WIP

There are always claims about Noah's Ark being found! I've heard them ever since I was a kid. They're no different than the endless discoveries of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, UFO's etc. The evidence for a worldwide flood has already been examined by geologists who've made a career of studying the record in the rocks, and the results are negative. There have been large floods, but none covering the entire Earth. There are some geologists who believe they have evidence for some massive floods that occurred at the end of the last ice age, when receding glaciers released flood waters. TalkOrigins has loads of background material to explain why a worldwide flood may have mythical value, but cannot be seriously regarded as an historic event.

Socialism means government or public ownership of business. What you're describing with the Nazis etc. isn't socialism, it's fascism, where the rulers of the one party state, the military, the church leaders, and the corporate CEO's all work together to maintain their tight control over a nation. The economic policy of Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, it was merely crony capitalism. The Nazis used slave labour for public works projects, such as the building of the Autobahn, and banned unions and strikes. That's not socialism any more than the DDR was democratic!

I think I stopped buying this line about limited government when I noticed how many faux libertarians want smaller, less effective government so that corporations have more control over our lives.

It also underlines the failure of rightwing ideology that calls for either no regulation or regulators that rubberstamp whatever plans a corporation wants to follow. The $500,000 acoustic backup switches wouldn't have been of any value in this case if the wellhead was destroyed, as experts now seem to believe, but just the fact that a relatively inexpensive backup system was rejected by an oil company and the regulators fell in line, tells a lot about the incestuous relationship of large corporations and the politicians they've bought and paid for. Incidentally, the main cause of the disaster may turn out to be that the concrete cap around the wellheadwasn't strong enough...and that cap was built by Haliburton! Now, if BP runs out of money, Haliburton has lots of money to pay for the cleanup.

If all of the costs of oil were added to the price at the pump, we would have been phasing out hydrocarbons years ago. What is the cost of raising atmospheric CO2 levels close to 400 ppm? Carbon dioxide levels are already higher than they've been at any time during the last 15 million years...long before any humans were walking this earth. And much of the world's oil comes from the most dangerous places, such as that cheap oil from the Middle East, which is provided courtesy of the U.S. maintaining a carrier fleet and dozens of military bases in countries that don't want them there. For some reason no U.S. government has ever though of sending the security bill to Exxon, BP and the other major players, even though most of the oil is sold to Europe and the Far East. Maybe one of these Neoconservatives can explain to me why they're so bent out of shape about spending on social programs but think nothing of paying this bill on behalf of Exxon and the customers of MidEast oil!

All it takes is a majority that is concerned about the longterm future, rather than immediate gratification. And that's a tall order, so I'm not an optimist. Although this disaster in the Gulf may be the kind of shock a lot of complacent fools need to realize that the solution of least resistance to Peak Oil -- tar sands, shale oils and deep water reserves, is the wrong direction to go.

Clean Coal? Clean coal is a figment of George W. Bush's imagination and nothing more. The U.S. has spent over 5 billion dollars subsidizing the development of clean coal technology and ended up with a system that merely shifts some of the toxic wastes from air to water. And the disaster that happened in Tennessee last year, when a Coal slurry reservoir overflowed during a flood and poisoned land and streams from the toxic runoff. And it's worth noting that all of the money spent on this clean coal research so far, hasn't figured out how to dispose of non-combustible wastes that build up in those slurry ponds. Ironic that people who would have caused an uproar if a nuclear waste dump was built within a hundred miles of home would think nothing of living downstream from a coal slurry reservoir! Then why not go with the nuclear plant rather than coal? Nuclear produces no hydrocarbon emissions and new Generation III reactors that are being developed, such as the Advanced Candu Reactor, have improved safety systems over the existing reactors, longer operation cycles and lifespan of reactors, greater fuel efficiency and corresponding reduced waste production. And, since billions have been spent over the last thirty years on fusion research that has only recently managed a sustained fusion reaction, it's worth mentioning that proposed Generation IV reactors, some of which could be built in ten years, would have very high thermal efficiencies, producing minimal wastes while producing 100 to 300 times as much energy from the same fuel. The high temps that Gen IV reactors would operate at could also supply a solution to the existing nuclear waste problem since they could use the spent fuel that existing, less efficient reactors leave behind. Fusion research is still sketchy, and looks more like a Holy Grail than a practical energy source (something like Cold Fusion), whereas the Gen IV reactors look like the most practical solution for providing the bulk of the energy needs after dirty sources of power are phased out. That said, windmills and solar panels have also come down in cost and greatly improved efficiencies over the last 30 years. Windfarms seem to be working fine in Germany, what's stopping us here. They also have the appeal of offering some degree of independence from big utility companies, and my suspicions are that much of the claims of harmful health effects or effects on birds are being raised by big institutions who don't want even a modest threat to a utility company's monopoly on the power supply. One way or another we are going to be paying more for electricity in Ontario if the government is serious about phasing out coal and fixing other messes that were supposed to be solved by privatization. And now is not a good time to be moving to the U.S. if you're looking for cheap energy!

