File this one in the "who would have ever thunk it" category:
From CNN.com
"Americans run to Mexico for flu shot
Pharmacies in Mexican border towns say they are struggling to meet demand.
October 22, 2004: 4:41 PM EDT
REYNOSA, Mexico (Reuters) - Americans unable to find this year's scarce flu vaccine at home are crossing the Rio Grande to buy the shot in Mexican border towns, where pharmacies are struggling to meet demand."
One point for Mexico for having something important that the US doesn't (besides a lower drinking age).
Friday, October 22, 2004
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Political ranting...per usual
There's a couple things I want to address in this post....
First off...last night on C-Span I watched some of a round-table discussion that featured a group of women in Wisconsin being asked questions concerning the election by some white research guy with white hair (yes, they all do seem to look like that). The group of women included a few white stay-at-home moms who were concerned about moral issues (several were (surprise surprise) CHRISTIANS!!! and i'm not just assuming that...they mentioned it themselves), an undecided 20-something yr old who voted for Bush in 2000 but isn't too thrilled with him anymore, a hispanic nursing student, a wise-sounding democratic 40-something yr-old (who just had that look of calm cyncism that is typical of those type of women), a black vocational counselor who is worried about jobs, a totally fed-up Generation-X'er with a spikey boy-cut and some other women who I can't seem to remember. It seemed like these women were picked by casting agents to attend this discussion. The things that were said by these women during this discussion were mostly typical. It was interesting, though, to find out that pretty much all of them were skeptical of Kerry regarding the tax issues...and I don't really blame them. By the end of the discussion, I was annoyed with the people I expected I would be annoyed with...those pesky Christian stay-at-home moms (note: I don't dislike all Christian stay-at-home moms, but these women didn't do much to sway any stereotypes). It saddens me a little to think that these women are actually raising children and teaching them right and wrong. This one woman, Rebecca, erked me the most...especially when she spoke about stem-cell research (which, for me, is a major issue). She talked about money shouldn't be put into it now since it isn't expected to make a difference for another hundred years...and that we should focus on curing diseases like breast cancer. First...stem-cell research can help cure cancer as they can be used to test medicines (www.nih.org). Second...breast cancer isn't going to be cured in a day. They have been doing research for years and years and years. Research takes time...and if we procrastinate on stem-cell research now, then we're just putting off possible cures for the future. Rebecca, how would you like to have Polio? Cause it's quite possible you could have suffered from it had scientists procrastinated in finding a cure for that!
An overall frustration I have been feeling during this election has do with terrorism. People are proud of Bush because America hasn't been attacked since 9/11, and based on that, they believe the War on Terrorism is going well and will probably be over soon. Kerry is criticized because he is realistic and seems to understand that terrorism is not just an American problem, but a global problem and that it's not something that can be wiped out with a swift action alone. It seems to me that many Americans are just unaware of how important a role America plays in the world and that our actions not only effect us, but also everyone else in the world...which brings me to my next topic:
One of Great Britain's leading liberal newspapers, The Guardian, has begun a pro-Kerry letter-writing campaign aimed at swing (I assume) voters in Ohio. Now, not surprisingly, there's a firestorm of criticism surrounding this. Some people are outraged that the Brits are butting in our election affairs ("'Hey England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election,' was one of the e-mail reactions to the campaign." ~ cnn.com). On one hand, I agree that this letter-writing thing is a little weird, but at the same time, I can see why they would want to even do it in the first place. Americans are viewed, by some in the international community, as closed-minded and completely devoid of interest in the effect this whole war thing has had on an international scale (for example, I would really love to know what the rate of global terrorist attacks post-Iraq War has been compared to before, I feel like it's probably substatially higher, but that just might be a self-fullfilling prophecy on my part). What's wrong with wanting to give Americans a personal view of what things look like from an international point of view? Also, why is it OK for us to go to, say, Afghanistan, and tell them they should be democratic, yet British people aren't allowed to write some letters to us about how they think our citizens should vote? What bad could come out of it anyway? These voters get a letter and it inspires them to do some more research? Oh no! Research is a terrible thing...right Rebecca?
