http://youtube.com/watch?v=TEBpC0GLr6Y
At the above Youtube page there is a video from MSNBC where Keith Olbermann discusses Bush’s record. Before I watched that I thought that it was impossible for me to have a lower opinion of Bush, however Keith’s presentation achieved the seemingly impossible task of making me despise the cretin even more.
I didn’t watch the entire clip, but I was impressed by Olbermann’s poignancy. Its gotta be good for Bill O Reilly to have an arch-nemesis. I’d share my political opinions here, but I do my best to refrain from having any, as its not an area of expertise for me. I can say that I like the effect that technology and the internet is having on politics here in the states, from Phil Donohue being able to review hundreds of hours of CSPAN for clips of politicians advocating and denouncing the idea of invading Iraq to include in his movie called “Body of War”, to “non-politicians” like Ron Paul getting mass exposure. Its also nice to see how quickly scandals can be uncovered and exposed!
Mind if I ask what you think of American politics and politicians? Can’t say I know much about Australian politics, though I guess my opinion is that its sort of like Canada, in that its a “well-behaved” and now grown up and independent offspring of UK colonies.
Keith Olbermann is the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh. He, like Rush, should be ignored as they use the same tactics to bolster like-minded idiots. Wake up!
Albert: Until the recent election Australia and the US were the only countries to reject Kyoto, now it’s only the US.
In terms of the political system, Australia is essentially the same as Canada.
I don’t consider the Democrats to be a left-wing party, I think that they are centrist by European standards. The majority of the Republican party is extremely right-wing, and the Neo-Cons are totally insane. I greatly admire Mike Moore and Ralph Nader, but I think that Obama will be a good president.
Brad: In the clip in question Keith strongly advocates a position. I believe that this is a lot better than the actions of some “journalists” in pretending to provide balanced coverage while actually advocating a position, or of providing “balanced” coverage of issues where there are objective facts (EG giving the same weight to “climate skeptics” and NASA scientists).
In the clip in question Keith backs his opinions with facts which can be verified.
Hi etbe, I voted for Nader in the last election. There are many characteristics I admire about him, and I like the idea of supporting an idealistic underdog, but I wouldn’t put him in the same category as Michael Moore. I like some of Moore’s works but I’m not a big fan of him as an individual. In my opinion he’s impolite and egotistical.
You mention the Kyoto agreement, and I get the feeling that you, etbe, are environmentally conscious. Is that a fairly common perspective in Australia? I believe it to be so in Europe, and in some areas of the US, though much less on a day to day basis. Here in the northeast there are many foundations and well organized community activist groups which lobby on behalf of the environment. They have done a good job so far but I think the real differences will be made as environmentalism becomes more practical for everyday people. The rise in energy prices has a beneficial side effect – it provides and incentive for people to be more energy efficient. From a social perspective, this has cast a warm glow on those already on the train it seems, and now everyone wants to be green.
I think for most Americans, politics and the environment really just don’t matter. What matters is convenience, freedom, and money. If you get in the way of an American and any of those, watch out. :-)
I’m definitely a tree hugger and try to balance idealism with practicality. My “urge to conserve” is entirely selfish – I like to look at and explore nature’s raw beauty, and want my kids to grow up in a safe and sustainable environment.
One final comment having to do with convenience, freedom and money – Americans seem content with the fact that approx. 40,000 people die due to auto accidents every year, but have always been uncomfortable with sending troops to defend western market access to vast energy resources. I’m not advocating or denouncing, just sharing my observation. I got the statistic from an article by Ted Koppel, and wrote more thoughts about it here:
http://www.neocarz.com/blog/2007/06/01/thinking-about-oil/
Albert: You are correct that Nader and Moore are quite different people, they fill different niches and I believe that they both do good things in different ways. Michael Moore is rude, it’s part of what he does, I’m not sure if he’s like that in person but for what he does in public it’s necessary.
The environment was a major factor in the Liberal party (Australia’s main so-called “conservative” party) getting trashed in the last election. The Liberal party in Australia are going the same way as the Republican party in the US – but due to the environment not the war.
Convenience, freedom, and money depend on reliable production of food in sufficient quantities and a stable political environment. The Bush regime has done a lot to destroy this, the falling value of the US dollar (US peso?) is a symptom of this.
In regard to your blog post, the problem is that only the more wealthy people get the mobility benefits. A significant portion of the US population (EG the majority of those who were unable to leave New Orleans before Katrina). For a small fraction of the war expenses the US government could have built a national rail system to compare with that in Europe, it would save oil, save money, allow people who can’t afford to own a car (or who can’t pass the drivers’ test) to travel, and help the environment. Long-term it would save the US economy a lot of money.
That is a very good point about the cost of mobility – its something I take for granted. I’ve always had a car and have enjoyed being to get up and go whenever and wherever I wanted. I always like taking the train too though, mostly so I can read or use my computer. The local railway system here in the northeast is fantastic – the MBTA for Boston, the Metro in NYC and DC, most of the urban sprawl cities have decent ones out of pure necessity. For regional service, the Eastern seaboard has Amtrak and the Acela train which both get high marks, though are very expensive – more $ than driving or flying even.
California has *no* subway or convenient regional railway, and really the only way to get around is by car. The traffic and gas prices are very high compared to the rest of the US as well, especially in southern California.
AFAIK the railway system that is available throughout the larger parts of the US is heavily subsidized by the federal government and contiguously loses money. Actually that reveals one peculiarity of the US government – the feds are the big spenders when it comes to policies, programs, and projects, but in many cases its the local state government that makes the operational decisions about investing funds in infrastructure.
Have you heard about the farm bill that was just passed in the US? Part of it goes to food stamps and nutrition programs so that the poor can eat better, but some of it also pays farms to idle their fields, limit supply, and boost commodity prices. From what I’ve read, the tariffs and subsidies the US gov’t puts on its commodities messes up the rest of the world agricultural business, too. :-(
Albert: I used to like cars a lot more before I lived in Europe. When I compared the prices (1999 and 2000) in Europe it was much more expensive to buy a car (unless you wanted a BMW or Mercedes which were often cheaper than in Australia), petrol was very expensive, and car insurance in the UK was insane. Also parking was difficult and the roads were overly congested. So I spent 5 years living in Europe without owning a car and didn’t suffer for it.
It’s good to be able to code, read a book, or sleep on a train.
There is AFAIK no way to get to Westford (a small town not far from Boston) from Boston by public transport other than the “limo” service which is unreasonably expensive. Compare that to countries such as the UK and the Netherlands where most of the country is accessible by mass public transportation and the only parts which aren’t are suburbs which are a short taxi ride away.
As for farm economics. They should just introduce legislation for higher food quality. The quality of food in the US is probably the lowest of any first-world country.
If food had to be produced to a higher level of quality (less pesticides, milk producing hormones, and other things that cause cancer, less arsenic, etc) then more manual labor would be required. This would give more business to small farmers. The current farm economics in the US is specifically designed to make lots of money for the large corporations – similar to most US government policy.