Political, International And Religious Issues Blog
Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 07:32 PM - France
In France the jogging habit of President Sarkozy has become the subject of debate, analysis and yes ... even psychoanalysis. In the cafes favored by Paris intellectuals the talk is no longer about existentialism or post-modernism - but about Sarkozy's penchant for dressing in shorts and runners, then hitting the road in order to engage in an activity involving leg-propelled forward momentum and the generation of sweat.
Why ask his critics, does the President feel the need to jog? An activity after all that is viewed by many jaded Gaulois smokers as well ... American. Dangerously American. What has happened to France, when the president of the Republic starts running around in public, sweating and grimacing?
Moreover Sarkozy has other disconcerting athletic habits. He doesn't reliably mount the steps of the Elysee Palace with presidential dignity. No longer the haughty Chiracian aplomb of old. No, on occasion the suspiciously buffed newcomer bounds up the steps like a sort of right wing gazelle. A deeply disturbing sight to those who suspect that all of this has a threatening sub-text - kind of like being invaded by humanoid aliens who betray themselves by some peculiar trait or other.
The president's jogging has become linked in the minds of the paranoid with some muscular, testosterone-driven ideological agenda. Can you imagine how appalled Jean-Paul Sartre would have been by this spectacle? It would reliably have prompted long philosophical discussions and perhaps even lengthy essays.
One French philosopher, Alain Finkelkraut, has gone so far as to beg the president to give up his "undignified" hobby. Finkelkraut suggested on the TV channel, France 2, that instead of jogging, Sarkozy should take up walking ... like Socrates and the poet, Arthur Rimbaud.
The philosophical speculation also focuses on the nature of the activity itself and some critics are of the opinion that unlike walking, jogging is a projection of power and control. A walker takes in nature - there is a reciprocal exchange between the walker and surroundings during a promenade, inspiring thought and even dreams. Whereas jogging ... well it's virtually like giving the finger to nature. It declares "I am the master of my domain" in an unseemly fashion. It is almost imperial. Like invading the Champs Elysees without first going to the UN. Shocking!
But even more disconcerting than the jogging, is the outfit the president is sometimes seen wearing. You would think that if he insists on jogging he would at least try to help the planet by wearing a T'shirt that supports the environment or maybe even one with something recognizably French like a baguette. But no, he has the temerity to wear a shirt emblazoned with 'NYPD'. Mon Dieu! Can you imagine this? The president of the Republic running around Paris with a T'shirt touting New York cops? Unbelievable.
Le jogging or "le footing" as it is sometimes known has resulted in nicknames for the new president, such as "Speedy Sarko" and "Supersarko". This may seem light hearted, but the nicknames don't detract from the deeper concern that the president's jogging is nothing less than a crass display of individualism. Some even suspect creeping totalitarianism. After all the Nazis were fond of athletic pursuits and strutting their stuff for the camera. A media critic, Daniel Schneidermann, goes even further and has stated publicly that he believes Sarkozy's jogging is "a major weapon of media manipulation".
What next? Sarkozy jogging with Bush at the Crawford ranch? High fives with Schwarzenegger as the pair bounce along a beach framed by a Cali sunset? Or God forbid jogging around Brussels like a yank?
All of this attention on what is after all an exercise routine, confirms many in their view that the French are prone to hyperbole and love to create drama for the sake of it. Of course, the suspicions that Sarkozy is too pro-American and too right wing in general required a tangible symbol. So it's hardly surprising that some on the left are milking this for all it's worth.
So far the president has remained blithely unaffected by the fuss. When he starts chewing gum and wearing a Sony Walkman on his runs, then his critics can be assured that France is really in serious peril.
By: Aidan Maconachy
Aidan Maconachy resides in Ontario, Canada. He has a BA Hons and a BEd. He taught in the UK and Canada, and has been a contributor to a variety of magazines and newspapers over the years. You can visit his blog at http://aidanmaconachyblog.blogspot.com (Related) .
Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Law Services (Related) and Lifestyle (Related) portal.
Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes (Related) index and brighten your day.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Friday, July 6, 2007, 06:53 PM - Iraq
In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran "...are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement..." on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to "...become somewhat ordered near the quarter's end...." If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.
As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.
Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.
The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.
But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.
And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.
In its just published Third Quarter Forecast for 2007, private intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting (STRATFOR) predicts that the governments of the United States and Iran "...are now closer than ever to reaching an agreement..." on Iraq. If such a deal is indeed finalized, STRATFOR expects Iraq to "...become somewhat ordered near the quarter's end...." If no agreement can be reached, however, the analysts in downtown Austin foresee full-blown violence that will likely last for several more years.
As things stand now, I believe the likelihood of any U.S.-Iranian pact on Iraq will be sabotaged not by the negotiating parties from Washington and Tehran, but rather by the Iraqis themselves. Thus far it has been the Iraqis that have been the main obstacle to peace, regardless of what the United States and Iran may want to see happen. It is true that foreign fighters have played a role in the continuing violence, making grand efforts to stoke sectarian conflict by attacking Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi civilians indiscriminately. And it is equally true that Iraq has become a central front in the Global War on Terrorism since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. But the main source of the fighting does not stem from the multitude of terrorist organizations operating within Iraq's borders. The chief fomenters of violence are Iraqis, and they are killing each other by the tens of thousands.
Why is this happening? Why would Iraqis insist on sectarian warfare that prevents national reconciliation and the possibility of a stable and secure nation? I suspect that it is because the Iraqis themselves have no real desire to get along with each other and to move the country forward. There is a deep-seated hatred between the three main ethnic groups, a hatred that was violently suppressed under Saddam's ruthless dictatorship, and none of the fighting parties have thus far been willing to take any meaningful action to end the cycle of violence that is preventing political progress and the eventual withdrawal of U.S. forces.
There has been some progress in al-Anbar Province, where some Sunni leaders have joined together with coalition forces to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. And there have been some initial signs of success in Baghdad, where General Petraeus says he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy." But significant numbers of Sunnis still attack American and Iraqi troops and Shi'a militias still roam the streets like vigilante death squads, conducting mass executions and terrorizing the populace. The Syrian border remains porous, with foreign fighters flocking to Iraq to take on American troops. And the Kurds, who have thus far managed to avoid much of the conflict plaguing Iraq, are becoming progressively more vocal in their demands for increased regional autonomy and resolution of the status of oil-rich Kirkuk.
The government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is barely functioning, and the police and army forces have been thoroughly infiltrated by sectarian militias more loyal to tribe and sheikh than to the authorities in Baghdad. The population is not secure, and the people refuse to put their faith and trust in a government that cannot protect them. The outlook is grim, but the war is not yet lost.
The final troops involved in President Bush's security plan for greater Baghdad and al-Anbar Province are now in place and the "surge," announced in January, is just now getting fully underway. The purpose of the "surge," to remind readers, is to provide the Iraqi leaders in Baghdad a level of security that will facilitate political progress among the major fighting factions. This means that al-Maliki's government must get control of the militias, and it must resolve the issues of de-Baathification, revenue sharing, regional autonomy, and minority representation in the government.
But above all, it means that Iraqis have to step up to the plate, now more than ever, and demonstrate that they are willing to live together first as Iraqis, and second as Shi'a, Sunni, or Kurd. Time is running out, and the American public's will to keep up the fight is quickly fading. The will of the Congress is already gone. The consequences of failure have been pushed aside in favor of getting out of this mess as quickly as possible.
And while the United States and Iran may reach an agreement on the future of Iraq, it will be meaningless unless Iraqis can take control of their future, moving beyond sectarian division and toward a peaceful and prosperous Iraq that can serve as an example for the rest of the region.
By: Greg Reeson
http://reeson.townhall.com (Related)
Greg Reeson is a Featured Author for The Veterans' Voice and a regular contributor to The New Media Journal, GOPUSA, and The Land of the Free.
Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources (Related) and Lifestyle Information (Related) portal.
Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes (Related) index and brighten your day.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Thursday, July 5, 2007, 06:40 PM - Education
An intriguing ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could re-open discussion about the brainwashing that occurs in all-too-many public school classrooms these days.
The High Court this week issued a thumbs-down to so-called "diversity" plans in two large school districts that use race as a factor in assigning students. According to an Associated Press report, the ruling could affect not only schools in Seattle and Louisville, but could impact like-minded plans in hundreds of school systems around the country.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the school districts involved "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals." Roberts and the rest of the Court majority believe that the proposals in Seattle and Louisville conflicted with Constitutional guarantees for equal protection. Granted, the Court was split 5-4, but a decision is a decision, and one can only hope this decision deals a fatal blow to ill-conceived race-based school policies.
Of course, liberals are already offering a knee-jerk assessment of the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer in his dissent said, "To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown (v. Board of Education)."
But wasn't the dream of civil rights leader Martin Luther King to establish a society when people weren't judged on race, but on the content of their character? As the Bush Administration argued, racial diversity may be a noble goal, but it should only be achieved by race-neutral means.
Lawyer Teddy Gordon argued that the Louisville district's plan was a form of discrimination. In the AP report, he's quoted as saying," Clearly, we need better race-neutral alternatives. Instead of spending zillions of dollars around the country to place a black child next to a white child, let's reduce class size. All the schools are equal. We will no longer accept that an African-American majority within a school is unacceptable."
Let's keep in mind here that it was parents themselves who were upset with the programs in Seattle and Louisville, and it was the parents who sued. Now, it would stand to reason that parents are in the best position to determine what kind of educational plan is best for their own children. They're far more concerned about whether Johnny can read than who Johnny sits next to in class.
No child should have his or her educational opportunities limited because of race. America is supposed to be the land of freedomnot a place where arcane bureaucratic rules and outdated theories of education reign supreme. Parents should have the greatest flexibility in determining where their children go to schoolparticularly since it's the parents' tax dollars that are supporting the schools. It's simply wrong to hang a sign on a schoolhouse door saying only a certain percentage of blacks or whites are allowed in.
It's morally repugnant to the vast majority of Americans to discriminate against anyone based on race. Therefore, it's time to retire the liberal guilt which states that we have to assign students to schools based on race. Otherwise, we'll never achieve the color-blind society envisioned by King.
By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com (Related)
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.
Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources (Related) and Lifestyle Resources (Related) portal.
Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes (Related) index and brighten your day.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Saturday, June 30, 2007, 08:06 PM - General
Occasionally, someone of influence brings forth an idea that is so moronic that I have to deviate from the discussion of pure finance, economics or market movements and just rant. Based on his recent antics and promotion of his upcoming socialist agenda train wreck titled Sicko, wed be better off living in Cuba and letting the government manage our healthcare.
Of the themes Michael Moore has espoused during his recent promotional tours, the most egregious is that "America's health care system should be regulated like fire and police departments because its that important".
At a press conference before the California Senate Health Committee, Moore said Im pushing for three simple things:
1. Health care for every American and person residing in this country, 2. Remove the profit making insurance companies from the equation, and 3. I want the pharmaceutical companies strictly regulated like a public utility.
Regarding point #1 - Michael Moore rightly highlights the plights of everyday people who don't have adequate access to healthcare. This is certainly unfortunate; I can't imagine not being able to get my children the health care they need. But nothing is free in this world, someone pays. In this free market that is America, citizens strive to work for a renowned company with solid health benefits. If their employer doesn't offer adequate health benefits, they're free to seek employment with a company that does. If their skills are not commensurate with this type of accoutrement, they have opportunities to improve their skill sets via the best secondary eduction system in the world. This is perhaps an oversimplification, but moves to FORCE employers to fund health care are inappropriate intrusions on free market forces, especially on small and mid-size businesses. A fair number of these uninsured at the Walmarts and other low-cost employers of the world are younger workers covered under their parents' plans or are adults under a spouse's plan. I'm a shareholder in a lot of companies that may not offer health benefits that their employees find to be suitable. Should I have to fund their healthcare through my investment holdings in broad market index funds? I don't see how this is a government mandate that is appropriate, whereas worker safety and harrassment policies, etc. are appropriate.
