3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:57 am
Pachelbul is wrong again:

Another testimony to the disadvantages of living in Canada. If you want to buy anything good, it will have to be from the USA( unless you need an Igloo, that is)
'
Note:
I hate to say it, but shipping is always going to be atrociously high for large, expensive items between Canada and the US. I can't believe you can claim ignorance about this higher cost in shipping, and have anyone truly sympathetic to your point of view. That's just one of the disadvantages of living in Canada, you won't enjoy the benefits that US customers enjoy in dealing with US companies. To moan and groan about it is simply a waste of everyone's time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:01 am
BernardR wrote:
Pachelbul is wrong again:

Another testimony to the disadvantages of living in Canada. If you want to buy anything good, it will have to be from the USA( unless you need an Igloo, that is)
'
Note:
I hate to say it, but shipping is always going to be atrociously high for large, expensive items between Canada and the US. I can't believe you can claim ignorance about this higher cost in shipping, and have anyone truly sympathetic to your point of view. That's just one of the disadvantages of living in Canada, you won't enjoy the benefits that US customers enjoy in dealing with US companies. To moan and groan about it is simply a waste of everyone's time.


...that US customers enjoy in dealing with their manufacturing bases in Taiwan and Korea.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:05 am
BernardR wrote:
Pachelbul is wrong again:

Another testimony to the disadvantages of living in Canada. If you want to buy anything good, it will have to be from the USA( unless you need an Igloo, that is)
'
Note:
I hate to say it, but shipping is always going to be atrociously high for large, expensive items between Canada and the US. I can't believe you can claim ignorance about this higher cost in shipping, and have anyone truly sympathetic to your point of view. That's just one of the disadvantages of living in Canada, you won't enjoy the benefits that US customers enjoy in dealing with US companies. To moan and groan about it is simply a waste of everyone's time.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What, pray tell, does the US manufacture anymore? The US outsources, did you know? The military is the biggest manufacturer & employer; guess that's why you need wars so you can employ all those people.

The US imports nearly everything, thus the imbalance in trade. You export very little. Look it up.

I'm sorry that you are moaning and groaning about that. Simply can't be helped.

Meanwhile, the US gets 99% of its oil from Canada. We are second to Saudi Arabia. Ditto the gas and water for electricity. So, don't piss us off.

Yawn.......we've had this conversation before. Before you start gibbering do check your facts so you don't look quite so idiotic.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:14 am
GDP - Per Capita: $ 31,500 Canada
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Interesting site. Knowledge is a good thing, BR. Try it.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:24 am
Pachelbul is wrong again:

The table below includes data for the year 2005 for all 180 members of the International Monetary Fund, for which information is available. Data are in International dollars.

Rank Country GDP
$ per capita
1 Luxembourg 69,800
2 Norway 42,364
3 United States 41,399
4 Ireland 40,610
5 Iceland 35,586
6 Denmark 34,737
7 Canada 34,273
8 Austria 33,615
9 Hong Kong 33,414
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:27 am
Pachelbul wrote:


Meanwhile, the US gets 99% of its oil from Canada. We are second to Saudi Arabia. Ditto the gas and water for electricity. So, don't piss us off.


Pacelbul is wrong again:

Country Jun-06 May-06 YTD 2006 Jun-05 Jan - June 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CANADA 1,799 1,868 1,763 1,705 1,606
MEXICO 1,734 1,576 1,679 1,616 1,568
SAUDI ARABIA 1,427 1,457 1,423 1,598 1,526
VENEZUELA 1,008 1,169 1,156 1,292 1,329
NIGERIA 996 1,075 1,111 1,012 1,040
IRAQ 617 666 547 608 548
ANGOLA 525 379 448 397 430
ALGERIA 491 350 297 292 195
ECUADOR 288 239 280 288 289
RUSSIA 216 255 92 116 253
COLOMBIA 211 185 169 227 142
KUWAIT 201 220 163 184 186
UNITED KINGDOM 185 174 132 269 227
EQUATORIAL GUINEA 114 46 74 66 53
LIBYA 110 26 54 87 38
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:31 am
GDP - Per Capita: $ 40,100 - U.S.
According to http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html -


$9,000 more per capita in the US? Laughing Woo hoo. You think you really have something to crow about!? What a HUGE difference in income! Now factor in your healtcare, or lack thereof.

