|
|
Recent article by Bill Mann The scare ads and op-ed pieces featuring Canadians telling us American how terrible their government health-care systems have arrived - predictably. There's another, factual view - by those of us Americans who've lived in Canada and used their system. My wife and I did for years, and we've been incensed by the lies we've heard back here in the U.S. about Canada's supposedly broken system. It's not broken - and what's more, Canadians like and fiercely defend it. Example: Our son was born at Montreal's Royal Victoria Hospital. My wife got excellent care. The total bill for three days in a semi-private room? $21. My friend Art Finley is a West Virginia native who lives in Vancouver. "I'm 82, and in excellent health," he told me this week. "It costs me all of $57 a month for health care, and it's excellent. I'm so tired of all the lies and bullshit I hear about the system up here in the U.S. media." Finley, a well-known TV and radio host for years in San Francisco, adds, "I now have 20/20 vision thanks to Canadian eye doctors. And I haven't had to wait for my surgeries, either." A Canadian-born doctor wrote a hit piece for Wingnut Central (the Wall Street Journal op-ed page) this week David Gratzer claimed: "Everyone in Canada is covered by a single payer -- the government. But Canadians wait for practically any procedure or diagnostic test or specialist consultation in the public system." Vancouverite Finley: "That's sheer b.s." I heard Gratzer say the same thing on Seattle radio station KIRO this week. Trouble is, it's nonsense. We were always seen promptly by our doctors in Montreal, many of whom spoke both French and English. Today, we live within sight of the Canadian border in Washington state, and still spend lots of time in Canada. Five years ago, while we were on vacation in lovely Nova Scotia, the Canadian government released a long-awaited major report from a federal commission studying the Canadian single-payer system. We were listening to CBC Radio the day the big study came out. The study's conclusion: While the system had flaws, none was so serious it couldn't be fixed. Then the CBC opened the lines to callers across Canada. Here it comes, I thought. The usual talk-show torrent of complaints and anger about the report's findings. I wish Americans could have heard this revealing show. For the next two hours, scores of Canadians called from across that vast country, from Newfoundland to British Columbia. Not one said he or she would change the system. Every single one defended it vigorously. The Greatest Canadian Ever Further proof: Not long ago, the CBC asked Canadians to nominate and then vote for The Greatest Canadian in history. Thousands responded. The winner? Not Wayne Gretzky, as I expected (although the hockey great DID make the Top 10). Not even Alexander Graham Bell, another finalist. The greatest Canadian ever? Tommy Douglas. Who? Tommy Douglas was a Canadian politician - and the father of Canadian universal health care. This is interesting, a recent journalist poll on Iraq. This was pulled from journalism.org. After four years of war in Iraq, the journalists reporting from that country give their coverage a mixed but generally positive assessment, but they believe they have done a better job of covering the American military and the insurgency than they have the lives of ordinary Iraqis. And they do not believe the coverage of Iraq over time has been too negative. If anything, many believe the situation over the course of the war has been worse than the American public has perceived, according to a new survey of journalists covering the war from Iraq.
