Prodded by my own suggestion to start a thread dedicated to a variety of US affairs which may not easily fit in other threads, there I go: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/19/chomsky/index.html?source=newsletter

"Occasionally the conflict between "what we stand for" and "what we do" has been forthrightly addressed. One distinguished scholar who undertook the task at hand was Hans Morgenthau, a founder of realist international relations theory. In a classic study published in 1964 in the glow of Camelot, Morgenthau developed the standard view that the U.S. has a "transcendent purpose": establishing peace and freedom at home and indeed everywhere, since "the arena within which the United States must defend and promote its purpose has become world-wide." But as a scrupulous scholar, he also recognized that the historical record was radically inconsistent with that "transcendent purpose."

We should not be misled by that discrepancy, advised Morgenthau; we should not "confound the abuse of reality with reality itself." Reality is the unachieved "national purpose" revealed by "the evidence of history as our minds reflect it." What actually happened was merely the "abuse of reality."

The release of the torture memos led others to recognize the problem. In the New York Times, columnist Roger Cohen reviewed a new book, "The Myth of American Exceptionalism," by British journalist Geoffrey Hodgson, who concludes that the U.S. is "just one great, but imperfect, country among others." Cohen agrees that the evidence supports Hodgson's judgment, but nonetheless regards as fundamentally mistaken Hodgson's failure to understand that "America was born as an idea, and so it has to carry that idea forward." The American idea is revealed in the country's birth as a "city on a hill," an "inspirational notion" that resides "deep in the American psyche," and by "the distinctive spirit of American individualism and enterprise" demonstrated in the Western expansion. Hodgson's error, it seems, is that he is keeping to "the distortions of the American idea," "the abuse of reality."

Let us then turn to "reality itself": the "idea" of America from its earliest days."

John,

If you have a moment and would like to specifically critique some of Chomsky's statements of fact, I would find this useful in my reading of him. I often put up articles that I have only partially read in the hope of gaining an additional perspective from our brainstorming and debates here. Are there any blatant inaccuracies in this article?

(I see that my request crossed your editing in the mail. Thanks for those extra paragraphs!)

John, I am not sure why you posit "internationalist" and "realist" as opposites.  The opposite of an internationalist is a non-internationalist, whatever that means, and not a "realist."  The opposite of a realist is a non-realist, not an "internationalist."  It seems to me that one could be both a realist and an internationalist, or neither.

While you studied international relations, I studied international law, which is a field that is very much the opposite of reality.

Originally written by John Bunch The term realist in my view has to do with how you view the application of power: - an internationalist would have a "wide" view of this, and would be far more willing to let's say commit troops to places like Somalia, Darfur, and Iraq. - a realist would have a far more narrow or limited view of how power can be projected or applied ("only use if if you have to").

I see what you're driving at, but I think the terms are open to confusion.  At the moment I am thinking of Otto von Bismarck, who was motivated by what is called "Realpolitik" but was also a strong proponent of military intervention.  Was he a realist or an internationalist?  Or does the term only have relevance in the post war context?

Originally written by John Bunch on May 20, 2009 11:26 AM "terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs, ugly as that may sound. And if we are going to take a moral position on this—and I think we should—we have to ask both what the consequences were of using terror and not using terror. If it were true that the consequences of not using terror would be that the peasantry in Vietnam would continue to live in the state of the peasantry of the Philippines, then I think the use of terror would be justified. But, as I said before, I don't think it was the use of terror that led to the successes that were achieved."

I don't think any use of terror is justified, unless you are takig down a nazi-like regime which killed thousands of people, but even then cases have to be viewed individually. Why would use of terror be justified in the Philippines, and not in Russia or France during the revolution?

Or was it justified in France: as far as I know this use of terror is considered one of the greatest things in the history of humanity and the beginnning of democracy, isn't it so? So where is the line?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on May 20, 2009 7:06 PM I don't think any use of terror is justified,

Maybe with one exception -- putting to test the following statement:

"you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/jesse-ventura-coleman-a-h_n_202629.html

Originally written by John Bunch The "ultimate" idealist (which is the opposite of a realist) was Woodrow Wilson, with his notion of the U.S. "spreading democracy" around the world.

You definitely have that right.  It was Wilson, it might be noted, who pushed self-determination as a concept in eastern Europe and the Middle East which led, among other things, to the creation of the modern state of Iraq as the remnants of the Ottoman empire were carved up.

Originally written by John Bunch  Michael Scheuer, who - agreeing with Reagan that the Middle East is inherently unstable and cannot be rationally understood or influenced by the U.S., urged non-intervention in the Middle East. Reagan wrote that in his memoirs. Ron Paul, the Republican politician, is another good example of a traditional Republican realist.

Of course Reagan came to this view only after blundering into Lebanon on a poorly concevied mission that resulted in hundreds of US military deaths.  The US can't simply ignore the Middle East, though for two reasons.  One is oil, the other is American Jews who insist on American support of Israel at all costs.  The region is indeed unstable, perhaps inherently so, but I disagree that it can't be rationally understood.  It, like all regions, can be understood if people try to understand it.  Americans, however, who for the most part refuse to learn about the languages, religions, or cultures of other parts of the world in general, to say nothing of Muslim ones, tend to not be able to understand peoples whose traditions are different from their own.  Anyone who insists on learning about the Muslim world through the prism of can English-speaking Christian is going to have a difficult time understanding the Muslim world indeed.

Originally written by John Bunch on May 20, 2009 5:26 PM Re Noam Chomsky, what can I say, the man is a Marxist. I have read some of his stuff, and I see no difference between him and "traditional" Marxists.

This opinion seems to be contradicted by the following:

Whilst one does not find in Noam Chomsky any specific critique of Marx’s writings (he admits he is not a Marx “scholar” ), there are a number of inferences that Marxism represents an authoritarian tradition, although this is qualified by regular references to a supposed “left libertarian tradition”. Heiko Khoo looks at some of the ideas of Chomsky, showing how he misrepresents – or doesn’t even understand – genuine Marxism. http://www.marxist.com/noam-chomsky-marxism-authoritarianism1151004.htm

Noam Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist, a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Noam_Chomsky

That is, despite his anti-capitalism, Chomsky offers little practical advice on how to struggle most effectively to bring about the kind of socialist society he would like to see. Though he argues that, whatever one chooses to do politically, it is only effective through organised and collective struggle, Chomsky sets himself apart from socialist organisation and the revolutionary Marxist tradition. http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj74/arnove.htm

CHOMSKY: The early Marx draws extensively from the milieu in which he lived, and one finds many similarities to the thinking that animated classical liberalism, aspects of the Enlightenment and French and German Romanticism. Again, I'm not enough of a Marx scholar to pretend to an authoritative judgement. My impression, for what it is worth, is that the early Marx was very much a figure of the late Enlightenment, and the later Marx was a highly authoritarian activist, and a critical analyst of capitalism, who had little to say about socialist alternatives. But those are impressions. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/rbr/noamrbr2.html

Originally written by John Bunch  I also find it a bit more than ironic that America has a mentality of "transforming" other nations and "fixing" them, but cannot even fix itself.

Hear, hear.

 

"American publishers with operations in Britain are potentially more vulnerable to an effort to collect an award, lawyers say, and newspapers like The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, as well as The Times’s global edition, The International Herald Tribune, have faced British libel actions recently.

