peter_puck

I guess this begs the question "why would the US need the help of the Dutch secret service" ? Even after the Bush administration committed one of the biggest blunders in the history of spying by letting Iran know they could read its mail, they would still have the best intelligence in the world. They do flyovers with spy planes are are close by I suppose it also begs the question "why start a war that you won't be able to finish because by staring the war, you party will get its ass kicked ?" I really don't know what the heck we should do with Iran. The neocons may finally be right about something, but a president with only a few years left cannot really do much.

YES. Bush has appointed loads of unqualified white people to different jobs. Michael Brown was appointed to FEMA despite having no disaster experience (until he screwed up Katrina). Loads of people who worked on his campaign got jobs they were not qualified for (for example, the guy who got into NASA without a degree and demanded top scientists put the word "theory" in front of "big bang". While his daddy may have picked the least qualified member of the justice system, Bush Jr certainly did more damage by turning the Justice Department into a political arm.

How is that blatently racist? Thomas was appointed to a position he did not even begin to have the experience to fulfill. He made the Supreme Court after spending 1 year as a judge and having little or no experience practicing law. What other reason can you think of for appointing him besides his race? As for Obama, I don't know if I would consider him unqualified, but certainly barely qualified. However, lets compare. Thomas 1 year as a judge, 20 years as a poltical hack Palin. Less than 2 years as governor of a state smaller than a major city, and another few years as the mayor of hamlet that was smaller than some city blocks. Obama. 8 years as a state representative and a few years as a US senator.

Are you nuts ? Except for a few years as an Assistant Attorney General for Mississipi, this guy has NOT PRACTICED LAW. He had 1 YEARS EXPERIENCE as a judge before being appointed to the supreme court. He was utterly unqualified for that one year . How the heck to do you get appointed to the court of appeals unless you spend some time as a judge ? This guy spent his life as a Republican political hack, a yes man, and a black man. Those are his only qualifications. Judge Judy is more qualfied. A traffic court judge is probably more qualified.

This lady makes me think of Clarance Thomas. His sole qualifications were that he was black and he had the right political views. She is going to look like an affirmative action appointment.

How much ethanol do you put in your tractor ? How much of a profit would you make from ethanol if it were not subsidized ? How much profit would you make if you had to pay tax on the diesel fuel you use at the farm ? Ethanol may be good for you, but as an economic policy it sucks. The government would be better off writing you a cheque. Perhaps the farmers in Brazil are (they make it out of sugar cane, much more effecient), but the farmers in the US in Canada are answering the call of a complex government handout policy.

To a point. On the other hand, his administration has Dr Condoleeza Rice who has a very public face, and is very competent. This pick seems to be more of the same of his Bush's father's policy - picking a piece of utter fluff as a vice-president (in this case, in terms of resume - not IQ) True, but stoopid ideas can steal thunder as well. McCain's house comment stole some of the thunder of the VP build up too. To a certain extent, thats right. A certain amount of pissed off Clinton supporters will use this to shoot the party in the foot - just like the ones who gave the 2000 election to Bush by voting for Nader. She is under and ethics investigation that soon everyone will hear about. Also, if there is any other baggage (as if her resume is not enough) it will come out. Qualye did not have any baggage until the campaign began either. It took me a while to form an opinion, but in the end, this pick really sucks. The Democrats are going to resurect those Qualye adds pointing out that she is "one heart beat away" from being president. I would prefer McCain over Obama as president, but I certainly would not prefer a lady who has had less than 2 years experience in any sort of real politics as president. They are going to put up the resumes and ask "who do you want one heart beat away from the presidency.

The sad fact is, you get little or no net energy from ethanol (at least from grain/corn). When you add up all the diesel fuel needed to plant/farm/distel/transport ethanol you come out somewhere close to zero net energy savings (some argue a little higher, some a little lower). Governments spend billions to cause massive food inflation that starves the third world while doing no good except creating massive profits for the same giant agricultural cartels that drove the family farmer to bankruptcy by price fixing. It is a good photo op backed by big donations from the above mentioned agricultural cartels (one of which If Karl Marx were alive today, he would say ethanol is the opiate of the fuel sucking masses.