Yes, there are legitimate zoning issues every time some new development is proposed. But unlike the methane recovery system, the evidence of health problems from being too close to windmills is as sketchy as the claims that being near electrical powerlines causes cancer. It is more likely to be an imagined health concern rather than a real physical problem. But, if we're really concerned about doing something to phase out coal-fired power stations, all options should be available. And it looks like Hudak's concerns stem from being in the pocket of big industry players rather than concerns over health and property rights.

Except for ANWAR it is mostly offshore where the U.S. has oil reserves left. But as far as Alaska goes, after seeing how BP has lied and misled the public, along with coopting regulators that are supposed to be the public's watchdog, should the public trust Exxon/Mobil any more than they trusted British Petroleum's promises? FLASHBACK: BP exec testified that offshore drilling is ‘safe and protective of the environment.’ Back in the 70's there was a serious attempt to reduce oil consumption and develop alternative energy sources, now that the oil is running, we are facing a climate crisis, and finding new oil requires going to the riskiest and dirtiest sources (Tar Sands for example) it's time to bring the oil age to an end before it's the end of civilization...or worse.

Maher is right about that stupid offshore drilling compromise that was offered a couple of weeks ago. This is one time when looking for that political middleground came back to bite him in the ass. That said, offshore drilling is dead and buried in the U.S., and I don't think even another oil candidate like George Bush will be able to revive it. A lot of liberals and Democratic Party supporters in the U.S. wish that Obama was what the Republicans and Teabaggers fear, instead of being a leader who appears to be risk-averse and always looking for the easiest option: the dogs' breakfast results of healthcare reform and proposed financial reform, for example. There are enough economic, political and environmental reasons to make serious efforts at bringing the oil age to an end, and Obama should have been making that case, rather than looking for a compromise with oil backers. Obama is just lucky that this disaster happened early, before new oil drilling platforms were added.

The only distinction between socialism and communism is that socialism is supposed to be about economic policy only, and exist under a democratic political structure. 30 or 40 years ago, the Socialist parties in Europe, like Mitterand's Socialist Party in France, campaigned on a platform of nationalizing banks and other major industries. Those plans for nationalization were mostly scrapped when Socialists actually formed governments because the economic costs of being frozen out of the global finance and trade systems were just too great. And in this day and age under globalization, the IMF and the World Bank own the debt of most nations except for a few outcasts. Long story short, these "Social Democratic" governments are not socialist...they are merely capitalist economies with higher taxes and government services. And even that level of "socialism" is lost when the IMF owns their debt and starts demanding government cuts and fiscal austerity....such as the ones causing riots today in Greece! In a number of Third World countries, the IMF and World Bank operate like payday loan companies, loaning dictators large sums of money that they can't pay back. In some Latin American countries such as Argentina, Columbia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Uruguay and others, they sent their own "financial experts" to sit in with the government ministers and draw up austerity budgets that demanded tax increases, cuts to government services and privatization of mining and other resource industries. Looking at it from an economic perspective, it ends up with a whole new term being needing to be created: Neocolonization -- since these countries end up being wards of the IMF or the World Bank, and lose any say over what kind of government they have (whatever the political party) and worse, end up having to sign off on control over their natural resources, which is the primary objective of MoneyMart international finance. Did you read anything about what's happening in Greece lately? They've been forced to make deep cuts in government spending and have lost economic control to maintain access to international credit markets. Speaking as a former libertarian, I feel like we've been played for suckers by having our attention focused only on the pitfalls of government, without noticing the growing power of international corporate citizens have taken over our lives. Especially now, after we've had a glimpse of what goes on behind the scenes at investment banking and derivatives trading, we need to be more concerned about Big Corporate controlling our lives than Big Government.

