When did I say I thought Rush or Fox were good sources?
you didn't, i was using the talk radio and fox example for comparison.
that polemic is a lot more suspicious than moore's theater.
i consider all the parties in the mideast to be out of control, but if
i had to choose the lesser evil, i would pick israel. in a choice
between bush and moore i would choose moore. when moore went off on
blitzer and gupta, he was right about how america has treated the
rescue workers, and he has been proven to be right about many of the
claims made in fahrenheit 911. he was also honest in sicko when
ranking the us as slightly higher than cuba, in overall medical care,
(IF you have health coverage) with slovenia in the middle. moore was
right to blast cnn for not telling the truth to the american people
(especially about the pharmaceutical companies, who are also major cnn
sponsors).
as for moore's numbers on money spent by Cuba and the US, i would
certainly give more credibility to a unattributed bbc report, than any
projection by bush. i would also consider the fact that cuba is far
more limited in resources (and under embargo) but is still able to
provide free medical care for its citizens. i pay a lot for my medial
plan, plus co-payments and deductibles. i would rather pay higher
taxes for national care that would benefit me rather than insurance and
providers. that is what moore is saying and most americans will agree.
of course there is a longer wait in canada for emergency heart
catheterization than there is in america, IF you have health
coverage... i don't see gupta talking about people dying in hospital
waiting rooms, or being sent away because they didn't have
authorization. he did come out after, and admit that there is room for
improvement across the board. no apology, yet, from cnn for being
wrong about fahrenheit 911.
all in all i still say moore provides a more balanced analysis than fox
and other emotionally biased news sources, and he is not boring. i
haven't "sicko" yet, but i have heard it makes this failure of american
health care glaringly apparent. i suffered from gall stones for ten
years because i was treated with drugs that only relieved the symtoms.
i believe in gun control, too, and have mentioned more than once that i
did not like what moore did when he ambushed charlton heston, in
columbine. i also had a visceral reaction to his media collage with
louis armstrong singing "what a wonderful world". it was a powerful
emotional message.
it is true that government putting money in research doesn't guarantee
success. it is also true that wars have created advances in medical
technology. small design teams can make breakthroughs where larger
facilities fail. i would like to see practical and cost effective
research, but both parties in congress are not exercising their
oversight. i don't know what
would be required for that to happen, other than to elect a new
congress.
we agree that islamic terrorists share the same goal of fighting for a
resurgence of muslim supremacy, but are they really the threat to
america that bush makes them out to be, and could there be ways to
support moderate arab forces, other than regime overthrow?
i don't know if it is a reasonable conclusion is that battery cars are
not a cost effective means of
transportation. I saw the film and they did mention improvement were
made to the original prototype. i got the impression that more
research was needed and the conclusion was the car makers stopped
because they were able to lobby successfully against the legislation
that required them to provide alternatives. tha is why they destroyed
the prototypes.
yes, the best response to pat answers from the left and the right is to
hold them up to rigorous, skeptical analysis. i believe the films
moore has made do a public service in exposing many of the failures of
the automobile industry, health care and the tragic consequences of
easy access to automatic weapons. he isn't perfect by a long shot, but
much preferable to rabble rousers like rush limbaugh, bill o'reilley or
dennis miller.
i don't know if there are fundamental problems in developing
alternative energy sources so we shouldn't try. i am not a scientist,
but i wonder what the result would be if we invested one tenth of what
we spend on making war? i absolutely agree we should be investing in
basic sciences that can lead to future advances in energy technology,
including fusion and plasma physics. i would not rule out engineering
applications until we know enough science. solar power is already
showing progress due to increased competition. we have not made as
much in the way of advances in biofuel as we could if there was a
manhattan type project. of course there are risks with every new
technology and risk/benefit analysis need to be done. we should have
properly assessed the problems involved with nuclear waste. we know
how to process spent fuel rods for example, but then we are left with
plutonium than can be used for nuclear weapons. it is very apparent
that much money wasted on both long term research and quick fixes, but
i hope solutions are not 40 or 50 years away...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