I don't think I get your argument. Even if the Greens are "irrelevent", they are still, MOSTLY left of centre (with a small conservative minority). The BQ may be nationalist first, but they are left of centre second. While the Liberals dance all around the political spectrum, under Dion they are camped to the left of centre.

I would agree he was certainly a important figure, however, I think the reason the Liberals were able to fight the deficit was that they basically unopposed during their rule. They did not have to run around buying votes like the current government (or the Liberals once they started to fall) did.

We have the spending scandal where Elections Canada raided the Conservatives headquarters (somehow I think that is a subtle hint). We have the Cadman thing where a conservative candidate states the party tried to bribe her husband. We have a biker chick who secret NATO documents. The same biker chick was on the payroll of a company that bid for government contracts, forcing a high ranking civil servant to resign. There was also a court case involving Allen Riddel, a former MP who said he was offered inducements to abandon his riding. Harper denied their was an agreement, but a court ruled their was an agreement and that the Conservative party would have to pay up. Shortly afterwards, the party and Harper settled a libel suit brought by the same individual. While the Conservatives were clearly more scandal free than the last days of the Liberals statements like "There has not been a hint of dishonesty" and "has avoided scandals and gaffs" take things a little to far. Power corrupts. NDP Liberal and Conservative governments, it doesn't matter. If you want to go around saying "they are more corrupt than we are", you will get yourself in the same mess the Liberals did. When they first took power, they were scandal free after the Mulroney years. Look where that arrogance got them. As for the question of the thread, "underestimating Dion", I think people are. As far as I have seen, he is not much of a politician, but somehow, he defeated Rae and Ignatief. Both of those guys are evil smart and had the backing of the party, but somehow Dion beat them.

Yeah, thats what I meant.

The American "MSM" does not bury stuff. The "MSM" reported it when it happened, but the media simply does not like old news. McCain was a lousy pilot. Where is that in the news ? (he graduated 895/900 in pilot school, got poor reviews and crashed 3 planes (in accidents, not in combat) ). Like Bush, he would not have been flying an airplane without his fathers connections. McCain had big connections to lobbyists and the Keating 5 years ago ...that does not make the news very often - because it is OLD NEWS. McCain's statements about the divorce of his first marriage and his marriage to his 2nd wife disagree with public records. Like Bush and drugs, he won't comment. (although he denies adultery) These are not stories because they are "old news". Politicians (of types) contain at least 25% weasel DNA and there are very few without minor flaws. I think Biden is a good choice. Obama is a lightweight all talk/little substance sorta guy, Biden has substance. Obama can't seem to attack effectively, Biden can. Obama cannot connect with the working class, Biden can. Besides, in modern history, when has vice-presidential baggage become a liability? (Qualye's problem was his IQ, not his baggage.) Bush's DWI did not get that much attention.

You sure have a one track mind.

My understanding is that they are allowed to do neither of those things. I know a few years back on judge allowed to jury to ask questions, but this met with a very negative reaction from the legal community. The idea being that the jury then becomes part of the process and are no longer neutral. What I meant there (and I suppose I should apologize to trailer park residents) is that in certain types of complex cases the lawyers will try to find a jury that is as ignorant as possible. The OJ Simpson case is an example. Throughout the trial the defense team did their best to have anyone with an education disqualified. Now, most pools will probably consist of a mix of people. So it might be difficult to Again, it would depend on the type of case. A poor victim, a rich company and a complex case would yield an ideal world of "trailer park residents" (again, I regret using that term). In other instances, a different jury might be better. In many criminal cases in minority neighbourhoods an jury of all white female homemakers works best. There are companies out there that do "scientific jury selection". Sure it will be explained, two different ways by two different suits using words people don't understand. You will have to pick which one is right. Juries have rejected DNA evidence, they have accepted "facilitated communication" evidence (the idea that people with autism are really super smart and can communicate abuse in college level English despite never having been taught how). A certain percentage of people can go to court stair the jury straight in the eye and say "I wasn't drinking that night - the breathalyzer must have been wrong" and the jury believes them (in most cases they don't). This means we have reduced the criminal justice system to a lottery ticket. With Black you did not need to know complex finance. The guy took kickbacks - its pretty easy. The guy wrote emails comparing himself to the nobility of France before the revolution. The prosecution played to the class warfare ideas like the product liability lawyers do in their cases. I suppose the best measure of the jury system would be consistency. Here they fail badly. There are all sorts of studies where Psychologists present the same "trial" to a jury. By varying bits of the case, or by varying the jury pool, they can come up with different results. Ugly people get convicted more often than good-looking ones (changing the picture associated with the case has an influence). White people get convicted of financial crimes more often than blacks. Blacks get more "convictions" when it comes to violent crimes. This is not a big a problem if the case is clear cut, but if it is close or confusing, this things take over.

