Wow, Rush Limbaugh just had a stroke

Wow, Rush Limbaugh just had a stroke

and Glen Beck is foaming at the mouth

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


ACORN, Kanye West and the Hierarchy of Multiculturalismby Evan Coyne Maloney Journalists need to ask themselves, how did this happen? How could they miss the corruption at ACORN? President Obama was once an ACORN lawyer, so the group is certainly significant enough to warrant media scrutiny. Then how did all the seasoned professionals get scooped by two students–James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles–one of whom isn’t old enough to legally drink?

ACORN’s many problems have been well known for quite a while, at least to anyone venturing beyond network newscasts and liberal blogs. As an organization, ACORN doesn’t just limit itself to churning out forged voter registrations. It’s a full-blown racketeering enterprise worthy of The Sopranos, and it finances its operations with the help of taxpayer money.

So how could the major media fail to hold ACORN to account all these years?

I have my pet theory.

Political correctness has been slowly rotting the establishment media to its core, to the point where few professional journalists would dare launch a serious investigation into the exalted Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. Why? Simple: according to the tenets of political correctness, the racial makeup of the communities being “organized” automatically confers the presumption of moral superiority upon ACORN. So all those nasty rumors about ACORN must be no more than lies spread by racist propagandists.

To understand the mindset of the politically correct, there are a few rules of racial relations that you need to know. These rules establish the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism:

If a person is a member of a group guilty of past racial oppression, that person has no moral standing in relation to anyone in any group that’s ever been a victim of that oppression. A member of an oppressor group is always assumed to be guilty in relation to a member of a victim group. An oppressor can only avoid presumed guilt by making a display of his or her sympathy for the oppressed. Members of victim groups can lose their moral standing by expressing a preference for individual rights as opposed to group rights. Advocating on behalf of a victim makes one almost as unassailable as being that victim. Coming to the defense of an oppressor is even more repugnant than being that oppressor. This thinking is so common these days that many prominent liberals–from New York Times columnists to former presidents–believe that criticism of President Obama can only be motivated by racial bigotry.

That’s because people at a lower rung of the Multicultural Hierarchy are never allowed to challenge those above them. The purpose of this is to quell criticism and enforce thought conformity. Why break the rules and risk being thought of as a bigot?

Media coverage of Kanye West’s latest outburst at the MTV Video Music Awards illustrates this. Imagine the racial roles reversed:

It’s the Country Music Awards. A black female performer is accepting her first-ever award. She’s happy and a bit surprised; her style of music doesn’t usually win Country Music Awards. Halfway through her emotional acceptance speech, a white male country music singer runs up on stage, grabs the microphone from her, and announces that another woman should have won, a white woman–a “real” country singer–instead of the underdog black woman.

I’d bet my life savings that the reporting would be quite different than what happened in Kanye’s case. Sure, he was roundly criticized in the media, but we’re in an age when hidden motivations are attributed to every interracial interaction, so it’s interesting that few dared to discuss a racial angle to the Kanye West/Taylor Swift confrontation.

There’s a simple explanation. By the rules of the Hierarchy of Multiculturalism, when a member of a victim group is the actual victim in a real-world encounter, it’s an example of oppression. But when an oppressor becomes a victim in real life, that’s just karma, man. Any possible racial angle becomes irrelevant.

So forgive me if I don’t believe that the abundantly Caucasian and overwhelmingly liberal journalist class is capable of taking on a target like ACORN, no matter how apparent the criminality might be.

In the end, though, it doesn’t matter. The work of Giles and O’Keefe highlights the diminishing relevance of the establishment media. Despite the story getting no coverage on broadcast TV or in any major newspaper, it propagated online, then to talk radio and Fox News. And before any “mainstream” media outlet covered it, the political pressure grew to the point that the Census Bureau cut all ties to ACORN, and U.S. Senate voted by the overwhelming margin of 83-7 to cut off the group’s federal funding.

Even after these events, a vast majority of the media ignored the story. And yet the public kept getting the truth, which only made the media appear to be in the business of hiding news rather than reporting it. Realizing that this is not a winning business model for an ailing industry, a few of the more independent-minded reporters started covering the story, and now the White House Press Secretary is busy deflecting questions about the president’s former colleagues and fellow community organizers at ACORN. Despite the media’s best efforts.