We don't have the violence that America has, either. Check the facts on the site, above.

Not a very impressive difference between the two countries as far as income, considering that the US considers itself a superpower. Remember that Canada only has 30 million people WITH HEALTHCARE and the US has 280 million with 40 million plus WITHOUT HEALTHCARE.

Check out how much Canada manufactures. Shipping costs, dufus, are kept to a minimum due to the wondrous thing called NAFTA. Otherwise you Yanks would be paying quite a lot for things you get from us.

Gibber away. I see no one else wishes to talk to you. Neither do I.
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:40 am
McTag wrote:

...that US customers enjoy in dealing with their manufacturing bases in Taiwan and Korea.

McTag is wrong-

The USA has over 25% of the world's production--


Gross National Product
(2000 data, billion dollars)
(product per capite in parentheses, thousand dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDP Yearly Growth Rate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to politics | Back to history | More statistics
Country GNP Per Capita
USA $10,533 $38
Japan $4,852 $38
Germany $2,242 $27
Britain $1,544 $26
France $1,543 $26
China $1,329 $1
Italy $1,260 $22
Canada $760 $24
Brazil $715 $4
Spain $651 $16
Mexico $578 $6
South Korea $515 $11
India $510 $0.5
Australia $444 $24
Netherlands $429 $27
Taiwan $363 $16
Argentina $300 $8
Switzerland $286 $39
Sweden $275 $31
Belgium $264 $26
Russia $252 $2
Austria $226 $27
Turkey $212 $3
Poland $188 $5
Indonesia $174 $0.8
Thailand $132 $2


Country % of Global GDP % of World Population
USA 32.9% 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 1.36%
Britain 4.6% 0.99%
France 4.2% 0.97%
China 3.7% 20.84%
Italy 3.5% 0.95%
Canada 2.3% 0.51%
Mexico 2.0% 1.62%
Spain 1.9% 0.65%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Purchasing-power parity (2003)
Rank Country PPP total PPP/capita Population
($ billions) ($) (million)
European Union 10,840 28,600 379
1. USA 10,400 37,600 290
2. China (mainland) 5,700 4,400 1,287
3. Japan 3,550 28,000 127
4. India 2,660 2,540 1,049
5. Germany 2,180 26,600 82
6. France 1,540 25,700 60
7. Britain 1,520 25,300 60
8. Italy 1,440 25,000 57
9. Russia 1,350 9,300 144
10. Brazil 1,340 7,600 182
11. South Korea 931 19,400 48
12. Canada 923 29,400 32
13. Mexico 900 9,000 104
14. Spain 828 20,700 40
15. Indonesia 663 3,100 234
16. Australia 528 27,000 19
17. Turkey 468 7,000 68
18. Iran 456 7,000 68
19. Netherlands 434 26,900 16
20. South Africa 432 10,000 42
21. Thailand 429 6,900 70
22. Taiwan 406 18,000 22
23 . Argentina 391 10,200 38
24. Poland 368 9,500 38




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
BernardR
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:44 am
Pachelbul is wrong again:

Not a very impressive difference between the two countries as far as income, considering that the US considers itself a superpower. Remember that Canada only has 30 million people WITH HEALTHCARE and the US has 280 million with 40 million plus WITHOUT HEALTHCARE.



