FYI (election results) - Bush won

[Eral]

Just wait. He'll die eventually.

[jester]

from the http://www.mirror.co.uk. AMEN


GOD HELP AMERICA Nov 5 2004

THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN..

THEY say that in life you get what you deserve. Well, today America has deservedly got a lawless cowboy to lead them further into carnage and isolation and the unreserved contempt of most of the rest of the world.

This once-great country has pulled up its drawbridge for another four years and stuck a finger up to the billions of us forced to share the same air. And in doing so, it has shown itself to be a fearful, backward-looking and very small nation.

This should have been the day when Americans finally answered their critics by raising their eyes from their own sidewalks and looking outward towards the rest of humanity.

And for a few hours early yesterday, when the exit polls predicted a John Kerry victory, it seemed they had.

But then the horrible, inevitable truth hit home. They had somehow managed to re-elect the most devious, blinkered and reckless leader ever put before them. The Yellow Rogue of Texas.

A self-serving, dim-witted, draft-dodging, gung-ho little rich boy, whose idea of courage is to yell: "I feel good," as he unleashes an awesome fury which slaughters 100,000 innocents for no other reason than greed and vanity.

A dangerous chameleon, his charming exterior provides cover for a power-crazed clique of Doctor Strangeloves whose goal is to increase America's grip on the world's economies and natural resources.

And in foolishly backing him, Americans have given the go-ahead for more unilateral pre-emptive strikes, more world instability and most probably another 9/11.

Why else do you think bin Laden was so happy to scare them to the polls, then made no attempt to scupper the outcome?

There's only one headline in town today, folks: "It Was Osama Wot Won It."

And soon he'll expect pay-back. Well, he can't allow Bush to have his folks whoopin' and a-hollerin' without his own getting a share of the fun, can he?

Heck, guys, I hope you're feeling proud today.

To the tens of millions who voted for John Kerry, my commiserations.

To the overwhelming majority of you who didn't, I simply ask: Have you learnt nothing? Do you despise your own image that much?

Do you care so little about the world beyond your shores? How could you do this to yourselves?

How appalling must one man's record at home and abroad be for you to reject him?

Kerry wasn't the best presidential candidate the Democrats have ever fielded (and he did deserve a kicking for that "reporting for doo-dee" moment), but at least he understood the complexity of the world outside America, and domestic disgraces like the 45 million of his fellow citizens without health cover.

He would have done something to make that country fairer and re-connected it with the wider world.

Instead America chose a man without morals or vision. An economic incompetent who inherited a $2billion surplus from Clinton, gave it in tax cuts to the rich and turned the US into the world's largest debtor nation.

A man who sneers at the rights of other nations. Who has withdrawn from international treaties on the environment and chemical weapons.

A man who flattens sovereign states then hands the rebuilding contracts to his own billionaire party backers.

A man who promotes trade protectionism and backs an Israeli government which continually flouts UN resolutions.

America has chosen a menacingly immature buffoon who likened the pursuit of the 9/11 terrorists to a Wild West, Wanted Dead or Alive man-hunt and, during the Afghanistan war, kept a baseball scorecard in his drawer, notching up hits when news came through of enemy deaths.

A RADICAL Christian fanatic who decided the world was made up of the forces of good and evil, who invented a war on terror, and thus as author of it, believed he had the right to set the rules of engagement.

Which translates to telling his troops to do what the hell they want to the bad guys. As he has at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and countless towns across Iraq.

You have to feel sorry for the millions of Yanks in the big cities like New York, Washington, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco who voted to kick him out.

These are the sophisticated side of the electorate who recognise a gibbon when they see one.

As for the ones who put him in, across the Bible Belt and the South, us outsiders can only feel pity.

Were I a Kerry voter, though, I'd feel deep anger, not only at them returning Bush to power, but for allowing the outside world to lump us all into the same category of moronic muppets.

The self-righteous, gun-totin', military lovin', sister marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport ownin' red-necks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land "free and strong".