James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles represent another massive power-shift in the age of Internet media. The first occurred when the Drudge Report broke Monica Lewinsky’s affair with President Clinton, a story that Newsweek got first but declined to run. The second was when CBS News got hoodwinked by documents that purported to impugn President Bush. After bloggers exposed them as forgeries, the documents ended up tarnishing CBS News instead. Long-time anchor Dan Rather was forced to retire in disgrace.

This is another huge embarrassment for Big Media–not so much because they look foolish, but because they’re beginning to look irrelevant.

Whane that fatball needs surgery....

I'll bet a thousand buscks that he doesn't run to his buddy Fidel's healthcare system but finds the best US docs money can buy, just like Ted Kennedy did for the past year!

And this is supposed to signify what exactly?

Liberals aren't against good healthcare. Just the opposite - we want *everyone* to have access to the same top-quality docs that Ted Kennedy did. What's so wrong with that?

Also re: Cuba - they actually have some of the best medical schools in the Caribbean and Central America. Ask around, many Costa Rican and Nicaraguan doctors got their MDs there. And as Sicko showed, the health care there is cheap, too (like in Nicaragua).


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans


So maybe , beside to the businesses the goverment is looking with the retired , they will endorse a deal for health care here.

. Or isn't enough good for you and good enough for us ?.

And im talking serius , isn't a sarcasm , because this is ones of the apropiate sites to launch such iniative.

you may be right Jose

only those who have money are gonna get good doctoring in the USA. Given the amount of medical malpractice suits launched every year in the US most people would probably be better off going to Cuba. As an American Vietnam vet, I found Michel Moore's taking the Viet vets to Cuba(SICKO movie) for treatment because of the US refusal to help them very telling. Thank God I live in Canada where EVERYONE gets good medical care. Though I personally despise Fidel Castro, and his brethren dictators,I would have no problem accepting doctoring by Cuban doctors. Medicine knows no boundaries and I have found doctors in the 3rd World to be just as good as those in the 1st world-in some cases, they are better, because they don't just rely on machines and tests and whipping patients through very 10 minutes to generate more cash.

WHO ranks healthcare by country

Canada #30 Costa Rica #36 USA #37 Cuba #39

The top 7 out of 10 are in Europe.

Nuff said.

missing facts

Is well know that the Health Care System in US, is failing, but not for underfunded , because US is the number one in appropiation.

. "The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country"

. So making comparison sometimes isn't fair.Examples.

1. The number of ilegals inmigrants that receive medical attention in US is almost half of the population of Canada, and sometimes bigger to many countries in that list.

2. Sue to medical malpractice, this is a problem that many countries even have that legal figure.

3. Scams to medicare and medicaid , and not only for Whitecollars or companies, but for the same recipients.


I am clear that for some people even US citizens , US will be all time the scum of the world no matter what.

. By my own experience , i know that sometimes is easier that you get medical attention been a ilegal, that been a citizen with you medicare , and for the quality of the attention i had a experience in Cuba , i was in a special unit they have for foreigners, not for the regular people, and yes the attention is similar to US, but what about for the rest of the people?, that sometimes they only get ASA.


Time for a little fact-checking:

1. The number of ilegals inmigrants that receive medical attention in US is almost half of the population of Canada, and sometimes bigger to many countries in that list.

- Canada's population is currently 33,763,000 (wikipedia) - The *total* number of foreign-born residents (i.e., immigrants) in the US in 2007 was 37.3 million. - Of these, ~73% are in the US legally, so the total population of undocumented (aka "illegal") immigrants is 11-11.5 million (i.e., 1/3 of the population of Canada) ( - 60% of low-income non-citizens have health insurance, and only 13% have Medicare. But these are only legal immigrants, as *undocumented workers CANNOT receive Medicare*. (

- Because undocumented workers have no access to preventative care, and "tend to visit physicians less frequently than U.S. citizens because they are younger and because people with chronic health problems are less likely to cross the border", they instead visit ERs, which are far more costly. These costs total an estimated $1B annually (, or 1/12 of what we spend in Iraq each *month*. - These costs could be reduced with a sensible plan that would allow them to visit regular clinics instead of ERs, for a much lower cost - but thanks to Joe Wilson et al., this will not happen anytime soon.