Canadian Single-Payer Health Care System a 'Disaster,' Editorial States
[Sep 23, 2004]
Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.) have introduced legislation that would call for a single-payer health care system in the United States, although "evidence keeps rolling in that shows it's a disaster" in Canada, an Investor's Business Daily editorial states. Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin made a "tacit admission" that the Canadian health care system "isn't working" when the government increased funds for health care by $60 billion through 2015, the editorial continues. Martin said that the increased funds would "improve access to health care professionals, so Canadians can see a doctor when they need to and where they need to," the editorial states. "In those few words, Martin unknowingly summarized one of the primary problems with the Canadian system: Services must be rationed because health care resources -- like doctors, equipment and the dollars to pay for them -- are scarce," the editorial states. According to the editorial, critics of the U.S. health care system maintain that the "free market has failed," but "it's not the market that's failed, it's the state." The federal government currently accounts for 45% of health care spending in the United States, an "intrusion that's been expanding since the 1960s and which tracks with an increase in health care complaints," the editorial states. The editorial concludes that health care "is simply too important to be left in the hands of government, either here or in Canada" (Investor's Business Daily, 9/22).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 03:09 am
pachelbel wrote:
$9,000 more per capita in the US? Laughing Woo hoo. You think you really have something to crow about!? What a HUGE difference in income!

Huge or not, the difference is large enough for the average citizen of the world to live on.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 07:13 am
The media still plays to the negative nabobs most of the time, but the economy continues to do quite well. Unfortunately, the rich are almost certainly benefitting from that. But a whole lot of the less rich are too.

The scary thing for me is that if the liberals are successful in taking over in November, they'll reverse all the policies that pulled us out of the 9/11 recession and created the current positive economic climate.

August 29, 2006
Policy and Economic Denial
By Brian Wesbury

Last week, the world's monetary policy literati attended their annual retreat in Jackson Hole, WY. The markets were waiting for news about the future course of interest rates, but were disappointed.

Nonetheless, there were continued signs that the world's intellectuals remain in serious denial about which policies create wealth and higher standards of living.

Greg Ip reported on "Jackson Hole's Sleeper Hit," a speech by Paul Collier of Oxford University titled the "The New Economic Geography." Mr. Collier's speech, according to Ip, "made a persuasive case that nowhere more than in Africa has geography undermined economic progress." Collier theorizes that small, landlocked and resource-poor countries can't keep up and lag behind.

This is not a new theory, but it is still wrong-headed. Freedom, not geography, drives growth and wealth creation. Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic are all landlocked and relatively small, but are clearly not poor. On the other hand, many African nations have vast resources.

Another idea reported by Mr. Ip, was shared by Arminio Frago, a former governor of Brazil's central bank. Mr. Frago "noted that Brazil and South Korea once had the same per capita GDP. Now, South Korea's is twice that of Brazil's. By way of explanation, he noted that the average Korean has 13 years of school, while in Brazil the figure is six years."

This idea that Asian economies owe their success to education is also wrong-headed. While education is important for individual success, if you happen to live in a country with high taxes, burdensome regulations, and unstable monetary policy, education and the entrepreneurial spirit are stifled.

But is it really true that, because of geography, African nations have no hope? And is it true that if government educates more people, wealth automatically follows? No. The Wealth of Nation's are not determined by geography or education, but freedom. While there are many who want to reject the teachings of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Frederich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and others, denial does not negate the truth.

Many are also in denial about the underlying strength of the US economy. While some economic data has been weaker than expected, underneath the headlines, the economy remains robust. The housing market has fallen precipitously, but in reality has only returned to the trend that was in place for a decade before the Fed cut interest rates to absurdly low levels between 2002 and 2004. Housing is normalizing, not collapsing. Moreover, initial claims remain low and "core" durable goods orders are still rising at double-digit rates.

This week's economic data is going to be hard for the pessimists to explain. Second quarter real GDP growth will be revised upwardly, consumption data will reflect 3.5% to 4.0% real growth in the third quarter, purchasing managers survey's will reflect continued expansion, and the August employment report is highly likely to accelerate from recent months. In the face of this data, denying a continued recovery will be harder than ever.