You probably won't be surprised to learn of would-be Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn who, on Tuesday, promised to ban abortion and execute any doctors who carried them out.

He also told voters that lesbianism is so rampant in the state's schools that girls were being sent to toilets on their own. Not that any principal could be found to back him up.

These are the people who hijack the word patriot and liken compassion to child-molesting. And they are unknowingly bin Laden's chief recruiting officers.

Al-Qaeda's existence is fuelled by the outpourings of America's Christian right. Bush is its commander-in-chief. And he and bin Laden need each other to survive.

Both need to play Lex Luther to each others' Superman with their own fanatical people. Maybe that's why the mightiest military machine ever assembled has failed to catch the world's most wanted man.

Or is the reason simply that America is incompetent? That behind the bluff they are frightened and clueless, which is why they've stayed with the devil they know.

VISITORS from another planet watching this election would surely not credit the amateurism.

The queues for hours to register a tick; the 17,000 lawyers needed to ensure there was no cheating; the $1.2bn wasted by parties trying to discredit the enemy; the allegations of fraud, intimidation and dirty tricks; the exit polls which were so wildly inaccurate; an Electoral College voting system that makes the Eurovision Song Contest look like a beacon of democracy and efficiency; and the delays and the legal wrangles in announcing the victor.

Yet America would have us believe theirs is the finest democracy in the world. Well, that fine democracy has got the man it deserved. George W Bush.

But is America safer today without Kerry in charge? A man who overnight would have given back to the UN some credibility and authority. Who would have worked out the best way to undo the Iraq mess without fear of losing face.

Instead, the questions facing America today are - how many more thousands of their sons will die as Iraq descends into a new Vietnam? And how many more Vietnams are on the horizon now they have given Bush the mandate to go after Iran, Syria, North Korea or Cuba...?

Today is a sad day for the world, but it's even sadder for the millions of intelligent Americans embarrassed by a gung-ho leader and backed by a banal electorate, half of whom still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

Yanks had the chance to show the world a better way this week, instead they made a thuggish cowboy ride off into the sunset bathed in glory.

And in doing so it brought Armageddon that little bit closer and re-christened their beloved nation The Home Of The Knave and the Land Of The Freak.

God Help America.

[Andyr]

Interesting, though The Mirror is generally not considered a very high quality read here.

[seanas]

true: it's a fun read, but quoting a tabloid is always a risky practice. a similar argument, marshalled in less pungent terms and printed in a broadsheet, can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1343956,00.html

[Caedwyr]

Yes, I think The Guardian would have much better credibility than The Mirror or The Onion.  Thanks for the link seanas

[julwise]

Yes, that article was quite the opinion piece, but not more than that. It was filled with sweeping generalizations and contradictions. And deciding what John Kerry would do without any evidence whatsoever isn't an entirely valid news practice. It was also moderately offensive, though I can understand the sentiments behind it. Being a first time voter this year, I would definately not say America has a flawless democracy or governmental system, but rather a somewhat deficient one. Living in Texas and with the way the electoral college works, I know my vote meant absoultely nothing, and didn't even count when it came to "electing" a president. And that doesn't make me feel good about America. This is why people don't vote, because they know they really can't make a difference. And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if America eventually descended into straight-out despotism. In fact, it is a great (somewhat irrational) fear of mine.

[Userunfriendly]

Interesting, though The Mirror is generally not considered a very high quality read here.

but given that a good rant is an art form, i would rate this one as a masterpiece of a rant...

[Hendryk]

Your zing left out the most damning indictment - the administration's utter incompetence; an incapacity so encompassing that they - I believe quite sincerely - do not even begin to perceive it themselves.  This proceeds in large part from ignorance.  As a minor example, the man actually gave as models of steadfast resolution Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt; presidents who never "flip-flopped".  He did this in ignorance (or, to be fair, perhaps counting merely upon the ignorance of the average voter) of the fact that these two executives flip-flopped dramatically on the questions of slavery and isolationism respectively during their terms of office.  Far more dramatic reversals, effected by changing circumstances and new information, than Sen. Kerry was pilloried for.  In other places, this process is called "thought" and is sometimes even respected.