Here's the rub: that 1996 decision that you cited reeks...plain and simple. It is not going to hold, because the unfairness of allowing one religion to run a fully funded school system, and no other religions, cannot pass the smell test under proper scrutiny. From what I understand, the Adler decision concluded that the deal in the BNA Act was a political compromise, and based on religious freedoms. Whatever, they denied Jewish schools the opportunity to have a deal like the Catholics get. A UN human rights panel declared the decision to be discriminatory, and was ignored by our government. But, this leaves Canada in no position to condemn other countries for religious discrimination. I still don't see how that 1867 decision makes it cast in stone that Catholics get a fully funded school system till the end of time. There are lots of other things in the BNA Act that became obsolete. And rather than a balkanized system with a bunch of religious schools, one public school system would be the ideal....if it can survive another round of pandering politicians looking for votes. I checked a timeline of events on the Catholic school funding issue since I'm old enough to remember a time when Catholic high schools were private and only available for wealthier Catholics. Most Catholic students had to be streamed into public high schools. It seems that religious education credits were extended to grade 10 in 1978, followed by full funding through grade 13 in 1985, thanks to a sweetheart deal by Bill Davis, attempting to buy Catholic votes and forestall a collapse of the Tory dynasty....which didn't work. Nevertheless, eventually a system that favours one religion above all others is going to fall in spite of political expediency.

When I first heard this story I wondered why they would be so bent out of shape over having a gay teacher, when so many men entering the priesthood are gay and allowed into the seminaries as long as they try to be discreet about their sexual orientation. The time has come to treat discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation in the same way that racial, ethnic, religious or other types of discrimination would be treated. If your religion still teaches that blacks are the cursed descendents of Noah's third son - Ham, that's your problem! Your "articles of faith" would not justify racist policies; and it should be likewise in this case. And as for funding Catholic schools; I don't know the deal out in B.C., but here in Ontario the wheels are going to fall off this wagon pretty soon. We had a close call in the last provincial election when John Tory thought he could win over the religious right by promising funding for all of the other private religious schools in Ontario....and his campaign went down, soon followed by his leadership of the Ontario PC Party. Most Ontarians want ONE public school system not two. This system is holdover from the days when education was in the hands of Protestant and Catholic school boards. The Protestant school system transformed into a secular public school system, and funding for Catholic schools would have stopped years ago if it wasn't a political third rail. But since more recent immigrants have come in with strange, foreign religions that scare the locals, a successful court challenge of the status quo will likely lead to one public school rather than a whole bunch of publicly funded religious schools.

It looks like you've provided evidence for the failure of capitalism rather than socialism! None of these countries are socialist, since they are locked into the international ponzi scheme: Wall St. Helped to Mask Debt Fueling Europe’s Crisis I would just like to know how you figure this is going to take down European "socialist" countries...which includes England for some strange reason....and will have no affect on us or the U.S. If the IMF starts talking bailouts or refinancing for Greece, they are going to expect the U.S. to cough up most of the money to guarantee Greece's debt.

The Conservatives say they stand with “local families” who oppose wind turbines. I'd like to know if Hudak would be standing with "local families" if a major conservative benefactor wanted to build a gas, coal-fired or nuclear power station next door!

Who's responsible for the spill? Offhand I would say the blame starts with either the owner of the rig - Transocean, or the company that leased the oil rig - BP, who lied about the capabilities of their safety systems. Why has so little been done? Looks like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are ahead of the curve on this one. They've already started blaming Obama for the oil leaking into the Gulf. Nothing new to see here....this is the same strategy they used on the subprime mortgage meltdown -- as soon as Barack Obama was elected president...even before the Inauguration, it was all his fault, and George Bush never existed! Well, never let the facts get in the way of a good argument. Since this crisis is hardly more than a week old, it is still a fresh memory that BP lied about the existence of a leak in the first 24 hours, and then claimed only 1000 barrels of oil a day was leaking afterwards. When NOAA and the Coast Guard started challenging that estimate, they claimed the Feds were exaggerating the volume of oil leaking. It wasn't until the attempt to use a remote sub to shut off the wellhead switch failed that they would admit the extent of the leak. Seems obvious that BP was hoping they could shut it down early before the size of the oil leak became an issue. And ofcourse a heaping helping of blame should go to a government more concerned about doing the bidding of corporate interests, rather than assuring public safety. The Republican strategy of deregulation which has gutted the effectiveness of government agencies responsible for food and product safety, workplace safety -- such as those coal mines are caving in lately, and the toothless SEC, has a compatriot in the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, which went along with the Industry line that their other backup plans were good enough: The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well. Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device A deadman switch, that was supposed to automatically close the valve, didn't work and nobody knows the reason why yet. But why was the owner or the company leasing the oil rig too cheap to spend $500,000 for an acoustic backup switch, and why didn't the regulators demand that they add an additional backup that could have prevented this disaster? Now that oil is washing up on shore in Louisiana, the Obama Administration owns this disaster now, and has the responsibility of coordinating the cleanup. Bill Maher has a good idea for drafting some volunteers: BILL MAHER TODAY VIA TWITTER: "Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill Baby Drill' should have to report to the Gulf Coast today for cleanup duty."