2. Sue to medical malpractice, this is a problem that many countries even have that legal figure. - Medical malpractice payouts amount to <0.5% of health care costs. Medical malpractice premiums amount to <1% of health care costs ( - Tort reform has already been carried out at the state level in several instances, including Texas, where numerous studies have found that "Tort reforms have not led to health care cost savings for consumers" and doctors continued with their so-called "defensive" practices (

3. Scams to medicare and medicaid , and not only for Whitecollars or companies, but for the same recipients. - Medicare scams are costly, to the tune of some $60 billion annually. Interestingly, it appears that most of the schemes are coming out of the Cuban immigrant community in Miami and Hialeah - a notably very conservative community. Furthermore, most of these schemes are run by medical supply or billing companies, not by individuals. ( - Finally, it is through reduction of exactly this waste and fraud that Obama promised to pay for health reform in his speech last week - much to the chagrin of many right-wing protesters and seniors, who keep demanding that the government "keep your hands off my medicare!" (

I simply don't understand why, when faced with a problem, people on the right are always so quick to attack and blame the poor and the powerless, including especially blacks and immigrants. You are an immigrant yourself, are you not sandinog?

Why don't you keep looking, and maybe you'll figure out who's really most to blame for the current state of our health care. Just follow the money...


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

congratulations and thanks

RSJMadam,intelligent and hard working rebuttal. Great Homework. I had to laugh out loud on your comment reference the Cubans,albeit the scams assisted by the supply and billing Company's. In Canada, it was the Jamaicans. Oh God, now I have said it. actually it's common knowledge.Besides, it could be any group abusing imperfections in the system. Anyway, just follow the money as you said. From the reduction of G.P'S to the abundance of specialists it's no longer about healing, it's all about money. Makes me cynical, why would any company want to find a cure for cancer..more money in supplying the drugs. Why would you concern yourself as a medical professional in the U.S. fighting the system. Obama has got my vote for change. Coming from Canada, I'm an outsider looking in and apologise upfront for any audacity. There was an Obama in Canada a few years ago, his name was Tommy Douglas. This is one issue that the U.S. needs a great leader to reform.

just clarifying

"I simply don't understand why, when faced with a problem, people on the right are always so quick to attack and blame the poor and the powerless, including especially blacks and immigrants."You are an immigrant yourself, are you not sandinog? "

. What difference would be if am inmigrant??

I'm US citizen, and like millions of US american , im inmigrant, like they ancestors.

Right ?? I'm registered like democrat, but i am not a extremist liberal, but either a rightist , to differ from this people only make me,a kind of conscientious objector, like those few that quick from the military


Sandinog, the only reason I mentioned that is because you are blaming other immigrants - people just like yourself - for America's health care problems. You did say "illegal immigrants" (though I would point out that a person can not be illegal, only an action), and I don't know - or care - whether you came in legally at first or not. We're all human, and we were all immigrants at some point in our history (with the exception of the few 100% Native Americans still remaining - and heck, even they came over by boat or landbridge at some point!).

I'm simply pointing out that it's foolish and misdirected to blame poor and disenfranchised people for problems, when in fact it's the uber-rich who are benefiting from the status quo. It makes even less sense - in fact, is masochistic - to blame a group of which you are a part.


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

you keep going

"in fact, is masochistic - to blame a group of which you are a part". . Where i accepted be part of this group??.

You,re trying by yourself to set me wherever you want.

Illegal is clear that is a status, but a status applied to a people that is under that action.

I put that fact because is the reality, i am not discrimating people or blaming, i only show some facts that i beleve are part of the problem.


. You have your own opinion that i respect that, but let me say that i had a insurance that cost me a chunk of my paycheck, and i feel was enough for me and my family , but is a lot of people that think that welfare is the solution, and prefer to spend their money in personal stuff.

And i put this example not because is the cause, but is part of a fact, is cultural, our people there still learning the advantages of savings,health care insurance and to plan its retirement, and people not only from my origins, but people with old roots in US, do the same, the insurance for kids in school cost a penny, but not one want to pay it.

. Some people here point out about a nationality group in relation to the medicare scams, i never point out in that way, that is discrimination and racism.

In this problem you talk about rich people, and sure many think about whites, but rich people now is more extendend, in color, race, etc, the same than people who make scams in differents ways to the goverment plans.

. Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

Opinions and facts

Of course we're all entitled to our opinions, and I'm not attacking your or anyone else's opinions, even though I may disagree with them. All I'm doing is pointing out where those opinions are based on "facts" which are not, in fact, true.