[Caedwyr]

/agrees with Hendryk

I find it strange how it has come to the point where politicians are no longer allowed to change their minds on issues after listening to the arguments for both sides.  Would you really want a person in charge who is incapable of changing their mind and will always follow their initial beliefs, no matter how mistaken they are subsequently proven.  You don't even need a person to do this, a computer can easily run a test to see what the correct idealogical response would be.

[jester]

Of course I could have quoted respectable newspapers, but hey. Where is the fun in that? The Exxon Valdez is a shining example of the virtues of staying your course no matter what. The Onion is a very interesting read as misinformation in our society of seemingly overwhelming information is very oftne even more telling than what regular papers give you. Politicians don't just lie. They are coached monkeys albeit a lot more than 12, but they follow certain stuff they have to say. So what is not mentioned is always the fun.


I also wonder why the Dems were so hot to let gays marry, if 38 states still allow employers to fire you for being gay.

[Regullus]

   

Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Evangelicals believe in a personal relationship with God and that the bible is an authoritative source. Evangelicalism is a Protestant based religion. An Evangelical woman can use birth control. Evangelicals divorce, etc. The ideal way of life would be for people to abstain from sex before marriage, and to abstain from drugs. They believe that abortion is killing innocent human life. They would counsel a pregnant woman against abortion and encourage and arrange for her to complete the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. They do not believe in homosexual marriage.

   The one Evangelical couple that I know are both college educated, widely traveled, prosperous and happy. The husband supplies ngos and the wife is a writer. I think they strongly believe that their way is the correct way to live. Are they pompous and righteous? Yeah. This couple is just as pompous, righteous, convinced that their ideas are correct as Jester, as JC, as Neriana, or me.

  The issue of homosexual marriage is a controversial topic. People who have concerns about gay marriage are not necessarily upset or repelled by the idea for moral reasons but are concerned due to the old slippery slope argument. Where does it end? If the same sex may marry then there should be no prohibition against polygamy, etc.

  I cannot help but note that individuals who are reacting with scorn to the idea that many Americans are against homosexual marriage seem to be from countries that not only do not have homosexual unions but have never considered the question of homosexual marriage on a national scale.

 I am all for women's reproductive rights and health but I am the first to say it is a highly complex issue.  Here is a question,  a woman is pregnant and decides to carry the pregnancy to term but she can't quit drinking. Should there be intervention by state or is it a private matter? If state intervention is advocated then what form should the intervention take? When should the state not intervene?

 The US has liberal abortion laws, far more liberal than Europe. Most of Europe allows elective abortion until three months.  Parts of Europe do not allow for any elective abortion. Canada has had no abortion law since 1988. (If a Canadian citizen could explain the practical result of this non-law, I would love to understand how it works.) What can we surmise from the above diversity in approaches to abortion laws? Should abortion be without restrictions? Should a woman make a unilateral decision to abort? Does the father have any input into the decision?

   It is interesting to note that Howard was re-elected handily, Blair is projected to be re-elected handily yet Schroeder's party has lost every election for the last two years and Chirac has a popularity rating of 30-35%. Zapatero was only elected thanks to terrorism or so it is said.  What may explain the above results?

 I cannot predict the future but I will say that I do not believe that the US will invade Cuba, Syria, N.Korea, or Iran. North Korea is too costly and difficult.  It is estimated that Seoul would be nuked in the first six hours. There is also multi-lateral efforts towards N.Korea. Syria is weak and is open to other forms of persuasion. Iran while a major sponsor of international terrorism is being approached multi-laterally and is dealing with internal dissent that may result in reform. Cuba, well, again, it will undergo internal change at the death of Castro.

  I am glad that you all are admirers of flexible thought and are believers in subtleties, not rigid black and white thinkers but are appreciative of all the shades of gray of the human experience.

