unfavorable to my client. Immunity for government officials based on the outdated premise that the King can do no wrong is one of my favorite targets. Within the rules and ethics I must follow I am allowed to bring a lawsuit to challenge the very law that prevents my lawsuit if I am able to make a good faith argument that the law should be changed, modified, or held unconstitutional.

I am amazed at the criticism civil juries have received as of late. It's like everyone now believes that our bought-and-paid-for congressmen know better than our neighbors. Much of this sentiment has to do with the propaganda being spread such as that addressed in the link above. You don't hear much talk about Kellogg suing Exxon over the tiger, or Fox News suing Al Franken over the phrase "fair and balanced" (I take that back - I think Franken made sure people knew about it), or Victoria's Secret going after a KY store called Victor's Little Secret which went all the way to the Supreme Court, or Enterprise Rent-A-Car suing several rental cos. for using the phrase" we'll pick you up" because when Enterprise uses it they mean "we'll pick up your spirits" too! If we continue on the present course, the courts will be left to the elite. They were envisioned as a level playing field for the weak and strong. It's the only branch of our government in which we get to participate directly by serving on juries.

I do have some statistics, studies and reports debunking the myth that lawsuits are the cause of the recent medical malpractice liability insurance "crisis". I've said enough for now but will share them soon. I'll even provide you some facts on the McDonald's hot coffee case if you're interested. Speaking of McDonald's, do you think they would have added a healthy menu and changed their cooking oil if some nutty law professor and his students in the northeast hadn't sued them and other fast food chains for making someone obese. That lawsuit was thrown out, but the Justice Dept. is after McDonald's now. Although I don't often agree, the courts have been used many times in attempts to propagate social change. Read some of your civil rights cases such as those extending the commerce clause of the constitution to eliminate private racism at hotels and restaurants near interstate highways. I'm here to tell you that the system is not perfect because it relies on people and it can stand to be tweaked every once in awhile, but it's the best system in the world and wholesale changes are not the answer. If anything, we should be vigilant watchdogs of our right to trial by jury and should be especially suspicious of efforts to weaken it (such as taking important questions that should be case-specific out of the hands of jurors and putting the answers in legislation).

Dean,

Thanks for speaking up.

I for one did not finger the lawyers originally, I blamed the people. But of course lawyers are the problem. Just kidding!

But I believe it is true that the bar is the single most powerful group in Congress.

I really don't know enough about this issue. Why do you think premiums are going up? The insurance companies are saying with caps they can plan their expenses.

I remember, as a Realtor, that I would get mad every time some buyer sued the seller, I'd get sucked in, it would always be: "Pete, I know you're OK, but my lawyer told me to name everyone, I've got to get this settled and your company has insurance" - Aaarrrrghhh!

I realise now that it's your job, you have a fiduciary duty to give advice that's in his best interest, same as I did, but aaarrrrghhh! Did I get upset occasionally! I figured out it went with the job eventually.

Of course, when I was threatened by a shady builder, I looked at him, smiled, and said "We pay for and get the very best representation, so bring it on". It worked VERY well, never had another problem with that guy. Too bad it was only marginally true!

So maybe your view of lawyers depends on which side of the fence you're on.

And how are the juries doing? I know in Ohio they've (the authorities) gotten very strict about serving jury duty, up until recently almost no one went. I would love to serve, but never been called, even though I've been a registered voter all my adult life. What's you're take?

Pete

[dean_martin]

Pete,

There's no short answer to rate hikes, the effects if any of tort reform on rates, etc. I get most of my information from the Center for Justice and Democracy and rather than trying to condense it, I'll refer you to their website www.centerjd.org I know that the last cry for tort reform was in the mid-80's and in response to the medical malpractice "crisis" and threats by ins. cos. to leave certain states, over 40 states enacted tort reform. But rates didn't go down. There is an insurance cycle dictated by interest rates, ins. rate competition, etc. that is fairly well explained at the website referred to above. The Center for Justice and Democracy often sides with Trial Lawyers, but if you spend some time at their website you'll see that they have some pretty good evidence backing them up.