Brian Wesbury is the Chief Economist for First Trust Advisors in Chicago, IL.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 08:38 am
Here's something funny for you Bushites. Your hero is now literate.

Quote:
PRESIDENT NOW CLAIMS TO BE LITERATE
By Bill Gallagher
DETROIT -- President George W. Bush and his handlers lie about all things great and small. They are addicted to deception and are always able to propagate their prevarications with the reliable assistance of the mainstream media.

From the ridiculous claim that Bush is a voracious reader to the laughable suggestion that he had never linked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, this administration treats the American people like they are dumb as rocks.

The president's book-reading binge is one of the biggest howlers the Busheviks have ever tried to foist on a demonstrably gullible public. "U.S. News & World Report" carried a piece claiming that Bush is "eager to dispel his image as an intellectual lightweight" and is striving to be known as a "man of letters." The magazine reports, "In fact, Bush has entered a book-reading contest with Karl Rove, his political adviser." Now a whopper for the ages: "White House aides say the president has read 60 books so far this year (while the brainy Rove, to Bush's competitive delight, has raked up only 50)."

That is pure crap. Anyone who believes Bush has breezed through 60 volumes of serious literature this year should be eligible for a mental health disability or a Bush Cabinet appointment. I would, however, accept the 60 number as Bush's lifetime count.

This is the man who didn't bother reading a CIA briefing paper entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." This is the commander in chief who never bothered reading his own State Department reports warning that Iraq could erupt into sectarian violence. This is the president who prides himself on just glancing at headlines but "rarely" reading newspaper articles because "a lot of times there's opinion mixed in with news." Instead, Bush relies on his crack staff to keep him informed. In truth, Bush always chooses fawning support over challenging exchanges. Better to rely on The Daily Condi than to read yourself and, God forbid, think and reflect. But we are now told a man who disdains complexity and subtlety, the most visceral president in American history, has transformed and is reading books faster than Rush Limbaugh gets his prescriptions filled.

George W. Bush's previous commitment to literature was best reflected in his determination to get through "My Pet Goat" with a second-grade class in Florida on Sept. 11, 2001. The president stuck with the reading drill for six minutes after being informed that planes had struck the World Trade Center.

Now Bush is adding "reader in chief" to his many titles. The White House has graciously provided a partial list of the books he's devouring at a clip that would make Thomas Jefferson seem like a slacker. Bush's reading list looks like he's possessed of wide-ranging intellectual curiosity. Don't let his cowpoke ways and frequent mangling of the English language fool you. We are blessed with a leader who truly is a man of letters, a born-again Renaissance man in our midst.

Bush, we are told, has read everything from Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin's "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" to Leigh Montville's "The Big Bam: The Lives and Times of Babe Ruth" to Richard Carwardine's "Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power" to David Oshinsky's "Polio: An American Story."

I would love to have the time and discipline to read more about Oppie, the Babe, Abe and polio. So far, I've only been able to read the reviews of those books. I have never had any desire to participate in a book-reading contest. Reading books is about their intrinsic value, not some juvenile competition. I don't keep track of my reading consumption, but my best guess is that I've read 20 to 25 so far this year. I would highly recommend my most recent reads to our newly bookish Bush: Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11" and Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." The volumes share a frightening assessment of Bush's policies, isolation from reality and monumental failures. But there is no way Laura, Barbara and Condi -- Bush's nanny corps -- would ever allow him to read anything that might strain his psyche. Such worrying is better left to the entire nation.

Back in the days when Bush was governor of Texas and executing people at about the same rate he claims he's reading books, he said something most revealing: "I know there is no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect -- but I feel in my gut it must be true."

Bush's gut told him Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and conducting a pre-emptive war there would make the world safer and democracy would blossom in the Middle East. If Bush had read anything about the British experience in the region following World War I, he might have thought otherwise. That would require actually reading and thinking -- not responding to his bowels, twitches or itches.