You referred to my mention of the high proportion of Medicare fraud coming out of the Cuban community in S Florida. That is not an opinion, and as such is by no means racist or discriminatory here. That is a fact pulled from the MSNBC article which I linked just after the statement, which in return was reporting the results of a HHS report. Here is the relevant quote:

"Most of these schemes, they said, are found in the cities of Miami and Hialeah, where they are often concentrated in parts of the Cuban immigrant community...A recent report by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services noted that 72 percent of the Medicare claims submitted nationwide for HIV/AIDS treatment in 2005 came from South Florida alone. That percentage is of great concern to authorities, since only eight percent of the country's HIV/AIDS Medicare beneficiaries actually live in South Florida, a clear indication that the level of fraud was, as one official put it, "off the charts.""

And again, not to go after you again sandinog, but you once again make an assertion without any support here. Namely that there are "a lot of people that think that welfare is the solution, and prefer to spend their money in personal stuff."

Show us some numbers. This is another blanket assertion (like that healthcare expenses are due primarily to lack of tort reform, or due to immigrants) that the right likes to throw around without ever giving any actual numbers or facts.

The fact is, that since Clinton (yes, a Democrat) reformed welfare in the 1990s, a person capable of work (i.e., non-disabled) can't just get welfare and sit around without working anymore and still support themselves. They must begin working within 2 years, and benefits are limited to 5 years in a lifetime. Never mind that people couldn't support themselves in most regions of the US on the pittances they were getting from welfare in the first place. But even those pittances aren't available on a long-term basis anymore.

So who and where are all these people, and where are they supposedly getting their money from?


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

sources and numbers...

"Most of these schemes, they said, are found in the cities of Miami and Hialeah, where they are often concentrated in parts of the Cuban immigrant community...

. That is assertion that is based in what?, because right now the majority in South Florida isn't cubans,like single nationality they are the bigger one.

I would show numbers if they were available, but this assertion are based in my living among them, by own experienced , the only number we can use is the wide spread use of welfare , is many ways that is cheated by a lot of people, not only minorities. And when i say welfare ,am including the lot of people that look for medical assistance and medicaid, under scam or cheating the goverment.

And in this practice not only people participate or "white collars" but institutions like Hospitals. search how much cost a simple aspirin in Jackson Memorial hospital, and search how much the same hospital receive in refunds for attention to illegals.

. I would explain again my position in this matter, i am not a discriminator against inmigrant,or minorities , to me that is something that not bother me, im been over that kind of sentiments, I am not considering anybody above or under my condition , attained to sex, race , political , religius or whatever.

Sometimes you has seen that i mention leftist, but not because consider them less or evils, but because i think sometimes they are in the wrong side.


But in reference to my point , i found this and is more on the internet.


This is another blanket assertion (like that healthcare expenses are due primarily to lack of tort reform, or due to immigrants) that the right likes to throw around without ever giving any actual numbers or facts.

Where i said that??

What i said was : And i put this example not because is the cause, but is part of a fact.

Some more fact checking

For some more fact checking

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)

We're Number Thirty-Seven

clever video but be warned it's a catchy tune


who is rush limbaugh and glen beck? i recognize hugo. the fat white guy is whom?

you don't know that fat ball??

That is the must famous hollywood director for the leftists propaganda ...well ...when Oliver Stone is doing real movies.

Michael Moore , the Admanehijad of 9-11.

That fat ball???

Sandinog, that fat ball you refer to, at least reports FACTS in his documentaries. Just because Moore disagree's with the GOP's lies does not automatically make him a leftist propagandist. Example is in SICKO the GOP say that the British and Canadian health care systems don't work!!!!! WRONG,,, they work just fine thank you. As for your 9-11 remark is an example of right wing nut wing statements which are occurring in the U.S at the moment over health care. Least we forget the right wing has done wonders for Central America over the past 50

Well, there are facts and then there are facts

I think you are very naive if you think all of Moore's "facts" are always correct or if you think that Moore does not conveniently leave out some "facts." While I'm sure that a substantial majority of Brits and Canadians want to keep their present health care systems (and I don't blame them), there are very legitimate criticisms and I'm sure that improvements can always be made. For a more balanced view of Sicko, try reading the following Wikipedia entry:

While the GOP may guilty of exaggeration and distortion, let me assure that the Dems are frequently just as guilty, e.g.

As to wonders the right wing has done for Central America, I suspect as usual it depends upon whom you ask, but I will throw in Violeta Chamorro's name as one possible answer.

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)

re Canada's healthcare system and Sicko

You would be hard-pressed to find someone in this country(Canada)who is not in favor of the system.My GP is one of them because he only has an income of 4 million a year. After his expenses he only gets to keep about 1.5 of that.Poor man!