First off...last night on C-Span I watched some of a round-table discussion that featured a group of women in Wisconsin being asked questions concerning the election by some white research guy with white hair (yes, they all do seem to look like that). The group of women included a few white stay-at-home moms who were concerned about moral issues (several were (surprise surprise) CHRISTIANS!!! and i'm not just assuming that...they mentioned it themselves), an undecided 20-something yr old who voted for Bush in 2000 but isn't too thrilled with him anymore, a hispanic nursing student, a wise-sounding democratic 40-something yr-old (who just had that look of calm cyncism that is typical of those type of women), a black vocational counselor who is worried about jobs, a totally fed-up Generation-X'er with a spikey boy-cut and some other women who I can't seem to remember. It seemed like these women were picked by casting agents to attend this discussion. The things that were said by these women during this discussion were mostly typical. It was interesting, though, to find out that pretty much all of them were skeptical of Kerry regarding the tax issues...and I don't really blame them. By the end of the discussion, I was annoyed with the people I expected I would be annoyed with...those pesky Christian stay-at-home moms (note: I don't dislike all Christian stay-at-home moms, but these women didn't do much to sway any stereotypes). It saddens me a little to think that these women are actually raising children and teaching them right and wrong. This one woman, Rebecca, erked me the most...especially when she spoke about stem-cell research (which, for me, is a major issue). She talked about money shouldn't be put into it now since it isn't expected to make a difference for another hundred years...and that we should focus on curing diseases like breast cancer. First...stem-cell research can help cure cancer as they can be used to test medicines (www.nih.org). Second...breast cancer isn't going to be cured in a day. They have been doing research for years and years and years. Research takes time...and if we procrastinate on stem-cell research now, then we're just putting off possible cures for the future. Rebecca, how would you like to have Polio? Cause it's quite possible you could have suffered from it had scientists procrastinated in finding a cure for that!
An overall frustration I have been feeling during this election has do with terrorism. People are proud of Bush because America hasn't been attacked since 9/11, and based on that, they believe the War on Terrorism is going well and will probably be over soon. Kerry is criticized because he is realistic and seems to understand that terrorism is not just an American problem, but a global problem and that it's not something that can be wiped out with a swift action alone. It seems to me that many Americans are just unaware of how important a role America plays in the world and that our actions not only effect us, but also everyone else in the world...which brings me to my next topic:
One of Great Britain's leading liberal newspapers, The Guardian, has begun a pro-Kerry letter-writing campaign aimed at swing (I assume) voters in Ohio. Now, not surprisingly, there's a firestorm of criticism surrounding this. Some people are outraged that the Brits are butting in our election affairs ("'Hey England, Scotland and Wales, mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidential election,' was one of the e-mail reactions to the campaign." ~ cnn.com). On one hand, I agree that this letter-writing thing is a little weird, but at the same time, I can see why they would want to even do it in the first place. Americans are viewed, by some in the international community, as closed-minded and completely devoid of interest in the effect this whole war thing has had on an international scale (for example, I would really love to know what the rate of global terrorist attacks post-Iraq War has been compared to before, I feel like it's probably substatially higher, but that just might be a self-fullfilling prophecy on my part). What's wrong with wanting to give Americans a personal view of what things look like from an international point of view? Also, why is it OK for us to go to, say, Afghanistan, and tell them they should be democratic, yet British people aren't allowed to write some letters to us about how they think our citizens should vote? What bad could come out of it anyway? These voters get a letter and it inspires them to do some more research? Oh no! Research is a terrible thing...right Rebecca?
Friday, October 15, 2004
I don't even know...
Man, I HATE! toenail fungus ads!!! The ones on TV make me squimish as it is, but even in cartoon form as an internet ad gives me the willies (yes...the willies). Seeing a cartoon picture of a ragged, infected toenail is the last thing I want to see when I check my hotmail account. Then, when they animationally life up the toenail...oh man! Even though there isn't anything under there...anyone who has ever had a severely broken toenail can feel the pain of actually being able to lift up your toenail .
I should sue hotmail for showing that ad...claiming it put me through a ton of emotional stress as I recalled the time I smashed my toe by the pool when I was 13. How many millions do you think I could squander out of that one? Talk about litigation abuse....
I should sue hotmail for showing that ad...claiming it put me through a ton of emotional stress as I recalled the time I smashed my toe by the pool when I was 13. How many millions do you think I could squander out of that one? Talk about litigation abuse....
Thursday, October 07, 2004
The government and office equipment...
Today, I realized that there are some striking similarities between the government and office equipment...that they are twins, separated at birth...sent to Earth to destroy all humans.
- They are both ridiculously huge and expensive.
- Nobody really has a masterful hold on how they work and it is very rare that they work the way you want it to.
- When they break, they are fixed...only to break again 5 minutes later.
- They cause loads and loads of uneeded, intense frustration.
That's all I can conjure up at this moment...if I think of anymore, I'll post them.
In the meantime, feel free to gimme some suggestions and find your own comparisons! Whoo hoo!
- They are both ridiculously huge and expensive.
- Nobody really has a masterful hold on how they work and it is very rare that they work the way you want it to.
- When they break, they are fixed...only to break again 5 minutes later.
- They cause loads and loads of uneeded, intense frustration.
That's all I can conjure up at this moment...if I think of anymore, I'll post them.
In the meantime, feel free to gimme some suggestions and find your own comparisons! Whoo hoo!
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Shower shoes...