To sell his gut instincts, Bush had to use fiction: Iraq was somehow linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. While the big lie worked very well, Bush is now denying he employed it. In his bizarre news conference last week, Bush again deceptively conflated the war with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Reporter Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers had the guts to call Bush out on his deliberate deception. Here's the exchange.

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Herman: What did Iraq have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Herman: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of -- and nobody ever suggested that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Amazing. The Busheviks were never so candid about Iraq's non-involvement in the attacks before the invasion. For a long time, most Americans bought the monstrous lies and supported the war based on them. And the lies live on. A Zogby poll in March showed 85 percent of the U.S. troops in Iraq believe they are there "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks." Seventy-seven percent of them believe the major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaeda in Iraq." The troops believe those lies because that is what the Bush military is telling them.

Affairs of state forced Bush to cram his reading at this summer's truncated trek to his Texas ranch -- a mere ten days. Albert Camus' "The Stranger" was one the White House touted. Camus, a Noble laureate, was born in Algeria and wrote in French. Sacre bleu! Bush, we're told, read the English translation of the story of Meursault, an alienated, unfeeling man.

"The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart grabbed the existentialist moment: "A classic novel about a westerner that kills an Arab for no good reason and dies with no remorse. Why that should strike a nerve, I don't know."

Books unread are truths unspoken. "Hamlet" and "Macbeth" also appear on Bush's recent reading list. At first, I wondered how someone who struggles with modern English finds entertainment and relaxation in Shakespeare's Elizabethan verse.

Then again, those plays are so filled with treachery, lies, deceptions and killings, Bush must find them familiar and comforting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News. His e-mail address is [email protected].
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:10 am
Here is a good piece on Canada's health-care system. Canadians are happier with their system than we are with ours. Overhead is about one-tenth the cost in Canada, adjusted for size. People in Canada are healthier. Doctors and hospitals are still private in Canada, and Canadians can choose any doctor or hospital.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:24 am
The economy doing well!?!?! Maybe some other country, but not America.

I think Dems could go on TV and show a few powerpoint slides and capture the election big time:

Quote:
Panel #1 - More than 85% of the Republican Tax Cuts Have Gone to The Wealthy Since 2000.

Panel #2 - The Poverty Level has increased every year since the year 2000.

Panel #3 - Corporate Profits and CEO pay have substantially increased since 2000.

Panel #4 - The Real Wages of Average Americans have decreased since 2000.

Panel #5 - Job Growth has been the worst its been in the US during a six year period since the Great Depression.

Panel #6 - Since 2000 Millions More Americans Lack Health Insurance.

Panel # 7 - You Can Thank the Republicans


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 09:36 am
Just some headlines I pulled off of CNN money today:

Report: Most not seeing real wage gains
Employee pay lowest share of GDP since 1947, when government started tracking data. Corporate profits highest share of GDP since the 1960s.

Wealth gap widens
Chasm between wealthiest households and everyone else has grown more than 50% since the early 1960s.

Consumer confidence sinks to 9-month low
August reading lowest since November on worries about economy, jobs.

New homes slump worsens
Pace of new home sales falls more than forecast as inventory builds, prices decline.

Worried about the economy
Rallying on mild inflation one day, slumping on weak growth the next, markets are on a roller coaster as investors try to guess how things will play out.

Homebuilder mood hits 15-year low
Inventories of unsold homes pile up; could spell trouble for wider economy.

that's just today.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:22 am
Advocate wrote:
Here is a good piece on Canada's health-care system. Canadians are happier with their system than we are with ours. Overhead is about one-tenth the cost in Canada, adjusted for size. People in Canada are healthier. Doctors and hospitals are still private in Canada, and Canadians can choose any doctor or hospital.

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/health/healthwatch/canada.html


I haven't met a Canadian yet who is unhappy about their healthcare system. Our system is not private, altho there are some who would like it to be. They, however, have not experienced the expense and HMO's of the States. I don't think we'll ever go totally private. Quebec is playing with the idea, but they are separatists and do their own thing.