National differences in libel laws have always existed, but the borderless nature of the Internet has increasingly brought them into conflict. In the case of “Funding Evil,” for instance, the first chapter of the book was published on the ABC News Web site, giving it a far wider circulation in Britain than the 23 copies that were sold there, according to Judge Eady."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/business/media/25libel.html?ref=europe

After being issued a life sentence for the brutal rape and the pre-meditated murder of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, her parents and her younger sister, the young man's brother said:

“I do think it gives him a chance to have some semblance of a life. We’re grateful for that.”

Read the story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/us/22soldier.html?ref=middleeast

Big Pharma and Big Insurance go on the attack

I poked around Washington Friday, talking with friends on the Hill who confirmed the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging healthcare bill.

You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better healthcare at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.

Originally written by Derek Thornton on June 14, 2009 2:33 AM And far from finding Rush Limbaugh to be disreputable, I happen to be one of his fans (I hear him regularly on AFRTS Europe)

Indeed, in a recent USAToday/Gallup poll, as many as fifty-two percent of Americans surveyed said conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2268953/posts)

The consolation for John should be that there are also other names, perhaps less in disrepute, people polled associated with the GOP: Dick Cheney, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich.

Overall, only 22-25% of Americans polled declare to be Republicans vs. 33% Democrats. The whopping 40% define themselves as independent voters.

Jacek

I do not think Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party: more intelligent people know he is simply a jerk, at least in New York. I have not been to other states, for a while.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on June 15, 2009 5:51 AM I do not think Rush Limbaugh is the face of the Republican Party: more intelligent people know he is simply a jerk, at least in New York. I have not been to other states, for a while.

rush limbaugh is not just a jerk in my opinion but also a blatant liar. I don't think there is anyone who twists and tortures facts as he does. He and those who cater to him are the reason the republican party is in such a sad state and marching proudly into marginalization and possbly extinction. 

Couldn't they send Limbaugh to the Limbo?

I apologize if I ranted a little there. It just makes me angry because it seems these "personalities" are just fanning the flames of irrational discontent and spewing divisive rhetoric just for the sake of ratings. I've never listened to Savage but I tuned into Limbaugh after the election because I knew he would be insanley P.O'ed. and was curious as to how he would spin it. What I noticed most,  was that  he invests a lot of effort to convince is listeners that he is telling the truth, which immediately makes me suspicious. It has been my experience that anyone who puts in that much effor to convince me that they're being truthful usually means that they're not. That's why I don't trust televangeists.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 16, 2009 7:57 AM That was when Pat Buchanan got up at the GOP Convention and declared basically a "jihad" against secularism (he stated that there was a "cultural war" going on in America).

Our friend Pat is on a permanent jihad against all sorts of things. Here is the latest:

OK, we know it's not exactly breaking news that Pat Buchanan holds some views that are borderline racist, to put it mildly. But this one is just too blatant to pass up.

In his latest column for Human Events -- a forum he often uses to air opinions that wouldn't fly during his regular gigs as a commentator on MSNBC -- Buchanan writes that he "prefers the old bigotry" to the Ivy League affirmative action policies that may have benefited Sonia Sotomayor, because "at least it was honest." ...

"Old-school bigotry," let's not forget, meant a system of institutionalized apartheid in much of the country, and tolerance for outright racism everywhere. That's what Buchanan says he'd prefer to affirmative action. ...

He reportedly wrote memos for Nixon arguing against integration, for instance, and called the idea of allowing black South Africans to vote "idiotic." ... http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/buchanan_prefers_the_old_bigotry_to_affirmative_ac.php?ref=fpblt

Originally written by John Bunch What really galls me is that Rush was addicted to pain-killers, i.e. he was a drug addict, but he constantly had this mantle of being morally superior. I just can't stand people like that. For example, I would expect someone who used illegal drugs like cocaine to maybe have a bit of understanding for others who use, and not have this moralistic attitude toward the whole thing. [that also goes for U.S. Presidents...]. ... So let's just summarize how this works: if you buy 2,000 illegal drugs over a 3 year period, and you are rich and white, you get off with "rehab". If you buy drugs once on the street, and you are not white, you get to go to prison.

I too am dismayed by how Rush railed against drug use for years - and called for tough prison sentences - when he himself was an abuser and a drug criminal.  I was even more appalled by how his supporters stood by him even after this was revealed, which just goes to show the power of cognitive dissonance and the rank hypocrisy of the rank and file of the extreme right.

Democrats too have their shining examples, notably Elliot Spitzer, who patronized prostitutes while positing himself as a moral enforcer of the law.  He had the gall to recenetly state that he felt prostitution should still be illegal, when a deal was cut that enabled him to avoid prosecution.

Rich white men can use prostitutes, use drugs, and steal money (they call it "white" collar crime for a reason) and get away with it, but if blacks do the same thing, people demand that they be locked up for life.

I think that if a white poor man did such things, one that was on welfare for example, he would be locked up for a long time too. It is more of the money thing than being white.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov I think that if a white poor man did such things, one that was on welfare for example, he would be locked up for a long time too. It is more of the money thing than being white.

 

That is true, although it is also true that rich people are disporportionately white.  Blacks who are rich get a different kind of justice too - just ask OJ Simpson.

Wealth is in fact the single best predicter of the outcome of a trial.  Rich people are acquitted much more frequently than poor people.  This is because they can afford good lawyers, whereas the poor cannot.  A criminal defendant must face the power of the state, which often includes lying police officers, corrupt prosecuters, and incompetent judges.  The poor are ill-equipped to overcome these challenges, and are usually convicted. 

Originally written by David Kallans on June 16, 2009 2:18 PM Rush .... of the extreme right. Democrats too .... Elliot Spitzer

This rant will not specifically relate to America or this thread.

I am surprised that people get all worked up about how rotten politicians of this or that party are, almost as if they expected them to be different or believed that trading Left for Right or vice versa will ever alter iron rules of anthropology. IMHO the degree of moral decay in a population is constant at a given historic time and, barring prison population, it is particularly high among politicians. So I just take for granted that front-page bastards have various skeletons in their closets. This way I only can be pleasantly suprised if they don't.  

Also wanted to concur with these two comments:

Originally written by Roy Williams on June 16, 2009 7:23 AM What I noticed most,  was that  he invests a lot of effort to convince is listeners that he is telling the truth, which immediately makes me suspicious.

Originally written by John Bunch on June 16, 2009 7:57 AM I just distrust anyone who takes a "holier than thou" attitude.

Californians are sinking themselves

An inflexible right wing is allowing the Golden State to drown in debt. But it's not alone

The world's eighth-largest economy has just gone belly-up. ...

The immediate source of California's financial problems is a lethal combination of ideology and rules. It is deeply politically divided, and its governmental mechanisms are completely broken. Bay Area leftists stare at Orange County conservatives across an unbridgeable abyss; a large and potent group of anti-government libertarians faces off against an equally powerful group of pro-tax, proactive government liberals. ...

What happened? Why did the center fail? Why has California, a place famous for giving birth to cutting-edge ideas that changed the world, proved humiliatingly unable to manage its own affairs? Why can't California do politics as well as it does technology, biotech, movies, music and social justice movements?

Beyond the state's dysfunctional system, the short answer is the rise of the hard-right GOP. Pushed far to the right by ideologues like Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist and their ilk, California Republican lawmakers have staked out an absolutist line against taxes that makes governance nearly impossible. Lawmakers who believe and act on Reagan's famous line that "government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem," are walking oxymorons. Why expect anti-government Republican legislators to resolve a budget crisis when that crisis will result in their goal: the destruction of government? The floundering Governator may not be an extremist, but he remains in thrall to the members of his party who are.

