On The Subject Of France Politics Today
Can Democrats give one example of the GOP trying to ram through a bill that would reform 16% of the economy?
The answer lies in the often-repeated phrase that they are trying to reform “16% of the American economy.” Why would anyone think it possible in 2010—as politics, economics or mere practical feasibility—to reorder 16% of a $14 trillion economy of 300 million people living in 50 separate states whose geography is 16 times larger than France?
The Obama reformers are driven by the idea that their bill would fulfill a dream running back 70 years to 1939, when FDR failed to win passage of a universal health-care bill.
But this isn’t 1939. It’s not even 1994. American health care, whatever its defects, is today unimaginably complex. What the Democrats are trying to do isn’t just difficult. It’s impossible.
Bush tax cuts were supported by the majority of the American public.
The Iraqi War.
The Cold War.
Both had public support.
And neither of the above changed 16% of the American economy.
Stewart McIntosh answers:
I would have to agree. Fix the problems don’t through out the entire system.
Does this sound okay?10easy points?
I worte this for a play we are doing in school does it sound alright??? please read it …
Monolog By : Cindy . k
Greetings my name is, George-Etienne Cartier I am one of
the fathers of confederation. I was born in Saint-Antoine,
Lower Canada, on September 6, 1814. I studied at St Sulpice
collage for four years. Later in 1837 the rebels forced me to
go flee to the United States. There I settled for a time in
Burlington, Vt. Later on in 1838 I returned to Montreal, as the
rebellions settled down to a legal career. Later on I persued a
career as a lawyer and became remarkably succesful. I became
the leading French-speaking corporation lawyer in Montreal. I
also became fond of song writing and wrote lyrics for “O
Canada” that almost became our national anthem. In 1848 I
decided to join politics and was elected a member for
Vercheres Country, which I was in until 1861.
Sir John A Macdonald and I were the prime ministers jointly.
Unfourtunatly our time as prime ministers ended in 1862.
But, we were still part of many acts and events clubs also.
Queen Victoria’s letter is going to be read by the house
of commons which announces wether or not the union will
I was so happy to hear that the act of union was
approved. “Oh Queen Victoria god bless her heart”. You see the
union gave equal representation to both Canada and the United
States, this was called “rep by pop” or otherwise known as
representation by population.
How could anyone have known it would end up like this?
Well the situation for “rep by pop” became intlerable and led
to the great coaliton in 1864. In the later
years I negotiated the creation of Manitoba, as well as letting
British Columbia into the confederation.I travelled to the Charlottetown
conference that was to begin on September 1st 1864. There
myself along with with dearfriend John A Macdonald asked the
men who was still in favor for the union.The evening was delightful
we had a wonderful banquet serving oyster and champagne lunch
along the seaside. Too bad the days had gone by so soon, there
was a Grand ball at the legislative building which ended our
conference on September 9th 1864. But, for us delegates the
meeting continued in Halifax, Saint John and Fedricton. The
delegates were special people who were a part of the house
of delegates in Maryland,Virginia, which I myself was a part of.
In 1872 I introduced the
bill of the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway in the house
of commons. I was a part of the Liberal. There were many clubs I had
joined in including thr “Fils de la leberte”, meaning the
sons of liberty. My belifs were strong as my time as a prime
minister there was one thing I truly believed in and that was
for all races ans religions to be accepted after, when passed away
I want Montreal to become a multicultural city and may my
wife and daughters enjoy that as well, and live by that dream.In
1873 I travelled to London,Ontario in hope for finding a cure
for kidney cancer which I have been suffering from for many
years. unfortunatly they could not help me.
Today I told my two lovely daughters Maria and Margrite,
if I were ever to die that I would like to be buried in France
Stewart McIntosh answers:
Fils de la leberte
italicize this, otherwise great!
The European Union the superpower of the 21st century, the European Century?
What do you think?
An extract from an article by Mark Leonard, from the Irish Times Newspaper from 2005.
