Too bad follow up questions were not allowed. I would have loved Brokaw following up on McCain's statement that fixing social security is easy and can be done quickly.
if he gets elected that will probably be his version of "no new taxes"

"Since when is Johnson not a Democrat? Just because he opposes the death tax?"

Well, personally, I would've started putting him on the right-hand side of the aisle when he agreed to shill for Bush on the privatization-friendly Commission to Strengthen Social Security. But I guess you could also go with his opposition to the estate tax, or when he criticized Obama's youthful drug use during the primary and called him Sidney Poitier.

Ultimately, I think he's more of an opportunist than an ideologue of any real sort.

Exactly. "Undecided" doesn't have to mean "Doesn't know anything about the candidates." It can mean, "Doesn't like either candidate and has to hold one's nose and decide who to pull the lever for."

Been there, done that.

Richardson's not white?

from Wikipedia:

"Bill Richardson was born

I've seen him, he's clearly someone with predominantly European Ancestry and is therefore "white".
My definition is if someone looks white he's white, etc...

A hundred years or so ago the Census Bureau categorized Italians" separately from whites/caucasians... Before "whites" are officially a minority in this country I have no doubt that white hispanics will be counted as "white" thereby delaying the day whites are a minority.

By the way #2, since I like stepping into racial debates: Brokaw claimed that the audience was made up of undecided voters. Were the black voters in the audience actually undecided? If so, where did the networks dig up that many blacks who haven't already chosen Obama?

This might be the most asinine thing you've ever said on this site, and that's saying a lot.

And it's especially stupid coming from a Jew who doesn't vote Democratic.

A hundred years or so ago the Census Bureau categorized Italians" separately from whites/caucasians... Before "whites" are officially a minority in this country I have no doubt that white hispanics will be counted as "white" thereby delaying the day whites are a minority.

They already are. Hispanic is considered an ethnicity by the census, not a race.

I don't care what the racial makeup of the audience was - I just can't believe that, after a year and a half of campaigning by both the Democrats and Republicans, there are still 80 undecided people available for the debate.

There was a good routine on this on the Daly Show, where it was explained that the largest bloc of undecideds, 45%, are made up of the Chronically Stupid.

It's funny because it's true.

I think most of the undecided are all like "But they both seem so honest and qualified, I just can't decide!"

It's a simple matter of people in North America being overly cautious and paranoid when it comes to anything associated with a discussion of race.

Unless they are Latin American, then its okay to say what ever you want. We see it all the time on these very boards ..

Racism in this country is not dead, its just moved behind closed doors.

"Racism in this country is not dead, its just moved behind closed doors."

I think that might actually be the first time I agree with Red Juice about something.

David, it blows my mind that you continue to swim in these shark infested waters. These political threads at primer are heavily, heavily slanted towards the bleeding heart types. The minute that anybody from the other side speaks up, he just gets slammed. I have read probably 5,000 political posts here over the political season, and it's always the same thing. I realize you are not a republican, but you don't subscribe to their talking points, and you are going to get slammed, every time, with out fail. Its sad actually.

I am curious if you think you are changing anybodies mind. You do realize that 99% of the people in this thread were already voting democrat before they even knew who the candidate was, right?

Unless they are Latin American, then its okay to say what ever you want. We see it all the time on these very boards ..

Examples? Not a gotcha; I want to know.

Racism in this country is not dead, its just moved behind closed doors.

I agree to a great extent, adding that I believe that virulent, "traditional" racism is very much on the wane, but I also think subtle double-standards, resentments and hostilities are still very much out there--to no one's surprise who has ever read my posts (which I think is just Andy, bunyon, and my mom whenever bunyon gives her some time to herself).

Examples? Not a gotcha; I want to know.

I think he's talking about Ozzie Guillen.

Dusty Baker talking about black players playing better in the heat is probably another example.

I think he's talking about Ozzie Guillen.

I'd guess it would also relate to some of the criticism of Omar Minaya's noted interest in recruiting Hispanic players.

I think that might actually be the first time I agree with Red Juice about something.