However-that notwithstanding, the vast majority of us up here love our medical and look at what the US system is with real horror. Normally I travel in the 3rd World without buying any extra travel insurance because my Canadian medical covers me for up to 6 months out of country. When I go to the States I have to buy very expensive travel insurance because of the exorbitant cost of US medicine. A recent 5 week stay in NYC just cost me 450 dollars in travel medical insurance. My flight cost roundtrip was 510 dollars.

The reason I have to use travel insurance is that Canadian medical only covers out of country expense up to the same rate as whatever would cost in Canada.

Now then, as an American Viet Vet, I could use a VA hospital if I was indigent, but that is a whole 'nother issue. I don't know how they are now but VA care back when I still lived in the States was not noted for it's quality of doctors or cleanliness re their institutions.

I have never had a non-positive experience re medical treatment in Canada in the 40 years I've lived here.With 75 countries behind me, I rate Canadian health-care as the best I know. Not to say it doesn't have some flaws and there also are lots of places where fat could be trimmed to make it less expensive but overall I ain't switching. It's sane, it's good, it's fair, and it is probably the most distinctive difference between American and Canadian societies. That and the fact we are not armed to the teeth up here either.

somebody must hold the spears

I will not make opinion about Health care , less comparing Canada an US , because are countries with big differences, that make that comparison little unfair.

. But about: "they not armed to the teeth up here either".

We must understand that Canada like many countries have been relying its defense in US mighty power.


This article say something about.

. He said the announcement was the first step in a larger plan to revamp Canada's military, a force that has been criticized by the U.S. and other NATO allies as underfunded.

. Canada's military budget for 2008 was $18.2 billion. It's projected to reach $19 billion next year. In the 2008 budget, the government pledged to increase military spending by two per cent a year for 20 years, starting in 2011, which would add an additional $12 billion over those 20 years.


US only country to have invaded Canada

Canada may have relied on the US for defense during the Cold War, but as point of fact, the only country ever to have invaded Canada was America! Twice! (once during the American Revolution and once during the War of 1812). Both invasions were defeated by the Canadians and British. It was the War Hawks in 1812 (Calhoun, Webster, and Clay, among others) that wanted war with Great Britain in order to annex Canada! And the US threatened to invade Canada after The War between the States for their support of the Confederacy. Don't know what it is about those Canadians; the US has tried to liberate them twice from the poms and they just don't know a good thing when they see it! :)

Despite her small population, Canada had the 4th largest navy in the world at the end of the Second World War.

I think Canada is capable of defending itself in the Hans Island dispute even without the US!

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)

You know what be interesting Dixie?

A list of countries that the US has NOT invaded.

Canada's defense, Sandinog?

Against who, sanding? The only country Canada has to worry about is the rightwing Fascist element in the US who would love to take over all of Canada for it's natural resources, like oil, fresh water, minerals etc, etc. They think we are too rich up here having a country so big and with only 33 million people using the resources.

As far as being under funded re the military that is true but the Canadian forces are excellently trained -they just don't have all the high tech the US uses. Their fighting prowess is on par with, or in some cases, superior to the best of the US forces. One of the things here is that man for man Canadian troops tend to be much more educated than US equivalent. Overall-morale tends to be higher as well-troops here are volunteering because they want the job not because they "NEED" a job.

If one looks at Canadian military performance in Afghanistan where they are serving as a loyal US ally, -statistically-they are taking fewer casualties than either the Brits or the US though they are serving in the same high risk areas like Helmand province and the Kandahar areas. As a combat vet, I'd have to say again better training and a more cohesive team structure. About the only US force I can think of that ranks with the Canadian troops might be the US 10th Mountain division but even there that is a bit of a longshot-see the 2 quotes below

"During the 2000 presidential campaign, the readiness of the 10th Mountain Division became a political issue when George W. Bush asserted that the division was "not ready for duty."-wikipedia

In 2002, columnist and highly decorated military veteran David Hackworth again criticized the 10th Mountain Division for being unprepared due to lack of training, low physical fitness, unprepared leadership and low morale. He said the division was no longer capable of mountain warfare-wikipedia

the USA invades Canada

is the exact plot of Michael Moore's 1995 goof ball comedy Canadian Bacon, if you know canuck culture you'll find it a laff riot:

"Canadians are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil Young!"

it's obvious

Your partial judgment is obvious, i can say nothing against who his nationalism and political beliefs are beyond rationality.