It's not as bad as the situation in the U.S.......yet -- but 30 years ago, college and university tuition (and textbook) costs were a fraction of what they are now. In Ontario, many high school graduates are having to settle for community college rather than university, because they and their families do not have the resources to finance a university education.

If rich Canadians want to head south and pay out of pocket, they are welcome to it! Obama and especially the Congress have had to rule out a single payer plan because your cabal of insurance companies have too much control over the political system! The fact that they have bought off virtually every Democratic and Republican national politician (aside from Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich) is nothing to be proud of. It means Americans will be mired with an expensive system that is taking them down to third world health and quality of life standards. And as Diane Francis noted in her column -- if what you say is true that Canada has the least cost-effective universal health system, it is still far better than the patchwork of insurance policies that Americans are dependent on. Americans are often owned by their employers because changing jobs carries too great a risk of losing health care. Canadian health care costs are 10% of GDP, while U.S. costs are 15% of GDP in spite of the fact that it leaves so many with no health insurance!

I would add to the list of personal disabilities that might cause disadvantage. 1. The increasing costs of post-secondary education at a time when the loss of manufacturing is shrinking the middle class, is creating a permanent underclass of people who are stuck in Walmart and Tim Horton's jobs and will not likely be able to earn enough to improve their education later in life. 2. Inheritance. It should be a no-brainer that there is no real "level playing field" when some idiot like George Bush II was able to lead a charmed life of frittering away one business opportunity after another because he was born into a wealthy and well-connected family. Conservatives are always claiming that the left is trying to equalize outcomes, while they are equalizing opportunities. They extrapolate this claim to justify allowing a few to become filthy rich and pay little or no taxes, while others are left in grinding poverty. It's a bogus argument to begin with since there is no way to ensure an equal start in life for all to begin with.

In game theory, they call it the Free Rider Problem -- how to stop non-contributors from using things that benefit the group. In a small community, it may be possible to stop free riders, but in a large, complex social democracy, there is no way to take out everyone who games the system, without hurting those who are in desperate need of government services. What the conservatives are doing is taking advantage of this natural inclination to eliminate free riders, along with the base instinct towards selfishness -- kind of ironic that it is usually religious conservatives who provide the moral argument for greed and selfish behaviour!