But Californians themselves, of all political stripes -- or, more likely and significantly, none -- also are responsible. The fact remains that self-centered California has yet to come to terms with what it is. This is a state that was built with government programs, financed by massive federal military and aerospace spending and state funding of local projects, and yet still has not decided what it thinks about the New Deal, or government itself. Of course, those opposed to government tend to be on the right. But the fact that many leftists, chasing the chimera of perfection, disdain the world of practical politics is also damaging.

Will California be able to pull itself out of its current hole? Certainly it has done so in the past. Its history is nothing if not a tale of reversals and unexpected triumphs. It will no doubt muddle through. But in the long run, to overcome its structural problems, it must transform some of its most cherished values. Without abandoning its individualism, utopianism and radicalism, it must learn how to use them in the world -- with all the compromises that requires. Like an aging starlet, the Golden State is clinging desperately to its glorious youth. But it is past time for it to grow up. http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/07/02/california/index.html?source=newsletter

Responding to the charge from Post #181827:

Have You No Decency?

Governor Palin writes: “And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled.” It’s telling that she omitted one category: Poor people, whose care is now cruelly rationed in ways the Obama administration and congressional Democrats are trying to address in health care reform. Palin brings genuine moral passion to the issue of cognitive disability. I wish she would bring that same passion to the plight of uninsured patients forced to seek substandard, delayed care, or the millions of Americans facing the dual challenge of serious illness and large medical bills. If you live in any big city, go down to your local public hospital emergency room. You will probably find people in visible discomfort or illness languishing for hours. A society that cares about human rights and dignity would not tolerate this.

Harold Pollack is a professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration

Full story: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/08/08/have-you-no-decency.aspx

Originally written by John Bunch on August 11, 2009 2:40 AM studies show that 87 % of Americans are happy with the health care they get

The remaining 13% is probably the 40 million of uninsured we have been hearing about for years. That's 40 million of people in the United States, most of them Americans. Now listen to this mob:

“Tyranny! Tyranny! Tyranny!” shouted protesters in Tampa, Florida. “Forty million illegals!” (Even though the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are specifically excluded from the health-care plan.) (http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/article1025529.ece via Harper's Weekly Review)

In other words, the protesting mob probably mistook all the US uninsured, i.e., 40 million, most of them American residents, for "illegals." I see this as an interesting Freudian slip. It's as if those who are happy with the status quo were shouting: Get rid of those 40 million uninisured because they are all illegal people, overlooking the fact that only 1/4 of them are "illegal aliens".

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 10, 2009 6:20 PM Governor Palin writes: “And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled.” Full story: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/08/08/have-you-no-decency.aspx

Just a few days ago, the no longer governor went a bit further:

Here’s what Palin said on her Facebook page Friday, in her first online comments since quitting as Alaska governor.

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care.”

For a democracy, which depends on an informed citizenry to balance a permanent lobbying class, this is poison. And it’s one reason why town hall forums on health care, which should be sharp debates about something that affects all of us, have turned into town mauls. ...

The lies and shouts have had the effect that all crank speech has on free speech — stifling any real exchange. ...

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/palins-poison/?em

Originally written by John Bunch on August 11, 2009 10:59 PM They are going to vote in "universal" care for us, but there is a provision that allows them to opt themselves and their families out !!

John,

I keep thinking out loud. I have no way of knowing whether all details of ObamaCare are good or bad and how that system would work in practice. In my days, federal employees had to belong to a federal pension system which later was phased out and merged with the Social Security. So modifications are possible along the way. We are talking about a minimum of civilizational decency. I for one never use the universal healthcare system in Poland because I cannot afford the waste of time. I only use the private one and pray not to have to go to the hospital which is when I would have to use the state system. The latter is used, though, but the overwhelming majority of population who cannot afford the private system. Both system should be there for people to freely choose between.

I don't know either, but I think that the burden of proof is on Obama to show how the government taking over 15 % of our economy would be better than what we have now, more efficient, less wasteful, etc. In my view, Obama has failed miserably in showing me why I should support it. Meanwhile, the latest controversy is the alleged "fascist" symbols, being used by Obama. You decide...

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/edward_tenner/2009/08/dictatorship_democracy_and_design.php

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 12, 2009 1:23 AM  The latter is used, though, but the overwhelming majority of population who cannot afford the private system. Both system should be there for people to freely choose between.

Yes, I agree, although I absolutely adoid doctors: medicine people make more sense to me.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 12, 2009 8:10 AM ...the government taking over 15 % of our economy

Here is how that sector works:

Originally written by John Bunch on August 12, 2009 3:07 PM Don't you get that Medicare does this by underpaying doctors ??

Maybe, but are those doctors not exaggerating charging $12,712 for cataract surgery, $20,120 for a knee operation and $72,000 for a spinal fusion procedure?

Originally written by John Bunch on August 12, 2009 3:07 PM Imagine if Medicare paid for translation. You would send them a bill for $ 100 and they would send you $ 55

If that bill were for having translated half a page, I would reply: Mea culpa! Apologies. Half a page should indeed only cost $55.

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 10, 2009 6:20 PM Have You No Decency? Governor Palin writes: “And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled.” ... If you live in any big city, go down to your local public hospital emergency room. You will probably find people in visible discomfort or illness languishing for hours. A society that cares about human rights and dignity would not tolerate this. Harold Pollack is a professor at the University of Chicago School of Social Service Administration Full story: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/08/08/have-you-no-decency.aspx

"Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That’s quite helpful because she showed us—in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers—the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. The core of her message was this: Those environmentalists, those liberals, those do-gooders are all wrong. You don’t have to change anything. You don’t have to rethink anything. Keep driving your gas-guzzling car, keep going to Wal-Mart and shop all you want. The reason for that is a magical place called Alaska. Just come up here and take all you want. “Americans,” she said at the Republican National Convention, “we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska, we’ve got lots of both.”

And the crowd at the convention responded by chanting and chanting: “Drill, baby, drill.”

Watching that scene on television, with that weird creepy mixture of sex and oil and jingoism, I remember thinking: “Wow, the RNC has turned into a rally in favor of screwing Planet Earth.” Literally.

But what Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come."

--Naomi Klein http://www.progressive.org/klein0809.html

I don't think that piece is about pollution. It's about a wasteful attitude.

No, I wouldn't like US companies to own all the oceans and seas of the world.

Yes, Naomi Klein has very radical views.

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on August 11, 2009 6:05 PM Here’s what Palin said on her Facebook page Friday, in her first online comments since quitting as Alaska governor.   “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care.”     http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/palins-poison/?em

The "death panels" are already here

Sorry, Sarah Palin -- rationing of care? Private companies are already doing it, with sometimes fatal results

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/08/11/denial_of_care/index.html?source=newsletter

It's high time to do something about this. Yes, you can. From http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/nhs-united-states-republican-health:

Defenders of Britain's system point out that the UK spends less per head on healthcare but has a higher life expectancy than the US. The World Health Organisation ranks Britain's healthcare as 18th in the world, while the US is in 37th place. The British Medical Association said a majority of Britain's doctors have consistently supported public provision of healthcare. A spokeswoman said the association's 140,000 members were sceptical about the US approach to medicine: "Doctors and the public here are appalled that there are so many people on the US who don't have proper access to healthcare. It's something we would find very, very shocking."