And I always thought that flip-flops were sandals you wore in order to avoid getting foot fungus from dorm showers. But now, they are politicians. Not just John Kerry, but now, the Bush Administration is one big, giant flip-flop. In last night's Battle of the VP candidates, Dick Cheney got a little taste of what's it like to be called a flip-flopper. Edwards - "Now, flip-flops: They should know something about flip-flops. They've seen a lot of it during their administration." He went on to mention some examples: The 9/11 Commission...first they were against, then for it. The Department of Homeland Security...first they were for it, then against it. Promises made from the beginning of Bush's presidency were not kept (putting money aside for Social Security, funding for the No Child Left Behind Act). Edwards squashed the credibility of the Republican flip-flop argument (if you can even say there was much credibility in it in the first place).
The whole idea of flip-flopping, coming from the mouths of either candidate, is retarded. Changing your mind is natural. People do it all the time. I just changed my mind 5 seconds ago when I decided to use the word "retarded" instead of "ridiculous." You should probably stop reading this now...you don't want to be influenced by the opinions of a flip-flopper. Anyway, even L. Paul Bremer (who CNN describes as "whom President Bush appointed as head of the Iraq occupation" (whatever that means) went and semi-flip-flopped his comment about there not being enough troops on the ground in Iraq. First he said "We never had enough troops on the ground," then he said, later on, when the Republican Ministry of Magic threatened to send him to Azkaban if he didn't promise to make things right, turned around and said "One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backward. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing....We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks. The point that I have been making, and that has gotten a little bit distorted in the press recently, is that, as I look back now, I believe it would have been better to stop the looting that was found right after the war."
So, what have we learned here today? It's OK to flip-flop if you are a member of the Bush Administration, but it's not OK to flip-flop if you are John Kerry. Wait...or is it the other way around? I can't make up my mind.
The whole idea of flip-flopping, coming from the mouths of either candidate, is retarded. Changing your mind is natural. People do it all the time. I just changed my mind 5 seconds ago when I decided to use the word "retarded" instead of "ridiculous." You should probably stop reading this now...you don't want to be influenced by the opinions of a flip-flopper. Anyway, even L. Paul Bremer (who CNN describes as "whom President Bush appointed as head of the Iraq occupation" (whatever that means) went and semi-flip-flopped his comment about there not being enough troops on the ground in Iraq. First he said "We never had enough troops on the ground," then he said, later on, when the Republican Ministry of Magic threatened to send him to Azkaban if he didn't promise to make things right, turned around and said "One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backward. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing....We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks. The point that I have been making, and that has gotten a little bit distorted in the press recently, is that, as I look back now, I believe it would have been better to stop the looting that was found right after the war."
So, what have we learned here today? It's OK to flip-flop if you are a member of the Bush Administration, but it's not OK to flip-flop if you are John Kerry. Wait...or is it the other way around? I can't make up my mind.
Monday, October 04, 2004
My secret crushes and patriotism...
I admit it. For as long as I can remember, I have had crushes on the Big 3 Nightly News men. Ok, not so much Dan Rather, but definately Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings. I grew up watching the ABC World News and was drawn to Jennings' sexy Canadian accent and never-graying hair (thank you, Just For Men). Anyway...last night on C-SPAN (the best channel in the universe, by the way), they ran a panel discussion from this weekend's New Yorker Festival (eat your heart out OzzFest!) featuring Rather, Brokaw and Jennings (*sigh*) commenting on the media today. It was midnight and I found myself interrupting my falling asleepness to jot down notes. That's how interesting it was. Hell, I even clapped along with the audience after several comments. I wish I could relay all of the good points they made, but I just can't remember them all. So, I'll cut to the chase and discuss some of the points I wrote down.
First off, I was rather impressed with Dan Rather admitting that he wished he had asked tougher questions around the time of the beginnings of the Iraq war. He also admitted that he wasn't tough enough to handle being labeled unpatriotic had he decided to go against the majority national opinion of the time and pressed the more controversial issues. Of course, he has been doing a lot of "admitting to being wrong" lately, so maybe this was just something he needed to get off his chest while he was at it. But, either way...it kinda goes to show how strong the pressure of the word "patriotic" is and how it can alter the actions of even our most distinguished journalists. There was an interesting opinion piece on CNN.com last week about the word "patriotism"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/patriotism/index.html Basically, "patriotism" is now an ideology rather than a physical showing of one's love for his/her country. There's no denying it, unless you happend to have been deaf for the past few years, that the word "patriot" has been thrown around and misused like a cheap whore (yeah! over-used analogy!!). To be called "unpatriotic" today seems to have a similar stigma attached to it as being called a "Communist" must have had during the years of the Red Scare (hmmm, Vietnam/"Communist": Iraq/"unpatriotic"...again, hmmm). The words "patriot" and all it's family members, are now buzzwords, like Weapons of Mass Destruction or Terrorism. Words that have lost their true meanings due to overuse by politicians who cater to the dumbing down of America by restricting their vocabulary to 3-4 keywords. Two years ago, when our current Iraq situation was becoming more than just an idea being thrown around Congress, to disagree with the war was "unpatriotic." In fact, ever since 9/11, to disagree with the government and the power of America was a bad thing. I can remember, on Sept 12, how much I was hated when I disagreed with students in my classes who said we should bomb the hell out of Afghanistan. Was I being unpatriotic by trying to view the situation from a more global point of view than some other people? Was I being unpatriotic in March 2002, when I sat with skeptism (sp?) watching a black and neon green nightvisioned Baghdad explode on ABC, wondering why it was happening? Am I being unpatriotic now by still not totally agreeing with the way we went about this war and wanting the President to be more clear on what's going on? If you choose to look at things in black and white, as it seems many Americans do, than yes, I am very unpatriotic.
