STATE of the UNION

[quarter23cd]

And Dikembe Mutombo!

Ok, I'm going to admit to not watching a bit of this and mostly putting off reading about it today--what was Mutombo doing there? Announcing his candidacy for '08? Challenging Bush to a game of Horse? Now I'm curious!

[Sir Stewart]

He built a hospital in his African hometown, thereby embodying core American values.

[wheelco]

I may be nitpicking, but I thought that whoever wrote that speech could have taken the time to find out what country Dikembe Mutumbo comes from. Seemed to ignore all of the political differences on the continent by saying that he came from "Africa" -- as if anywhere in Africa is the same as anywhere else.

the speech mentioned that he is from The Congo, which I did not look up but just did not sound right to me for some reason

 

I'll assume that he is, though

[LouieB]

 

Who's idea was it to have Dikembe sit next to possibly the shortest person in the house?

Best placement ever....the guy is huge....

 

LouieB

[Oil Can Boyd]

Ok, I'm going to admit to not watching a bit of this and mostly putting off reading about it today--what was Mutombo doing there? Announcing his candidacy for '08? Challenging Bush to a game of Horse? Now I'm curious!

 

From the speech:

 

When America serves others in this way, we show the strength and generosity of our country. These deeds reflect the character of our people. The greatest strength we have is the heroic kindness, courage, and self-sacrifice of the American people. You see this spirit often if you know where to look -- and tonight we need only look above to the gallery.

 

Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease. He came to Georgetown University on a scholarship to study medicine -- but Coach John Thompson got a look at Dikembe and had a different idea. Dikembe became a star in the NBA, and a citizen of the United States. But he never forgot the land of his birth, or the duty to share his blessings with others. He built a brand new hospital in his old hometown. A friend has said of this good-hearted man: "Mutombo believes that God has given him this opportunity to do great things." And we are proud to call this son of the Congo a citizen of the United States of America.

[wheelco]

so, will we be calling him Senator Dikembe or Senator Mutombo?

[Sir Stewart]

"Senator Corleone...Governor Corleone..."

[MrRain422]

the speech mentioned that he is from The Congo, which I did not look up but just did not sound right to me for some reason

 

I'll assume that he is, though

 

Ah, you're right. I missed the line about "a son of the Congo" and was just referring to that first line about him ("Dikembe Mutombo grew up in Africa, amid great poverty and disease"). My bad.

 

And I did just look it up. He is from the Congo, and his full name is Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean Jacque Wamutombo.

[caliber66]

his full name is Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean Jacque Wamutombo.

Which anyone who watched Sportscenter in the late '90s should know.

[nicburto]

we already have a health care crisis.

 

 

yeah, no shit

[uncle wilco]

yeah, no shit

yeah, no shit

 

i was no-shitting the previous post.

[ikol]

Ultimately what they say they want is for individuals to be self sufficient with their own health care, what they will get will more likely be a health care crisis.

 

Yeah, self-sufficiency is such a disaster!

[EL the Famous]

Yeah, self-sufficiency is such a disaster!

 

[owl]

Yeah, self-sufficiency is such a disaster!

 

I totally agree. I feel no moral obligation to preserving the human rights of the ignorant or the poor.

[uncle wilco]

I totally agree. I feel no moral obligation to preserving the human rights of the ignorant or the poor.

i thought ignorance and poverty were already cured decades ago by the democratic party. god knows they had fifty+ years to fix it. how much longer is this gonna take?

[MrRain422]

Self-sufficiency is great, but it's just not viable without a complete re-stucturing of the American health care system. A few tweaks of the tax code isn't going to make health insurance affordable to anyone who can't afford it now.

[WilcoFan]

Self-sufficiency is great, but it's just not viable without a complete re-stucturing of the American health care system. A few tweaks of the tax code isn't going to make health insurance affordable to anyone who can't afford it now.

 

 

Agreed. Even if it did, how many would take cash and buy health insurance? I'm not sure. Sounds like a lot of new iPods and cars if you ask me.