There are safety nets in this country for the disabled, infirmed and impoverished. I'm sure gaps exist that will appear in the movie and my heart goes out to those people who can't get the same care that is available to my family, but the system is working for the vast majority of legal citizens. In fact, it services a substantial population of illigal residents; I will be interested to see how Mr. Moore proposes the "government" services the current 12-20 million illegal residents (with hundreds of thousands per year still crossing the Mexican border each year - and accelerating with talk of amnesty). As it stands now, any citizen is generally provided emergency service without having to provide insurance or personal identification. Again, there are exceptions, and I'm sure they're highlighted in the movie, like when a man has to chose between which severed finger to keep based on the additional cost to bring in a special surgical team from another locale.
Regarding some other countries Mr. Moore praises, France may supply their constituents with guaranteed 35-hour workweeks, lifelong employment and free access to healthcare, but their unemployment rate is double what it is in America. Do you know how hard it is to start a business in France? Do you know how much sleep an employer loses over hiring an employee there? No matter how bad they are, it will be next to impossible to dismiss them. As evidenced by the recent riots throughout the countryside, France isn't exactly paradise either - class distinctions exist there. There is no perfect solution that will satisfy everyone.
Cuba...that's an entirely different world. Without delving into the obvious, the pristine hospitals and convenient Rxs dispensed for pennies were certainly not representative of the type of treatment available to routine citizens in Cuba. Cuban dissident groups and journalists that have been to Cuba have reported horrid conditions in hospitals and sub-par health care in general. Was the visit to the locale in the film completely random? Would it have made the cut for the movie if the conditions weren't so immaculate? I don't know; perhaps after the movie, more will surface on this detail like some past documentaries.
Regarding Mr. Moore's affinity for Cuba, attached are some sentiments from the CIA Factbook:
"Current situation: Cuba is a source country for women and children trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced child labor; Cuba is a major destination for sex tourism, which largely caters to European, Canadian, and Latin American tourists and involves large numbers of minors; there are reports that Cuban women have been trafficked to Mexico for sexual exploitation; forced labor victims also include children coerced into working in commercial agriculture.
Tier rating: Tier 3 - Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so."
Way to go, Mr. Moore, in glorifying this wonderful Utopia!
Regarding point #2 - The insurance companies are an easy target in today's world of denied claims, Katrina stories and the like. The current health insurance system isn't perfect, but to suggest turning it over to the government is like forcing UPS and FedEx to yield to the U.S. Postal Service. While these entrepreneurial services are able to deliver our packages quickly, inexpensively and intact, the U.S. postal service continues to raise costs annually, use tax-payer dollars to advertise their services to compete, and still come up with abysmal performance. I see the man in brown running, literally, running back and forth to his truck with packages. I like our local postal delivery guy, but come on, have you ever seen a postal worker hustle like that? The amount of corruption, theft, bureaucracy and ineptitude routinely exhibited and tolerated within the ranks of government agencies is no panacea. Ever hear the phrase "good enough for government work"? Lifelong employment and full pensions by government run institutions are no match for the public sector in terms of competitive performance. Nothing against government workers individually; I have several in my family, but as a system, the performance of government agencies is abhorrent. Talk about special interests? How about the earmarks and pork spending that our government engages in? In my company, people are shown the door for unethical behavior and conflicts of interest. What happens in government? I'll take free market competition and industry any day.
Point #3 is especially concerning - When I hear people start talking about usurping free market principles, it's on par with altering the Constitution to me. Free market competition, the risk of failure and allure of rewards for risk-taking innovative behaviors is what made this country great.
The age-old cliche call for selling drugs at cost is juvenile and wrongheaded, but surprisingly, it piques the interest of politicians and populous alike because it sounds like something for free. What I don't hear is that Microsoft should have to sell versions of Vista for the dollar it costs to transfer the code to a CD or for your local cable company to offer you programming, internet and phone for the pennies it costs to transmit the data now that their infrastructure has been deployed. These are Multi-BILLION dollar investments in capital expenditures and human resources that are developed and deployed AT RISK. The only reason corporations assume this level of catastrophic level of risk is that the net present value of all their portfolio investments is positive, inclusive of research, development, and failures.