Nationalism is an emotion. It's always beyond rationality.

Say what?

You said:
We must understand that Canada like many countries have been relying its defense in US mighty power.

Exactly who is it that would invade Canada if the US wasn't "defending it"?

Once again I agree

Blackeagle, you may already have read this on "the other site," but I'll post it here too since I think it's pertinent and thought provoking!

A Canadian colleague in Canada sent this to me.

Dixietraveller - It's a rare thing to see praise in the American media..... They have mocked us so long with our high tax rates and free health care.... You don't actually think that they will start to follow our example now, do you?

Worthwhile Canadian Initiative

Published in Newsweek Magazine,

From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

The legendary editor of The New Republic, Michael Kinsley, once held a "Boring Headline Contest" and decided that the winner was "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative." Twenty-two years later, the magazine was rescued from its economic troubles by a Canadian media company, which should have taught us Americans to be a bit more humble. Now there is even more striking evidence of Canada's virtues. Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.

Canada has also been shielded from the worst aspects of this crisis because its housing prices have not fluctuated as wildly as those in the United States. Home prices are down 25 percent in the United States, but only half as much in Canada. Why? Well, the Canadian tax code does not provide the massive incentive for overconsumption that the U.S. code does: interest on your mortgage isn't deductible up north. In addition, home loans in the United States are "non-recourse," which basically means that if you go belly up on a bad mortgage, it's mostly the bank's problem. In Canada, it's yours. Ah, but you've heard American politicians wax eloquent on the need for these expensive programs—interest deductibility alone costs the federal government $100 billion a year—because they allow the average Joe to fulfill the American Dream of owning a home. Sixty-eight percent of Americans own their own homes. And the rate of Canadian homeownership? It's 68.4 percent.

Canada has been remarkably responsible over the past decade or so. It has had 12 years of budget surpluses, and can now spend money to fuel a recovery from a strong position. The government has restructured the national pension system, placing it on a firm fiscal footing, unlike our own insolvent Social Security. Its health-care system is cheaper than America's by far (accounting for 9.7 percent of GDP, versus 15.2 percent here), and yet does better on all major indexes. Life expectancy in Canada is 81 years, versus 78 in the United States; "healthy life expectancy" is 72 years, versus 69. American car companies have moved so many jobs to Canada to take advantage of lower health-care costs that since 2004, Ontario and not Michigan has been North America's largest car-producing region.

I could go on. The U.S. currently has a brain-dead immigration system. We issue a small number of work visas and green cards, turning away from our shores thousands of talented students who want to stay and work here. Canada, by contrast, has no limit on the number of skilled migrants who can move to the country. They can apply on their own for a Canadian Skilled Worker Visa, which allows them to become perfectly legal "permanent residents" in Canada—no need for a sponsoring employer, or even a job. Visas are awarded based on education level, work experience, age and language abilities. If a prospective immigrant earns 67 points out of 100 total (holding a Ph.D. is worth 25 points, for instance), he or she can become a full-time, legal resident of Canada.

Companies are noticing. In 2007 Microsoft, frustrated by its inability to hire foreign graduate students in the United States, decided to open a research center in Vancouver. The company's announcement noted that it would staff the center with "highly skilled people affected by immigration issues in the U.S." So the brightest Chinese and Indian software engineers are attracted to the United States, trained by American universities, then thrown out of the country and picked up by Canada—where most of them will work, innovate and pay taxes for the rest of their lives.

If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our quiet—OK, sometimes boring—neighbor to the north. Meanwhile, in the councils of the financial world, Canada is pushing for new rules for financial institutions that would reflect its approach. This strikes me as, well, a worthwhile Canadian initiative.

(My comment - DT) Unfortunately, the part about Canada ´is positively thriving in it (the finincial crisis)´ is pure hyperbole and tends to ruin an excellent article. I am certain that would indeed be news to Canadian automobile workers and Nortel employees (Canada´s biggest bankruptcy). In addition there was the sharpest, quickest decline in the Canadian dollar from about US$1.05 down to around US $.80 in less than a year (it´s recovered to around .93 last time I looked)

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)

On the decline of the canadian dollar , DT

part of Canada's smart fiscal policy. Being the US's biggest trading pardner we have to keep our resources cheap enough so the US can afford to buy. For example, American movie and TV production is a big income earner for Canada-they can do all production and post production work up here and save millions of dollars just because of the Canadian dollar being being 10% cheaper. And as you said, that sharp decline from 1.05 to .80 cents happened very quickly-in about 2 months as I recall-but the recovery has been quite quick as well and the Canadian dollar is a healthy $.93 cents now. It fluctuates mostly on the price of oil.