The comity didn't last long. Did someone remember to bring Rambling Gent's binkie?

good lord....600+ posts. Wondered what was so awesome about Sarah Palin trading card. Just political arguing. Think this will be my only post on this thread.

David, it blows my mind that you continue to swim in these shark infested waters. These political threads at primer are heavily, heavily slanted towards the bleeding heart types. The minute that anybody from the other side speaks up, he just gets slammed.

David's undoubtedly had hundreds of death threats, but OTOH he may rate a whole chapter in Ron Paul's version of Profiles in Courage. Why, this place makes a Mafia gang war look like a petting zoo, only with links to aborted fetuses instead of strategically placed horses' heads.

The ghost of Tom Joad would like to have a word with you.

Never trust an Okie.

Edited to add: if the United States were to universalize health care tomorrow every single American would immediately start paying less for health care. So who is subsidizing who?

Right, and everyone would get a pony. Except, of course, that there's no way this could possibly be true.

EDIT: unless, of course, the government nationalizes the medical profession and has doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical company employees all work for minimum wage. Sure, health care wouldn't actually be available, but it would be cheaper.

EDIT 2: Or if the government simply stopping letting people buy most health care services. That would work, too. Again, health care not available, but we'd spend less on it.

Unless they are Latin American, then its okay to say what ever you want.

Damned Sp*cs ;)

RR we just had one yesterday where Beanocook suggested that illegals in Arizona should compete in a swimming competition for our enjoyment. The winner gets citizenship.

RR we just had one yesterday where Beanocook suggested that illegals in Arizona should compete in a swimming competition for our enjoyment. The winner gets citizenship.

Missed that. Did you respond to him?

I agree to a great extent, adding that I believe that virulent, "traditional" racism is very much on the wane

well sure, nobody is going to lynchings anymore. But that doesn't mean that it is harder for an African American, or even a Latin Americans to get a job in this country. Or how about sentencing for crimes as another example.

EDIT: unless, of course, the government nationalizes the medical profession and has doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical company employees all work for minimum wage.

Or it could be achieved by bypassing the private health companies, leading to a decrease in overhead costs, and through decreases in drug costs through bulk buying plans. You know - how Canada does it?

And yet, despite universal health insurance, our doctors, nurses, and pharmaceutical agents all seem to be making much more than minimum wage.

Missed that. Did you respond to him?

i called it disgusting, and just walked away. I've been round and round with him before, and have a pretty good idea as to where he stands on Latin Americans ..

check out 618 ... where else would that fly, except on a heavily white board..

RR we just had one yesterday where Beanocook suggested that illegals in Arizona should compete in a swimming competition for our enjoyment. The winner gets citizenship.

Just to be clear about what you're getting at, are you using The Mighty Beano as some sort of example of liberal racism? Pardon me if I'm a bit puzzled by this.

And if you're looking to find codeworded diatribes about Latinos---which sometimes are not so codeworded---as you're suggesting in #607, you may be looking in the wrong direction.

only with links to aborted fetuses instead of strategically placed horses' heads

no doubt i can be over the top .. i now this better than anybody. But I also know that i am right on this subject. It is the major moral failing of our generation, and history will treat us poorly for it. We butcher them by the millions Andy, out of convenience. Its sick, its sad.

i don't remember saying anything about liberal racism andy

David, it blows my mind that you continue to swim in these shark infested waters. These political threads at primer are heavily, heavily slanted towards the bleeding heart types. The minute that anybody from the other side speaks up, he just gets slammed.

Shouldn't that be "snark"-infested waters? Anyway, David hasn't become a target here because of his politics. That should be clear to anyone who has read more than a couple of his posts.

i don't remember saying anything about liberal racism andy

That's fine, Red Juice. It's just that so many of your political comments come from the right that I wanted to clear it up. No question that racism can come from many different directions and take many different forms. It isn't confined only to those drugstore vigilantes you see hanging around the Mexican border.

As for the fetus links, yeah, that was directed at you. But you'll also note that I've never objected to them. They certainly represent one part of the abortion question that has to be acknowledged, even though we obviously disagree about how it should be dealt with by the law, for many reasons that lie outside of the realm of perfect justice or perfect morality.