A majority of journalists surveyed say most of the country is too dangerous to visit. Nine out of ten say that about at least half of Baghdad itself. Wherever they go, traveling with armed guards and chase vehicles is the norm for more than seven out of ten surveyed. Even the basics of getting the story are remarkably difficult. Outside of the heavily-fortified Green Zone, most U.S. journalists must rely on local staff to do the necessary face-to-face reporting. Yet nearly nine out of ten journalists say their local staff cannot carry any equipment—not even a notebook—that might identify them as working for the western media for fear of being killed. Some local staffers do not even tell their own families. Most journalists also have a positive view of the U.S. military’s embedding program for reporters. While they acknowledge the limited perspective it provides, they believe it offers access to information they could not otherwise get. And most journalists, eight out of ten, feel that, over time, conditions for telling the story of Iraq have gotten worse, not better. The survey, conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism from September 28 through November 7, was developed to get a sense of the conditions journalists have faced in trying to cover the war over the last couple of years. It was not designed to poll their sense of the situation in Iraq at this one or any other particular moment in time, or to offer a referendum on the success of the surge. It will be followed, later this year, with a content analysis of coverage on the ground from Iraq. The survey included responses from 111 journalists who have worked or are currently working in Iraq. The vast majority, 90 of them, were in Iraq when they took the survey or have worked there in 2007, and most have spent at least seven months in the country cumulatively since the war began. The journalists are from 29 different news organizations (all of them U.S. based except for one) that have had staff in Iraq—including newspapers, wire services, magazines, radio, and network and cable TV. This represents, by best estimates, every news organization in the U.S. save one that has had a correspondent in Iraq for at least one month since January 2006.1 Nearly everyone surveyed also responded to open-ended questions – often at length – offering a vivid and sobering portrait of trying to report an extraordinarily difficult story under terrifying conditions. “The dangers can’t be overstated,” one print journalist wrote. “It’s been an ambush – two staff killed, one wounded – various firefights, and our ‘home’ has been rocked and mortared (by accident, I’m pretty sure). It’s not fun; it’s not safe, but I go back because it needs to be told.” Whatever the problems, a magazine reporter offered, “The press….have carried out the classic journalistic mission of bearing witness.” “Welcome to the new world of journalism, boys and girls. This is where we lost our innocence. Security teams, body armor and armored cars will forever now be pushed in between journalism and stories,” one bureau chief declared. The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which is non-partisan and non-political, is one of eight projects that make up the Pew Research Center in Washington, D.C., a “fact tank” funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Princeton Survey Research was contracted to host and administer the online survey. Doesn't much sound like the increased troops made things that much safer in general does it? I think they have tried really hard to report it, but lends credence to the fact that much of what is really going on is not getting out. I commend them. Recent history -- what started TODAY'S mess: I agree that we should stay OUT of this, though I fear the timing of this all was purposely designed to drag us into it right before Inauguration Day.Gaza truce broken as Israeli raid kills six Hamas gunmen
A four-month ceasefire between Israel and Palestinian militants in Gaza was in jeopardy today after Israeli troops killed six Hamas gunmen in a raid into the territory. Hamas responded by firing a wave of rockets into southern Israel, although no one was injured. The violence represented the most serious break in a ceasefire agreed in mid-June, yet both sides suggested they wanted to return to atmosphere of calm. Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip late last night near the town of Deir al-Balah. The Israeli military said the target of the raid was a tunnel that they said Hamas was planning to use to capture Israeli soldiers positioned on the border fence 250m away. Four Israeli soldiers were injured in the operation, two moderately and two lightly, the military said. One Hamas gunman was killed and Palestinians launched a volley of mortars at the Israeli military. An Israeli air strike then killed five more Hamas fighters. In response, Hamas launched 35 rockets into southern Israel, one reaching the city of Ashkelon. "This was a pinpoint operation intended to prevent an immediate threat," the Israeli military said in a statement. "There is no intention to disrupt the ceasefire, rather the purpose of the operation was to remove an immediate and dangerous threat posted by the Hamas terror organisation." In Gaza, a Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum, said the group had fired rockets out of Gaza as a "response to Israel's massive breach of the truce". "The Israelis began this tension and they must pay an expensive price. They cannot leave us drowning in blood while they sleep soundly in their beds," he said. The attack comes shortly before a key meeting this Sunday in Cairo when Hamas and its political rival Fatah will hold talks on reconciling their differences and creating a single, unified government. It will be the first time the two sides have met at this level since fighting a near civil war more than a year ago. Until now it had appeared both Israel and Hamas, which seized full control of Gaza last summer, had an interest in maintaining the ceasefire. For Israel it has meant an end to the daily barrage of rockets landing in southern towns, particularly Sderot. For Gazans it has meant an end to the regular Israeli military raids that have caused hundreds of casualties, many of them civilian, in the past year. Israel, however, has maintained its economic blockade on the strip, severely limiting imports and preventing all exports from Gaza. Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, had personally approved the Gaza raid, the Associated Press said. The Israeli military concluded that Hamas was likely to want to continue the ceasefire despite the raid, it said. The ceasefire was due to run for six months and it is still unclear whether it will stretch beyond that limit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians
What does an 80% rating really mean? sm In response to threads from below: OK. If you choose to use an 80% stamp of approval from a state whose population is slightly under that of Austin, Texas as some kind of leverage to argue in favor of what's-her-name, go for it. It means about as much to me as Obama's 80% approval rating in Europe means to you. All you are doing is preaching to the choir. Obama followers will continue to illustrate the zillions of ways this woman is not our idea of leadership. It will have very little to do with who does or does not approve of her. It has to do with the difference in the issues that are the underpinnings of NeoCon versus democratic values. McCain did my party a big favor when he decided to put a token woman in that spot after meeting with her once or twice and deciding she is a younger version of himself...someone who he thinks can bring Hillary supporters into the fold while at the same time energizing his conservative base. It's like my man said...John McCain just does not get it...and neither do you. She is Pro-life, promotes creationism over evolution, thinks global warming is not a man-made problem, anti-gun control, is on record against fair pay for women, thinks Hillary is a whiner like McCain thinks American economic refugees are whiners, has accepted the nomination as a token female pawn in McCain's political games while thinking she will be advancing her own anemic political career, is under a state ethics committee investigation while portraying herself as the ethics clean-up maiden, supported the bridge to nowhere before it became more political capitol for her to oppose it, etc....and this is what we are hearing after only 24 hours. That is why Obama supporters will energize themselves the way you see them doing here and oppose this ticket on any and all levels of opportunities as they present themselves. An 80% approval rating against all this is a really weak, limp, lame claim to fame. Got it? He got an 80% approval because he is the ;) If we had such a low job performance rating... we'd be in the umemployment line. How can you have a high rating without doing anything yet? Oh, I forgot. Dems + hook + line + sinker = Fauxbama for Prez. Change, change, change. Hope, hope, hope. Bull, bull, bull. Well, since his DISAPPROVAL rating has gone from 12 to 31... Looks like actually they're a rapidly GROWING breed, wouldn't ya say? obama rating Most of you seem to feel that in the next election Obama will have a hard time being re-elected. I just don't agree with that thinking. For one thing, if Acorn is going to be in charge of census taking, he will be a shoe-in. As well, Obama will be awarded the African-American vote as he was in 2008. Hte to break this to you, but the rating numbers say NOTHING about where millions and millions and millions of Americans really go for their news. The internet has given us access to global media. MSNBC is still mainstream and, as a leftie, I can tell you that I find their coverage almost as frustrating as CNN and Fixed News. I need the much broader perspective found on local, national and international English-speaking radio talk shows and news accounts from outside the homeland borders found on the net. I suspect I'm not the only one, considering the numbers reflected in these ratings are so puny when compared to the actual number of adult US citizens who have soundly rejected US monovision mainstream media outlets all together. Then there is the other side of the coin, those Americans who do not listen to the news at all because mainstream is SUCH a turn-off. Well, giving Obama an 80% approval before nm His approval ratings are dropping. These are the lowest of all time and they keep dropping. Rasmussen shows 43%-56% approval. He's lost all Republican support, a good part of Independent support, and some democratic support, and the trend is most negative. Gallup evaluated all presidents going back to Richard Nixon. His 63% level with them is about the same as the average of every president going back to 1968 during their first months in office. Obama's approval rating went up 1 to 4 points with self-identified democrats but dropped 14% with conservatives His approval rating is also below where George W. Bush's was in 2001 and is lower than Jimmy Carter's 71% rating Polling shows there is great economic concerns. 83% are worried what the O has done will not fix the economy and that it will only get worse (go figure), 82% say they are worried about all the money being added to the deficit and inflation, and 69% are worried about the size of government increasing. Additionally, support for the stimulus package has dropped. Rasmussen also shows that people are opposing Obamas budget 46% to 41%. This is not good news at all. It also states that voters blame Republicans for the lack of bipartisanship in WA, they also say that the O has not made any progress in improving cooperation between the two parties (another broken campaign promise). http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690358175013837.html http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner~y2009m3d13-Obamas-approval-rating-is-dropping http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2193949/posts Here is an interesting "blog" of what some people wrote. Most interesting is Post #s 3, 4, and 5. http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.php?boardId=543848&articleId=158501&func=6&channel=People+Connection&filterRead=true&filterHidden=true&filterUnhidden=false Sorry - the Approval Index is by Rasmussen +30 the day after his inauguration...down...down...down...a few blips up...but mostly DOWN. Not hard to see why, of course - it's called buyer's remorse. Unfortunately, there's no Lemon Law when it comes to kissing a political toad and learning to our sorrow that it really is just a toad - and was never anything else. In 2012, we'll try a different toad. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll Bush Approval Continues to Fall Could the rest of America be getting a clue?August 17, 2005Bush Approval Continues to FallPresident Bush’s job approval has dropped to 41% nationwide, according to the results of 50 separate but concurrent, statewide public opinion polls conducted by SurveyUSA. Bush’s aproval rating ranges from a high of 59% in Idaho to a low of 29% in Rhode Island.