Originally written by John Bunch on August 12, 2009 9:17 PM But as I mentioned, companies would be subject to governmental rules. They would have to meet requirements (free market capitalism doesn't function well without government as the "referee").

While not aware of every piece of news regarding this matter, I do know that the Danish Minister for Fisheries etc., have applied quite a bit of pressure on the Swedish minister to stop Green Peace dumping rocks on the bottom of the sea in order to stop bottom trawling which is damaging to the seas and the creatures in it.

The Swedes had already given Green Peace the asked for permission. Now, it has become an issue and it has raised many questions about the Danish Fisheries minister (Eva Kjer hansen) being a bit  too friendly with major companies involved in fishing and marketing of seafood.

The Danish Fishing industry has over-fished so badly and played so hard and fast with fishing quotas that there are almost no fish to be had. No tuna, no cod fish and the salmon is filled with Dioxin. Velbekomme!

Government involvement is not assurance that everything will be honky dory.

Nanna

Come to think about it, the American NHS could be as well private, just as a part of the US military operations in Iraq is (Blackwater & Co.), provided of course that it would be also available to the 40+ million of uninsured and would at least match the performnace of the UK public healthcare in terms of costs and life expectancy.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 13, 2009 5:13 PM it is written into U.S. Federal law that hospitals may not turn anyone away in an emergency

Can British hospitals? Are those "grungy waiting rooms staffed by women reading magazines while you wait 4 to 5 hours to see the doctor" all emergency rooms in the UK?

The typical MD in Britain is from Pakistan or India, i.e. from a medical school that is, shall we say, perhaps a bit less rigorous.

More and more are from Poland, which is very rigorous, so there is hope...

I know a doctor in Minnesota who has a thriving business of patients who fly in from London, to get their medical care. They must be delusional, because the NHS is so awesome, right ?

No, dear John. They must be rich. I am not rich by their standards but as I told you I also belong to a fraction of Polish population who, barring hospital catastrophes, never uses public healthcare system in Poland and no one prevents me from doing so. What I am saying is that living in a free country I have a choice. Do your 40+ million?

Jacek

P.S. The British are rising to defend their health-care system, which has recently been subject to attack by the anti-Obamacare crowd: http://atlanticwire.theatlantic.com/read-more.php?id=679

Originally written by John Bunch on August 13, 2009 7:20 PM Meanwhile, health care in Britain is not as great as they say: Is it worse to be uninsured, or to be on the 1+ year waiting list to get care, in the UK ? What good does it do me to have "free universal health care", if I have to wait 18 months ? If I am in pain, that will seem like an eternity !

John,

I simply don't believe that they got rid of private doctors in the UK. You mean that if you are on the 1+ year waiting list to get care, you have no choice of going to a private clinic? Gee, I never thought highly of kingdoms but to fall this low??? Can't they come to Poland to see how the two systems, public and private, peacefully co-exist? So under Obamacare all the private M.D. offices in the US are going to be closed thus preventing the booing GOP mobs from continuing their treatment with the current doctors???

OMG!!!

Originally written by John Bunch on August 13, 2009 5:13 PM ...There is a difference between overall life expectancy and medical care. For instance, many young men in the U.S. die due to accident and violence, but that is factored into the stat you site on medical care, ...

Yeah, especially with "Death Panels" deciding that we have had just about enough of youth gangs, drugs and violence, yes, and throw in everyone past 60 or anyone with a wrinkle or a little loose skin or something less than 20/20 vision or perfect hearing...the deaf, holey moley! But first, for heaven's sake, do let's get rid of all those non-white youth gangs. From there we can slowly amble up to the old with Alzheimers - they won't know what hit them anyway... The blind won't see it coming, while the deaf ...

False ‘Death Panel’ Rumor Has Some Familiar Roots

The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama’s health care proposals would create government-sponsored “death panels” to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks. …

But the rumor — which has come up at Congressional town-hall-style meetings this week in spite of an avalanche of reports laying out why it was false — was not born of anonymous e-mailers, partisan bloggers or stealthy cyberconspiracy theorists. ...

Rather, it has a far more mainstream provenance, openly emanating months ago from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, New York’s lieutenant governor). ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html?_r=1&hp

Originally written by John Bunch on August 14, 2009 5:15 PM She gave birth, but it was then explained to her that many people were coming in, and there was no room. Instead of a 3 to 4 day convalescence (which would be the rule in the U.S.), she ended up staying a total of 6 hours in the English hospital, before having to leave.

Send her over here next time! In big cities, when giving birth, she will have a choice between public hospitals and private clinics.

You are no longer used to the concept of choice in America?

Come on, I am positive that the US can do better than the grim British NHS! Have some confidence!

Originally written by Jacek K. on August 13, 2009 10:11 PM

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/08/13/obamacare-gay-conspiracy-edition.aspx

Reader JP just alerted me to an email blast from a group called "The Pray In Jesus Name Project." It suggests that ObamaCare will not only pull the plug on grandma, but also result in a gay and transgendered takeover of the entire health care system. Among the bogus claims in the group's petition:  

Your tax-dollars will pay for preferential hiring of homosexual hospital administrators, who distribute $50,000 grants to gender-confused activists for unneeded elective surgery to mutilate their own genitals, (and force Christian doctors to perform it.)  

The group attempts to back this up by citing drafts of the House and Senate bills that make fleeting references to gender and sexual orientation, but which have nothing to do with mandated free sex-change operations. (PolitiFact, The St. Petersberg Times fact-checking service, does a great job debunking these allegations, many of which were put forth by Liberty Counsel--a group affiliated with Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.)  

Originally written by John Bunch on August 14, 2009 6:26 PM I don't understand how adding $ 1 trillion will reduce that amount. I mean, come on, Jacek, Obama is telling us that his system will save money, ... oh, and by the way, we need $ 1 trillion more to pay for it ?

John,

The US military budget (all inclusive) is in that ballpark annually. Did we hear about any town hall protests because of that? Come on, it's just quantitative easing (Post #182058).

Originally written by John Bunch on August 14, 2009 10:04 PM It is about the same as if your doctor would say to you, "hey, come on, what is an extra $ 3,000 on your bill, didn't you pay that last year for that security system around your house ?".

It is a good example, but bad at the same time as it may subliminally suggest that my military $1 trillion had anything to do with a reasonable defense system, which what a security system around your house is. In reality, in a situation where 5% of mankind accounts for 50% of mankind's military spending, only a fraction of that spending is related to defense. The rest is offense. We've been through that on hundreds of pages by now: You don't go around the world invading countries while claiming self-defense. Do the Spanish do so, do Germans? So if I hear the 5% spending 50% while screaming that they cannot afford to take care of their "40 million illegals" (=uninsured)  only one diagnosis springs to mind: brain damage. Or is it a simple veterans' PTSD?

Originally written by John Bunch on August 16, 2009 6:37 PM Did we "invade" France in 1944 ? Did we "invade" Japan in 1942 ?

No, but the US operated on a reasonable budget then, as everybody else.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 17, 2009 12:25 AM We financed World War II on debt...

Russians say they paid for WWII with lives of millions... I don't remember how Poland paid for WWII, but it also did. You can see it until this very day.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 16, 2009 6:37 PM The subject was "Empire" and the U.S. Ferguson kept saying that Empire is not necessarily a bad thing (even though both the U.S. and USSR refused to call themselves empires, and accused the other side of being an empire). But the British Empire actually had some very positive effects.