Consider Pfizer: It spent around $800 million to develop torcetrapib, only to drop it due to safety issues that arose in late stage clinical trials. This is the nature of the pharmaceutical business. This $800 million dollar loss and the hundreds of other new drug entities that are dropped along the way need to be offset by significant profit margins for the few drugs that actually do make it through the increasingly complex regulatory regiment. Does Mr. Moore actually expect that these companies should first assume these losses ad naseum and then for the few drugs that make it through, sell them at cost?
What is the assured outcome of this arrangement? The end of innovation. This is a recipe for perennial negative earnings and the eventual demise of the industry. The development of new cures and vaccines for new therapeutic categories will cease, for there is no profit motive. My lineage has particular maladies that I'd like to see my children avoid. If the innovation engine in this country (and hence, world) is ceased and new, innovative medicines are no longer sought and developed, my children will suffer same ailments as my ancestors. Mr. Moore will have us kill the next cure for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Malaria, Hepatitis C...for HIV.
Consider what happened to the worldwide vaccine business over the past few decades. In 1988, there were 25 manufacturers. Currently, there are 4 primary ones left. Following years of litigation, misplaced injury claims and a general lack of profit motive (making one dose for life per patient vs. a lifetime of daily tablet treatments for chronic patients is a no-brainer from a profit margin standpoint, especially when considering the litigation environment), the vast majority of the existing companies exited the business to pursue higher margin new drug entities. Only now that some stability has set in, are companies returning to the business. If the same were to happen for all pharmaceuticals and biologics, innovation as we know it is over.
What concerns me about Mr. Moore taking a wrecking ball to the industry (disclosure - I work in the industry incidentally) is that this intellectual property and innovation is one of the last bastions of hope for our economy. Most low-complexity manufacturing has left our borders. Not only are these jobs being outsourced to areas that can perform the functions more efficiently, but our service industries will continue to fall prey to outsourcing as well. India has amassed X-Ray technicians to read charts throughout the night and accountants to process tax returns. Korean schools are teaching 3rd graders English at night after their full day of U.S.-beating Korean curriculum. The cultures have young, ambitious people that want what we have and they're willing to work harder for it! In the future, will we really need U.S. based financial analysts, consultants and other service industries we take for granted here? The day we give up on innovating new products here in the U.S., we continue an alarming trend that we will not be able to reverse.
What is likely omitted from the movie is the patient assistance programs whereby most pharmaceuticals provide free or cheap drugs to U.S. citizens without the means to pay for them. I've seen multiple pharmaceutical companies actually advertise this in print and on television. Of course, there are the tax and public relations benefits, but certainly, it's not improving the bottom line by giving away your product.
Tony Blair put it best when he said a good measure of a country is how many people want in compared to how many want out. The last time I checked, Floridian natives weren't risking their lives to sail to Cuba. Countless Cubans have lost their lives attempting to reach our shores. Mr. Moore, everyone in the world wants to come to America!
I have relatives in Canada that are ashamed of their socialist leadership and lifestyle. Is it worth having free health care when you have to wait weeks to see a doctor (the doctor prescribed to you, not the one you pick)?
So, where is Mr. Moore on other worldly issues:
The genocide in Darfur? 500,000 and counting.
The MILLIONS of children that die annually from vaccine-preventable diseases? 2.5 Million per year and counting. Our legal system that mandates three-strike sentencing for a man stealing a bike or peddling some pot to spend life in prison, while child molesters with excessively high rates of recidivism simply have to voluntarily register for a list with an unacceptably low rate of compliance?