  I will say that in the last several days that I am ashamed of my fellow Americans, not because they voted for Bush but because of the tone of helpless histrionics.

 Bush will eradicate Roe vs Wade, instigate a draft, invade at least five more countries, remove all freedoms and turn the US into a facist state, etc, etc.

 Might I suggest that Americans protest and organize if these events come to pass. I might also add that only 20% voted for Bush due to morality concerns.

 I will point out to the world that if the world had the political will that your leaders could have easily stymied Bush. Imagine if Canada threatened to close their border with the US. Imagine if Howard, Blair, et al had said no. For all the hot rhetoric just what practical measures were taken?

 This is all about rigidity and as far as I can tell we are all turning into simplistic fundamentalists of the intellectual kind. To qoute Anomen: "Bah!"

     


 



   
   

[Veloxyll]

Not all of us down under are pleased with Howards actions incidentally, especially not his use of fear tactics and lies to win >.< Or the fact that were he in any other job he'd've been forced to retire.
And with some of the crazyness coming out of the USA already is it any surprise everyone's feeling DOOMED. I recall hearing something about the non-recognition of homosexual Civil Unions >.<

[Hendryk]

I would point out that one does not have to be particularly rigid to deplore what Bush has already done on these lines:

The so-called Patriot Laws provide for unlimited and perenially secret government spying on all citizens.

He has converted a budget surplus into the greatest deficit in US history.  Now 9/11 and the resultant flat economy made some deficit inevitable.  However, he has exacerbated it by massive tax cuts, income tax, inheritance tax and dividend tax, that benefit the rich and only the rich.  He seeks in his second term to make these cuts permanent rather than temporary despite the fact that his government will be, legally, out of money on Nov. 18th of this year.

He has supported initiatives to overthrow the Constitutional prohibition against state sponsorship of religion.

He has shattered any possibility of even diplomatic cooperation from most of the rest of the industrial world.

He invaded Iraq before completing the overthrow of the Taliban in Afghanistan and before capturing bin Laden and his Al Qaida playmates.  Check the history of the Axis powers in World War II for a recent example of the pitfalls of beginning a second war before completing the first one.

Operations in Iraq, excepting only the initial onslaught for which American forces were designed, organized and trained, has been a series of bloody stalemates interspersed with acute embarrassments.

This abysmal record, no part of which was defended save by exhortations to "stay the course" (in hopes evident blunders would somehow turn out all right if adhered to long enough and with sufficient rigidity) was not sufficient to get the man turned out of office.  Indeed, he was more approved in his second election than the first.  Given America's ability to influence the world, for good or ill, is it any wonder that thoughtful citizens and non-citizens alike might feel some concern about what a second term portends?

[Evaine Dian]

...

[Grog]

However, he has exacerbated it by massive tax cuts, income tax, inheritance tax and dividend tax, that benefit the rich and only the rich.

Bullshit!!  You come to my county, look my family members and my co-workers right in the face and tell us that we didn't benifit from the tax cut(s).

[Regullus]

@Evaine Dian:

 Many people in Australia were against the Iraq invasion yet they re-elected Howard handily. Why? As you state the SPD is unpopular due to domestic policies not their stance on the war. I believe Chirac is also unpopular due to domestic issues, not because of his stance on the Iraq war. Perhaps the American election was about more than one issue?

 I stand corrected and should say "some individuals who react with scorn..."

 I was under the impression that it was only the Dutch and a Scandanavian country (Sweden ?) that had homosexual marriages. What is homosexual union called in Germany?

 In the US there is purely elective abortion thru 6 months and of course abortion for health reasons are available thru the entire pregnancy. Someone is bound to bring up the partial birth abortion ban however it is being challenged and it is concerned with a specific procedure.

 In the US there is a population of almost 300 m from various backgrounds yet according to your implication the US population is monolithic.

@Hendryk:

 The Patriot Act was not created solely by Republicans. Oh right, Bush intimidated the Democrats into signing the Patriot Act into law.