But you should really lay off the Poor Beleaguered Isolated Conservative Minority bit, if for no other reason than it's getting to be almost as old as I am. While the exact count varies from time to time, there are more than enough conservatives and libertarians here to keep us all in good form. I don't carry around a roster sheet of them like robinred does, but I'm sure he could provide such a list for you if you were sincerely interested.

And as a good conservative yourself, I know you're not pining for some sort of an ideological quota system....In fact sometimes I even get the distinct impression that you actually enjoy being in the minority. Am I wrong about this?

In fact sometimes I even get the distinct impression that you actually enjoy being in the minority. Am I wrong about this?

lol
what gives you that idea? is it my support for Bonds, Baker and Milton Bradley. :)

but I'm sure he could provide such a list for you if you were sincerely interested.

I am not, but i know he has such a list. At last count I think it was about 20 repubs in total. Most of them avoid these threads because they know they will get slammed, at least thats my view. They just go to the booth and pull the lever properly, like good soldiers.

Or it could be achieved by bypassing the private health companies, leading to a decrease in overhead costs, and through decreases in drug costs through bulk buying plans. You know - how Canada does it?

Sure. The magic decrease in overhead costs. Also, John McCain is going to balance the budget by cutting waste. As for drug costs, when the government has a monopsony, that's called "price controls," not "bulk buying." Canada does it by rationing care.

Canada does it by rationing care.

Which is why their life expectancy and infant mortality rates are so high.

Canada does it by rationing care.

Which is why their life expectancy and infant mortality rates are so high.

and why their healthcare system is so wildly reviled and publicly decried.

Which is why their life expectancy and infant mortality rates are so high.

I don't know why liberals always jump to these two statistics in talking about socialized medicine, as if health care spending were primarily about keeping babies from dying. (Life expectancy superficially makes more sense, in that keeping people alive is obviously a big part of health care. But end-of-life treatment -- where we spend so much money -- only affects life expectancy at the margins. If you could, e.g., reduce auto accidents and homicides, which cut a lot of years off of life, you can boost the stat more; that doesn't have much to do with health care spending, though.) No, babies aren't going to die if we nationalize the health care industry; it's quality of life treatment that will suffer most. People won't get those joint replacements; elderly people will be shuffled off to hospices, etc.

614. Harris Posted: October 08, 2008 at 03:46 PM (#2974598)

good lord....600+ posts. Wondered what was so awesome about Sarah Palin trading card. Just political arguing. Think this will be my only post on this thread.

No use blowing a gill over it.

I don't care what the racial makeup of the audience was - I just can't believe that, after a year and a half of campaigning by both the Democrats and Republicans, there are still 80 undecided people available for the debate.

I am undecided in that I haven't yet made up my mind whether to vote for Barr or against Obama.

I don't know why liberals always jump to these two statistics in talking about socialized medicine, as if health care spending were primarily about keeping babies from dying.

Infant mortality and life expectancy are cited for health care quality for the same reasons that the DJI is cited for stock market performance.

Canada does it by rationing care.

It's almost going to be worth having the US slide into socialized medicine just to watch enraged liberals driving to Mexico for timely health care. There are no sweeter tears than those coming from people who get exactly what they asked for. As a non-lefty, I am, of course, far too tough and manly to require health care, and thus can approach the issue with the appropriate level of Olympian detachment.

I'll chime in on the question of 'how can anyone be undecided at this point in the election'.

I turned 18 in 1991, and I have voted Republican in every presidential election since (although I seriously considered Perot in 1992). I live in Texas. As this primary season started, I was strongly in favor of McCain's candidacy for the Republican nomination. I remembered his 2000 run and thought that his status as a moderate republican was what the country needed in 2008 (and I realized that the likelihood of any of the other R candidates winning this November was low). But he is now a much different candidate than the 2000 version. Between the rightward trend in positions and the Palin VP pick to satisfy the base, and now, the last straw, the disgusting rallies this past week to incite crowds based on the old information about Ayers, etc, I can no longer support him. I have decided that I will not vote for McCain. Whether I will vote Obama, third party, or stay home, I dont know. So, at this point in time, I am an undecided voter.