Moore's Production Company

is in Traverse City, Mi not Hollywood...


Im refering to Hollywood group, not the city.


In 1947 there was a Hollywood Blacklist. One of the lowest points in US history. I hope you are not suggesting that we return to these times.

Well, ummm . . .

The blacklist and congressional investigations were wrong, but it is ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that communists and communist sympathizers (and left in general) were so vocal against the Hollywood blacklisting considering that communist regimes throughout the world not only blacklisted writers, directors, and actors but often even imprisoned or shot dissident writers, directors, and actors. I wonder just how many who protested the Hollywood blacklisting were as equally vociferous in denouncing blacklisting in communist countries. I suspect that had there been a similar campaign earlier against "fascists" in Hollywood, the left would have given its full support.

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)

well written dt!

i look forward to buying you and doug a beer someday in nica!

i can join?

I retired 17 years ago of drink, but i make exceptions some times, so i can share a couples of Smirnoff Ice or a bottle of White Zinfandel.


you got a deal!

didn't owe'bama

didn't owe'bama blacklist his communist, van jones? i thought blacklisting was saying that communists couldn't work in the film industry, their chosen profession. van jones "chosen" profession was green czar. and obama denied him his dream by letting him go, right? i guess being a communist is one step too far for a socialist?


Ummm, Obama didn't blacklist Van Jones. If anyone "blacklisted" Van Jones it was the right's beloved loony, Glenn Beck, who went on a rampage because Van Jones dared to call Republicans "a@@holes" and signed on to a petition supporting a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Beck et al. threw such a massive hissy fit that Obama basically decided it was no longer possible to keep Van Jones on staff without allowing them to distract the public's attention from the work at hand, aka health care reform. (Personally, I disagree, but that's not relevant to the point here).

Funny, though - nobody on the right seemed to mind when Darth Cheney told Joe Biden to "go f**k himself" on the floor of Congress. Nor has anyone on the right shunned the multitudes of politicians and public figures espousing ridiculous Birther or "death panel" conspiracy theories.

And as for the left calling out the Hollywood blacklisting while supporting more extreme actions in Communist countries - let's see some examples. I can't think of a single person who ever supported imprisoning or shooting artists in Communist countries. DT, you of all people are educated enough to know that it is absolutely possible to support an *ideology* without supporting the *implementation* of said ideology. I, for example, generally support democracy, though I disagree with how it was carried out under Bush here in America, meanwhile Che here generally seems to support democracy while disagreeing with how it's carried out under Obama. That doesn't make us anti-democratic!


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

several great points!

At the risk of appearing patronizing, I always agree with almost everything you post, so post on! Couple of great points,you nailed Che(sorry Che) with the reference about supporting democracy but not Obama, seems to me if you support democracy you need to accept the majority's will, even when you are not in the majority, there seems a certain unpatriotic aspect there. If you sign up for the buffet, you shouldnt try to order off the menu. Also definitely different standards for Darth and Van. I am going to have post again, this is fun.

"if you see someone who has lost their smile, give them one of yours"

this is fun

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is two wolves attempting to have a sheep for dinner and finding a well-informed, well-armed sheep. ~BOVARD, JAMES, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, St. Martin's Press, 1994

i am not for democracy, i am for a constitutional republic so the will of the people is to not have me, a minority, for dinner bc that is their vote. see eg, jefferson below. yes, this is lots of fun.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson-

Picturesque metaphor

But perhaps not appropriate, I don’t think, at least I hope, we are not wolves and sheep, but rather a group where there can be an enlightened self interest, rather than the same old polemic arguments among wolves and sheep. I think that is what the founding fathers were seeking. However, the wolves and sheep metaphor, like economists who talk about economies that make only ‘guns and butter,’ but it is pretty hard to find an economy that only produces those 2 products. It makes a great example, but the wheels never quite hit the road. Seems like you want your cake and to be able to eat too, maybe a constitutional monarchy, where you always get to pick the leader? Reminds my of another great quote: “Can’t we all just get along?” ~Rodney King, American Philosopher

"if you see someone who has lost their smile, give them one of yours"

since Jim has already started

by paraphrasing the wolf/sheep quote by every one's favorite pornographer/free speech advocate Larry Flynt I would like to quote him again

"The American government -- which we once called our government -- has been taken over by Wall Street, the mega-corporations and the super-rich. They are the ones who decide our fate. It is this group of powerful elites, the people President Franklin D. Roosevelt called "economic royalists," who choose our elected officials -- indeed, our very form of government. Both Democrats and Republicans dance to the tune of their corporate masters. In America, corporations do not control the government. In America, corporations are the government."