 As to the tax cuts. I suppose it would depend on your definition of super rich. I think in many ways the tax system is unjust. I am more interested in the problems of business taxes. A bi-partisan problem, I am not terribly concerned about the super rich individual as I am the super rich corporation and the continual bi-partisan government bail outs. How many billions of dollars worth of bail outs were given in the last four years?

 The fear of a theocratic state. Fear of a completely secular state. You might notice that there are watch groups against either extreme.

 I think it might surprise you the amount of diplomatic co-operation in the last four years. With France, with Germany, with Canada and with Mexico. I think you would be astonished at the diplomatic endeavors that have occuredaround the world.

 As to war on multiple fronts and look to Axis powers, hey, why don't you look to the multiple theaters in ww2 by the allies. The Asian theater, the European theater, etc, for example. I think there were multiple fronts in WW2. I would also add the Bush could not have entered the Iraq War without bi-partisan approval. I know, I know the Democrats did not dare deny Bush anything for fear that they would be called un-patriotic. I am glad that excuse works for you. It does not for me.

 As to the complete and utter failure of the Iraq adventure, I don't know what will eventually happen in Iraq and I doubt you know either.

 I don't mind concern over what a second term portends. I mind monolithic thought. I mind histrionic hopelessness. The industrial world was not powerless had it the political will to oppose the US in the last four years and is not powerless now. Americans are not powerless either. Of course if the industrial world had political will, if the democrats had political will, if the UN had political will...well, pointless to speculate.

@Veloxyll - I did not say Australians loved Howard. Re: Homosexual Unions being repealed - I think you are thinking of the homosexual marriages that took place in San Francisco California, which does not have civil unions, the State invalidated the unions. The only state that has a functioning civil union law is Vermont. Mass. has a civil union law that was legislated not voted and is not yet functioning.

 Again, I don't mind concern but I will point out that Americans are not helpless, nor does the rest of the world have to go along with a US agenda.   

 

 

[Evaine Dian]

...

[Evaine Dian]

...

[Regullus]

   @Evaine Dian:

Re Elections: Most elections are not guided by simply one issue. The US election was not guided by one issue either.

I am very glad that you translated into approximate English the title of homosexual union in Germany. I am curious by what exactly is meant by the "same social level?" Does it refer to income level?

I don't know if I can explain this to you but many people in the US don't have a problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions, which are "real" marriages that bestow a host of automatic rights to the partners. Some concern and strong concern is evinced over the use of the word marriage, and the old slippery slope argument which is basically where will it end? If the same sex can marry then polygamy must legal, and on. The people of the US debate most laws and it is the rare law in the US that passes without challenge.

  Yes the US is one country, and it has a centralized federal government, however, we also have state rights, every state does not necessarily have the same laws. The federal government in many ways has less comprehensive control on states then the EU will have on countries.

 In spite of the US being an united country every state does not have the same identity and influences of history. The US is not a homogenous country. It is a vast and varied country, as the recent election showed the US does not always agree.  I often struck, perhaps erroneously, with the fact that even close neighbors such as Canada and Mexico fail to grasp this obvious detail about the US. Idaho and Lousiana are both "red (Bush)" states yet it is far more than distance that separates these two states. I think if you visited both states you would be amazed at the contrast. Perhaps even have a hard time believing you are in the same country.

 



 

[Hendryk]

@Hendryk:

 The Patriot Act was not created solely by Republicans. Oh right, Bush intimidated the Democrats into signing the Patriot Act into law.

If you mean merely that some Democrats voted for it, true.  If you mean that Republicans could not have passed it without any Democratic votes, false.  If you mean there was no implied coercion on patriotic grounds (starting with the naming of the act), false.  Note too that no Democrats shared its authorship or have any say in how it is implemented.  

As to the tax cuts. I suppose it would depend on your definition of super rich.

Please note that I wrote, and meant, rich; not "super" rich.  The "super" rich, those with net worths in the billions, tended to favor Kerry.  Being far too wealthy to care about tax cuts, they voted with their heads, not their wallets.