Bush Approval Ratings Have not Bulged...sm Obama, Democrat Approval Slipping Obama's approval index (number who strongly approve minus number who strongly disapprove) has slipped to +4 from +30 on taking office. 35% strongly approve, 31% strongly disapprove. Rasmussen polling also shows that more voters would choose a "generic" Republican over a "generic" Democrat in the next election by a 2-point margin. Similar polling in recent weeks had previously shown the Democrats to an edge of up to 6 pointts. This has evaporated. I predict that the slippage will continue as Democrats overplay their hand in Congress, and as the bill for their drunken spending spree and the unthinkable mountain of debt they're accumulating begins to land on the average citizen, as it ALWAYS does, one way or another (higher local/state/sales taxes, higher license fees, higher prices, wage stagnation, etc.). The reason this always happens is because that's the way economics happens to work and neither Obama, Pelosi nor any of their arrogant commie pals can change the rules of economics - even if they do push us into socialism. (Some of our younger members should study up on the inequality of income that has resulted under ALL of the socialist, "nanny-state" and/or communist systems. It will disillusion you about all such schemes forever.) Obama Approval Index sinks from +30 to +2 I won't be surprised to see him in negative territory tomorrow once the American people find out what he actually said today in Cairo. DISGRACEFUL SPEECH!
That's why Fox news rating are skyrocketing with MSNBC and CNN are going down fast Fox News - 1,217,000 CNN - 633,000 MSNBC - 482,000 I was surprised to see that CNN has more viewers than MSNBC. Fox news gives you the news and tells you everything - both sides. The other two don't. They just feed you garbage all day. Obama's Approval Index hits negative territory The approval index is computed by subtracting the percentage of voters who strongly disapprove of Obama's job performance from those who strongly approve of it. Once sporting an index in the +30 range, the Big BO (you may interpret "BO" however you wish) has in a matter of a mere handful of months fallen like Lucifer from Heaven. May his end be similarly appropriate, politically speaking. Let's make this goofy clown a one-term bozo. Kyuk-kyuk! ABC Obama-thon Gets Last-Place Rating If the director of ABC news would care to call me and ask about their rotten ratings, I'll be happy to explain. I won't even charge for the information, either. Kyuk-kyuk! ABC Obama-thon Gets Last-Place Rating Obama-Hops-In-Bed-With-ABC even got hammered by re-runs. If the director of ABC news would care to call me and ask about their rotten ratings, I'll be happy to explain - and I won't charge for the information, either.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2009/06/abcs-white-house-special-struggled-for-viewers.html 
|  |
|||||||||||||||
 |
© Copyright 2001-09 MTStars.com All Rights Reserved |  |
marks the location of current message within thread
![](http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/minus.jpg")
![](http://www.newsmax.com/images/layout/plus.jpg")
!["](http://www.journalism.org/files/u6/image002.jpg")
Above all, the journalists—most of them veteran war correspondents—describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing the reporting. A majority of journalists surveyed (57%) report that at least one of their Iraqi staff had been killed or kidnapped in the last year alone—and many more are continually threatened. “Seven staffers killed since 2003, including three last July,” one bureau chief wrote with chilling brevity. “At least three have been kidnapped. All were freed.”