It's understandable why British-born Niall Ferguson is nostalgic, considering that nothing is left of the British Empire in his home country, just as a bunch of ruins is left of the Roman Empire in Rome.

Hey, but we have over here a whole separate thread On Beneficial Impact of Empires in which all those posts in which I mentioned Niall Ferguson could go. I summarized them at the end of  Post #133274, and see also Post #135883.

"No one in America should go broke because they got sick."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/white-house-finally-disco_n_260989.html

* * *

A man was spotted Monday afternoon carrying a semi-automatic assault rifle and a pistol at a pro-health care reform rally next to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Arizona where President Obama was speaking.

The local paper The Arizona Republic reported:

A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at 3rd and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip, and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault rifle) on a strap over his shoulder.

"Because I can do it," he said when asked why he was armed. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Two police officers were staying very close to the man.

CNN has video from the scene, and according to their reporter at the event, Ed Henry, there was another man, also carrying an assault rifle at the event. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/17/man-carrying-semi-automat_n_261279.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/213625?from=rss

In a paper to be published in the September issue of the journal Sociological Inquiry(you have to subscribe to the journal to read the full paper, but the authors kindly posted it on their Web site here), they argue that some Americans believe the Saddam-9/11 link because it "made sense of the administration's decision to go to war against Iraq . . . [T]he fact of the war led to a search for a justification for it, which led them to infer the existence of ties between Iraq and 9/11," they write. ...

"We refer to this as 'inferred justification,'" says Hoffman. Inferred justification is a sort of backward chain of reasoning. You start with something you believe strongly (the invasion of Iraq was the right move) and work backward to find support for it (Saddam was behind 9/11). "For these voters," says Hoffman, "the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war."

For an explanation of this behavior, look no further than the psychological theory of cognitive dissonance. This theory holds that when people are presented with information that contradicts preexisting beliefs, they try to relieve the cognitive tension one way or another. They process and respond to information defensively, for instance: their belief challenged by fact, they ignore the latter. They also accept and seek out confirming information but ignore, discredit the source of, or argue against contrary information, studies have shown.

Which brings us back to health-care reform—in particular, the apoplexy at town-hall meetings and the effectiveness of the lies being spread about health-care reform proposals. First of all, let's remember that 59,934,814 voters cast their ballot for John McCain, so we can assume that tens of millions of Americans believe the wrong guy is in the White House. To justify that belief, they need to find evidence that he's leading the country astray. What better evidence of that than to seize on the misinformation about Obama's health-care reform ideas and believe that he wants to insure illegal aliens, for example, and give the Feds electronic access to doctors' bank accounts?

Obama's opponents also need to find evidence that their reading of him back in November was correct. They therefore seize on "confirmation" that he wants to, for instance, redistribute the wealth, as in his “spread the wealth around” remark to Joe the Plumber—finding such confirmation in the claims that health-care reform will do just that, redistributing health care from those who have it now to the 46 million currently uninsured. Similarly, they seize on anything that confirms the “socialist” label that got pinned on Obama during the campaign, or the pro-abortion label—anything to comfort themselves that they made the right choice last November.

There are legitimate, fact-based reasons to oppose health-care reform. But some of the loudest opposition is the result of confirmatory bias, cognitive dissonance, and other examples of mental processes that have gone off the rails.

Originally written by John Bunch on August 27, 2009 6:10 PM Obama simply reads the mantra off his teleprompters about how adding 50 million people to the dole will "cut costs and make America more competitive". He also claims that his program will save America money....

Doesn't taking a better care of people make them more productive and thus competitive? Healthier people do save society money.

The president scheduled a health-care speech before a joint session of Congress, and FOX News announced that it would not air it.

Encouraged by Beck and fearful of socialist indoctrination, conservative parents planned to keep their children at home on Tuesday, when President Obama will encourage the nation's students to do their homework. ⁹

FOX News host Glenn Beck wrote that he had deciphered the secret code of the Obama Administration: “OLIGARHY,” he wrote on a chalkboard, pronouncing it “oligarchy.” ⁸

(Harper's Weekly Review)

Afghanistan by the numbers

Is the war worth it? The cost in dollars, years, public opinion and lives

Editor's note: This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. 

By Thomas M. Engelhardt

Here may be the single strangest fact of our American world: that at least three administrations -- Ronald Reagan's, George W. Bush's and now Barack Obama's -- drew the U.S. "defense" perimeter at the Hindu Kush; that is, in the rugged, mountainous lands of Afghanistan. Put another way, while Americans argue feverishly and angrily over what kind of money, if any, to put into healthcare, or decaying infrastructure, or other key places of need, until recently just about no one in the mainstream raised a peep about the fact that, for nearly eight years (not to say much of the last three decades), we've been pouring billions of dollars, American military know-how, and American lives into a black hole in Afghanistan that is, at least in significant part, of our own creation.

Imagine for a moment, as you read this post, what might have happened if Americans had decided to sink the same sort of money -- $228 billion and rising fast -- the same "civilian surges," the same planning, thought and effort (but not the same staggering ineffectiveness) into reclaiming New Orleans or Detroit, or into planning an American future here at home. Imagine, for a moment, when you read about the multimillions going into further construction at Bagram Air Base, or to the mercenary company that provides "Lord of the Flies" hire-a-gun guards for American diplomats in massive super-embassies, or about the half-a-billion dollars sunk into a corrupt and fraudulent Afghan election, what a similar investment in our own country might have meant.

Ask yourself: Wouldn't the U.S. have been safer and more secure if all the money, effort and planning had gone toward "nation-building" in America? Or do you really think we're safer now, with an official unemployment rate of 9.7 percent, an underemployment rate of 16.8 percent, and a record 25.5 percent teen unemployment rate, with soaring healthcare costs, with vast infrastructural weaknesses and failures, and in debt up to our eyeballs, while tens of thousands of troops and massive infusions of cash are mustered ostensibly to fight a terrorist outfit that may number in the low hundreds or at most thousands, that, by all accounts, isn't now even based in Afghanistan, and that has shown itself perfectly capable of settling into broken states like Somalia or well-functioning cities like Hamburg.

[...]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/14/afghanistan/index.html?source=newsletter

* * * 

Nicholas D. Kristof: The Body Count at Home

About as many people who were killed on 9/11 die every two months because of our failure to provide universal insurance — and yet many members of Congress want us to do nothing?

Originally quoted by Jacek K. on September 14, 2009 12:28 PM "Imagine for a moment, as you read this post, what might have happened if Americans had decided to sink the same sort of money -- $228 billion and rising fast -- the same "civilian surges," the same planning, thought and effort (but not the same staggering ineffectiveness) into reclaiming New Orleans or Detroit, or into planning an American future here at home. ... Ask yourself: Wouldn't the U.S. have been safer and more secure if all the money, effort and planning had gone toward "nation-building" in America?" * * * "About as many people who were killed on 9/11 die every two months because of our failure to provide universal insurance"

Interestingly, in Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story," for history buffs, there's also a fascinating clip of President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivering the highly egalitarian conclusion to his final State of the Union address, when he lists the "second bill of rights" that every American deserves, including health care. The speech was thought to exist only in audio, until Moore's researchers dug up the film footage in a forgotten box in South Carolina. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/15/AR2009091503314.html?hpid=topnews

On health-care costs: Baucus Proposes 10-Year, $856 Billion Health-Care Bill

http://www.tnr.com/blog/damon-linker/irving-kristols-other-journey?page=0,0

Irving Kristol, who died on Friday at the age of 89, was often called the godfather of neoconservatism. And so he was, along with Norman Podhoretz, who has actually done far more to set the (foreign-policy focused) agenda and (insistently combative) tone of recent neocon thinking and writing. ...

