Pangloss

(Talking about Mt. St. Helens.) "Scientists say that if the eruption lasts more than four hours, call your doctors. " - Jay Leno

So now you also want to forbid businesses from giving hiring preference to bilingual employees? What if they're being hired to do business overseas?

By the way, the ad you saw was probably not paid for with taxpayer money anyhow. Those are typically done by 527 groups, which is actually the initial and one of the "correct" purposes for their existence.

Good point. When I moved down to South Florida from Atlanta I couldn't believe the difference. They aren't kidding when they call Miami "the capital of Latin America". I've met people from just about every country in Central and South America, and all over the Carib., plus Germany, Canada, Great Britain, several former Soviet countries, and more. (And they actually call Atlanta an "international city"... pfft.) It's really fascinating. I think I've gotten more cultural exposure here then when I actually travelled in Europe (but I wasn't really there for long, just a couple months, and I was mostly hitting the tourist spots anyway). Anyway, point being that English is still the common tongue, but Spanish is amazingly useful to learn here. Seems like half the job listings have "bilingual" listed in the requirements, or at least in the "desired" category.

I'm all for adopting the language of your chosen country, but enforcing that through law (like not letting people vote) is something I would not agree with. It's somewhat antithetical to the general goals of the country, and we've always been a polyglot nation anyway. The last people you want to alientate (so to speak) are recent immigrants.

Is that a good price?

We probably wouldn't believe how much money we spend keeping the president alive.

Wow. Somebody hand me a gun, I'm wasting resources.

I use AntiVir. It can be found at http://www.hbedv.com/en/. It's pretty decent, but it doesn't scan email.

That doesn't bother me as much, except in a more general/impartial way (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it's more familiar ground). It's certainly a valid concern, but the biggest problem you run into long-term in these kinds of discussions is oversight, vis-a-vis determining checks and balances in the three-branch system. I've come to the general conclusion (not objective conclusion, just in terms of forming my opinion) that the best we can do is try to improve general House spending oversight, party ethical practices, and, of course, making informed ballot choices (but in all positions, not just Prez). Not objecting to the point, though.

Gotcha. Yup, we're on the same page here. Thanks man.

Nope. I'm an undecided independent.

Have you run across anything about how those "vacation days" were calculated? I'm wondering how they're counting those up. Some questions that come to mind: 1) Is Sunday a "vacation day"? I.E. if he's in the White House but doesn't go down to the Oval Office, is that a "vacation day", or just a "day off"? How was this counted for previous presidents? 2) In recent years Presidents have begun to mix business with pleasure by doing fundraisers and campaign stops during trips to home ranches and vacation spots. How are these tallied? I think perhaps that even on a true vacation day the President still probably gets a briefing, so that kinda complicates matters. Not saying he isn't truly taking more vacation than previous presidents, I'm just saying I want to know more before I rush to judgement. (I'm surprised I haven't looked into this earlier, but it's been a busy election cycle. Any help would be appreciated.)

Thanks.

If that link doesn't work, go to the page Joe describes and look carefully for the word "Cartoons" at the bottom of the left-hand column in the central text region. It says "Presidential Debate 2004" right under that.

This link might work more directly: More Direct Link I'm not sure if you got the guy's point -- I don't think he's putting that kind of hate speech on a pedestal, I think he's mocking it.

Oh dear god yes. Given a choice between accidentally cutting off a pickup truck with a gun rack or a minivan with mom and kids on board, I'll take the former any day of the week!

Once again, I'm opposed to a boycott of France. If there's one thing I believe I've made clear here is that I oppose ideological closed-mindedness. No matter what side it comes from. Now, you asked me if I could give examples of free trade violations by other nations. I asked you if we could simply stipulate that, since it's rather obvious, but you ignored me and went on to say that I was making claims without proof. At any rate, this page from the WTO web site lists all standing disputes, including those of the United States. It's quite obvious that there are disputes involving MANY coutries. Once again, my point was that the US should not violate WTO even if other coutries are doing so, because we should stand as an example. I don't really think you disagree with that point. Incidentally, you'll note that some of these disputes were brought against the EU by other countries (not the US). What's that old saying about people who live in glass houses...? http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_status_e.htm NOW the discussion can be over, if you like.

Which is what a "liberal" is supposed to believe. But I've found that there are few things in this world that are more zealous in attacking free speech than a liberal ideologue faced with the prospect of having to listen to a sermon on Sunday. (grin)

Actually, they plan to do that *today* (Monday), I believe.

Much more reasonable. That sounds interesting. Do you have a source on that?

What, you guys don't think it's possible that they appreciate being freed from Hussein AND are pissed about still being occupied? Come on.

Isn't it a bit self-evident that many countries have ignored free-trade agreements? I already agree with you that the US should not ignore them. I'm sorry you feel that way. Unfortunately I guess that makes you an ideologue, just like the boycott-France pinheads in my country. Maybe someday you'll learn that two wrongs don't make a right. You certainly won't hear me advocating a boycott of France. But it sure seems to be politically correct to do the same to America.

This is just a different take on the electronic voting controversy. It's not really very thought-provoking, I suppose, just another perspective. We tend to forget about handicapped folks in the e-voting debate, and they have a valid point about not wanting to go back to the chads. I really had no idea they had to jump through such hoops to vote. So this doesn't drive any nails in any coffins in the larger debate, but it's worth considering. http://news.bostonherald.com/election/view.bg?articleid=47204

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The US military does not dictate government policy -- civilians run the American government. So what the military does or does not want in terms of capabilities is irrelevant -- that's just planning and preparation for all eventualities. It doesn't indicate anything about future American policy. Fact: America is preparing for an aspect of war that everyone knows is coming, and is in fact already possible at this time (North Korea). America was not the first nation to explore this technology, America would not be the first nation to attack an "innocent bystander nation" in order to protect themselves, and America protecting itself when a rogue state with nuclear weapons and satellite technology eventually decides to get aggressive actually helps *everyone*. Spin: America is causing proliferation of new weapon technologies, and planning to invade peaceful nations to prevent them from going into space. What this is about is promoting the idea that America will now begin to randomly attack peaceful nations just because it feels like it. The underlying justification for this mentality is, of course, Iraq. This position ignores all the reasons why Iraq was the moral, legal and ethical thing to do. (Previous line edited for clarity.) Many Europeans seem to feel (perhaps understandably -- but this is still ignorance of the worst sort, because it's incredibly dangerous) that they have no control over events, therefore America is a threat to them. I think Americans are not the only ones who need to wake up. Fast. All of this, by the way, is why the supposition that John Kerry will somehow miraculously get the European nations on board with the US is considered by most American voters to be ridiculous. It's one of the reasons why Kerry hasn't been more successful in his campaign. Europeans seem to be genuinely amazed that he doesn't have 90% of the vote all wrapped up. Well, this is one reason why. Ask Joe Six-Pack what he thinks Europeans think about America, and you'll get a WHOPPING earful about misplaced blame, bad reasoning, and being told to do things that are detrimental to America. A lot of Americans probably feel that if Europeans want Kerry elected, then Bush must be the right way to go. The kind of rhetoric Joe hears from Europe these days is so completely and ridiculously one-sided it's no wonder he thinks that. Nice work. Fortunately a lot of us know better, and are willing to vote for Kerry in spite of all this time-wasting rhetorical garbage.