Healthcare is not a luxury in any country in the world except the US. It's pitiful that a country that claims to have so much wealth cannot take care of its own. Over 40 MILLION people without health care is not acceptable.

Yes, we can choose any doctor or hospital, even if it is in another province. We have no 'co-pays' or deductibles. For those of you who do not know what a province is, it's like a state in the US. Having experienced both types of systems in the US and Canada - I'll take Canada anyday. And I had a school district picking up the tab in the States. It was still crummy insurance.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 11:24 am
xingu wrote:
Here's something funny for you Bushites. Your hero is now literate.

Quote:
PRESIDENT NOW CLAIMS TO BE LITERATE
By Bill Gallagher
DETROIT -- President George W. Bush and his handlers lie about all things great and small. They are addicted to deception and are always able to propagate their prevarications with the reliable assistance of the mainstream media.

From the ridiculous claim that Bush is a voracious reader to the laughable suggestion that he had never linked Iraq and Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11 attacks, this administration treats the American people like they are dumb as rocks.

The president's book-reading binge is one of the biggest howlers the Busheviks have ever tried to foist on a demonstrably gullible public. "U.S. News & World Report" carried a piece claiming that Bush is "eager to dispel his image as an intellectual lightweight" and is striving to be known as a "man of letters." The magazine reports, "In fact, Bush has entered a book-reading contest with Karl Rove, his political adviser." Now a whopper for the ages: "White House aides say the president has read 60 books so far this year (while the brainy Rove, to Bush's competitive delight, has raked up only 50)."

That is pure crap. Anyone who believes Bush has breezed through 60 volumes of serious literature this year should be eligible for a mental health disability or a Bush Cabinet appointment. I would, however, accept the 60 number as Bush's lifetime count.

This is the man who didn't bother reading a CIA briefing paper entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S." This is the commander in chief who never bothered reading his own State Department reports warning that Iraq could erupt into sectarian violence. This is the president who prides himself on just glancing at headlines but "rarely" reading newspaper articles because "a lot of times there's opinion mixed in with news." Instead, Bush relies on his crack staff to keep him informed. In truth, Bush always chooses fawning support over challenging exchanges. Better to rely on The Daily Condi than to read yourself and, God forbid, think and reflect. But we are now told a man who disdains complexity and subtlety, the most visceral president in American history, has transformed and is reading books faster than Rush Limbaugh gets his prescriptions filled.

George W. Bush's previous commitment to literature was best reflected in his determination to get through "My Pet Goat" with a second-grade class in Florida on Sept. 11, 2001. The president stuck with the reading drill for six minutes after being informed that planes had struck the World Trade Center.

Now Bush is adding "reader in chief" to his many titles. The White House has graciously provided a partial list of the books he's devouring at a clip that would make Thomas Jefferson seem like a slacker. Bush's reading list looks like he's possessed of wide-ranging intellectual curiosity. Don't let his cowpoke ways and frequent mangling of the English language fool you. We are blessed with a leader who truly is a man of letters, a born-again Renaissance man in our midst.

Bush, we are told, has read everything from Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin's "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" to Leigh Montville's "The Big Bam: The Lives and Times of Babe Ruth" to Richard Carwardine's "Lincoln: A Life of Purpose and Power" to David Oshinsky's "Polio: An American Story."

I would love to have the time and discipline to read more about Oppie, the Babe, Abe and polio. So far, I've only been able to read the reviews of those books. I have never had any desire to participate in a book-reading contest. Reading books is about their intrinsic value, not some juvenile competition. I don't keep track of my reading consumption, but my best guess is that I've read 20 to 25 so far this year. I would highly recommend my most recent reads to our newly bookish Bush: Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11" and Thomas Ricks' "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq." The volumes share a frightening assessment of Bush's policies, isolation from reality and monumental failures. But there is no way Laura, Barbara and Condi -- Bush's nanny corps -- would ever allow him to read anything that might strain his psyche. Such worrying is better left to the entire nation.