Kristol would assert that defending the American way of life against foreign and domestic enemies required that citizens develop a “religious attachment” to their country. In future years he would go even further, to claim that modern conservatism should be based on a synthesis of religion, nationalism, and economic growth—and that Republicans should give up their resistance to the transformation of their party into an explicitly religious organization—all for the sake of banishing liberalism, now flatly described as the “enemy,” from American political life.

A New York Times/CBS poll found that 65% of respondents want a public health care option, while only 26% opposed such a plan.

However, respondents said that President Obama had not been clear on health care reform. Fifty-five percent said he had not explained his plan clearly, and many felt under-informed about the policies under discussion.

The Senate Finance Committee will vote on a government-run health insurance option Tuesday.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/25/poll-public-option-favore_n_299669.html

Originally written by John Bunch on September 28, 2009 3:06 PM The socialists only got 22 % of the vote, a historic defeat. European intellectuals and the intelligentsia might be strong supporters of socialism - in its theory form - but when the rubber hits the road, western Europeans are increasingly showing the Left and socialist parties the door, and are clearly voting center-right...

It's not all that clear, John, since there is a second left/socialist party in Germany which is gaining increasing support. Around 12% for a fairly new party is quite a considerable achievement. So that still makes 36% who voted socialist, plus more than 10% who voted green, so the case is not all that clear-cut.

I suspect the reason why the established left party lost so many votes is that they have increasingly turned away from traditional social values and moved towards the centre. They have lost their credibility, but that is far too complex a topic to be discussed within the scope of this thread... (especially since we're talking "America, America..." here).

Originally written by John Bunch on September 28, 2009 9:06 PM Glad to see that the NY Times still exists, Jacek, despite its ever-shrinking readership...

These are called quality niches, John. Take this thread, for example. It's average readeship is 18 viewings per post. Likewise, Understanding the Financial Crisis only gets 24 viewings/post as opposed to the Smoking thread 37, the Gender conundrum 77 and Happiness 66.

I am also glad that we can carry on here. From http://www.alternet.org/politics/142811/americans_pay_more_to_die_earlier_--_why_is_our_health_care_system_so_screwed_up/:

In 2007, the United States spent an average of $7,290 per person on health care -- 16 percent of gross domestic product. By contrast, our Canadian neighbors  spent an average of $3,895 per person, or 10 percent of GDP. The British spent $2,992 per person, or 8.4 percent of GDP. And the Japanese, who have some of the longest life expectancies in the world, spend $2,581 per person, or 8 percent of GDP.

The numbers for the U.S. are ridiculous by any measure, even if all this spending was producing a race of super beings capable of outswimming sharks and defeating grizzly bears in steel-cage death matches. But no: most studies of the world's healthiest nations don't even place the United States in the top 10, and the World Health Organization ranks our health care system 37th, just ahead of Slovenia's.

85 % of Americans are happy with their health care, including me.

http://www.campusprogress.org/cribsheets/4577/education-doesnt-have-to-be-a-gauntlet

The House of Representatives passed the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act this afternoon, a bill which will radically overhaul the federal student loan system and invest billions of dollars in making the benefits of an affordable college education available for more Americans. The legislation is based on a plan presented in the president’s 2010 budget proposal, and is a first step toward the president’s goal of making the United States the most educated country in the world by 2020.

The United States used to hold this title, but decades of public divestment from education and student aid programs, along with the progress of other countries, has led the United States to slip in its level of educational attainment. The United States currently ranks 15th in the number of degrees and certificates awarded per 100 students enrolled.

And a recent study shows that the United States may not only be losing ground compared to other countries, but also in relation to its own population and education attainment growth rate. The Lumina Foundation estimates that the American economy will face a shortage of 16 million college educated workers by 2025. It is clear that strong action is needed now to keep the U.S. economy competitive and prevent young people from falling through the cracks.

Otoh...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455023924964870.html

I look fwd to seeing how many Nobels the Arab world + Iran receives this season, especially Nobels in the sciences....

It seems that it's not relevant where you come from but where you are working. You can come, like Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, from Tamil Nadu, India, and still win a Nobel Prize in Chemistry if you are working in Cambridge, UK (and have a US citizenship...)

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 7, 2009 6:39 PM Originally written by John Bunch on October 7, 2009 6:17 PM people in Europe have a very hard time believing that religion is what motives people. But it is. By the way, today, the U.S. Supreme Court was to hear oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono,  "a case that will determine the fate of .... The Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial, a seven-foot metal cross, [that] was erected in 1934 by World War I veterans to honor their fallen brethren. In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to have the memorial taken down. The reason? The ACLU claims that the mere presence of the cross within the 1.6 million acre national preserve runs afoul of the Constitution, because it is effectively a religious symbol."  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455440071429518.html?mod=djemEditorialPage) Any news about the outcome of that US religious squabble?

Answering myself: http://www.slate.com/id/2231805/

The cross in question

Justice Antonin Scalia really, really wants to talk about it. He looks particularly queasy when Peter Eliasberg—the ACLU lawyer whose client objects to crosses on government land—suggests partway through the morning that perhaps a less controversial World War I memorial might consist of "a statue of a soldier which would honor all of the people who fought for America in World War I and not just the Christians."

"The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war?" Scalia asks, stunned.

"A cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins," replies Eliasberg, whose father and grandfather are both Jewish war veterans.

"It's erected as a war memorial!" replies Scalia. "I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. The cross is the most common symbol of … of … of the resting place of the dead."

Eliasberg dares to correct him: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew."

"I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead the cross honors are the Christian war dead," thunders Scalia. "I think that's an outrageous conclusion!"

Far less outrageous is the conclusion that religious symbols are not religious. But that's why these religion cases are always such fun. We believe what we need to believe.

Achievements are also about money:

 But there has been a significant fall in the number of North American universities in the top 100, from 42 in 2008 to 36 in 2009. The number of Asian universities in the top 100 increased from 14 to 16. The University of Tokyo, at 22, is the highest ranked Asian university, ahead of the University of Hong Kong at 24.

Leading UK universities said institutions in Japan, South Korea and Hong Kong were "snapping at the heels" of western institutions arguing they needed more funding to compete on the global stage.

Top House Democrats on Tuesday slammed insurers who claim that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition that can be used to deny coverage to battered women.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/06/domestic.violence.insurance/ (via Harper's Weekly Review)

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 13, 2009 6:03 PM Top House Democrats on Tuesday slammed insurers who claim that domestic violence is a pre-existing condition that can be used to deny coverage to battered women. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/06/domestic.violence.insurance/ (via Harper's Weekly Review)

I see!

So, the assumption seems to be that where there is a battered someone there is no batterer. And in any case the batterer doesn't suffer from a pre-existing condition. Is that so?

Nanna, exhaling...

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on October 13, 2009 6:42 PM So, the assumption seems to be that where there is a battered someone there is no batterer.

Not at all, Nanna. The point is that where there is a battered someone, she should get no money because the money should only flow from healthy individuals paying premiums to the insurer and, ideally, never the other way around, i.e., from the insurer to those insured. After all, we all want to base our business on healthy models, don't we?