[owl]

i thought ignorance and poverty were already cured decades ago by the democratic party. god knows they had fifty+ years to fix it. how much longer is this gonna take?

 

Now, now. I don't remember self-sufficiency being a huge success, either. The point is that there needs to be a balance; it's not b&w. Reducing glut and gov't spending is fine, but not at the expense of inalienable rights. What do you do when self-sufficiency fails? Let those people die a la social Darwinism? If you don't help them along the way, you have to bail them out in the end, anyway. Someone has to pay.

 

What we really should do is make it so that nobody needs a medical license to perform surgery.

 

Actually, if the medical profession just abided by the Hipocratic Oath, doctors wouldn't be allowed to accept money for services, anyway.

[cryptique]

i thought ignorance and poverty were already cured decades ago by the democratic party. god knows they had fifty+ years to fix it. how much longer is this gonna take?

The Republicans just keep bringing those things back.

[ikol]

Self-sufficiency is great, but it's just not viable without a complete re-stucturing of the American health care system. A few tweaks of the tax code isn't going to make health insurance affordable to anyone who can't afford it now.

 

Agreed. We need a complete restructuring.

 

Now, now. I don't remember self-sufficiency being a huge success, either. The point is that there needs to be a balance; it's not b&w. Reducing glut and gov't spending is fine, but not at the expense of inalienable rights.

 

I thought it was the other way around. Increasing government is at the expense of inalienable rights.

 

Actually, if the medical profession just abided by the Hipocratic Oath, doctors wouldn't be allowed to accept money for services, anyway.

 

That's a great idea. You have to go to school until you're 30, rack up $100,000 in debt, and by the way, you won't get paid. On the upside, you would get rid of malpractice suits!

[uncle wilco]

The Republicans just keep bringing those things back.

yeah, but i'm not a republican. it does get a bit old hearing every politician (regardless of party) spout off their to-do list each campaign and most of them have the same things on the list no matter what year it is. it's like groundhog day. can't someone get some shit done? seriously.

[owl]

I thought it was the other way around. Increasing government is at the expense of inalienable rights.

I can think of a lot of situations where peoples' rights were protected by the government when oversight was increased. Think about Love Canal/Superfund Act. You should know about that. (Unless, of course, you're like a Chinese environmental official that I saw on the News Hour last night. He claimed that there is no link between pollution and cancer, that the pollution and 30x normal cancer rate in his village are unrelated: "After all, people get cancer in other places, too. How do you explain that?")

 

Nah, gov't spending always takes away your rights.

 

That's a great idea. You have to go to school until you're 30, rack up $100,000 in debt, and by the way, you won't get paid. On the upside, you would get rid of malpractice suits!

 

Can't people learn that shit on their own? Whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Aren't you self-sufficient enough to get your degree without the help of some professor?

[cryptique]

It's truly scary that this man runs the country. No, not Bush.

 

From Salon.com today...

 

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

 

Bush makes nice, but Dick is still a killer

 

George W. Bush tried to put a happy face last night on the political predicament in which the Bush administration now finds itself. Dick Cheney? That's not really his style. In a remarkably testy interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer this morning, the vice president defended the war in Iraq and said that the "biggest threat right now" is that "all of the debate over whether or not we ought to stay in Iraq" will cause the U.S. to leave too soon.

 

When Cheney said that the United States would be in "terrible situation" today if Saddam Hussein were still in power, Blitzer interrupted to say that "there is a terrible situation" in Iraq anyway. Cheney shot back: "No, there is not. There is not. There's problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives of getting rid of the old regime, and there is a new regime in place that's been there for less than a year, far too soon for you guys to write them off. They have got a democratically written constitution, first ever in that part of the world. They've had three national elections. So there's been a lot of success."

 

Cheney was visibly angry as he spoke, and the full transcript of the interview -- distributed by the White House a short while ago -- suggests that the discussion grew more heated from there.