Back in the days when Bush was governor of Texas and executing people at about the same rate he claims he's reading books, he said something most revealing: "I know there is no evidence that shows the death penalty has a deterrent effect -- but I feel in my gut it must be true."

Bush's gut told him Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and conducting a pre-emptive war there would make the world safer and democracy would blossom in the Middle East. If Bush had read anything about the British experience in the region following World War I, he might have thought otherwise. That would require actually reading and thinking -- not responding to his bowels, twitches or itches.

To sell his gut instincts, Bush had to use fiction: Iraq was somehow linked to the Sept. 11 attacks. While the big lie worked very well, Bush is now denying he employed it. In his bizarre news conference last week, Bush again deceptively conflated the war with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Reporter Ken Herman of Cox Newspapers had the guts to call Bush out on his deliberate deception. Here's the exchange.

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were ...

Herman: What did Iraq have to do with that?

Bush: What did Iraq have to do with what?

Herman: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

Bush: Nothing. Except for it's part of -- and nobody ever suggested that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

Amazing. The Busheviks were never so candid about Iraq's non-involvement in the attacks before the invasion. For a long time, most Americans bought the monstrous lies and supported the war based on them. And the lies live on. A Zogby poll in March showed 85 percent of the U.S. troops in Iraq believe they are there "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9/11 attacks." Seventy-seven percent of them believe the major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al-Qaeda in Iraq." The troops believe those lies because that is what the Bush military is telling them.

Affairs of state forced Bush to cram his reading at this summer's truncated trek to his Texas ranch -- a mere ten days. Albert Camus' "The Stranger" was one the White House touted. Camus, a Noble laureate, was born in Algeria and wrote in French. Sacre bleu! Bush, we're told, read the English translation of the story of Meursault, an alienated, unfeeling man.

"The Daily Show's" Jon Stewart grabbed the existentialist moment: "A classic novel about a westerner that kills an Arab for no good reason and dies with no remorse. Why that should strike a nerve, I don't know."

Books unread are truths unspoken. "Hamlet" and "Macbeth" also appear on Bush's recent reading list. At first, I wondered how someone who struggles with modern English finds entertainment and relaxation in Shakespeare's Elizabethan verse.

Then again, those plays are so filled with treachery, lies, deceptions and killings, Bush must find them familiar and comforting.

Cool The hardest thing that man ever read was "My Pet Goat".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News. His e-mail address is [email protected].
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:43 pm
For those who prefer to read the information instead of the headlines, here is this from Forbes today. (Can't link it and registration is required but it is free)

Dog Day Good News
Rich Karlgaard, 09.04.06, 12:00 AM ET

Mix too much sour headline news with your summer brats and you'll wish the camp canteen had stocked more Zantac. But don't panic yet. There's plenty of good economic news to pull us through.

First, let's go straight to the heartburn's source. The second quarter slowed to 2.5% growth. Job growth sank to the lowest levels since the third quarter of 2003, according to the Labor Department's payroll survey. Housing starts have fallen 18% this year. The Fed made its seventeenth straight hike in June, yet core inflation hit an 11-year high that month. North Korea fired off missiles with impunity, Iran bankrolled murderous strikes into Israel--and laughed--and Iraq remains a mess. The Doha Round of trade talks collapsed. July was the second-hottest July ever recorded, and August brought another likely al Qaeda airliner bomb plot.

Cold beer, anyone?

Now, we're always in favor of a cold beer, there being none better than Corona on ice (with a lime wedge). But let's drink to slake our thirst, not to drown our angst. The U.S. economy is in good shape. The investment climate is opportune. Consider:


The second-quarter slowdown came off of a 5.6% first quarter. The economy has averaged 4% this year.
Gold prices are down 11% from May's peak. This contradicts that 11-year-high inflation report, but remember: Gold is a leading indicator, the report a lagging one.
As commentator Larry Kudlow writes: "The bond market is saying the Fed has tightened enough. A model of inflation-indexed bonds now shows the real fed funds rate to be above the real ten-year bond rate. This suggests that money is becoming scarce and that inflation is much less of a threat than it was a year ago."

