Politics

[Ghost_Rider]

Has anyone seen the Flash video from JibJab called "This Land"?  

Pretty funny.  Doesn't really seem to be leaning towards either Kerry or Bush, pretty much down the middle.  

http://www.jibjab.com/

Takes a minute or two for it to load up, but it's worth it.  There's some extra stuff in there too on top of the Kerry/Bush stuff that's really good.

[Alistair]

It means my dear Thomas, that the uninformed buy into the 'Kerry is inexperienced' pack of lies.

- Alistair

[Marten]

It means my dear Thomas, that the uninformed buy into the 'Kerry is inexperienced' pack of lies.

- Alistair

No, it means Tom just won the award for "Best Rhetorical Question of 2004."

[LucasFan]

That says something about what Europe thinks of Bush...
I wonder how that number would be in Asia (incl. Australia)....

[Wodball]

I think that the picture is mostly accurate. It would be more accurate if the blue also included parts of the United States, like the way Canada was divided in the picture. There are plenty of Americans that didn't vote for Bush.

--Woody

[Marten]

I've got a message for anyone who's really, truly thinking of moving to Canada after this election... as the conservative talk show hosts have been laughing about.

My message is:  Don't.  Move, but not to Canada.

If you want to make a difference, twist the electoral college in the next election.  Collaborate, and agree to vacate some states and descend on others, to secure more electoral votes.

Let's look at the margins by which the election was lost.  I'm going to do a little math here... don't worry, it won't hurt.  Much.

115 million, 409 thousand, 172 votes were cast for Bush or Kerry, according to CNN.

If we moved 21,600 Kerry supporters from Utah to Nevada...
If we moved 13,300 Kerry supporters from Nebraska to Iowa...
If we moved 8,400 Kerry supporters from Texas to New Mexico...

That is, if we relocated a mere 43,300 people, without changing anyone's votes whatsoever...

Then the electoral collage would have tied, 269 / 269.

Unlike 2000, Bush won this election... no doubt about that.  But due to 2000, the Republicans are quite happy with the electoral college as is.  If we want it changed, the way to do it is to turn it against them.

[Alistair]

Well said, Marten. But I honestly don't know how long people are willing to live in the 'new America'.. I've heard a lot of musicians, for example, who fully intend to leave now that Bush has been reelected.

I'm trying to make a difference in my country myself. Lot of functions on these days..

- Alistair

[Trevelyan]

Though it may not have made too much news outside the US, I was curious what people's views were on the recent resignations and speedy nominations by the Bush administration for positions such as Secretary of State, Energy, Attorney General, etc..


Trevelyan

[Tom]

I think it's been somewhat expected.  It's not unusual for a second-term president to make changes like this during their second term.  I knew Ashcroft would be gone for 'Round 2'.  Though, I wasn't expecting Dr. Rice to jump in as Secretary of State.  I imagine Tommy Thompson will be gone, too.  It's obvious that Bush is shoring up the White House with the people that will help him most and that best support his "doctrines".  

What I don't understand is....  Why the hell is Tony Blair so 'pro-Bush'.  He's got so many people ticked about his almost giddy support of this guy.  But I can't understand why!!! :smt013

[Alistair]

Rice is a close ally of Bush. I worry she'll only be too happy to carry on the Republican warmongering causes.. well, worry really equals know in that line.

What I don't understand is.... Why the hell is Tony Blair so 'pro-Bush'. He's got so many people ticked about his almost giddy support of this guy. But I can't understand why!!!

Sub in 'John Howard' for 'Tony Blair' and you've got our situation.

It's purely an alliance.. Britain believes they can gain from it, and the peple will likely keep Blair in power..

- Alistair

[Tom]

Actually, Rice is a "clone" of Bush.  She's identical; except that she's able to speak in complete sentences.

[Ghost_Rider]

It's funny, because it's true.  

I heard something about her being a possible choice for running for president the next time around.  That would be interesting.  I'm not sure how well she would do when the votes started rolling in though.  

I think she would be great at debating and getting her points across - but some men just vote for who is more of a "man" - and being a woman, she'd be at a disadvantage there.  Bush seemed tougher than Kerry, so that won their vote.  Not an intellectual, but more likely to come out on top in a fist fight.  Sounds dumb, but some people voted for Bush, because Bush is "cool" and more the bad boy, and Kerry is a "nerd".  

Not saying that's what I think, but that's how some people are.  Yes, yes, I'm in Canada, so how do I know?  I have family and a couple of friends in the US.  Some people voted for Bush simply because he seemed tougher than Kerry.  But Rice seems "tough" too, so she might have a chance.

[Tom]

I have no doubt you're right.  Just like there's so many who voted for one candidate or the other simply because of their view on one issue...abortion...or, their feelings about gay marriage...or, based on their religious denomination.  

A big issue in the states right now is the inclusion of creationism and evolution together, in school text books.  I also understand that this is a non-issue in most other developed countries...as it should be.  We in the U.S. simply don't understand how to seperate religion and politics.  Just one more thing that the 2008 presidential candidates will be fighting over, I'm sure.

[Alistair]

A big issue in the states right now is the inclusion of creationism and evolution together, in school text books.

Thank goodness this isn't an issue in Australia!!

Argh. What's the debate Tom? I'd like to hear this.