It's almost going to be worth having the US slide into socialized medicine just to watch enraged liberals driving to Mexico for timely health care. There are no sweeter tears than those coming from people who get exactly what they asked for.

... but then why is universal socialized medicine so popular everywhere it's in force? Why has it never been seriously challenged?

People won't get those joint replacements; elderly people will be shuffled off to hospices, etc.

Funny, I wonder which magical fairy did both hip replacements for my uncle.

Health care costs are lower in Canada because, among other things, administrative costs are lower. Administrative costs are lower because the government doesn't spend money denying me health care and hence has more money left over to, you know, do hip replacements.

It is an empirical fact that the overhead costs are lower under a government run health insurance program. The last figure I saw was that they were 50% lower.

Just out of curiosity DN who are you voting for? You seem to be disdainful of Obama and McCain. Just based on this thread, I would guess Barr or not voting?

There are no sweeter tears than those coming from people who get exactly what they asked for.

Especially if they are sick, miserable, and looking for relief from their pain or illness. Wheeeeee!

I would guess Barr

Correct.

As per the rationing argument--all systems limited by finitude ration care. Insofar as none of us are walking around with a personal doctor it is because care has, in some degree, been rationed. But what does this mean in practice? Time for some anecdotal evidence ...

My friend and I broke our ankles at almost the exact same time. Both were fairly serious and required surgery. He was living in Ottawa, I was living in Washington, D.C. He had national health insurance, I had private health insurance. He was admitted to the hospital at the time of his injury and had his surgery scheduled right away. I had my ankle set and sent on my way and told to call an orthopaedic surgeon because I needed surgery. He had his surgery two days later and had a hospital bed the entire time. I had an appoitment with a doctor two days later and had my surgery scheduled two days after that. He never complained about his treatment in the hospital, I had nurses who forgot to give me painkillers because they were understaffed. His treatment cost him nothing out of pocket, my treatment cost me $8000 after the insurance company covered their share and untold hours of time on the phone wading through a bureaucracy trying to get the insurance company to pay for a procedure that the insurance coverage was designed to cover.

So let's see add it up and we have under national health care:

1) a system that is cheaper
2) more efficient
3) no less effective

And that is with me having health insurance. If I didn't I wouldn't have been able to afford the surgery and would be walking with a limp the rest of my life. Quality of life indeed.

I'm against universal health care but you'll hear nothing from me in favor of our health care system. If giving it to the government would decrease the bureaucracy involved, I'd be in favor it.

Think about it. How many areas of life can you think of where getting the government involved might reasonably lower the amount of red-tape?

Especially if they are sick, miserable, and looking for relief from their pain or illness. Wheeeeee!

Those are inferior tears... hardly anybody tries their best to be sick, miserable and filled with pain. Only fit for industrial grade evil purposes.

It's almost going to be worth having the US slide into socialized medicine just to watch enraged liberals driving to Mexico for timely health care. There are no sweeter tears than those coming from people who get exactly what they asked for.

... but then why is universal socialized medicine so popular everywhere it's in force? Why has it never been seriously challenged?

Obviously it's all those programmed dental chips that keep those poor sheep subservient to their socialist masters. Though with their God and their guns taken away from them they're undoubtedly somewhat embittered.

... but then why is universal socialized medicine so popular everywhere it's in force? Why has it never been seriously challenged?

In part because in most countries with usm there's no law against private clinics, against doctors working outside the system (afaik).... This means the rich don't agitate against usm. David will still be able to get his solid gold hip socket and if he can't, any libertarian would tell him he should just go and make more money.

My experience in small city Canada v. small town US is that emergency room treatment is speedier in the States. Paranoia about drugs distorts US health care. Uninsured, excellent care in Canada is amazingly cheap: $25 for 45 minutes with an optometrist. That might have been true in the US in 1960. It's a little easier on balance to get a scheduled appointment in the US. It's easier to see a nonemergency doc on short notice in Canada. Canadian doctors are less harried and make fewer mistakes than US docs. Ymmv.

Obviously it's all those programmed dental chips that keep those poor sheep subservient to their socialist masters. Though with their God and their guns taken away from them they're undoubtedly somewhat embittered.

Sorry. Dental work isn't covered under Canadian Health Care.

Rather, they insert the chips when we're still at the hospital after we're born. That's how they ensure we grow up subservient.

So let's see add it up and we have under national health care:

Mmmm, anecdotal evidence.

My sister newly had her national health insurance last year in Britain after she got married. She went to her assigned doctor from the NHS for her bad cough, was promptly informed by her doctor that unlike in America, medical services were only for the truly sick and she was sent on her way. Next day, she collapsed and had to be rushed to the hospital and placed on a respirator.

Woo, battling anecdotes!

I'm confused. Are millions of canadians currently driving down to the US for timely health care?

Despite my post in 639, I still consider myself a conservative/republican if faced with a generic either/or choice between D and R. So, I guess that would lump me in the R column on robinred's list, for whatever that's worth.

Think about it. How many areas of life can you think of where getting the government involved might reasonably lower the amount of red-tape?

This is a bit like a competition between the state governments of New Jersey, Illinois and Maryland to determine which has had the highest percentage of its officials thrown into the slammer for corruption. But I'd love to see examples of the government spending as much time and money as the insurance companies do in trying to deny medical procedures to their alleged "customers" or "clients." If it hasn't happened to you yet, just live long enough and you'll figure it out the hard way.

Obviously it's all those programmed dental chips that keep those poor sheep subservient to their socialist masters. Though with their God and their guns taken away from them they're undoubtedly somewhat embittered.

Sorry. Dental work isn't covered under Canadian Health Care.

Rather, they insert the chips when we're still at the hospital after we're born. That's how they ensure we grow up subservient.

Sorry to be so misinformed, Ryan, but that's what I got for listening to too many Harry and Louise commericals.

My experience in small city Canada v. small town US is that emergency room treatment is speedier in the States.

Generally true - Canadian ER care is structured on a worst goes first basis. If you're there for something which isn't likely to kill you, you'll probably find yourself sitting for a while. On the other hand, most towns have at least one walk-in clinic set up specifically to handle those "probably won't kill you" cases, and people are encouraged to use them.

Uninsured, excellent care in Canada is amazingly cheap: $25 for 45 minutes with an optometrist.

Which optometrist did you go to? Mine charges a fair amount more than that, but it was still in the range of what I would consider to be reasonable.

It's a little easier, on balance to get a scheduled appointment in the US. It's easier to see a nonemergency doc on short notice in Canada.

I think it also depends on the nature of the appointment. If I come down with a nasty cold, or other spontaneous problem, my doctor has almost always been able to squeeze me in on the same day. If it's something like a generic physical, then it can be a while.

Never trust an Okie.

If you can't trust Bobby Murcer, who can you trust?

Health care costs are lower in Canada because, among other things, administrative costs are lower. Administrative costs are lower because the government doesn't spend money denying me health care and hence has more money left over to, you know, do hip replacements.

Administrative costs are lower because the government doesn't spend money denying people payment for health care, whether they need health care or not. Those sorts of "administrative costs" are ways to prevent fraud.

I'm confused. Are millions of canadians currently driving down to the US for timely health care?

No. We do get a couple stories each year about people heading down to the US for specific procedures, but most people seem willing to wait a bit rather than drop the $10K+ it'd cost them to have it done across the border. In the event that they're travelling because they need a procedure which isn't available in Canada for some reason, the individual can also apply to have it covered by the government. If it's judged to be an essential procedure, there's a very high chance of having it approved.

Administrative costs are lower because the government doesn't spend money denying people payment for health care, whether they need health care or not. Those sorts of "administrative costs" are ways to prevent fraud.

Do you believe that Canadians are pretending to be sick so that they can cheat themselves out of the health care that they pay for through their own taxes? I have no idea where you're going with this.

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours.

Think about it. How many areas of life can you think of where getting the government involved might reasonably would definitely lower the amount of red-tape?