Productivity, profits and investments are all strong. As First Trust Advisors Chief Economist Brian Wesbury, writes: "Productivity bounces around from quarter to quarter, but nonfinancial corporate-sector productivity is up 4% at an annual rate in the past five years. This is why the economy is so resilient." More Wesbury figures:

Corporate profits are at an alltime-high share of GDP, with most reporting companies ahead of analysts' estimates.

Commercial and industrial loans are up at an annual rate of 15.3% so far this year, a level of growth not seen since the go-go Nineties.
Excluding transportation, new orders for durable goods are up 9.6% at an annual rate in the first five months of 2006 while unfilled orders are up 12.8%.

Industrial production jumped 0.8% in June: The U.S. manufacturing sector has never produced more "stuff."

Private nonresidential construction is up 12.7% in the past year, and lodging construction (hotels) has surged 51%. All of this is offsetting the slowdown in housing starts. Good news is also seen by David Malpass, chief economist for Bear Stearns (nyse: BSC - news - people ). "Third-quarter growth is starting out strong, continuing the seesaw strong-weak pattern of recent quarters."

More Malpass:

U.S. sales of domestically produced cars and trucks rose to 13 million in July, 4.5% above the second-quarter average. This provides a strong start to the third quarter's GDP.

The Institute for Supply Management manufacturing index rose to 54.7 in July, which the ISM estimates is associated with a 4.4% real GDP growth rate.

Pending sales of existing homes rose 0.4% in July, going against expectations of a decline.

Federal tax receipts rose approximately 13% year over year in July. For fiscal year 2007 the deficit looks like it might fall to $200 billion due to burgeoning tax receipts. What about the collapse of the Doha Round? Is this Smoot-Hawley redux? Does it portend another global depression? Supply-sider Bruce Bartlett thinks so. The former Reagan economic adviser and drafter of the historic pro-growth Kemp-Roth tax bill writes: "Future historians may well conclude that, of all the Bush Administration's economic mistakes, this was the biggest. That is because we may have just seen the end of the free-trade consensus that has been at the core of U.S. international economic policy for both parties since World War II. The result may be a new era of protectionism that could be extraordinarily costly and painful."

Don't believe it. First, Bartlett has every incentive to bash Bush. In February Bartlett published a book titled Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. The book bombed--it ranks 41,266 on Amazon (nasdaq: AMZN - news - people ) as I'm writing this--but it did pay off in other ways. Bartlett became the favorite (and only) supply-side guest columnist on the New York Times' online Op-Ed page. He lectures through the same agency that books Al Franken and Anita Hill. Count on Bartlett to issue the bleakest of forecasts.

While the collapse of the Doha Round can't be read as good news, trade will go on. As Michael Barone points out: "The zone of free trade continues to expand as the U.S., during this administration, negotiates one free-trade agreement after another--Oman and Jordan, Central America and Australia, Peru and Colombia. All are increasing connectivity."

The mother of all "connectivity increasers" is technology and the Internet. How much trade today--in ideas, services, software, capital--is occurring electronically yet being missed by the counters? Way more than anyone knows is my guess. That's a good thing.

Yep--it's the dog days. Everybody feels doggy. But it's a good time to invest.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 12:49 pm
You miss the point entirely, Fox. A good climate for investors doesn't transalate into a good economy for consumers/citizens. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

But, you Republicans have never been overly worried about that 80% of American citizens anyways, have ya?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Aug, 2006 01:33 pm
Check it out on PBS tonight. It is a film about how more people are working hard but are getting poorer. But to Bush and the right, this is cool, provided the wealthy get richer. After all, there may be some trickle down.

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2006/wagingaliving/about.html#
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/20/2025 at 01:01:42