For all the talk of the American Empire, the past two years have been more about the limits of American power. Its economic lead over Europe is disappearing (in 1950 its GDP per capita was twice that of Western Europe, while today it is almost the same size), while the political price for saying no to the superpower has never been lower (as Germany, France, Mexico, Turkey and Chile found over Iraq). In fact, the US leads the world in only two ways: it has the biggest army in the world, and the most popular “popular culture”. But the combined might of the US military could do nothing to stop 9/11 or halt terrorism in Iraq, and the more America’s presence around the world becomes militarised, the less attractive the American way of life becomes.
Meanwhile, across the pond, Europeans – often by accident – have been developing a new kind of power that cannot be measured in terms of military budgets or smart-missile technology. It works in the long term, and is about reshaping the world rather than winning short-term tussles. And when we stop looking at the world through American eyes, we can see that each element of European “weakness” is in fact a facet of its extraordinary transformative power.
In just 50 years, Europeans have made war between European powers unthinkable; European economies have closed the gap with the US; and Europe has brought successive waves of countries out of dictatorship and into democracy. If you look at a map of the world, you can see a zone of peace spreading like a blue oil slick – from the west coast of Ireland to the eastern Mediterranean; from the Arctic Circle to the Straits of Gibraltar – sucking in new members in its wake. Around the 450 million (as of 2009 it’s 500 million) citizens of the EU, there are another 1.5 billion people who depend completely on an EU that is their biggest trade partner and their biggest source of credit, foreign investment, and aid. These two billion people (one-third of the world’s population) live in the “Eurosphere”: Europe’s zone of influence, which is gradually being transformed by the European project and adopting European ways of doing things.
Europe’s power is easy to miss. Europe doesn’t flaunt its strength or talk about a “single sustainable model of progress” as America does. Instead, like an “invisible hand”, it operates through the shell of traditional political structures. The Dail, Irish law courts, and Irish civil servants are still here, but they have all become agents of the European Union, implementing European law. This is no accident. By creating standards that are implemented through national institutions, Europe can take over the world without becoming a target for hostility. The same is true of European troops abroad who often serve under UN or NATO flags rather than the European one.
While every US company, embassy and military base is a terrorist target, Europe’s invisibility allows it to spread its influence without provocation. The fact that Europe does not have one leader, but rather a network of centres of power united by common policies and goals, means it can expand to accommodate ever-greater numbers of countries without compromising their independence, while continuing to provide its members with the benefits of being part of the largest market in the world.
Europeans are not interested in classic geo-politics when they talk to other countries: instead, they use the law to change them from within. Instead of talking about the war on terror or the balance of power, they look at what kind of government they have. What values underpin the state? What are its constitutional and regulatory frameworks?
Europe’s obsession with legal frameworks means it can transform the countries it comes into contact with, instead of just skimming the surface. The US might have changed the regime in Afghanistan, but Europe is changing all of Polish society, from its economic policies and property laws to its treatment of minorities and what gets served on the nation’s tables. The lonely superpower can bribe, bully, or impose its will almost anywhere in the world, but when its back is turned, its potency wanes. The strength of the EU, conversely, is broad and deep: once sucked into its sphere of influence, countries are changed forever.
Stewart McIntosh answers:
An interesting contradiction. The article take a jingoistic tone about a Europe that is completely devoid of jingoism. And a little out of date about terror attacks, given that the three worst terror attacks in the western world since 2005 have all been in Europe (Madrid train bombing, London train bombing, Scotland airport attack). But it does have a point that Europe’s influence is increasing, and that a lot of that can be attributed to the unification. Can you imagine the U.S. Unifying with anyone? Conservatives would go ape shit. Maybe this is another strength of the European Union, i.e. That their conservatives are actually sane. And they are also in power in Germany and France, with the UK not far behind. It used to be that Reagan and Thatcher represented the conservative viewpoint in the western world. Today’s conservative in the U.S. Makes Reagan and Thatcher look like Bolsheviks.
Do people actually agree with Sarah Palin’s attitude toward science?
My intent is not to bring politics into the science section, but my question is more about general attitudes toward science, and about why disdain for scientists (starting with Creationism) is downright dangerous.