I was going to comment about the idiot who thinks that the case will pit blacks against hispanics because one of the 20 complainants was hispanic, but it wasn't worth the effort. Most of the other comments were regarding whether the lower court decision was reverse-discrimination, not whether the test results were evidence that blacks are inferior, as you were attempting to offer up. But, what caught my attention is that used the test scores as evidence of inferiority, but wouldn't come right out and say it, like some others would have. As if you would have answered the question anyway! It costs a few coins to hire private tutors; if the tutor made the difference, that would be a clear indication of economic advantage. The claim made by Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and a few other right wing notables was that 60% to 80% of Judge Sotomayor's decisions were overturned by higher courts. There was no qualifier mentioning that they were pulling the number from the few actual number of cases that were reviewed by higher court. Of the 237 cases found by Newsweek, using a LexisNexis search, only five were reviewed by higher court, and since the cases that are going to come up for review, are the ones that attract a high degree of opposition on the Supreme Court, it's not surprising that three were overturned. The default assumption of the 232 cases that were not subject for review was that they would have likely have been approved by the higher court. But right wing propagandists have tried to bury the fact that only five decisions were called up, because they want to leave their uninformed readers with the implication of judicial incompetence with the assumption that 60 to 80 % of her decisions were rejected by the higher court. By any other name it is fraud. *this article was written before the Ricci vs. DiStefano decision Yes! I have learned that Rush Limbaugh can only defend his lies by making up more lies, as noted at the end of the Newsweek piece, where a reader alerted them to Rush's calculation methods, where he pulled one of her district court decisions that was overturned (but included no analysis of the other 442 rulings she made; and Rush falsely claimed in his calculations that " Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" was overturned, which was not the case, thought they disagreed with the reasoning of the lower court. Are you too lazy to even bother reading the Newsweek article I linked? During its 2006-2007 term, for instance, the Court reversed or vacated (which, for our purposes here, mean the same thing) 68 percent of the cases before it. The rate was 73.6 percent the previous term. In two of the three Sotomayor reversals, at least some of the more liberal justices dissented, agreeing with her holding. One was a 5-4 decision in 2001 in Correctional Services Corporation v. Malesko, which involved an inmate who sought to sue a private contractor operating a halfway house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons over injuries he sustained. Sotomayor said he could, but a majority of the justices disagreed.In another case, Sotomayor wrote that under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency could not use a cost-benefit analysis to determine the best technology available for drawing cooling water into power plants with minimal impact on aquatic life. By a vote of 6-3 this year, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in Entergy v. Riverkeeper. The third reversal, in 2005, was a unanimous 8-0 decision in the case Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit.Sotomayor had written that a class action securities suit brought in state court by a broker/stockholder was not preempted by the 1998 Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act. But the high court's opinion said it "would be odd, to say the least" if the law contained the exception that Sotomayor said it did. The five conservative members of the Supreme Court put a lot of trust in the "independence" of the consultants who were brought in to create the "unbiased" tests. It's also worth noting that one of them -- Sam Alito -- claimed that a prominent black minister, who was also an important supporter of the mayor of New Haven, was chiefly responsible for the lower court decision. There are many suspicions that Alito and Antonin Scalia are looking for a case that will allow them to strike Title 7 from the Civil Rights Act, so much for all of the whining about judicial activism! So, they must of have been let down by Kennedy's attempt to limit the impact of the decision. His preparations and outside help for the test may have enabled him to get a high score on this particular test, but what about actual on-the-job situations? Dyslexia doesn't go away after you pass a test; and tips that may have helped with these specific series of tests, will not make dyslexia go away in realtime situations that cannot be prepared for. Yes, I am sure you studied this issue as exhaustively as usual!

You've got your nerve, complaining that leftwingers are misusing language as propaganda, when the masters of the art of propaganda are all on your side of the political spectrum. In the U.S., conservative foundations with more than 2 billion dollars in assets, finance conservative media, and conservative "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the American Enterprize Institute. Their people are constantly on TV, radio, and writing books. Books by approved conservative authors are instant best-sellers because the conservative foundations buy up large quantities to be given away as gifts for memberships Take a look at where the money comes from that finances your favourite conservative writers, TV and radio personalities: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Repub...ganda1sep04.htm As for misusing language for propaganda purposes, here are a few on my list: "Pro Life" has been taken over by anti-abortion crusaders who demand an end to women having access to abortion and artificial means of birth control. "Death Tax" -- keep all of the money in the family, and keep building the dynasty by attacking the principle of estate taxes. Feudalism, here we come! "Defense of Marriage Act" -- deny gays equal rights under family law. "Junk Science" -- evidence for global warming and environmental degradation. "Small Government" -- weaken political and legal institutions to the point where they can no longer challenge corporate interests. "School Choice" -- gut public education, and leave what's left of it to the religious fanatics.....it worked for Pakistan. And I'm sure there are lots of other examples of right wingers co-opting populist language to benefit the narrow interests of the rich and powerful.