Drunk Drivers - True Story - A few years back, a drunk driver travelling at an excessive rate of speed slammed into my wife's car at a stop sign from behind with our son in the back. Both cars were totalled and my wife and son were ushered to the emergency room (ironically, the drunk driver is almost never injured in such accidents). We soon learned from the responding officer that this driver had another DWI accident within the same month but was still driving legally; this had been his 5th such incident! He hit them at NOON on the way to test-drive a motorcycle of all things. It gets better. Months later, in order to perform her civic duty, my wife went to a hearing to testify about the accident and help ensure he was sentenced appropriately. Following the hearing, we watched him get in a different car and drive away. Incredulous, we asked the corresponding officer how he could possibly be driving legally. She said she ran his plates and confirmed that at that time, he was in fact still driving legally. This is how slow the system was. In 2006, about 18,000 people were killed in alcohol related accidents. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children 2 to 14 years old. Enough is enough! Where is Mr. Moore on this?
On the left: The lack of diversity of thought within America's universities where only liberal views are espoused to impressionable college students? Professors (especially non-tenured) best not vocalize a conservative thought in public, while the liberal treatises abound. Some statistics from a recent study by George Mason University: "72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative...the disparity is even more pronounced at the most elite schools, where, according to the study, 87 percent of faculty are liberal and 13 percent are conservative." Where is Mr. Moore on this disparity?
On the right: The chokehold that that religious right has on the Republican party. What does religion have to do with the governing of this great country? I'm concerned about the influence a faith has on the power structure in this country. Some of Bush's statements interweaving faith and the invasion of Iraq didn't sit well with me as I'm sure they didn't overseas. At least we know where Mr. Moore was on Iraq, but how about religion and politics in this country as a movie?
I have to say this about Michael Moore. I was listening to him on Howard Stern the other day. He is actually an affable guy in interviews and I think he really believes in what he's doing. I do think he loves America and wants to see it do better. I just think he's wrong. He did anonymously contribute $12,000 to an anti-Moore blogger whose wife couldn't afford her insurance premiums. I'm not the first person to say this, but Americans need to take more personal responsibility for their own health, Mr. Moore included, by the looks of him (Congratulations on losing 30 pounds recently though). We live in a country where people are eating themselves to death while a large portion of the world is malnourished. Regarding his proposals, what he has prescribed for our country's healthcare system is simply Un-American.
Sources:
Michael Moore Statements from Recent Interviews Promoting "Sicko":
californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/michael_moore_a.html
democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/18/1326235
topix.net/forum/world/cuba/TIDDLD4V3NE3Q3Q8I/p16
France - Riots, Unemployment Rate:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France
indexmundi.com/france/unemployment_rate.html
Cuba CIA Factbook: cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Econ
Pharma Patient Assistance Program: pparx.org/about.php
Illegal Immigration: csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html
Drunk Driving Statistics: madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html
Party Affiliation of Professors at U.S. Colleges: washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
Darfur Death Toll: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-darfur-deaths.html
Vaccine-Preventable Deaths in Children Worldwide: cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5518a4.htm
By: Dan Pritch
Everydayfinance Blog: http://www.everydayfinance.blogspot.com (Related) .
Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources (Related) and Lifestyle Information (Related) portal.
Are you getting depressed over what's going on in the world today? Do you need something to pick you up? Do you need some laughter in your life? Check out our Jokes (Related) index and brighten your day.
Comments: For those of you that would like to comment on this or any other post in this blog, go to the Contact me link on the upper right hand side of this page and send your comment via that link. If your comment is on topic, whether pro or anti, and even fairly well written, we will post it with the article. If you have a site that you would like to be linked to your comment please supply it and we will include it.
Comment from I am Canadian June 30, 2007.
if your relatives are really that ashamed of Canada,,tell them to get the deleted out,,,we dont need their attitude as they receive FREE health care,,,yes FREE,,,sometimes you wait because useless deleted take up valuable doctor time with their incessant whining,,,so you dont like my country? get out,,go home,,,
when my daughters appendix was inflamed,,,did we wait for a top surgeon? NO,,did we mortgage our house,,take out a loan? NO,, she had an expensive operation, hospital stay,,, at NO COST TO US.
Next (Related)
No comments:
Post a Comment