SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (52304)1/25/2006 8:30:54 AM
From: Ivan Inkling  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Where is your outrage over the Iraq casualties?



To: steve harris who wrote (52304)1/25/2006 9:47:41 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
Open letter to Michael Moore

canadafreepress.com

By Gary Reid
Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Dear Michael,

I read your advice to Canadian voters posted on your website on January 22, the day before our national election. For some reason, you seem to be the biggest Canada lover or hugger or whatever in the United States.

Even though you had the good sense to put the disclaimer in your piece that you, as an American, shouldn’t be telling us what to do, please note that we don’t have the slightest objection to Americans offering us advice. In fact, some of the best ideas that we lift are from America; note our thriving business in generic pharmaceuticals, for instance, not to mention an automotive sector that is bigger than the one in your home state of Michigan, where autos began.

But there is a qualifier. The advice has to be good, and be seen to be good.

You suggested that we should overlook the corruption of the Liberal government to avoid the consequences of electing a Conservative government, like the conservative government in the United States.

Now, Michael, really!

You know us well enough by now to understand that what we consider a conservative in Canada would be a liberal in the U.S., and what we call a liberal would be a socialist in your bailiwick, and what we call a socialist would either be classified as a communist or simply outlawed in America. So, we are talking apples and oranges here when you try to draw comparisons between your conservatives and ours.

Let us forget the political labels and look at the substance. You were not compelling in explaining why we should not care about the criminal activities of our ruling classes. I believe Liberal Prime Minister Chretien, who reigned during the most corrupt period, put it quite adroitly: "Who cares if a few million got stolen?"

Well, we now have the results from the voting and it appears that a fair number of Canadians care about that stuff.

I am wondering, in light of the unfolding Abramoff bribery scandal amongst the Republicans in the Congress, if you are advising your Democrat friends who are running for office this year not to make too much of the corruption issue on the hustings. As a rule of thumb, it is probably not advisable to give Canadians advice you would not be prepared to give to Americans.

You mention we have a parliamentary system and there are other means of taking care of bad guys in office. Do you really understand the British parliamentary system?

George W. Bush, the president that you don’t like very much, can only dream of the powers of our prime minister. You will note that I used the word "reign" when referring to Mr. Chretien. That was not done lightly in a country where the Queen of England is still the reigning head of state.

Imagine what the U.S. would look like, Michael, if Mr. Bush had the undisputed authority to appoint every member of the U.S. Supreme Court — not simply nominate — but appoint. What if Mr. Bush could also appoint every single member of the United States Senate?

What if he had total control over the country’s finances and was not beholden in that respect to a Congress? What if members of his own party in Congress disagreed with him and he could fire them, not from public office, but from the party?

What if Mr. Bush did not automatically go out of office every 4 years and was not limited to a total of 8 years, but, in effect, could stay indefinitely, provided he could get re-elected?

Are you getting the picture of our government, and the power that resides in the office of the Prime Minister, Michael?

There are no mandatory plebiscites, or automatic referenda, or recall rights, like you have in some of your states.

In Canada, the reality is that if you do not exercise your power as a citizen by voting the scoundrels out of office during an election, you are effectively screwed. The way our voters protect themselves is to deny a questionable party a majority mandate.

Finally, Michael, even though you are highly political and rub some folks on the other end of the political spectrum the wrong way, we do appreciate your unabashed enthusiasm for our country.

You might be surprised to know that there are a considerable number of us who have kind thoughts and feelings toward Americans and America, even when we differ on some the policies coming out of Washington.

We wanted to elect people to national office who reflect that view and not the American-bashing one that the Liberals have spewing out for 13 years. That is why we sent the Conservatives to Ottawa.



To: steve harris who wrote (52304)1/25/2006 10:29:56 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
31 jailed Palestinians on Wednesday ballot

JERUSALEM, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- There were 31 candidates in Israeli prisons among those running in Wednesday's Palestinian parliamentary elections, including convicted terrorists.

One of the most prominent is Fatah's Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life sentences for his involvement in terrorist attacks that killed five civilians, the Jerusalem Post reported.

"Marwan Barghouti is the most popular man in the Palestinian territories. All the polls show he is the most trusted and most of the people have confidence in him," said Dr. Nabil Kukali, who owns the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion.

This week, Barghouti was allowed to give television interviews to the Al-Jazeera television network and Britain's Channel 4 news, following a decision of the High Court of Justice.

Heavy turnout was reported Wednesday at polls in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where 1.3 million Palestinians were voting for the 132-seat assembly.

More than 13,000 police were monitoring security, and some 20,000 international observers were also attending.

sciencedaily.com



To: steve harris who wrote (52304)1/25/2006 12:14:07 PM
From: sea_biscuit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Millions of American kids are without insurance. That is OK by you. As long as they are born, it is fine. After that, they may go to hell.



To: steve harris who wrote (52304)1/25/2006 4:26:50 PM
From: Smiling Bob  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Seems like they need to hasten that a bit, or just encourage the already poverty stricken to develop a taste for human flesh.

What the unborn don't know and don't experience doesn't hurt them. It's when they are born that the experience really turns to hell.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, AUG. 26, 2004, AT 10:15 A.M. EDT

CB04-144

Public Information Office Press kit
(301) 763-3030/763-3691 Income
301) 457-3670 (fax) Poverty
(301) 457-1037 (TDD) Health Insurance
e-mail: pio@census.gov American Community Survey


Income Stable, Poverty Up, Numbers of Americans With and Without
Health Insurance Rise, Census Bureau Reports


Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 at $43,318, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. At the same time, the nation’s official poverty rate rose from 12.1 percent in 2002 to 12.5 percent in 2003. The number of people with health insurance increased by 1.0 million to 243.3 million between 2002 and 2003, and the number without such coverage rose by 1.4 million to 45.0 million. The percentage of the nation’s population without coverage grew from 15.2 percent in 2002 to 15.6 percent in 2003.


Source of Estimates and Statistical Accuracy

As with all surveys, the estimates may differ from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements in this report have undergone statistical testing, and all comparisons are significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.


The report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003, is available on the Internet at <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income.html>. The report’s data were compiled from information collected in the 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) to the Current Population Survey (CPS).

Also released today were tabulations from the 2003 American Community Survey (ACS). The survey is the largest household survey in the United States (800,000 housing units per year during the test phase). Like the decennial census long form it is designed to replace, the ACS provides information on money income and poverty, as well as a range of other social and economic indicators. ACS data for 2003 are shown for 116 metropolitan areas, 233 counties and 68 cities, all with populations of 250,000 or more. Starting in 2006, the Census Bureau expects data will be available for all areas with populations of 65,000 or more. And by 2010, data will be available down to the census tract and block group levels.

The fact sheet, Differences Between the Income and Poverty Estimates From the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement, provides information on the differences in concepts and purposes of the ACS and the CPS.

Income

Overview

* Real median income for the nation remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 for all types of family and nonfamily households.

Race and Hispanic Origin

* Real median income did not change between 2002 and 2003 for non-Hispanic white households (about $48,000), black households (about $30,000) or Asian households (about $55,500).
* Households with Hispanic householders (who can be of any race) experienced a real decline in median income of 2.6 percent between 2002 and 2003.
* Comparison of two-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-2003) showed that the real median income for households with householders who reported American Indian and Alaska native, regardless of whether they reported any other races, increased by 4.0 percent to $35,441. There was no change for those who chose the single race of American Indian and Alaska native ($32,866).

Regions

* Real median household income remained unchanged between 2002 and 2003 in three of the four census regions — Northeast ($46,742), Midwest ($44,732) and West ($46,820). The exception was the South, where income declined 1.5 percent. The South continued to have the lowest median household income of all four regions ($39,823). The difference between median household incomes in the Northeast and West was not statistically significant.

Nativity

* Native households had a real median income in 2003 ($44,347), not different from that in 2002. Foreign-born households experienced a real decline of 3.5 percent to $37,499.

Earnings

* Real median earnings of men age 15 and older who worked full-time, year-round in 2003 ($40,668) remained unchanged from 2002. Women with similar work experience saw their earnings decline — 0.6 percent to $30,724 — their first annual decline since 1995. As a result, the ratio of female-to-male earnings for full-time, year-round workers was 76 cents for every dollar in 2003, down from 77 cents for every dollar in 2002.

Income Inequality

* Income inequality showed no change between 2002 and 2003 when measured by the Gini index. The share of aggregate income received by the lowest household income quintile (20 percent of households) declined from 3.5 percent to 3.4 percent, while remaining unchanged for the other quintiles.

Poverty

Overview

* The number of people below the official poverty thresholds numbered 35.9 million in 2003, or 1.3 million more than in 2002, for a 2003 poverty rate of 12.5 percent. Although up from 2002, this rate is below the average of the 1980s and 1990s.
* The poverty rate and number of families in poverty increased from 9.6 percent and 7.2 million in 2002 to 10.0 percent and 7.6 million in 2003. The corresponding numbers for unrelated individuals in poverty in 2003 were 20.4 percent and 9.7 million (not different from 2002).
* As defined by the Office of Management and Budget and updated for inflation using the Consumer Price Index, the average poverty threshold for a family of four in 2003 was $18,810; for a family of three, $14,680; for a family of two, $12,015; and for unrelated individuals, $9,393.

Race and Hispanic Origin

* In 2003, among people who reported a single race, the poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites was 8.2 percent, unchanged from 2002. Although non-Hispanic whites had a lower poverty rate than other racial groups, they accounted for 44 percent of the people in poverty.
* For blacks, neither the poverty rate nor the number in poverty changed between 2002 and 2003. People who reported black as their only race, for example, had a poverty rate of 24.4 percent in 2003.
* Among those who indicated Asian as their only race, 11.8 percent were in poverty in 2003, up from 10.1 percent in 2002. The number in poverty also rose, from 1.2 million to 1.4 million. For the population that reported Asian, regardless of whether they also reported another race, the rate and the number increased to 11.8 percent and 1.5 million.
* Among Hispanics, the poverty rate remained unchanged, at 22.5 percent in 2003, while the number in poverty increased from 8.6 million in 2002 to 9.1 million in 2003.
* The poverty rate of American Indians and Alaska natives did not change when comparing two-year averages for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.
* The three-year average poverty rate for people who reported American Indian and Alaska native as their only race (23.2 percent) was not different from the rates for blacks or Hispanics. It was higher than the rate for non-Hispanic whites who reported only one race. The three-year average poverty rate for people who reported American Indian and Alaska native, regardless of whether they also reported another race (20.0 percent), was lower than the rates for blacks or Hispanics and higher than the rate for non-Hispanic whites who reported only one race.

Age

* For all children under 18, the poverty rate increased from 16.7 percent in 2002 to 17.6 percent in 2003. The number in poverty rose, from 12.1 million to 12.9 million.
* Neither people 18 to 64 years old nor those age 65 and over experienced a change in their poverty rate, 10.8 percent and 10.2 percent in 2003, respectively.

States

* The poverty rate for Arkansas (18.5 percent) — although not different from the rates for New Mexico, Mississippi, Louisiana, West Virginia and the District of Columbia — was higher than the rates for the other 45 states when comparing three-year average poverty rates for 2001 to 2003. Conversely, New Hampshire’s rate (6.0 percent) — though not different from the rate for Minnesota — was lower than those of the other 48 states and the District of Columbia.
* Seven states — Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia — showed increases in their poverty rates based on two-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-2003), while two states — Mississippi and North Dakota — showed decreases.

Nativity

* The native population had increases in their poverty rate (from 11.5 percent in 2002 to 11.8 percent in 2003) and their number in poverty (from 29.0 million in 2002 to 30.0 million in 2003). Poverty rates remained unchanged for foreign-born naturalized citizens (10.0 percent) and for foreign-born noncitizens (21.7 percent). Although the number for foreign-born naturalized citizens in poverty (1.3 million) did not change from 2002, the number of foreign-born noncitizens in poverty increased (to 4.6 million in 2003 from 4.3 million in 2002).

American Community Survey

Income

Counties

* In the 2003 ACS, Somerset County, N.J., while not different from Howard County, Md., or Prince William County, Va., had the highest median household income ($89,289) of the 233 counties with populations of 250,000 or more in the sample.
* The median household income of Hidalgo County, Texas ($24,926), while not different from Cameron County, Texas; Bronx County, N.Y.; or Lubbock County, Texas, was lower than those of the remaining 229 counties.

