BS: The president speaks

Subject: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 09:48 PM

I'm watching President Obama. So far I agree with most of what he is saying, but there are two things so far that are just plain wrong.
There is no such thing as clean coal.And, this country did not invent the automobile.The modern auto was invented by a German named Gottlieb Daimler.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 10:23 PM

He spoke very well, all things considered. I wonder of Dubya tunes in these speeches? He should be kicking himself.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:20 PM

It's not how you speak, it's what you speak. On balance I prefer the not Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM

John-
By the not Obama do you mean Bobby Ringall? I was a bit amused by his virtuously refusing 100 million dollars from the Impetus Package while accepting 3.7 billion.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Feb 09 - 11:29 PM

"I prefer the not Obama" . Surprise, surprise.

Now all we need is a reason for this-- with some logic or sense.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:06 AM

Like you said, there were a couple of jarring moments- I'm not fond of jingoistic lathering up; for one thing I don't believe it- we are not exceptional in this world (unless we accept that everybody is above average!)- and I don't think the rest of the world thinks we're so hot.

However, as a means of jollying us into visualizing a brighter future I can accept it.

That said, he had some great lines and some great themes and I was proud he is our president.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 AM

Well, well I need to have a reason with logic and sense. Why must i be different from a Dem or liberal in making my comments?

But, in the simplest terms that even a Ron Davies can understand, I do not favor a national government that gets overwhelmingly into the private sector and the private pocket.

During the so called moral majority period, it was said that conservatives wanted to go into everyone's bedroom. Under Pelosi/Obama the liberals want to go everywhere.

That isn't the America that I believe was intended, and I believe will bring the US to a the level of a western Europe of 25 years ago. Several European countries are now realizing that model was a failure and are changing. But I know we'll do it better. LOL on the outside, crying on the inside.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:45 AM

Everyone has a right to state their own opinions...and everyone has their own reasons for voicing those opinions. This may not be clear to someone else who disagrees with them, but it is nevertheless true...they do have their reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:39 AM

Surely we should ahev learned from the great recession and the present one that free market economics do NOT in fact work, not for all, and not for the greatest benefit of the greatest number, and not even for most. They ahve given us the present crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 09:44 AM

This is the France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, with universal health care, shorter work weeks, daycare, and a lifestyle for the middle classes that most Americans can only dream about? These countries have their problems, but interfering government is not one of them.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:00 AM

Scrubbing technology for coal plants could be better. At least they are getting some emissions and mercury isolated better than 20 years ago.

Carbon sink tech is on the way in the form of artificial tree like devices that are virtualy miraculous in capturing CO. It uses an available plastic and hard water treatment chemical to do the trick.


-------------

After Obama roused Republicans from their seats to a standing ovation on several occaisions, Congressman Gindel gave a response with with the tone and tenor of Mr. Rogers, sic "Hello boys and girls, Don't let anyone tell you that America can't do anything, just say no to everything...Here in Louisiana, our experience with Katrina has taught us that people do more than goverment..."

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:10 AM

John, all I can say is, he has been president for over a months now, and we are still in the same mess that the republicans created over the past 8 years.
The republicans are lining up to run in 2012, so it is their duty to see that O'Bama fails.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:29 AM

well Kendal, what is your plan for total failure?

Be carefull not to shoot to low in your aspiration.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Teribus
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:41 AM

I read through the speech today and I am surprised how few have commented on the contradictions and inconsistencies in it.

He opens with stating clearly how important it is to get the banks lending again, then he goes on to say how he's not helping the banks but the people. He then describes the people that he is going to help as the very ones who with the assistance of Freddie and Fannie started this current crisis.

Great patches of it could only be described as palliative and the proposed "unprecedented oversight" that "No-one-messes-with-Joe-Biden" will only serve to slam the brakes on recovery as everybody throughout US Government be it local, state or federal goes into "cover-my-ass" mode.

He's all for tough new regulations on banking, which ignores the facts that there was nothing wrong with the present ones, all the procedures, regulations and systems are in place and they work - provided those employed by those regulatory bodies actually use them - In the case of Madoff the whistle was being blown years ago, but nobody in the relevant agencies bothered to act - That is human error, it is not procedural, regulatory or systemic failure.

To have what the countries mentioned by Peter T have is simple - You (everybody) just pay one hell of a lot more tax.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:11 AM

Teribus, you could find fault with the Gettysburg Address.

Donuel, I don't need a plan, I'm not president.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:24 AM

Random thoughts:
The interruptions for useless applause annoyed the hell out of me. It s ridiculous sucking up and should not be allowed.

If the 800 billion that was pissed away and not accounted for could have been given to every citizen who ever paid taxes. The result - new mortgages, new cars, paid up credit cards...

I prefer cats to dogs. Seamus doesn't count. He is an eight year old boy in a dog suit.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM

I have to agree with Sinsull. No matter how good the speech was the message gets watered down when Nancy Pelosi pops up like a jack in the box every 30 seconds or so. She needs to show some restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:09 PM

The one glaring form of energy not mentioned in the President's speech, was Nuclear Energy. The Luddites of America have made this option untenable for no good reason. Nuclear fuel can reprocessed and reused until the the amount necessary to be stored is very manageable. There has never been a nuclear accident that has happened in an American plant that has caused substantial environmental problems, beyond that of gas or coal plants, and probably less. Even the worst disaster at a nuclear power plant caused no loss of life, and released minimal to no radiation. And engineering technology makes new plants even safer

A nuclear power plant begun today can be on line in a few years, providing more kilowatts than wind or solar, and do it with a much smaller footprint, less impact on the environment, and more aesthetically pleasing than the other alternatives.

Was he pandering to the Luddites and extreme environmentalists with this omission? Personally, I don't believe this omission was a mere oversight, as my wife thinks it was.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:19 PM

John OTSC said:

"I do not favor a national government that gets overwhelmingly into the private sector and the private pocket."

This seems to be the ultimate, base, overriding concept most serious conservatives fall back on... well, that and tax cuts for the rich.

Now, that sounds like a nice slogan on its face, but 'small, unobstrusive government' requires a lot of assumptions to work...not the least of which is a sane, honest and competent "private sector".
We are now in a place where the deregulation which the Republicans, led by Phil Graham, rammed down our throats a few years back, has played a major role in creating this crisis!

Some one said last night (I think in response to Jindal's speech) that the Republicans are now saying "yes, we know we overspent and allowed cheating and supported a bad war, but TRUST US now...we promise we won't do it again"!

And what do they propose as a sane, reasonable course of action? Why, more of the same principles & practices! They vote AGAINST almost everything Obama tries to do...why? Because they, by God, have a slogan that says "big government is bad!"

Sorry, John...big government is what you make it. HONEST government can do fine. If regulation is needed to oversee and control complex issues, and we out honest, intelligent people to work DOING the oversight, eventually everyone should be well-served. It's just that 'some' won't be as well-served as they feel is their right...like when they were able to manipulate the system for personal gain....with the results we now see!

This is gonna be HARD to fix....and Obama last night made the point that he was not going to tolerate the pork and earmarks and wasteful crap that has gone on for 7-8 years. (Halliburton must be quaking in it's collective boots!)


So....keep repeating your ..."Get government out of our...whatever" ...mantra, but get used to the idea that if YOUR systems leads to problems, then we get to try OUR system. It would behoove the conservatives to try some grudging cooperation and rethinking of just exactly what they really want to promote if they EVER want to get back any semblance of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 12:29 PM

"Obama last night made the point that he was not going to tolerate the pork and earmarks and wasteful crap that has gone on for 7-8 years. (Halliburton must be quaking in it's collective boots!)"

We'll see. He may speak, Congress enacts. We'll see if Obama has the strength of ten because his heart is pure. Pure it may be, but reality becomes a mighty foe.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:07 PM

Nuclear power is not cost effective, and there is the problem of storing the waste.

Coal will never be clean because there will never be a clean way to remove the coal from the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: DougR
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:21 PM

OTSC: Obama has already failed to deliver on a couple of his linchpin campaign promises. What happened to:

(Paraphrasing) "Before I sign a piece of legislation, it will be clearly reproduced on the Internet for five days before I sign or reject it."

(Paraphrasing) "I will not abide pork in the stimulus package."
So funds to help remove tattoos is a national priority?

If,OTSC, you were to explain your position in clear and concise language, I doubt very much that the complainer would understand it. He certainly would not agree with it, so what's the point?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:32 PM

"Nuclear power is not cost effective, and there is the problem of storing the waste."

If this is true, and I'm not sure it is, the cause is unwarranted obstacles.

If the spent fuel is reprocessed--it is not now permitted to be--and reused, the storage problems become geometrically diminished.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: pdq
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM

Coal is used to produce over 50% of the electricity we use in the United States.

Nuclear reactors produce an additional 23%, for a total approximately 75%.

Another major producer of electricity is the hydroelectric dam system. New dams of the size needed to make a difference will never be built again, according to experts, partly due to cost and partly due to Environmental activism.

So, may I suggest that the people who hate coal and nuclear power turn off the lights, unplug their computers and electrical appliances, and retreat back to the Pre-Columbian era. The rest of us will carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:00 PM

We will BE using 'some' coal in some form for awhile yet.... having cleaner coal as one of his prescriptions is not a contradiction in Obama's plan. He makes it clear that clean energy ss a priority, and that the dangerous, dirty coal industry ought to be phased out...or at least significantly reduced... as soon as possible.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

" We'll see if Obama has the strength of ten because his heart is pure. Pure it may be, but reality becomes a mighty foe."

   Oh, indeed, John...he may need the strength of 20 if the Republicans fight him on every issue....and in 2010, he may get that extra 20... *smile*

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:20 PM

Cleaner coal is like "cleaning up" the CIA. It's a lie, and a waste of time.   Another band of dinosaurs is the nuclear industry -- waste disposal is not solved, uranium mining continues to despoil the landscape, and proliferation (cf. Iran, India, Pakistan, etc.) continues on its merry pace. Not to mention the big issue for all you free marketers: not one single nuclear power plant will ever be built again without massive government subsidy. They are big and stupid and last about 40 years. Meanwhile, with a similar subsidy, and perhaps a fraction of the billions of dollars being spent on the military protecting the precious oil traffic, and some of what goes to a a coal industry that also the beneficiary of heaps of money (not to mention the ability to sidestep environmental regulation), North America could go green in ten years (Al Gore is right).
yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:28 PM

The resistance to nuclear is not based on Ludditism, John.

It is based on the cost benefit ratio, including the risks of dealing with spent fuel. A nano-disassembly process would probably resolve that but we are still a way off from that capability.

It would probably be safe, but not cost-effective, to drop them into the cracks betweent he tectonic plates at the bottom of the Marianas, too.

Your notion of reprocessing and reusing spent fuel doesn't work as far as I know--what do you think spent radioactive fuel would be reprocessed into, and how?

There may yet be a new generation of nuclear power in our future, with nano-engineered materials and a very different technological approach, but reiterating the breakthroughs and technology of the Fifties is just not smart or cost effective.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:33 PM

Now, Peter... the processing and burning of coal CAN be improved. It already has been in the past with scrubbers and such. Enough? No... it will never be clean enough, but until we DO the other stuff going, we will be using some. You can't just scrap ANY entrenched industry overnight. Even if 10 years were a reasonable theoretical goal for identifying and planning enough green energy sources, the construction of alternative distribution systems and deactivating coal-burning plants would take longer than 10 years, I'd bet.

As for nuclear, I rather agree that building more horribly expensive plants with inadequate safety systems and more disposal issues is not a reasonable idea.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 03:53 PM

Ebbie, hyperbole may not be your personal favorite, yet I do believe that America has some intrinsic advantages that other nations do not share. Most Americans still do not recognize that our Republic owes an historic debt to France, their aid in our revolution and to their democracy which we have pursued in our own infathomable ways.

We stand on the shoulders of giants and have become giants ourselves.

Lately we have grown too big for our own britches.

3 trillion dollars off budget money for The Bush wars on top of the global cheating Wall street scandel still has the potential to devastate our citizens.

I for one was inspired to go back to school as Obama advised.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:01 PM

No damage? How about 3 mile island? How about Chernoble? H.w about that nuclear plant that they built on a fault line in California?
There are other options to dangerous, dirty sources of power, Wind, water and sunlight, and all free! Thats why they are not being built, NO PROFIT to the fat cats.
Why did Reagan have the solar panels removed from the roof of the White House?

How many of you have heard of the Quoddy project? The tides in the Bay of Fundy   could produce enough power to serve the whole Northeast, and if it had been built when Roosevelt was president, as he proposed, we would be s.....g in tall cotton by now!

Maine Yankee, a nuclear plant in Wiscasset Maine; when it was built back in the 70's we were promised almost free electricity. Right, free my fat aunt harriet. It cost millions to build and multi millions to decommission,and there is still a pile of spent fuel that they don't know what to do with.

"It's a dirty bird that beshits its own nest."

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Wesley S
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:10 PM

Is the Quoddy project about water turbines that produce electricity? It sounds like an amazing resource to me.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 04:27 PM

No damage? Have you ever looked at the cancer statistics for the area around Los Alamos?
http://www.nuclearactive.org/docs/RTKCancer.pdf

Land, animals and people still suffer from experiments carried out at the end of WWII.

Subject: Bobby Jindal's Republican response to Obama speech
From: Genie
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:06 PM

Donuel: "After Obama roused Republicans from their seats to a standing ovation on several occaisions, Congressman Gindel gave a response with with the tone and tenor of Mr. Rogers, sic 'Hello boys and girls, Don't let anyone tell you that America can't do anything, just say no to everything...Here in Louisiana, our experience with Katrina has taught us that people do more than goverment...' "

OK, it's tangential to this thread topic (as is a lot of the rest of the thread), but I've gotta say this:
The guy who gave the Republican response to Obama's speech is Prakash "Bobby" Jindal (not Gindel or Ringall), and he is the Governor of Louisiana (no longer a Congressman).

As for the content of his speech and its content, well, I think that deserves its own thread. LOL

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Barry Finn
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 05:25 PM

Let's get it straight. It was Bush that failed Louisiana & he's no longer in office.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:01 PM

"No damage? How about 3 mile island? How about Chernoble? H.w [sic]about that nuclear plant that they built on a fault line in California?"

To get the easiest out of the first: where in America, exactly, is Chernoble? Read what I wrote.

3 Mile Island, no radiation leak, no loss of life. Environmental damage minimal and has been repairing itself...look it up.

Perhaps, you have a case with the location in Calif., Diablo Canyon, think. But it has held up well in nearby earthquakes. Will it survive an 8.0? Will anything?

Engineering and technology of the past 25 years has made the construction of nuclear power plants even safer then those of the past.

As I said, if nuclear is not cost effective, it is because of the stupid roadblocks put up by Luddites. We have a similar problem where I live with respect of Cellular Phone towers. They're a blight (they don't have to be) and they cause cancer...but they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:17 PM

"3 Mile Island, no radiation leak, no loss of life. Environmental damage minimal and has been repairing itself...look it up."

right... and have YOU looked up exactly how close that came to being another Chernobyl? Only a little luck prevented a disaster.

I have a bit of knowledge on this. I know personally the guy who took the 1st phone call at EPA from the 3MI site, and those folks were flat scared for 2 days!

It's very much like oil spills and tankers sinking...eventually, something WILL go wrong. But the results can be worse than any oil spill.

What we get with modern technological progress is a higher **margin** of safety. In some things, that's just not enough.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:35 PM

I mentioned Chernoble as an example of what COULD go wrong, and you know what Murphy's Law says.
The fact is, nuclear, coal and oil have serious drawbacks and wind, water and solar do not.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 07:39 PM

The tides in the Bay of Fundy rise to 50 to 60 feet. I have had reason to enter Eastport Maine when the tide was ebbing, and with the engine running full speed we barely made headway. The boat was a 40 foot wooden patrol boat with a 671 diesel engine. It was no match for that tidal flow.It runs twice a day and it's free.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:42 PM

I think you make good points Bill D. My biggest bitch is that I spend half my time working with engineers -- and engineers are built to solve problems -- so what are the thousands of engineers out there doing? Redesigning ashtrays in automobiles and tinkering with nuclear power and coal scrubbers.

I have great faith in Yankee knowhow (I'm not American) and inventiveness. If they just let them really and truly loose on the energy problem, it could be solved in no time flat. But most of their energy is still going to go into stupid things like cleaner coal and ethanol.   

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

"...I believe will bring the US to a the level of a western Europe of 25 years ago."

That would be 1984, slap-bang in the middle of Thatcherism in this corner of Western Europe. Pretty unpleasant time in many many ways.

I don't get the impression Obama is headed quite in that direction.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:47 PM

On the subject of the stimulus package and tattoo removal, the bill that contains funding for gang related tattoo removal is not a part of the stimulus bill. It is part of an entirely different bill.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 08:54 PM

More digression-
The Bay of Fundy is Canadian; it is famous for its biodiversity and sealife.
Eastport, Maine, is nicely hidden behind Campobello Island (Canadian); a little farther out is the Grand Manan Channel between Grand Manan Island (Canadian) and Maine.

Initial efforts by Canada to develop tidal power in the Bay of Fundy have begun, but the area is too important economically and ecologically to allow for developments that would severely affect the fishing, tourism and ecology.

Parrsville, Nova Scotia will be the first site for a turbine, if environmental reviews OK the tests; possibly early in 2010. Minas Basin Pulp & Power, UEK of Maryland (turbines), Nova Scotia Power, and capital and expertise from Ireland (turbines), B. C., and Encana of Calgary are involved.

Nova Scotia hopes to eventually obtain 20% of its power needs from the project. Several articles from different sources here:
Fundy Energy

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: mg
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:02 PM

I didn't listen to the whole speach..I heard some of Jindal's??? and thought it was quite nice. I wonder if Obama has given much thought to farms and maintaining the food supply in these trying times...

One big problem is agricultural lands being turned into vinyards. The other of course is development. As long as we can revert to growing food, I don't mind, but that is a big if.

I also wonder why to stimulate the economy we don't hire a bunch of local people damn near everywhere and build standard, plain, community health clinics. A few staff added, head by a nurse, and there you go. I would build health for all up through public health programs to start with. Many many everywhere. No nurses? I say again, free tuition for anyone wanting to go into public health nursing. mg

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: bald headed step child
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:08 PM

I listened to both speeches last night.

Obama's speech was well directed, I believe, at the problems we are facing, and offered ideas to solve them.

I was offended by Jindal's speech, as it reminded me of story time at a pre-school. Maybe he was just doing that in case George was listening, so he could understand, but I don't need a politician talking to me like I'm 3 years old.

Jindal said a lot about all he's done for New Orleans, but I have one question for him. How many people have been able to return to their homes in the lower 9th ward? The answer is ZERO.

Jindal should have talked about what he's done for the corporate hotels, and other corporate interests in the "nice" parts of town.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 10:22 PM

",,,so what are the thousands of engineers out there doing? Redesigning ashtrays in automobiles and tinkering with nuclear power and coal scrubbers."

If that is the case, Peter, then this administrations needs to change the proportions...just as they would alter the types & use of troops in wartime. Engineers like **solving problems** and as my friend at EPA pointed out years ago, some technical problems are just more fun than others. Building windmills is viewed as kinda dull compared to nuclear power plants. So, incentives would need to be offered, as well as subsidies to the green power industries. That doesn't mean that corrective measures that we already have can't be improved & applied to coal plants and mining techniques. A few engineers can be spared until we get up to speed on green technologies.

why am I remembering the old sign...

"When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember your objective was to drain the swamp."?

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM

Bobby Jindal and Kenneth the page

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Genie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 12:02 AM

mg -"
... I wonder if Obama has given much thought to farms and maintaining the food supply in these trying times...

One big problem is agricultural lands being turned into vinyards. The other of course is development. As long as we can revert to growing food, I don't mind, but that is a big if."

Good questions, Mary. I wouldn't assume Barack isn't planning to address these issues just because they weren't specifically addressed in this speech, but I hope he and Congress plan to deal (wisely) with them.

He also didn't address how legalizing the agricultural hemp industry could do wonders for addressing our needs for fuel, fabric, paper, and a host of food and medicinal product, but I'm holding out hope that maybe the public can be brought to open their eyes about that too.

mg: "I also wonder why to stimulate the economy we don't hire a bunch of local people damn near everywhere and build standard, plain, community health clinics. A few staff added, head by a nurse, and there you go. I would build health for all up through public health programs to start with. Many many everywhere. No nurses? I say again, free tuition for anyone wanting to go into public health nursing."
Again I agree. Although right now we wouldn't really have a shortage of nurses if competent licencsed RNs were allowed to return to practice more readily after taking 3 or 4 years' leave of absence (e.g., to have kids).

The most important thing we need to address -- and this is something Obama did not deal with in this speech -- is the question of why the corporate profit motive should be thrown into the mix between the patients and the health care providers (doctors, nurses, aides, and essential administrative staff).

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 04:47 AM

There can only be two reasons why building windmills is seen as less fun than building nuclear power plants: (1) bad teaching of engineering. A good engineering problem is a good engineering problem (designing a good paper airplane is perhaps the most fun of anything); (2) penises. Nuclear power plants are seen as big guy penises, and windmills wimpy. Perhaps the solution is to design big thick vertical windmills with two smaller windmills on either side. That might get the attention.

yours,

Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 05:01 AM

And don't forget the fact that a windmill farm won't be a lasting monument. After all decommissioning of a windmill farm is a pretty minimal and fuss free business compared to a nuclear power plant. Where's the grand legacy in that - I mean who's ever gonna remember your great big 'monument' and gift to to civilisation, if it can just get demolished like so much lego?

Subject: RE: BS: The president speaks
From: kendall
Date: 26 Feb 09 - 09:34 AM

Q Cobscook Bay is entirely on the American side, and the only heavy industry there is a 300 pound Avon Lady.