 

Some of the highlights:

 

Blitzer: Here's what Jim Webb, senator from Virginia, said in his Democratic response last night. He said: "The president took us into the war recklessly. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable and predicted disarray that has followed." And it's not just Jim Webb, it's some of your good Republican friends in the Senate and the House, are now seriously questioning your credibility because of the blunders, of the failures . . . .

 

Cheney: Wolf, Wolf, I simply don't accept the premise of your question. I just think it's hogwash.

 

Blitzer: What if the Senate passes a resolution saying, [sending more troops] is not a good idea. Will that stop you?

 

Cheney: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as Gen. Petraeus said yesterday. He was asked by Joe Lieberman, among others, in his testimony, about this notion that somehow the Senate could vote overwhelmingly for him, send him on his new assignment, and then pass a resolution at the same time and say, but we don't agree with the mission you've been given.

 

Blitzer: So you're moving forward no matter what the consequences?

 

Cheney: We are moving forward. We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding. But in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision. We've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done. I think General Petraeus can do it. I think our troops can do it. And I think it's far too soon for the talking heads on television to conclude that it's impossible to do, it's not going to work, it can't possibly succeed.

 

Blitzer: Here's the problem that you have -- the administration -- credibility in Congress with the American public, because of the mistakes, because of the previous statements, the "last throes," the comment you made a year-and-a-half ago, the insurgency was in its "last throes." How do you build up that credibility because so many of these Democrats, and a lot of Republicans now are saying they don't believe you anymore?

 

Cheney: Well, Wolf, if the history books were written by people who have -- are so eager to write off this effort, to declare it a failure, including many of our friends in the media, the situation obviously would have been over a long time ago. Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes. It is hard. It is difficult. It's one of the toughest things any president has to do. It's easy to stick your finger in the air and figure out which way the winds are blowing and then try to get in front of the herd. This president doesn't work that way. He also -- be very clear in terms of providing leadership going forward for what we need to do in Iraq. Now, fact is, this is a vitally important piece of business. It needs to be done. The consequences of our not completing the task are enormous. Just think for a minute -- and think for a minute, Wolf, in terms of what policy is being suggested here. What you're recommending, or at least what you seem to believe the right course is, is to bail out --

 

Blitzer: I'm just asking questions.

 

Cheney: No, you're not asking questions.

 

Blitzer: Yes, I am. I'm just asking --

 

Cheney: . . . implicit in what the critics are suggesting, I think, is an obligation to say, 'Well, here's what we need to do, or we're not going to do anything else. We're going to accept defeat.' Defeat is not an answer. We can, in fact, prevail here, and we need to prevail. And the consequences of not doing so are enormous.

 

Blitzer asked Cheney if the administration is "ready to go to war" to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Cheney's response: "Come on now, Wolf. You know I'm not going to speculate on something like that."

 

What does Cheney make of Scooter Libby's charge that he was set up by the White House? "I'm not going to discuss it."

 

Would Hillary Clinton make a good president? "No." Why not? "Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint."

 

Cheney said that he won't be the next president of the United States -- we're pretty sure he's right about that one -- but he refused to speculate about who might be. Blitzer noted that one would-be Republican candidate, John McCain, said the other day that Bush had been badly served on Iraq by both his vice president and the secretary of defense.

 

Cheney's initial response: "So?"

[uncle wilco]

i can't wait for the snl version of that.

 

 

speaking of, they were so thorough in roasting hillary last week, it could be a good sign that they (snl) will be in fine form to "cover" the election season.

[ikol]

Can't people learn that shit on their own? Whatever happened to self-sufficiency? Aren't you self-sufficient enough to get your degree without the help of some professor?

 

Well, you wouldn't be very self-sufficient if you practiced medicine without getting paid. Sure, you could learn that stuff on your own (acquiring cadavers might be another issue), you just wouldn't get any sort of certification to practice medicine. Of course, most doctors I've talked to say that the first 2 years of med school are completely useless and irrelevant to the practice of medicine, but that's another issue.