That wouldn't be the same guy who hired the private tutor to help him with that test by any chance? First, why don't you answer your own question? You leave it hanging out the test results imply blacks are mentally inferior to whites, so why don't you have the balls and come right out and say it? Ever hear of Google, Yahoo, or any other search engines where you can find an answer if you apply the right terms? From Newsweek Factcheck: Q: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court? Have Judge Sotomayor's decisions really been overturned 80 percent of the time as Rush Limbaugh stated on May 26? A: Three of her opinions have been overturned, which is 1.3 percent of all that she has written and 60 percent of those reviewed by the Supreme Court. Further down, where they try to find Rush's sources of information: We have contacted Rush Limbaugh to ask how he came up with the figure he used recently when he said, "She has been overturned 80 percent by the Supreme Court." We'll update this item if we receive a response. Ha! Hell will freeze over before they Rush Limbaugh can think of an excuse for statistics that he just pulled out of his ass. There are reasons why Limbaugh never engages in debates, never does interviews with journalists who will hit him with tough questions, and even rarely has guests on his radio show -- Limbaugh can only appear to be smart as long as he is the smartest guy in the room -- and that leaves him in a studio all by himself taking a few, carefully screened calls from idiot fans who've been waiting on the phone for hours. Most of the liberal media watch groups ignore most of his drivel, until he tells a real whopper like the one above. As for this New Haven firefighters case: Judge Sotomayor was part of a three judge panel that voted unanimously against the claim that the test scores alone, should be the sole criteria for determining who and who should not get promoted at the department. The reason why race statistics are cited as evidence of inside bias is because numbers that show a disproportionate lack of minorities in police, fire and other government departments, is a likely indicator that the managers inside are favouring their own! And they may not necessarily be trying to screen out blacks and hispanics -- it was also noted that there are a disproportionate number of white 2nd, 3rd and even 4th generation police and firemen across New England and N.Y. and New Jersey. Nepotism reigns in government departments, and what the Supreme Court ruling is trying to do, is to turn all of the hiring authority back to managers who are playing favourites with who they choose to hire and promote in their departments.

If most Americans are satisfied with their present health care system that enriches private insurance companies, they are even bigger fools than I expected. The facts speak for themselves! From: U.S. health care lies about CanadaPosted: May 12, 2009, 8:40 AM by Diane Francis Here are the facts as to why Canada’s medical system, far from perfect, is dramatically better than America’s: 1. It is cheaper even though it takes care of the entire population, or 10% of GDP compared with 15% in the U.S. 2. Canada’s health care system which fully looks after 32 million people costs roughly what the private-sector health insurance companies make in profits in the United States looking after less than half the population for excessive premiums. 3. Canada’s health care system is cheaper still if the litigation costs of fighting over medical bills is eliminated as it is when the government is the sole-insurer. Estimates are that court costs and judgments add another 2 to 3% of GDP to the total medical tab. 4. Canada’s health care system enhances economic productivity. Workers diagnosed with illnesses can still change employers and be employable because they are not rejected by employers with health benefits due to pre-conditions. 5. Infant mortality is much lower in Canada and Europe than in the U.S. 6. Outcomes with major illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, are better than in the United States. 7. Longevity is better in Canada and Europe than in the U.S. 8. No emergency is neglected in Canada. 9. Some elective procedures may take longer if compared to blue-ribbon U.S. health care but that’s no comparing apples with apples. More appropriately, the overall population’s care should be compared and there are tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured or uninsurable. 10. No one in Canada goes broke because of medical bills whereas ARP estimates half of personal bankruptcies are due to unpaid, high medical bills. 11. Canadians are able to choose their own physicians and to seek multiple opinions. 12. Canadian doctors and nurses are better trained than American counterparts and U.S. physicians must study for at least a year in order to qualify to practice in Canada. 13. Drugs made and invented in the United States are cheaper in Canada, Europe and Japan because our communal health care means volume discounts and savings passed along to society. Americans are overpaying. 14. Americans are being cheated by a patchwork quilt system where the highest risk people – veterans, the indigent and elderly – are insured by governments but the “gravy” or young, healthy people are handed over to private insurance companies. Canadians who bitch about the lineups in our hospitals need to take a look south of the border at all of the families who are forced into bankruptcy because of medical costs. Most Canadians could help alleviate the pressure on our health care system by being a little proactive about their own health. I've heard estimates as high as 70% of all illness is lifestyle-related -- lack of exercise, overweight, poor diet etc. -- do something to help yourself, so you are less likely to be waiting in line at the hospital or clinic. On the other hand, if you are an average American, don't ever get sick or you're @#$%$@!

And what portion of those social program costs are made up of Medicare/Medicaid spending, and Social Security? How do you propose cutting these costs? Even Reagan, Bush I and Bush II couldn't take that risk. What portion of rising domestic spending is being spent on the War On Drug costs? -- building new prisons, hiring more police and federal agents. Would a Republican president dare to end this war on the homefront to save the costs of that burden to the taxpayers? (not to mention the erosion of civil liberties to fight this war) What about the increased medical costs of veterans, that will keep on growing after the last American soldiers come home from Iraq and Afghanistan -- who's going to make the cuts to veterans' medical care? So was England's empire after WWII, but everybody besides Winston Churchill knew it had to be given up.