On another note, going back to the Big 3 panel, Tom Browkaw also made a point about how there should be more debates during presidential elections. I agree. I think there should have been debates for at least the past 2 months. 3 presidential debates are not enough (especially if they are going to all be non-debates as last week's was). There should also be more attention paid to them by network TV stations. The presidential election is the most important thing going on in our country right now. More important than who is going to be "fired" or refuse to eat cow testicles on "Fear Factor." There should be more news specials that air in prime time everywhere in America focused solely on the issues and educating people about where each candidate stands, factually, on each issue. Sure, it's not as exciting as watching the Bachelor make out with all the contestants in one show, but, Jesus, it's pretty damn important. It's not fair that the only people who are able to get extended political coverage are those who have enough money to afford cable.
I could go on about this for another 9505096 paragraphs, but I'll refrain seeing as probably only one of you reading this has actually gotten this far without falling asleep or getting lost in my ramble.
First off, I was rather impressed with Dan Rather admitting that he wished he had asked tougher questions around the time of the beginnings of the Iraq war. He also admitted that he wasn't tough enough to handle being labeled unpatriotic had he decided to go against the majority national opinion of the time and pressed the more controversial issues. Of course, he has been doing a lot of "admitting to being wrong" lately, so maybe this was just something he needed to get off his chest while he was at it. But, either way...it kinda goes to show how strong the pressure of the word "patriotic" is and how it can alter the actions of even our most distinguished journalists. There was an interesting opinion piece on CNN.com last week about the word "patriotism"
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/28/patriotism/index.html Basically, "patriotism" is now an ideology rather than a physical showing of one's love for his/her country. There's no denying it, unless you happend to have been deaf for the past few years, that the word "patriot" has been thrown around and misused like a cheap whore (yeah! over-used analogy!!). To be called "unpatriotic" today seems to have a similar stigma attached to it as being called a "Communist" must have had during the years of the Red Scare (hmmm, Vietnam/"Communist": Iraq/"unpatriotic"...again, hmmm). The words "patriot" and all it's family members, are now buzzwords, like Weapons of Mass Destruction or Terrorism. Words that have lost their true meanings due to overuse by politicians who cater to the dumbing down of America by restricting their vocabulary to 3-4 keywords. Two years ago, when our current Iraq situation was becoming more than just an idea being thrown around Congress, to disagree with the war was "unpatriotic." In fact, ever since 9/11, to disagree with the government and the power of America was a bad thing. I can remember, on Sept 12, how much I was hated when I disagreed with students in my classes who said we should bomb the hell out of Afghanistan. Was I being unpatriotic by trying to view the situation from a more global point of view than some other people? Was I being unpatriotic in March 2002, when I sat with skeptism (sp?) watching a black and neon green nightvisioned Baghdad explode on ABC, wondering why it was happening? Am I being unpatriotic now by still not totally agreeing with the way we went about this war and wanting the President to be more clear on what's going on? If you choose to look at things in black and white, as it seems many Americans do, than yes, I am very unpatriotic.
On another note, going back to the Big 3 panel, Tom Browkaw also made a point about how there should be more debates during presidential elections. I agree. I think there should have been debates for at least the past 2 months. 3 presidential debates are not enough (especially if they are going to all be non-debates as last week's was). There should also be more attention paid to them by network TV stations. The presidential election is the most important thing going on in our country right now. More important than who is going to be "fired" or refuse to eat cow testicles on "Fear Factor." There should be more news specials that air in prime time everywhere in America focused solely on the issues and educating people about where each candidate stands, factually, on each issue. Sure, it's not as exciting as watching the Bachelor make out with all the contestants in one show, but, Jesus, it's pretty damn important. It's not fair that the only people who are able to get extended political coverage are those who have enough money to afford cable.
I could go on about this for another 9505096 paragraphs, but I'll refrain seeing as probably only one of you reading this has actually gotten this far without falling asleep or getting lost in my ramble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)