bush live!

[zimv20]

just saw bush speaking live at the g8 conference, sans podium, next to tony blair. ITV news was carrying it (i'm in london at the moment).

bush was speaking of climate change. finally, he admits there's a problem and that "all nations must move forward together" (as if it was his idea).

having no script, he stumbled a lot, shifted weight (moving from one side of the screen to another), and made a couple none-too-smooth segues.

the one that really killed me was how he went so quickly from climate change to national security to israel and the palestinians. it took just a few seconds. just then, they cut to a wider shot which included blair, a few feet away. blair's expression was priceless, in the "wtf?" style. but tony recovered quickly and smiled again.

i don't expect the europeans like being talked to as if they were two year-olds. for whatever reason, it works in the states.

[FFTT]

Try to keep in mind that " roughly " 49% of Americans see through Bush like a piece of Saran wrap.

Any time he is caught off guard and has to depart from his
heavily scripted retoric, he falters and you can easily see in his body language and stumbling words that he's lying through his teeth.

[IJ Reilly]

Whether Bush is telling the truth or not is in some ways of less interest to me than the difficulty he's got speaking in complete sentences and expressing complete thoughts. This aspect of his persona has disturbed me from the very first time I heard him speak in an unscripted environment, and in many ways transcends my disagreements with him over political issues. He's never seemed up to the job. His response to today's bombings in London was classic Bush. As he groped for the words to express himself, you just knew that it would only be a matter of time before the word "folks" was deployed, just like it was so inappropriately on 9-11.

[skunk]

Whether Bush is telling the truth or not is in some ways of less interest to me than the difficulty he's got speaking in complete sentences and expressing complete thoughts. This aspect of his persona has disturbed me from the very first time I heard him speak in an unscripted environment, and in many ways transcends my disagreements with him over political issues. He's never seemed up to the job. His response to today's bombings in London was classic Bush. As he groped for the words to express himself, you just knew that it would only be a matter of time before the word "folks" was deployed, just like it was so inappropriately on 9-11.His confidence is probably still a bit shaken by what happened when they took off his stabilizer wheels yesterday...

[mactastic]

Hmm... Chevy Chase is probably a bit too tall to pull off some Dubya sketches. Too bad.

And yes, I like to feel like my president is smarter than I am. Gives some dignity to the office.

[yellow]

jbush was speaking of climate change. finally, he admits there's a problem and that "all nations must move forward together" (as if it was his idea).

And yet, the U.S. won't "sign" the Kyoto agreement? :rolleyes: Business as usual.

[kuyu]

And yet, the U.S. won't "sign" the Kyoto agreement? :rolleyes: Business as usual.

Why do you think that is???

[Ugg]

Why do you think that is???

Oh, get real, bush and cheney are oilmen. They can only think in terms of oil and any deviance from that path is simply beyond them. The technology exists to wean this country away from oil, yet they refuse to do so. Not only would it wean us but also create jobs in the US for Americans. Something they are obviously not interested in. Technology is the future, not fossil fuels, oh well, the American century was good while it lasted.

The other day while reading about Putin's new world, I couldn't help but think that the US like Russia, is going to go down because the government was unable to look ahead. Oil is old news. I hope the US doesn't go the same way.

[kuyu]

It's my bet that our non-participation has more to do with this....

http://www.tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/monopoly/barriers_to_entry.htm

Here's an excerpt Barriers to entry are designed to block potential entrants from entering a market profitably. They seek to protect the monopoly power of existing (incumbent) firms in an industry and therefore maintain supernormal (monopoly) profits in the long run. Barriers to entry have the effect of making a market less contestable

The economist Joseph Stigler defined an entry barrier as "A cost of producing (at some or every rate of output) which must be borne by a firm which seeks to enter an industry but is not borne by firms already in the industry"

This emphasises the asymmetry in costs between the incumbent firm (already inside the market) and the potential entrant. If the existing businesses have managed to exploit some of the economies of scale that are available to firms in a particular industry, they have developed a cost advantage over potential entrants. They might use this advantage to cut prices if and when new suppliers enter the market, moving away from short run profit maximisation objectives - but designed to inflict losses on new firms and protect their market position in the long run.

Just a theory, but I'd bet that our MBA president would think about this sort of thing, even though signing the treaty would have ensured his oil cronies a long term monopoly. Instead, he opted for competition. (this assumes, of course, that making money from oil doesn't automatically make one an evil person)

[idea_hamster]

i don't expect the europeans like being talked to as if they were two year-olds. for whatever reason, it works in the states.
The reason may be our public school system. It's basically day-time storage for kids, whereas European schools actually teach. That's why some US colleges give European students some freshman credit for their high school work. That and all the sister-kissing in those square states... ;)

Try to keep in mind that " roughly " 49% of Americans see through Bush like a piece of Saran wrap.
LOL! I think that number is rising (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/03/iraq.poll/).