It takes about 10-12 years or more to become a doctor in the US (4 years undergrad, 4 years med school, + residency that can be ). Many medical students will run debts up to $250 000 or more (this is in the US). Would you not consider this person "financially decimated" if he had to quit medicine because of frivolous lawsuits ? Try this. Burn your house down twice and see if you can ever get house insurance again. Same with doctors.

Well, if you look at the polls and reaction to the verdict, you were in the minority. The evidence was overwhelming. The jury decided to believe the "scientists" that the defense brought it - because they had no clue about the subject. The defense team got rid of anyone prospective juror with much of a education. What if you get a guy in a suit who says "this could only have been caused by the doctor's failure to properly insert the widge in the playorta. Another suit says the opposite. Do you really know enough to judge who is correct ? I don't Lawyers have some ability to pick their juries, and a trailer park resident is the ideal choice in something like this. The provide information that the jury cannot understand, and then play the class (or race) card. There is a small pharmacy somewhere in the states that has been named in almost all major medical product lawsuits. Why ? Because it is the only pharmacy in a a county that is one of the poorest and least educated in the country. Every lawyer wants to file their case their, but they need a local victim. So they scour the county for a victim, and, of course, that victim would have had bought the product at the local pharmacy Jury trials should not be used in cases where the jury cannot understand the evidence. They were invented in a time where the most complex case was a horse theft trial.

I really don't have a problem with US customs seizing laptops if they have some sort of intelligence. What I would be afraid off is every single Muslin (or Sikh because border guards cannot tell the difference) having his laptop taken and not returned for 5 years. I live near the US border, and I can tell you that a certain percentage of border guards are neither reasonable or intelligent. Furthermore, management turns a blind eye to their behavior. If you are a victim of one of these people, there is almost no ability to appeal. Your laptop may wind up in limbo because your border guard struck out at the bar.

First of all, you don't understand what AGW is about. It is EXPECTED that temperature will very from year to year, instead of progressing in an exact linear fashion. There are a huge number of variables that effect climate - most notably the weather. If you look at the temperature trends over the long term, they are rising just like the AGW models said they should. This "global warming has stopped" argument is meant for people without critical thinking skills. If you look at the graph people have provided here, global warming has "Stopped" all over the place.

No its not. There insurance is sky high because of the corrupt legal system. Why is it that certain patients are repeated victims of medical malpractice ? (to the point that doctors set up a website to track them) Why is it that certain certain fields have much more malpractice than others ? OBGYN's are sued over and over again when they deliver a child who has Cerebral Pasly. There have been billions and billions of dollars paid out in this suits (individual suits have been 100 million plus). Why is it that OBGYN's make so many mistakes when they deliver so many babies ? The truth is, it is near impossible to prove the doctor didn't have any thing to do with the problem. If the lawyer wins the case, he will usually net millions. Its like a lottery ticket where you will probably win. How are these cases decided ? The ambulance chaser will push for a jury that is ignorant as possible (like the OJ Simpson jury where anyone with an education was weeded out). The ambulance chaser will then put on the stand a very articulate and convincing witness who will say it is all the doctors fault. The doctor will be put on the stand, but being a professional doctor instead of a professional witness, he likely will not perform well. If he has any sort of blemish on his record, he will be chewed up and spit out. The defense will through up a couple suits as well. What the jury will be left with will be two suits with different opinions. They will use lots of words that the jury will not understand, and the jury will be left confused. The defense will, no doubt show pictures and videos showing the honest suffering of the child. They will also point out how the mother will have to give up the child to an institution if they don't win the award. They may also point out how rich the doctor is. Now, you are on a jury, don't really understand what just went on, but know if you don't vote for the massive award, little Tommy will be forced to suffer for the rest of his life, which way would you vote ? Not content with even that generous system, one legal group ? (trial lawyers?) put a "consumer protection" measure on a state ballot that would cause doctors who lose three malpractice cases to lose their license. Of course if they settled out of court (paid off the lawyer without going to trial) they would not lose their license. A real solution would be to get rid of the commission lawyers and have malpractice cases tried by judges with medical training instead of a jury of trailer park residents. They should also limit the amount a lawyer could get. It may make sense for a lawyer to take a court to trial with only a 1 in a hundred chance of winning if he gets 30 million for it. It won't if he only gets 50 thousand.