I think in many ways the tax system is unjust. I am more interested in the problems of business taxes. A bi-partisan problem, I am not terribly concerned about the super rich individual as I am the super rich corporation and the continual bi-partisan government bail outs. How many billions of dollars worth of bail outs were given in the last four years?

'Bail outs' isn't the appropriate term.  Since Reagan began downsizing and privitizing the government, it no longer performs all its functions with its own employees and resources.  The only question is which set of corporations get to line up at the trough.  For instance, the armed forces have privitized their combat logistics function, for heaven's sake.  Since even a small war cannot be fought without logistical support, it follows that any military action will pay huge sums to some corporation until government resumes responsibility for its functions in their entirety.  Raising the point also ignores the fact that in a time of great fiscal strain, tax cuts for individuals is a far more egregious error that the inevitable patronizing of corporations.

The fear of a theocratic state. Fear of a completely secular state. You might notice that there are watch groups against either extreme.

The US Constitution requires a secular state.  To lump upholders of the fundamental law of the land in with revolutionaries who wish to see the law overturned on personal religious grounds is not quite so impartial as you try to make it sound.

I think it might surprise you the amount of diplomatic co-operation in the last four years. With France, with Germany, with Canada and with Mexico. I think you would be astonished at the diplomatic endeavors that have occuredaround the world.

If any of importance have involved the Bush administration, you are correct.  I would be surprised.

As to war on multiple fronts and look to Axis powers, hey, why don't you look to the multiple theaters in ww2 by the allies. The Asian theater, the European theater, etc, for example. I think there were multiple fronts in WW2.

Indeed.  But it was the Axis powers that had the option to create these second fronts or not and chose to do so.  Thus, my point about the unwisdom of such a step is not diminished, especially if the extremely low number of troops available to the Pentagon is taken into consideration.

I would also add the Bush could not have entered the Iraq War without bi-partisan approval. I know, I know the Democrats did not dare deny Bush anything for fear that they would be called un-patriotic.

There was also an element of, to put it diplomatically, misdirection involved in that the funding for the build-up was represented to Congress as a way of increasing the diplomatic pressure on Saddam Hussein and thereby avoiding war altogether.

I am glad that excuse works for you. It does not for me.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I did not say that Bush received no backing from Democrats or that Democrats deserved no censure for such a shortcoming.  I did say that it was the Bush administration that was the primary mover in the Iraq invasion and that forged ahead with this project in a manner that was diplomatically and morally ill-advised.  As in "Not in the true interests of the United States" ill-advised.  

As to the complete and utter failure of the Iraq adventure, I don't know what will eventually happen in Iraq and I doubt you know either.

Nor did I ever claim to know.  I specifically restricted myself to the past record of the Bush administration up to the date of the election.

I don't mind concern over what a second term portends. I mind monolithic thought. I mind histrionic hopelessness.

If I find the Bush administration's record consistently bad and say so, does that imply that I am guilty of either of the sins that concern you?  Or might, just possibly, some of the problem lie in Washington?

[Evaine Dian]

...

[Caedwyr]

I'll respond to the question earlier regarding abortions in Canada.  Since abortions were removed from the criminal code, abortions are now considered a medical procedure and are covered by the national medicare plan.  There are a number of pieces of legislation in place defining the issue and securing the right for a women to have an abortion.

If you are interested I can try to dig up some links which will explain the issue in greater detail.

[Caedwyr]

I don't know if I can explain this to you but many people in the US don't have a problem with domestic partnerships or civil unions, which are "real" marriages that bestow a host of automatic rights to the partners. Some concern and strong concern is evinced over the use of the word marriage, and the old slippery slope argument which is basically where will it end? If the same sex can marry then polygamy must legal, and on. The people of the US debate most laws and it is the rare law in the US that passes without challenge.

I'd like to point out that marriage is not exclusively a Christain concept.  Many other societies, religions, belief system and groups also have subscribed to the concept of marriage, and their exact definition has varied widely.

