James

The Lyrics of the song birth. school. work. death. by the godfathers includes the lines:

And I've felt torture, I've felt pain

Just like that film with Michael Caine

I would like to know what Michael Caine film that refers to.

According to a Harvard study (http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-hea... 45,000 Americans die from easily treatable causes (such as hypertension and diabetes) because they lack basic health coverage (that is, they can't afford even basic treatment).

Assuming you care about Americans dying needlessly, what can be done to reduce this number and ease this tragedy?

I heard that it was only about $2.00 a gallon in 2004. How long has it usually taken the price to double in a historical context? Has the price been rising faster than normal, and if so, why? How does the cost of gas today compare with the fuel crisis of the 70's in inflation-adjusted dollars? How does it compare in terms of the rate (percentage) increase with the past few decades?

Can anyone provide a reliable link to charts or statistics on this phenomenon.

Intelligent analysis/speculation as to the causes of the price increases are welcome as long as they don't devolve into name-calling.

I'm actually curious about this. I remember clearly that Bush was actively courting the Islamic vote in 2000 (in part because the inclusion of Lieberman on the Democratic ticket left some worried that the Gore administration would be unabashedly pro-Israel).

If possible, please include a reference/link to a reputable source (exit polling data, sociological studies, etc).

And more importantly, do they realize the damage that they are doing?

Consider the comments of Karl Rove (a man who is generally not averse to very ugly campaigning):

"Using Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, sounds "like a rallying cry for bigots... [it] would perpetuate the notion that Republicans were bigoted and would hurt the party"

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/02/using_barack...

Or former candidate (and on the veep shortlist) Mike Huckabee:

"Republicans will make a fundamental if not fatal mistake if they seek to win the election by demonizing Barack Obama"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/18/hu...

If the party elders see this, why don't the rank and file get it? Do they want their candidate to lose?

(that question also goes to some of my fellow Obama supporters. I've seen a few questions here that go beyond the pale). What do folks expect to gain by trolling/smearing?

for example if I wanted to write 6 (divided by) 3, using the traditional division symbol (a horizontal line with a dot above and below it) is there some sort of code I would use (in word or power point) to generate that symbol, or am I stuck using clip art and hand drawn shapes?

The version is office '07.

I was thinking about Mike Reed's Flame warrior list,

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/

And found myself wondering how a certain type of poster would be classified. This sort of poster repeatedly posts a long cut and pasted manifesto of some sort, usuallywith little to no regard to the question asked. (e.g Foxhole on the politics board - though there are other posters who have similar behaviors).

Is this a new classification of flame warrior? If so, what would you name it? What clever description would you use? If not, what classification does it fit in?

I'm recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. My doctor wants me to check my blood sugar daily, but I'm having trouble getting enough blood for the monitor to give a reading. Part of it may be my hands shaking, and part that there doesn't seem to be much blood coming out of the puncture.

Any suggestions or tips?

As Michigan and Florida lost their delegates due to the state's party officials intentionally violating party rules regarding the timing of elections (and without a doubt, they had to be aware of the rules), shouldn't the primary blame (no pun intended) for the consequences of violating the rules (losing their delegates) fall on those who chose to do so?

Although I think it unlikely, politics can make for strange bedfellows. And with some Hillary supporters claiming that they will support McCain over Obama, wouldn't something like this seal the deal?

Both could benefit from such an odd pairing.

McCain:

Would peel off a number of Democrats who are loyal to Hillary, and encourage them to follow through on their threat to vote for him rather than stay home or swallow their pride.

Traditionally, the veep nominee is used as an attack dog - she if very good at that and has a lot of practice.

Hillary:

Would have a position of serious influence.

Would be first in line for the presidency should something happen, and possess an advantage if McCain did not run for reelection.

She gets to add the experience to her resume.

So, is this even plausible - or practical? Would Hillary supporters go for it, or would they see it as betraying the party?

What do you think?

The whole reverend Wright controversy got me thinking about stereotypes. I hear people talking as though his widely circulated statements were normal fair rather than specific incidents. But that's only tangential to my question.

I'll admit to being an (theologically leaning) agnostic who lives far from the bible belt. And it struck me that the stereotypes propagated about Wright sounded very similar to the stereotypes I'd heard about Bible Belt Churches. The main difference being replacing "liberals" or 'gays" or 'abortionists' or 'evolutionists' for America.