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 13, 2009 9:48 PM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on October 13, 2009 6:42 PM So, the assumption seems to be that where there is a battered someone there is no batterer. The point is that where there is a battered someone, she should get no money because the money should only flow from healthy individuals paying premiums to the insurer and, ideally, never the other way around, i.e., from the insurer to those insured. After all, we all want to base our business on healthy models, don't we?

That's true enough. Yes! It would seem that the only determinant for a healthy premium payer is the ability to pay. But perhaps the premium is so high that it turns on the battering syndrome in the otherwise healthy individual and thus it is indirectly the fault of the insurer not the insured when a battered someone drags her unhealthily battered body to the local shelter.

Nanna

http://www.slate.com/id/2231919/

In the history of political euphemisms, has there ever been a more empty, vacuous, mystifying, or counterproductive phrase than public option? It's the bastard child of inbred wonk culture and fashionable "framing" theory. The product of people who talk mainly to one another (the wonks) and the people who invent ways for the wonks to talk down to other people (the framers).

Contemporary framing theory is traceable to UC-Berkeley linguistics professor George Lakoff, who has persuaded many Democrats that their problem is not their policies but the words they use to describe them. Its popularity is a symptom of the way marketing culture has transformed politics to the point where Democrats abandon actually defending the substance of their principles and instead attempt to devise rhetorical tricks that reek of focus grouping to sell them.

And thus—voila!—we find ourselves graced with public option. An obfuscating, near-meaningless, certainly contentless, two-word phrase that has done more damage to the fate of meaningful health care reform than its reviled two-word counter-framing rival, death panels. ...  

 Let me stipulate at the outset that I am someone who favors some version of the provision the all-too-clever wonkish framers—followed by journalists and bloggers—have insisted on saddling with the terminally inscrutable name public option. And I think polls show that a majority of the American people favor it when the concept has been explained without the use of that idiot euphemism. (Consider my colleague Mickey Kaus' analysis of the language used in polling the issue. When the Times/CBS pollsters described it, fairly accurately, as "a government administered health insurance plan—something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older can buy," it got nearly two-thirds support. Note no use of public option.)

But most polls show that Americans are evenly divided on or opposed to Obama's overall health care plan, of which the public option is, or was, the heart. And a Times poll of Sept. 24 shows that a 55 percent majority believes the White House has failed to explain its health care reforms adequately. ...

Fifty-five percent, many of whom would be in favor if the reforms were presented to them in plain language and who would be putting pressure on their reps to pass it. Imagine if health care proponents had explained it clearly in the beginning!...  

Why did Obama supporters endlessly, relentlessly, robotically push this useless, sterile, self-defeating phrase? Why not find another phrase, one that could cut Robert Reich's time down from 70 seconds to seven. Or seven words. "A government-sponsored health-insurance safety net." How about that? Or just two words: "Government heath care safety net." (OK, I guess that's four and a half.) True, these alternative phrases don't plumb the depths of the policy, but at least they offer some useful clue as to what the speakers are talking about. Try it yourself: I'm sure you can do better than public option. ...

A reply: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/10/if_the_public_option_stinks_can_we_do_better.php

In a recent Pew poll only 39 percent of respondents rated American health care above average. The rest rated it average or below. So even if this year's health care debate has done nothing else, it's apparently convinced people of what was once unthinkable. We're not #1. We're #37. (According to the World Health Organization, anyway. France ranks #1.)

But here's something even more interesting: When it comes to health care, the more money you make the less you know. When Pew broke out the results by income, 50 percent of those with incomes over $100,000 thought American health care was above average. That number dropped steadily with income, with only 32 percent of those reporting incomes under $30,000 giving American healthcare a positive rating. It's easy to understand why people responded this way, since the well-off get better health care than the poor. But it turns out that being well off also blinded them to the broader reality. And it's an ironic reality, too, because the well-off are the ones who pay the most for the distinctly mediocre care that most of us get. They just don't know it. (Mother Jones)

Nobody that I know has ever gone to your country for treatment, John.  Everybody I know who was diagnosed with a serious illness also received treatment immediately and on an ongoing basis.  Can you not feel good about your country without leaning it against some comparison with others?  Can your country and its health care not stand on its own?

Originally written by John Bunch on October 19, 2009 2:35 AM Actually, the media continues to try to convince Americans that their health care is sub-par, but 87 % of Americans are happy with their health care (including me).

That's illogical in light of the following:

October 20, 2009

Originally written by John Bunch on October 19, 2009 2:35 AM Actually, the media continues to try to convince Americans that their health care is sub-par, but 87 % of Americans are happy with their health care... .

Maybe prayer (or not) is at work for according to this report "nearly 6 out of 10 Americans pray one or more times each day; high percentages report feeling close to God, experiencing God’s presence or guidance on most days. Faith in God, they say, is “very important” in their lives.

Nonetheless, belief in God has slipped a little, and more Americans, though still believing, acknowledge some uncertainty about God’s existence.

[…]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/24/us/24beliefs.html?ref=us

An excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/opinion/27herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion:

Americans have tended to watch with a remarkable (I think frightening) degree of passivity as crises of all sorts have gripped the country and sent millions of lives into tailspins. Where people once might have deluged their elected representatives with complaints, joined unions, resisted mass firings, confronted their employers with serious demands, marched for social justice and created brand new civic organizations to fight for the things they believed in, the tendency now is to assume that there is little or nothing ordinary individuals can do about the conditions that plague them.

This is so wrong. It is the kind of thinking that would have stopped the civil rights movement in its tracks, that would have kept women in the kitchen or the steno pool, that would have prevented labor unions from forcing open the doors that led to the creation of a vast middle class.

This passivity and sense of helplessness most likely stems from the refusal of so many Americans over the past few decades to acknowledge any sense of personal responsibility for the policies and choices that have led the country into such a dismal state of affairs, and to turn their backs on any real obligation to help others who were struggling.

Those chickens have come home to roost. Being an American has become a spectator sport. Most Americans watch the news the way you’d watch a ballgame, or a long-running television series, believing that they have no more control over important real-life events than a viewer would have over a coach’s strategy or a script for “Law & Order.”

With that kind of attitude, Andrew Goodman would never have left the comfort of his family home in Manhattan. Rosa Parks would have gotten up and given her seat to a white person, and the Montgomery bus boycott would never have happened. Betty Friedan would never have written “The Feminine Mystique.”

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 28, 2009 5:12 AM Those chickens have come home to roost. Being an American has become a spectator sport. Most Americans watch the news the way you’d watch a ballgame, or a long-running television series, believing that they have no more control over important real-life events than a viewer would have over a coach’s strategy or a script for “Law & Order.”

The factor which is highly responsible for Americans' lack of their own opinion on things and passive approach to things like politics and life in general, except money, jobs and entertainment, is children upbringing. The situation might get even worse when the children who are now 10, 5, grow up. They are brought up in incubators, protected from every single virus, speck of dust, bad word, inappropriate friends, hugging, cold, heat....

The only children I usually find normal are mostly Black children from poor but respectable or middle class families, perhaps some other children too, of some immigrant groups.     

Normal, meaning here on the way to adulthood. 

Some are a combination of a pet and a tool to satisfy their parents ambitions.            

Yes, I believe you John, there are probably a lot of normal kids in small town America. living on ranches, riding horses, the Tom Saweyr kind. 