Fixed.

er, i don't know what the state of race relations is in this country, but if you want a taste of what could happen in this election, just look to louisiana. bobby jindal is the governor now, but many forget he was the repub. candidate in the election before katrina, wherein kathleen blanco beat him. this is the same kathleen blanco who was so ineffective after katrina that she pretty much had to drop out in the 2007 election. it took katrina to wake up the voters. louisiana is a pretty solidly red state. they've had several republican governors since the 60s. they've voted for reagan, bush, bush 2. some republican u.s. senators and reps. i don't remember how the polls ran, but i don't believe blanco had some big lead, and everybody seemed stunned when she won the runoff, after jindal led all candidates in the state's open primary.
i firmly believe the voters of louisiana could not go into the booth and pull the lever for a non-white candidate, even if they were sympathetic to his party, and i believe that's why jindal lost his first bid. thanks to the secret ballot, nobody had to fess up.
okay, things changed and people woke up. but it took katrina to change the equation. that's the only good thing i can take from this market meltdown, it'll maybe get some peoples' minds off race and make them vote the candidate and not their secret prejudices.

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours.

We are the members of BTF. If you locked one of us alone in a room, we'd eventually start arguing with ourself.

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours.

Spoken like a true atheist.

Infant mortality and life expectancy are cited for health care quality for the same reasons that the DJI is cited for stock market performance.

It's more like comparing two nations' stock indices for a specific sector.

AEI had a study that attributed higher infant mortality rates in the US to the tendency to bring higher risk fetuses to term in the US.

Our life expectancy problem is more a function of guns than of the quality of our health care.

Our life expectancy problem is more a function of guns than of the quality of our health care.

A clear indicator that we, as Americans, need better quality guns.

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours.

Heaven knows you have a lot to atone for.

Woo, battling anecdotes!

Which may miss the point. No one was attempting to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, and I imagine most here are aware of the drawbacks inherent in small samples. Nonetheless, anecdotes are indeed evidence.

I'm sorry your sister suffered unnecessarily.

Which optometrist did you go to? Mine charges a fair amount more than that, but it was still in the range of what I would consider to be reasonable.

Mariette Dorval, a small chain with offices in the Laurentians. Oh--and my optometrist was hot, another bonus in a nation of people for whom gargantuan is not the new svelte.

Jesus. What is it with women? I was just asked,

Female: "Do you want rice with your red beans and rice?"

Me: "Uh, sure".

Female: "Because [woman's name] says she always wants rice with her red beans".

Me: "So..., you're asking me if I want extra rice with my red beans and rice?"

Female: Yes".

I mean, I've been around women enough to know better than to bother to ask, "so why didn't you say that in the first place", but this was impressive.

Do women just have a lobe missing?

Our life expectancy problem is more a function of guns than of the quality of our health care.

An American is more than twice as likely to die in an auto accident than by violence (of whatever means).

Think about it. How many areas of life can you think of where getting the government involved might reasonably lower the amount of red-tape?

In the US? Healthcare is probably an exception to the general rule that government involvement increases red tape and decreases efficiency.
Our healthcare "system" is a highly evolved abomination.

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours.

If you are going to atone for all of your sins, I wouldn't expect you back for several days.

Ark, um, that story doesn't really note much that occurred that was unusual or that a boy server wouldn't be similarly clueless about, in my opinion.

Our life expectancy problem is more a function of guns than of the quality of our health care.

An American is more than twice as likely to die in an auto accident than by violence (of whatever means).

Yeah, but they have automobile accidents in Canada and Germany too. That variable isn't an issue when comparing life expectancies.

German cars are safer... OTOH they compensate with their Autobahns.

Do women just have a lobe missing?

In the case of Kruk, yes. For most of us, 2.

Never trust an Okie.

####### Merle Haggard

Sorry, have to go for Yom Kippur; argue without me for several hours


Does this mean that Anthony Martin-Trigona will have no one to sue for the next 25 hrs?