But really, all I have to go on are the most controversial statements by ideologues like Robertson and Falwell. I know that sermons can differ week to week, and (probably) aren't all about 'God **** liberals/gays/etc" are they?

I mean in one way it would make sense - that they project their own experience onto Wright, or is it only fears?

So, what do southern conservative churches focus on in their sermons?

I ask this in honest curiosity, not to bring out the trolls (who sadly may show up anyway).

Were McCain to die before the national convention (either by natural causes or terrorism/assassination) who would he likely be replaced by? Would his delegates rally around a single contender, or split among the other candidates? Would they go with the Romney or Huckabee (who are very close in delegates - with Romney a hair ahead) or pick someone else? If so, who?

Feel free to consider the same question with Obama and Clinton as well, as although they are younger, they are also mortal.

I know that there is precedence for this question - in 1968 the presumptive Democratic nominee (Robert Kennedy) was assassinated before the convention?

Is there anyone out there with serious insights into how such a situation would be handled/turn out?

I tried to tune into the debate, but my local abc affilate (KABC) is not carrying the debate live. Instead they are tape delaying it by three hours as though it were an entertainment program rather than a news event.

Is there anywhere on the web I can catch this?

It's a common belief, but that in itself doesn't make it true. I know the old saw by Churchill - and to his credit I think people may get more cautious as they get older (I have), but I'm not so sure about people becoming more politically conservative - especially in a social sense.

Over time society seems to become more liberal. Ideas which would have been considered 'normal' 50 years ago (such as blacks and whites drinking out of different water fountains) seem absolutely absurd today. And I suspect that even most people who grew up or were young adults during that era no longer hold that viewpoint. Is it possible that over time people become more liberal, but at a slower pace than society as a whole?

What perspective do you great question answering masses have? Will you give a considerate answer (whether agreeing, disagreeing, neither or both) or merely fall back on name calling and stereotypes for a shallow 2 points and a thumbs down?

With all the hype, spin, and cries of 'socialist' going on around here, I figured I'd toss in an off the wall question just to see how people respond.

Does the fact that a socialist was the one who wrote words which are given to students in some areas as a binding promise make much of a difference. Are concepts such as unity, rule of law, and self determination merely catch-phrases for the shallow followers, or do the people who encourage such loyalty oaths in children actually believe in such precepts.

Would the tweaking of a few words by zealots make much of a difference?

Have I been far too obvious in my question (and if so, will you run with this charade with a wink and a nod?), or are you scratching your head?

What was your first impression? How far out of context can politicians spin things these days anyway? How well do you do in reading between the lines and untangling the spin anyway - and how do you do so?

I'm speaking from frustration here. I'm in a suburb about 100 miles north of Los Angeles. For some reason high speed internet is not available in my area unless I use satellite (which I cannot afford). Major companies (such as ATT and Verizon) advertise inexpensive rates (19.99/mo) but for some reason service is unavailable in my area.

So why isn't DSL or other high speed available here? I know of people who live in remote rural areas who have it, but I can't seem to find service here.

Who has control over where the lines are laid, and who do I complain to about lack of service?

There is no rule that all questions should be vitally important, and sometimes a bit of fluff or trivia can be interesting too.

I have noticed that the last several presidents have been loosely associated with a food item. Carter was a peanut farmer, Reagan loved his Jelly Belly Jelly beans, GHWB liked pork rinds and hated brocolii, Clinton had an appitite for big macs, and W is associated with, er pretzels.

So, which foods can be associated with the various major candidates? 10 points to the answer best supported by reason and links.

Of the likely presidential election match ups - which pairing would likely be the most polite and civil, and which one would likely involve a trip through deep mud/slime.

Options include:

Obama v McCain

Obama v Romney

Obama v Huckabee

Clinton v McCain

Clinton v Romney

Clinton v Huckabee

There seems to be a lot more political attacks here than honest questions about candidates.

So honestly - do you support your candidate and their plans, or is your primary motivation opposition to other candidates?

(I will consider any response attacking a candidate to imply holding the latter position).

How important do you think it is for a president to have a good sense of humor? What sorts of humor do you think are most important for a president to have/appreciate - and how will it effect their ability to do their job?