In direct actions against insurance cos. for bad faith refusal to pay claims, I do not like the idea of their being able to "plan for their expenses" based on caps. In other words, I like the idea of some uncertainty so that they can't "plan" to deny a percentage of claims regardless of merit, for example. If they know the exact dollar amount they might be hit for, then it may be more profitable for them to take their chances. On the other hand, when a professional such as a doctor or real estate agent is sued, then the area of knowing what your liability is going to be becomes grayer. But, the insurance company is generally in control and can settle a meritorious claim within the policy limits. If it doesn't settle when it has the oppurtunity and a verdict comes back against the professional in excess of the policy limits, the defendant may bring a suit against his insurance company for the excess. Most of the time, the defendant will assign his right to sue his insurance company to the plaintiff in the original case. Plaintiffs lawyers don't like to go after an individual with no insurance or for amounts in excess of the policy limits (of course there are exceptions such as the civil suit against O.J.). Through caselaw our judges have come up with this philosophy on uncertainty: the person who is found to have caused the harm should bare any uncertainty as opposed to the injured.

In your realtor example, it IS generally the lawyer who advises the client to name every potential defendant in a lawsuit. On the other hand, I've talked clients out of naming some as defendants. The test is whether under the facts as alleged a legally recognized cause of action can be stated against that individual. As stated in my previous post, the client's version of the facts aren't always exactly right. If they're not, then a defendant may get out on summary judgment. I had a case recently that involved the sale of a home infested w/termites (termites are potentially a big problem here). I named the realtor and her company, the seller, and the termite inspector and his company. When I went to take the realtor's deposition I realized that she had shown me a house before and of course she remembered me which made me a little uncomfortable. (I'm sure she was pissed.) Their had been some representations made that allowed us to get around the caveat emptor doctrine applicable to an existing home, so I pressed on. One thing about practicing the kind of law I practice, I'm either loved or hated - there's no middle ground.

I do appreciate your willingness to serve on a jury. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to challenge the process by which jurors are summoned for jury duty. As long as the selection process is random and based on a list such as drivers licenses or voter rolls there's not much a lawyer can do about it. I had a case recently where my client was African-American and we were in a county that was 13% African-American. Of the 50 or so people summoned to jury duty only one was African-American. I could challenge the other lawyer if he struck a potential juror based soley on race or gender, but there was nothing I could do about the makeup of the jury pool.

I have observed that most people either try to get out of jury duty, or they resent being called. But once they are selected to be on a jury, they take their jobs seriously. In my home county, the judges will send a sheriff's deputy to get people who don't show up for jury duty. The first Thursday and Friday of every May we have Law Day where seniors from the local high schools come to the court house and some serve as a real jury in a minor criminal trial while the others observe. The seniors always take their responsibility seriously. Our local bar takes this oppurtunity to stress how important jury duty is. We've been doing it since the mid-80s and I think we're seeing a new generation of jurors who are more willing to serve.

I think you're right about lawyers being very powerful in Congress, but the lawyers are not always on the same side of every issue. Unfortunately, it takes money to run and win. I would like to see a wider spectrum of representation, but I'm not sure how we could achieve it. I wouldn't be afraid of an electrician, a mechanic, an assembly worker, a farmer, etc. serving in Congress.

I think debating our civil justice system is good. Like I said, it's not perfect. But when lawyers have to respond to ad campaigns that stretch the truth (like the National Chamber of Commerce's ad campaign about the "lawsuit abuse tax", or insurance execs raising rates and arguing for damages caps while at the same time stating that damages caps won't lower rates), we know we're up against well-backed profiteers. Anyhow, it's a war that wares on me. I would much rather be fighting for my clients than defending myself and my profession. I might have a little more time to listen to my system or watch a dvd!

Tim