Sarah Palin gave a policy speech today on the relatively safe topic of helping people with disabilities. (How can she possibly gaffe that one up, right?)
But in it she made the astounding statement:
“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”
Yes, I kid you not. She is apparently unaware that much of what we know about genetics comes from research with fruit flies … or that we learn about mutagenic patterns (the way that mutations, such as cancer arise) … or that fruit flies cause millions of dollars in damage to American Agriculture.
But being ignorant of these things is not the problem. It is this general attitude by people like Palin, and the people she appeals to, that what they don’t know about science, can’t be important. And they take almost as a matter of pride that what they don’t know is *considerable*.
Who else (besides our current President) actually feels this way?
Sorry, here is a link to PZ Meyer’s blog … with the video of Palin’s remarks.
Minor correction: That speech was yesterday (Oct 24, 2008).
Although I completely disagree with shawnesty1′s position … it is a thoughtful and admirable attempt to defend Palin’s position … so it deserves Best Answer. (I think all the thumbs down are unfair … I gave him a thumbs up.)
Please read his answer, and then I’ll put my reply (and rebuttal) in Comments.
Stewart McIntosh answers:
Since you took time to write this question thoughtfully, I will try to respond in kind fashion. Yes, many people do agree with Palin’s attitude towards science. Allow me to explain.
She may have brought up the fruitfly for its diminuative size and ridiculous-sounding nature. Of course, she may not be a Baylor grad in molecular biology like some of us, but she does convey well the sentiment of fiscal conservatives. Are we ignorant to not want to fund research of the fruitfly? No. What we want is proportion. The investigation of fruitfly DNA didn’t start yesterday, last week, or even last year; it has been on-going for several years. What has the research produced? Data. Insight. Possibilities. For some, that is enough, for others, it is a disgusting abuse of taxpayer money.
Please consider: Had Pasteur been given the funds and facilities we currently dump into AIDS research, what would he have accomplished? Not only would have have cured AIDS long ago, but he probably would’ve found a way to innoculate young girls who suffer bouts of shyness! What we want today is proportionality!
Taxation without representation….yep, it’s that simple.
Science “research” has had a long-standing racket…and no, they don’t need to hold secret meetings to fall into one of two categories: 1- They know that addressing symptoms of disease is much more lucrative and are not interested in a cure, or 2- woefully incompetent at finding a cure…not data. Either way, funding in this manner needs to be cut.
You think funding more nukes at this point is stupid? “Duh! The world can be destroyed many times over, why put more money into iti?” I would agree. The same notion of sanity needs to be taken with much scientific research. There are limits. “Valuable information” is about as comforting as a sugar pill to someone with Lupus or ALS.
What about this: Give 1000 people who have AIDS the money and resources that have been given to scientists/researchers for the last 10 years and see how long it takes THEM to find a cure. Now honestly, if you were diagnosed with an incurable disease, would you want to hope science develops a cure before you die? What major illnesses has science cured in the last 40 years?
We taxpayers are sick-to-death (pun intended) of endless science funding with piddling returns. Science is not altruistic, nor is it noble. Science is not trying to feed and clothe the naked, nor is it ministering to the afflicted. It is a soulless juggernaut that some humans try to treat as softly as religion. I’m sorry you feel like science needs unfettered monies and devotion. The fruitfly is but an emblem of such gross wastefulness.
Trust me when I say this (and try not to have an encephalitic episode when I say it), but capitalism will find a cure for what ails us, not science research. Mock Palin if you want, but not everyone is incapable of articulating WHY we are against giving more money to the research of fruitflies in France.
Would Jesus Christ be a communist if he lived today, considering his views and politics in most things?
If so ( i think so personally) then why super Capitalist countries as USA, France, Germany etc worshiping him as a God and claim to believe in his words and teachings? How? The lifestyle and “social-financial dream” of those countries doesn’t go hand in hand with Jesus teachings right?
Jack Black is back, he also said love your enemy like he’s your brother, do the Christian Americans show their love to their enemies by throwing all these bombs from time to time? Just saying
Stewart McIntosh answers:
I cannot speak to the political beliefs of fictional characters.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers