Instead of collectively trying to bridge the gap between rich and poor, it seems working class people of all ethnicities have decided to endorse masochistic rituals of wealth envy. Quinces, sweet sixteens, call it what you will. This is the tragic face of the class war: immolating itself with visions of Donald Trump and Paris Hilton, The OC, Laguna Beach, The Hills, and a turgid assortment of entertainments that parody class stratification in America.

Like addicts binging on their favorite drug for one day, before a lifetime of withdrawal.

It's sad to see so many liberals here, and the interviewer of this piece, trying to discredit Corsi's ideas just because his politics don't jibe with yours. He's obviously correct: The North American Union is in the works, and it will subvert national sovereignty in all 3 countries.

Conspiracy theory? I don't think so. Try reading Building a North American Community.

If the actual blueprint for the NAU isn't proof enough for you, just consider what decades of globalization has done to the sovereignty of all countries involved. Now that both Left and Right have embraced the fraudulent War on Terror, you can bet the NAU will be shoved down our throats as a byproduct. The SPP is step one, in this respect.

I don't see what's so controversial about this idea. It's plain as day. Wake up, fellow liberals.

Hockey is not a niche sport because it is difficult to watch on TV. Canadians have no problem watching hockey on TV. The problem is huge segments of the American market don't play hockey at the grassroots level. If you don't play it much, you don't tend to understand it on TV.

That is, even though NBC's hockey coverage is generally better than CBC's (which has grown lazy over the years), this will do nothing to improve the status of hockey on TV in America. The problem is off-ice, and it isn't likely to change.

As for this year's playoffs, I would say the problem is the spread of a particular defensive strategy: collapsing in front of the net. The good teams don't play run-and-gun hockey anymore. They collapse in front of the net, block shots, and wait for a turnover. It's like watching Italian soccer.

So, Hasek faces like 15-20 shots per game. Emery about the same. Most games are not filled with odd-man rushes. Most games are decided by special teams. This is not terribly exciting stuff.

It's the corporate media that confuses the issue.

For example, the results of a Harvard Medical School survey of over 8,600 people from Canada and the United States were published in the American Journal of Public Health last year.

"Canadians were 7 percent more likely to have a regular doctor and 19 percent less likely to have an unmet health need. U.S. respondents were almost twice as likely to go without a needed medicine due to cost (9.9 percent of U.S. respondents couldn't afford medicine versus 5.1 percent in Canada)."

Canadians spend per capita half of what Americans spend on health care, and Canadians on average live 2-3 years longer, and have better access to most forms of health care.

Dr. Karen Lasser, an author of the Harvard study, noted:

"Most of what we hear about the Canadian health care system is negative; in particular, the long waiting times for medical procedures. But we found that waiting times affect few patients, only 3.5 percent of Canadians versus 0.7 percent of people in the U.S. No one ever talks about the fact that low-income and minority patients fare better in Canada."

The bottom line is this: Americans sacrifice an enormous amount of money and justice so that a very small percentage of the population can get excellent health care. In Canada, a very small percentage of the populace experiences longer wait times so that a very large portion of the population can get excellent health care.

The idea that socialized health care is some kind of communist ploy, or a threat to American consumer freedoms, or an economic burden through taxation, has been demonstrated to be false by countless studies.

The issue here is not "more or less government". The issue is "better or worse government".

"It was their choice to join the military; now they seem to think they're civilians who can simply quit a job they don't like anymore."

The problem with this often repeated refrain is that it ignores the rights of soldiers under international law. I know Shrub has been taking an extended leak on international law, but it still applies to this situation.

http://www.notinourname.net/troops/hinzman-20apr05.htm

"Jeffry House is convinced that Jeremy Hinzman has a strong case for refugee status and should eventually be granted it. He cites the Geneva Conventions on War and the Nuremberg Principles, which maintain that it is a soldier’s obligation to disobey illegal orders or to participate in war crimes. The U.S. war on Iraq, being neither defensive nor approved by the U.N., is illegal. Therefore, orders to fight in Iraq are illegal. Soldiers who refuse these illegal orders are obeying international law and U.S. law too, since the U.S. Congress has ratified these international laws and treaties.

House also provided Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board with reams of documentation confirming that the U.S. military has engaged in a widespread pattern of systematic war crimes in Iraq. "If Jeremy Hinzman had gone to Iraq, he would likely have been put in a position of committing or supporting the commission of war crimes.""