You can read the rest of Flynt's article at

Yes, US now an oligarchy, owned by corporations

Join the Facebook Group, One Million Strong For Separation of Corporation and State.;

Mussolini's definition of facism was "when corporations run the government".

The CIA works for Wall Street, so in just about every military "adventure", we can just FOLLOW THE MONEY, as has been recently demonstrated in Honduras.

The Bush family owns Chiquita Banana, formerly United Fruit.

If we share..

I like to do that , is ok for me,that is the way mut to be, but frankly , i have reserves , because if is a standar position in all cases, would be a common front.

But example in the case of Nicaragua, nobody say this mouth is mine, to call for some action against Ortegas rule party and its dominion and possession of many assets that are in a conflict , state - party goverment , in my opinion worse that Bush case.

And other reserve i have is , that all this actions ,they give an idea to the societies, that the problems is US only, what about the other interest?

We want weak or change US system but in the mean time others are doing the opposite, in the long run were going to be the 'fifth column'.


We're humans, sentient beings, not mere wolves and sheep acting solely/primarily upon instinct. We are able to construct concepts like liberty and democracy, and to develop systems of living within society that moves beyond pure individual liberty. As Hobbes said, pure natural liberty leads inexorably to endless conflict and fear, the "warre of every man against every man". Absolute liberty of one person will always take away from the liberty of another person - this is why we developed social systems to balance individual liberties. We can do better than live as mindless sheep - and that's exactly what political systems are designed to do.

Furthermore, you're splitting hairs here, Che. A constitutional republic is "a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens." That's a DEMOCRATIC system - one of several possible subsets, yes, but by definition a system in which acting representatives are responsible for governing is a democracy.


Life is what happens while we're busy making other plans

Another ingredient

I believe the founding fathers never intended for artificial people (corporations) to get to vote. (Nor blacks, or women but that is a different issue.) All in all, a representative government is a great idea—the problem is in deciding who is to be represented and how to preserve that situation.

During my lifetime, we have seen many battles to address discrimination against groups of people. The elimination of literacy tests in order to be able to vote is a good example. Unfortunately, during this same time we have seen the power of the corporate lobbyist increase. If you don't believe that, look at the current health care debate in the U.S. No matter what your position, you have to admit that corporate America is certainly being "represented" in the debate.

If we bring this to Nicaragua, the argument tends to be that "Ortega is undemocratic". That may well be the case but one needs to see that in other countries, undemocratic just takes different forms.

I don't have a solution but I think we all need to recognize that possibly only Kuwait has a true "one man, one vote" government. Unfortunately, that man is the Emir and that is the only vote.


Corporations, or simply, the interests of big business has far too much influence in the Government of the USA and the daily affairs of the nation. That is probably one thing the founding fathers could not or did not anticipate. You can see in some of the posts here and in general, they excell in propaganda, literally, 'brain washing,' most people just dont think on their own.

"if you see someone who has lost their smile, give them one of yours"

"I can't think of a single

"I can't think of a single person who ever supported imprisoning or shooting artists in Communist countries."

The point is, who among those in Hollywood who condemned the blacklisting were equally condemning of what was happenening in Eastern Europe at the time, for example. Even if one was in favor of "communism" in general in the abstract, then all the more reason to oppose its actual "implementation" in reality (which some on the left did do). I am not aware of Charlie Chaplin (a victim of the blacklisting) ever speaking out, for example (but I may be wrong). Ironically, one of those who went before Congress was communist writer, Bertolt Brecht, who soon departed for communist East Germany where blacklisting was frequent and a cause for writers to flee to the West (at least before the Wall went up). I am not aware of Brecht ever speaking out against blacklisting in communist countries, and I can only assume that he, as a communist, supported it, although he sometimes made veiled criticisms of East GErman communism.

O quantum est in rebus inane! / A palabras necias, oídos sordos.

I know the answer! The answer lies within the heart of all mankind! The answer is twelve? I think I'm in the wrong building. - Peanuts (Charles M. Schulz)