Well, the way it works seems to be that there are those who really, really, really want to be chair. These are the people who shouldn't be allowed to, under any circumstances. However, those of us who would do a good job (as it sounds you would) would, as you say, rather be killed than do the job.

It's a pickle.

Speaking for my own family, to some it's about duty. No good people wanted to be chair, but enough good people wanted to work in a good department that they drafted my father. The successor was a guy that you describe above--really really really wanted to run stuff. After that, people vowed to always draft someone brilliant who didn't want to do it. They are trying to get my father to take a second term before he retires.

Andy: Halves are weird creatures. When ethnic majority people are identifying us directly, they will often dismiss our background, but then bring it up constantly that we are non-white. It really depends on his own individual experiences.

I can't think of a situation that I've ever been identified as ethnic majority (either here or in Japan), but I don't know the actual dynamic to know if I could eat at a segregated restaurant.

Yeah, but they have automobile accidents in Canada and Germany too.

At the same rates? I'm not being snarky; I'm genuinely curious.

Ark, um, that story doesn't really note much that occurred that was unusual or that a boy server wouldn't be similarly clueless about, in my opinion.

Delicately put, Lassus, which I appreciate. I know people of any sex aren't precise, though my experience is that woman are even less precise than men. With many of the women I've gone with I've had to suspend much of my desire for clarity, which I find frustrating. With my men friends, not as much.

By the way #2, since I like stepping into racial debates: Brokaw claimed that the audience was made up of undecided voters. Were the black voters in the audience actually undecided? If so, where did the networks dig up that many blacks who haven't already chosen Obama?

I agree with this. Seriously, Obama represents and ridiculous change in America. RIDCULOUS. A black president? I would have easily wagered against, and I am STUNNED that he wouldn't win 99.9% of the black vote. THis is like blacks saying MLK was on the wrong track, or booing Jackie Robinson. THis is seriously unchareted waters. Ok, i said 99% because someone could rank polityics over race, but in the greater view, that's nuts.

I love what Obama has overcome and represents. I will be proud to vote for him and proud to celebrate his victory. It reflects on a greater US.

At the same rates? I'm not being snarky; I'm genuinely curious.

Answering my own question, Canada has a rate of @ 8.9 deaths/100,000 due to traffic accidents; the U.S. has a rate of @ 14.5 deaths/100,000. I don't know how Canada's health system vs. the U.S.'s plays into it.

Also, in 2005, the last year I could find data for, there were -

16,692 homicides;

43,443 traffic fatalities in the U.S.

I love what Obama has overcome and represents. I will be proud to vote for him and proud to celebrate his victory. It reflects on a greater US.

I understand what you're saying, but this is simply projection.

Answering my own question, Canada has a rate of @ 8.9 deaths/100,000 due to traffic accidents; the U.S. has a rate of @ 14.5 deaths/100,000. I don't know how Canada's health system vs. the U.S.'s plays into it.

Given that we spend four months a year in snow up to our knees, it stuns me that the American death rate due to traffic accidents is so much higher. To be honest, I would have guessed the exact opposite - I expected the Canadian rate to be about double the US rate.

In what way is it projection?

Those of us who lived through the era of Martin Luther King and George Wallace, who remember de jure segregation and lynching, and saw that morph into the slightly more subtle "Southern Strategy"/Willie Horton/Jesse Helms era, are honestly amazed that, in our lifetimes, we have come so far that an African American really does have a legitimate shot at being elected President.

Why is this not a point of pride in the maturation of the Country, its remaining legion of bigots and ostriches notwithstanding?

To be honest, I would have guessed the exact opposite - I expected the Canadian rate to be about double the US rate.

Are the laws and regulations governing automobile safety, drunk driving, and speeding, the same in Canada as in the United States? Is the mixture of car types the same? Is the sheer volume of automobile ownership or usage the same? Do Canadians start driving at the same age in the same numbers?

Also, I would also be interested in seeing the number of deaths per mile driven. I will see if I can look that up.

Why is this not a point of pride in the maturation of the Country, its remaining legion of bigots and ostriches notwithstanding?