Actually, Rice is a "clone" of Bush. She's identical; except that she's able to speak in complete sentences.
 

 :lol:

- Alistair

[apeman]

What I don't understand is....  Why the hell is Tony Blair so 'pro-Bush'.  He's got so many people ticked about his almost giddy support of this guy.  But I can't understand why!!! :smt013

That, Tom, is an excellent question. Why does a left-of-centre Labour government seem so pally with a right-wing Republican administration? I guess part of it's to do with the two governments always trying to be close no matter who's in office. But there's more to it. Tony Blair has taken on some sort of messianic role where he really, religiously thinks it is his destiny to bring pure good to the world, in the long run at least. Watch him use words like "conviction" and "beliefs" when he is cornered (eg. about the lack of WMD). This grates quite a bit in Britain, over half the population is against the war and so are most of Blair's cabinet. But in absence of credible opposition (the Conservatives are a bit of a joke right now and the Liberal Democrats are simply not established enough) his victory at the next General Election is all but assured so he can do pretty much what he wants. I still think he'd have preferred Kerry to win since he'd have been the "natural" choice for his party and Blair is aware how unpopular the image of him as Bush's poodle is making him.

Anyway, enough drunken politics. Good night all!

[Trevelyan]

Sounds dumb, but some people voted for Bush, because Bush is "cool" and more the bad boy, and Kerry is a "nerd".

Yes, sadly it seems that America never wants the more intelligent man to lead the country, just the one who would drink a beer with them. Cuz that's what we should be shooting for in this country. No child left behind... the kegger line! Someone earlier mentioned a statistic on education and voting and I have to say it seems the country of the mostly uneducated has the proper mascot at this point.  But don't misunderestimate us.  :roll:


Alistair,

If you're asking about the debate of creationism vs. evolutionism, it's basically that literalists of the Bible Belt (most of the Red States from the election map) state that, since evolution is just a theory (kinda hard for us to prove it, being that we've only been able to document species for a couple thousand years yet), it should only be given as much credence as their pet theory, creationism, in public school biology. Because apparently molecular biology really only came into play about 4000 years ago and didn't actually have an effect on inbreeding until Adam and Eve made enough children. And then Noah and his family.

If you think this is completely absurd (and I wouldn't blame you), consider that Kansas has had some sort of state law requiring equal time for evolution and creationism in public schools for at least 5 years now... As a molecular cell biologist myself, I am truly saddened that we're going to set the next generation back about 50 years in regard to high school science education. Well, at least my kids will know better.

Oh, and just a bit about Rice for Prez in '08 - I'd say that would only happen if Hilary ran for the Democrats. And honestly, I don't know who would win in a fist fight. I have nothing against women in any position of power, but I'd rather neither of those two became president. After the next 4 years, we're going to need a lot of aspirin, and a break from egomania. A change from soundbites and "black and white" 2-party positions on issues. We probably won't get any of that, but we'll need it. Oh, and a ton of tutors to help all our uneducated/miseducated young who weren't left behind.

Trev

[Alistair]

I seriously doubt either Rice OR Clinton will run for Pres in '08..

Trev, thanks much for the info! Appreciated. And horrified.. Religion should be separate from education and politics.

- Alistair

[apeman]

You know, there now seems to be serious evidence for some significant voting irregularities in places where voting was done electronically, in particular in places where "committed to
helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year" [quote by their CEO] Diebold's machines were used. See this link and also this site.

Don't mean to sound like a bad loser but personally I'm pretty convinced somebody was cheating at this election. A bit like last time....

[Dianne Lewandowski]

Thanks for those links.  I've been hearing a lot about this on Wisconsin Public Radio.

Unfortunately, none of this will change anything - unless a "deep throat" will offer up solid evidence and some young, eager reporter digs in.

In the meantime, we must bide our time and try to convince our neighbors and friends why the neocons are wrong, and that wrapping yourself in the concept of "morals" is a red herring.

What the neocons are after, as well as many ultra conservative citizens, is breaking the back of all social programs.  The average conservative thinks that his taxes are just killing him, and blames everyone from the homeless (why doesn't he/she just get a job!) to seniors (there will be no social security for me!) for their ills.  What they fail to realize is that it isn't taxes and government programs that are breaking the backs of average citizens.  It's health care, declining or stagnating wages, high interest rates, and enormous housing costs.

We're in for a long siege of this mentality.  And it's not going to be a pretty picture before it's finally over.  We've gone back to the 1890's, and it will take a deep depression - or worse - to help clarify a new dawn.

I'm very impressed with the comments made here, and the general tone of this thread.

[Trevelyan]

it isn't taxes and government programs that are breaking the backs of average citizens. It's health care, declining or stagnating wages, high interest rates, and enormous housing costs

Not to mention a military budget that makes my head hurt. If a quarter of that money went to remedying the poor living conditions abroad rather than killing those who are inconvenient for the current national agenda, we might have some chance of winning the 'war on terror.' But apparently the current leaders feel that the only way to liberty is through a lot of bullet-holes. And eliminating the elements that lead to desperate terrorists doesn't keep the US population so scared they can't see the truth. So I guess we'll continue to see nationalism lead to unnecessary fighting. I'll laugh (and probably cry) if Bush ever utters the words "war to end wars..." in reference to his agenda. I think he's bull-headed enough to do it before his speech-writers could stop him.

Trev