Poverty

Counties

* Somerset County, N. J., while not different from Waukesha County, Wis.; Anne Arundel County, Md.; Howard County, Md.; Prince William County, Va.; or Anoka County, Minn., had a poverty rate (1.7 percent) that was lower than those of any of the other counties with a population of 250,000 or more.
* Hidalgo County, Texas (38.0 percent), and Cameron County, Texas (36.5 percent), had poverty rates higher than those of the other 231 counties, though not different from one another.

Children Under 18 Years Old

Counties

* Somerset County, N. J., while not different from 17 other counties, had a child poverty rate (2.0 percent) that was lower than any of the remaining counties of 250,000 or more in the 2003 ACS.
* Hidalgo County, Texas, while not different from Cameron County, Texas, had a child poverty rate (48.6 percent) that was higher than those of the other counties of 250,000 or more.

Health Insurance

Overview

* The number of people with health insurance coverage rose from 242.4 million in 2002 to 243.3 million in 2003. Nonetheless, the percentage with coverage dropped from 84.8 percent to 84.4 percent, mirroring a drop in the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance (61.3 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003). This decline in employment-based health insurance coverage essentially explains the drop in total private health insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent in 2003.
* The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2003, from 25.7 percent to 26.6 percent, largely as the result of increases in Medicaid and Medicare coverage. Medicaid coverage rose 0.7 percentage points to 12.4 percent in 2003, and Medicare coverage increased 0.2 percentage points to 13.7 percent.
* The proportion of uninsured children did not change in 2003, remaining at 11.4 percent of all children, or 8.4 million.

Race and Hispanic Origin

* The uninsured rate did not change for blacks (about 19.5 percent) or Asians (about 18.7 percent) between 2002 and 2003. (The health insurance coverage rates of blacks and Asians were not different in 2003.) Non-Hispanics who reported white as their only race saw their uninsured rate increase from 10.7 percent to 11.1 percent.
* The uninsured rate for Hispanics, who may be of any race, was 32.7 percent in 2003 — unchanged from 2002.
* Based on a three-year average (2001-2003), 27.5 percent of people who reported American Indian and Alaska native as their only race were without coverage, lower than the uninsured rate for Hispanics (32.8 percent) but higher than that of the other race groups. Comparisons of two-year moving averages (2001-2002 and 2002-2003) showed that the uninsured rate for American Indians and Alaska natives did not change.

Nativity

* The proportion of the foreign-born population without health insurance (34.5 percent) was about two-and-a-half times that of the native population (13.0 percent) in 2003.

Regions

* The South was the only region to show an increase in its uninsured rate in 2003, up from 17.5 percent in 2002 to 18.0 percent. The health insurance coverage rates of people in the South and in the West (17.6 percent) were not different in 2003. The percentages for the Northeast and Midwest were 12.9 percent and 12.0 percent, respectively.

Methodology

The estimates in the income, poverty and health insurance report are based on the 2002, 2003 and 2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS ASEC), which is conducted in February, March and April at about 100,000 addresses nationwide. The CPS is a labor force survey conducted monthly by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics using Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and Computer-Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).

The American Community Survey (ACS) is an integral part of the plan to redesign the decennial census and will replace the “long form.” During the 2000-2004 testing program, the ACS has been collecting data from a sample of about 800,000 addresses per year. These estimates are collected on a rolling basis every month. The ACS uses the Census 2000 self-response mail-out/mail-back methodology, followed by CATI, followed by CAPI.

Estimates from the CPS ASEC may not match the estimates from the ACS because of differences in the questionnaires, data collection methodology, reference period, processing procedures, etc. As both are surveys, they are subject to sampling and nonsampling errors. All comparisons made in the report have been tested and found to be statistically significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted.

For additional information on the CPS data, visit
<http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/p60_226sa.pdf>. For additional information on ACS data, visit <http://www.census.gov/acs/www/UseData/Accuracy/Accuracy1.htm>.

-X-