I was talking about his first campaign when he was so described by TFB (trust fund baby)'s father. Clinton, who was a bit of a liberal prior to the campaign, shifted to the centre during his term in office, but when he was unknown, the elder Bush tried to tar him as a liberal. Yes, that is exactly what McCain must do, put Obama in the tank. The problem is that Obama is not going to hop in the tank - he is very well scripted. The only way to unscript him is in these debates. I think the word is "worked". Lots of people believed those swift boat ads, now they are a little more cynical. Go look at the last race for the Senate and House. It was probably one of the worst, but how did the Republicans do ? Many of the negative ads backfired. The media responded quicker. McCain has a reputation as being honest. He has way more experience than Bush. He is the only reason Obama is not running away with this. I think he has to play to those values. On the other hand, if it did really go negative, I think McCain is more vulnerable. His support of some of Bush's ideas (even though he probably hates Bush more than I do), his Keating five problems and his years in Washington could make a really good target.

um how many people actually die of cold ? Especially compared to heatstroke ? Also, as it gets warmer, more people will move north, thus most likely increasing the number of people who die from cold in formerly small towns in the north (it may even double from 1 to 2 a YEAR!) Neither have I, but I can give you a huge list causes of death that don't exist in northern climates. Malaria kills about 1 million people a year. Sleeping sickness infects 10's of thousands. Leprosy and Schistosomiasis are bitches. There are doctors who restrict there practice to "tropical diseases" - diseases that only exist in warm clients. There is even a hospital in London dedicated to "tropical diseases" for them. A key reason many of the insect born diseases that are all over the tropics don't effect us is the cold. It is hard to keep an insect disease running when all the carriers die off for the winter. This also keeps many agricultural pests at bay. As for the animal/insect world, we don't have: A) Black widow spiders (and other poison spiders) Poison ticks C) Almost all of the poisons snakes (the few we have are rare) D) Killer Bees E) The tsetse fly F) Poison frogs/toads All in all, I think its much safer up here.

I don't think 47-44 is that bad at this point. If you consider all the ill will to the Republican party and the current president, I think he is doing real well. He is within striking distance for the debates. Imagine if this was Bush vs Obama, it would not even be close.

No, he wasn't, what I was saying was that he was attacked as one by the Republicans. Its like the little boy who cried wolf. Obama is the liberal wolf, but since they have described every else like that, nobody is listening this time around. I think I have covered this. McCain was a victim of very dirty politic by the Bush camp. Grassroots organizations like "Environmentalists against McCain" popped up out of nowhere . Huge money went into negative ads. Huge push polls implied McCain had a black child out of wedlock and his wife was a hardcore drug user. Bush and his style of politics is like these telemarketers that rip of senior citizens. They may work once or twice, but eventually that overly trusting senior wises up. Like the senior who buys the $5000 air cleaner, they got ripped off last time and are not going to trust the next person who tries to sell like that. Besides, John McCain has got so much going for him, he does not need to sell himself by saying "at least I am not as bad as that Obama guy". This is sort of the reverse of the last two campaigns. Last time Bush was the lightweight, so he had to rely on negative ads instead of debates. This time its the other way around. McCain should try for debates instead of negative ads.