I think you answer your own question. It's simply a projection that it represents "maturation" or "a greater US" that a black man can be elected by less than half the voting age population of the US. Does it really reflect the diminishment of the importance of race, especially if some people aren't voting for him "for the content of his character" but precisely b/c he is black?

Given that we spend four months a year in snow up to our knees, it stuns me that the American death rate due to traffic accidents is so much higher.

Population density might have a lot to do with it.

United States fatalities per million miles driven:

1986: 2.51
1996: 1.69
2006: 1.42

Can't seem to find an equivalent table for Canada.

Are the laws and regulations governing automobile safety, drunk driving, and speeding, the same in Canada as in the United States? Is the mixture of car types the same? Is the sheer volume of automobile ownership or usage the same? Do Canadians start driving at the same age in the same numbers?

Our driving laws are very similar. We also generally have the save laws regarding drunk driving, at least in terms of the legal threshold (0.08), although Canadians are legally able to drink at a younger age. Speeding is probably about the same frequency, and at around the same limits (100 kmph on the highway = 62 mph). Canadians, however, based purely on my own observation, are a lot more likely to tailgate.

Car types are similar, in terms of the spread, and usage is probably similar, since Canadians also love their suburbs. We also start driving at about the same age (15 or 16, depending on the province), although I think we do have more use of graduated licensing.

Overall, we're pretty similar, which is why I'm surprised that the Canadian weather didn't drive (ha ha) our automotive death rate above yours, or at least to an equivalent level.

Does it really reflect the diminishment of the importance of race, especially if some people aren't voting for him "for the content of his character" but precisely b/c he is black?

Not to get all Eraser-X on you, but this notion that black people support Obama only because he is black strikes me as pretty racist. Do you think black people are incapable of knowing and acting on their own self-interests? I don't remember this strategy working out too well for Alan Keyes.

Furthermore, it's the kind of canard that only gets dragged out when we can hammer black people with it. Were all the evangelicals who turned out for Bush religious bigots? Is any woman who votes McCain/Palin supporting that ticket only because a woman is on it?

Population density might have a lot to do with it.

Canada and the US have the same percentage splits between urban and rural populations - about 80% to 20%. We love our cities just as much as you do.

Not to get all Eraser-X on you, but this notion that black people support Obama only because he is black strikes me as pretty racist.

I hate to preempt your reflexive accusations of racism, but I was thinking about white people, not black people.

Canada and the US have the same percentage splits between urban and rural populations - about 80% to 20%. We love our cities just as much as you do.

Maybe you do but your cities are much less densely populated than ours are.

Our life expectancy problem is more a function of guns than of the quality of our health care.

An American is more than twice as likely to die in an auto accident than by violence (of whatever means).

In 1999, 10144 Americans were killed via homicide by firearm.

In 1992, 214 Canadians were killed via homicide by firearm.

That's a difference of 9930.

Canada has approximately 1/10th the population of the U.S., so let's reduce that number to match that ratio.

I would imagine that if an extra 993 random Canadians of varying ages were killed each year, Canada's life expectancy totals would start dropping.

Statistics per: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

I hate to preempt your reflexive accusations of racism, but I was thinking about white people, not black people.

Oh, wow. There's an awful lot of white people who think it's great that we're on the verge of electing a black man as president, like Chris, but white people who support him for no other reason than because he's black? That's an awfully tiny figure.

I would imagine that if an extra 993 random Canadians of varying ages were killed each year, Canada's life expectancy totals would start dropping.

It would reduce the average life expectancy by very little. It is .004% of the population each year.

Although it would not be random ages. Gun death victims tend to be very young

Maybe you do but your cities are much less densely populated than ours are.

Believe it or not, we're apparently more crowded than you in our urban areas: Link.

Average Population per Square Mile of Urban Areas:
US - 2900
Canada - 4000

And, for reference and amusement, China (Hong Kong and Macao) - 76200.

Can't seem to find an equivalent table for Canada.

Found something similar for you: Link

Traffic deaths per billion vehicle kilometers travelled (2001)
Canada - 8.94
US - 9.4

So, when combined with the info in #683, it looks like the major difference is you guys drive about 50% more than us.