I'm also interested in how the slipperly slope argument applies.  Wouldn't you argue that allowing divorce/annulments is also a step on the slippery slope of eroding the sanctity of marriage? 

[jester]

@Stopping Bush: How would Europe have done that? Notwithstanding the fact that it is far from unifiied on this issue. Zapateiro was not elected because of terrorism, but his opponents gave him some leeway as they lied about the causes of the attack.

@Coercing Dems to vote for the PATRIOT (sic!) Act: I was astounded how fast the entire 'liberal' media budged to the slogan that you are a traitor, if you critizise any of Gods chosen warriors, their plans or actions even years after 9/11. I would never call Bush a fascist and I think it is not exagerating to say that proposals such as limiting sexual education (prevents AIDS and unwanted pregnancy), denying your citizens equal rights, duties and opportunities and warmongering a whole country into a dead end is a step backward.

Unity in diversity? Well I liked the phrase reaching out to those who share my goals.

I still think religion and the State have to be separated, but I do not want to impose this view on anybody who wants the clerics to run the system. Most people I know are sadened by this election result not because Bush won which he did on a fair basis this time, but that it is now clear that his slogans of fear, homophobia and personal insult carried the day. Mission accomplished.

The argument that granting equal rights with the option to marry for every citizen is opening the way to polygamy is just grotesque. 

[Regullus]

    @Caedwyr

    If you have the time or inclination to post a link describing Canadian abortion procedure and laws, I would be grateful. I, obviously, misunderstood what I read. What I read lead me to believe that since 1988 Canada had, technically, no laws governing abortion.

 "I'm also interested in how the slipperly slope argument applies.  Wouldn't you argue that allowing
divorce/annulments is also a step on the slippery slope of eroding the sanctity of marriage?"
   

   The above would be an example of a slippery slope type argument. A more likely argument would be that by making divorce and annulment easy you are increasing divorce rates. Divorce rates increased when it became easier to get a divorce. Of course there was a reason for divorce reforms too.

 @Hendryk - Well, I think that we will have to agree to disagree. I think you cut the Democrats way too much slack for the last four years. I still think that other taxes cause greater loss to the US economy and I still maintain that it all depends on your definition of richness and privilege. I do agree with you that it does all lead back to Washington, DC. I am just bi-partisan.

 @Jester: How could the industrial world have stopped the US? I would imagine in the same way that most political pressure is applied. How about collective non-cooperation. How about sanctions. How about Canada and Mexico closing their trade borders for a week to the US. (I realize that this act would cause incredible damage to numerous economies but imagine the result )  Do you really think that the industrial world is powerless to exert influence?  I realize that the US is the "world's only remaining superpower" or should I say "hyperpower?" and of course cannot be contained. Pretend your listening to Dr Evil's maniacal laugh. Come on Jester if the world wished to exert political will there is a lot it could do to contain the US.

  Indeed the poor US was frightened into silence. The mainstream media was cowed by fears of being called "un-patriotic." The noble democrats were tricked by those nasty republicans. Desperate times. Strangely, both The American Conservative (a Pat Buchanan pub, and others) and The Nation (a progressive pub) two opposite idealogical publications, were able to discuss their concerns. Politics do indeed make strange bedfellows. Gosh and how could I forget how the US became a theocracy.

"but that it is now clear that his slogans of fear, homophobia and personal insult carried the day. Mission accomplished."

  I guess it was only me that noticed that hot rhetoric, general hysteria, slogans of fear, hyberbole, partisanship were not confined to  Bush, the Democrats or even the shores of the US.

 Why am I not denying the civil rights of individuals who wish to be polygamists? Worse yet by denying the polygamist the legal right to marry in the US, I am also denying them the freedom to practice their religion. In many cultures there is polygamy. Many citizens of the US come from countries, and religions which practice polygamy, yet the US refuses to legalize it. How many cultures has there been where same sex marriage has cultural and historical precedent, not homosexuality, but same sex marriage?