This is great, John. Who would think that this right could be in jeopardy one day. We simply left home in the morning and came back at sundown, nobody knowing where to look for us, usually looking for Gypsies camping in the forest, or the remains of a forest nearby. I was not a very social person, though, but sometimes I loved to disappear.  

I think they will be genetically programmed before they are born to 60 year old mothers.   

Originally written by Jacek K. on October 28, 2009 5:12 AM With that kind of attitude, Andrew Goodman would never have left the comfort of his family home in Manhattan. Rosa Parks would have gotten up and given her seat to a white person, and the Montgomery bus boycott would never have happened. Betty Friedan would never have written “The Feminine Mystique.”

Well, yes, American liberalism does have a couple of worthy aspects.  More representative of the consequences of the tradition is...

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59O17F20091026

I laughed and laughed! 

Actually, I didn't.  This I fear will be the fate of the country if Obama and his team, er, "succeed" in implementing their version of hope 'n' change.

Extra credit: Who can identify the grotesque solecism in the first few paragraphs?

Btw Betty Friedan was one of our elite "opinion makers" taken in by Marxism.

http://www.salon.com/news/col/horo/1999/01/18/nc_18horo/index.html

Originally written by John Bunch on October 29, 2009 1:42 PM On the other hand, one "industry" that is booming is illegal arms sales, in the basements of mosques and "Islamic centers", as the FBI shootout yesterday in Detroit showed, in which an African-American imam was shot and killed, after he opened fire on FBI agents.

I file those sorts of incidents under: Applied Darwin.

I'm shocked btw that nobody at TC was able to identify the baby-level copyediting mistake in that article.  If it takes the sting out of it: the geniuses at the Reuters copy desk couldn't either.

Originally written by John Bunch on October 29, 2009 7:42 PM one "industry" that is booming is illegal arms sales, in the basements of mosques and "Islamic centers", as the FBI shootout yesterday in Detroit showed, in which an African-American imam was shot and killed, after he opened fire on FBI agents.

John,

Maybe funds should be diverted, then, from playing various dirty tricks in international theaters towards protecting the US domestic scene by better funding law enforcement there so that no illegal arms sales are booming in Detroit? Or are you saying that it's easier, even if much more expensive, to bomb one country after another although the results, repeatedly, are nil?

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on October 31, 2009 2:37 AM Originally written by John Bunch on October 29, 2009 1:42 PM On the other hand, one "industry" that is booming is illegal arms sales, in the basements of mosques and "Islamic centers", as the FBI shootout yesterday in Detroit showed, in which an African-American imam was shot and killed, after he opened fire on FBI agents. I file those sorts of incidents under: Applied Darwin. I'm shocked btw that nobody at TC was able to identify the baby-level copyediting mistake in that article.  If it takes the sting out of it: the geniuses at the Reuters copy desk couldn't either.

Which country can beat the USA in inventiveness?

Probably just one more episode in the long tradition of cult attraction...

914 dead http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm

39 dead http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/27/suicide/index.html

More of Applied Darwin...

Originally written by John Bunch on October 29, 2009 8:42 PM  So to use your example of Detroit, the liberal would say, the answer is more "state involvement", to reduce poverty and racism and provide more opportunity, through welfare payments. And the conservative or libertarian (i.e. someone who is not a "statist" would retort that the welfare system and post-1960s policing has been exactly what got Detroit into the mess it is in. (actually, to call Detroit a mess is a huge understatement. I think, "catastrophe" would be more the right term. BTW, I heard that all grocery stores have now pulled out of the city of Detroit (due to high crime rates and theft), and the way that the city gets food to people is by bringing in trucks with armed guards, as would happen in perhaps Cuba. On the other hand, one "industry" that is booming is illegal arms sales, in the basements of mosques and "Islamic centers", as the FBI shootout yesterday in Detroit showed, in which an African-American imam was shot and killed, after he opened fire on FBI agents.

I don't know, there appears to be an innuedo here or rather suggestive writing. It would be good to rid America of racism, that is a noble goal. One thing I don't understand is how Mexico(which is not exactly underpopulated) came to have 30% indigenous population while Americans have 0.3. Where did the natives, even in states bordering Mexico go? If the founding fathers were not self-righteous hypocrites with an elastic truth, then I don't know who is.

More to the point, from anyone who watched 70's movies, it was  rather obvious the motor industry would go down and Detroit with it. Those cars are hilarious. The reason for Detroit's decline are the CEOs and designers of the vehicle industry  aptly aided by the unions.

Go to some European countries to stay there for a while, and you would see that America is not really racist any more, some parts of America were, in the past, unfortunately, but are almost non-racist compared to some other countries.   

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on October 30, 2009 4:06 PM Which country can beat the USA in inventiveness?

Russia, not necessarily in a bad sense.  

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on October 31, 2009 11:50 AM Go to some European countries to stay there for a while, and you would see that America is not really racist any more, some parts of America were, in the past, unfortunately, but are almost non-racist compared to some other countries.

HUH?

Would you please cite some stastistics or articles or something, anything, besides your personal opinion to verify this extraordinary claim.

I admit it's been a few years since I lived in the U.S. but in October 1999, racism was alive and well in God's own country.

Nanna

When they elect the first Black president I will believe there is no racism in that European country.

Sometimes it was bad enough to be Eastern European, not even a different race.   I am not talking about the countries I have very good experience with like Sweden and Denmark, although my friend who looked Iranian would not say exactly the same about those countries. Her grandfather must have been from Kazakhstan, or something like that, so she really looked Iranian. 

Originally written by Shiong-Fong Lew on October 30, 2009 4:06 PM Which country can beat the USA in inventiveness? Probably just one more episode in the long tradition of cult attraction... 914 dead http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/18/newsid_2540000/2540209.stm 39 dead http://www.cnn.com/US/9703/27/suicide/index.html

Generally, in the matter of the inventiveness (and lameness) of our cults, we are pretty peerless.  Otoh would it be bad manners to mention...

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/CHING/TAIPING.HTM
 

More seriously, and cults aside, I'd like your opinion of this:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65503/christopher-s-bond-and-lewis-m-simons/the-forgotten-front

Originally written by Scott Rasmussen on November 2, 2009 3:43 AM More seriously, and cults aside, I'd like your opinion of this: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65503/christopher-s-bond-and-lewis-m-simons/the-forgotten-front

It's news to me. I remember reading somewhere that Obama would be skipping Indonesia (postponed to middle of next year) this time as his hectic schedule of visiting Singapore in Nov for the first US summit with ASEAN and a few other Northeast Asian countries would leave him with barely a few hours to show his daughter the place of his childhood in Indonesia.

Japan traditionaly had insisted on the inclusion of USA in any EU-like regional grouping, but recently had proposed a East-Asia grouping extending from possibly India in the west to Japan/Philippines in the east and China/Korea in the north to Indonesia/Australia in the south, without the inclusion of US. Is this significant? BTW, China had replaced the US as the major trading partner for many countries in this part of the world including Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea (all 3 considered to be US military allies). Obama seemed to be less emphatic in not meeting with Myanmar leaders this time round. A major change in approach from human rights to economics?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on October 31, 2009 11:50 AM America is not really racist any more, some parts of America were, in the past, unfortunately, but are almost non-racist compared to some other countries.

Anyway, this comes via Oliver Willis, who adds:

President Obama is overwhelmingly popular in every region of the country except for the south. I am surely this is all entirely due to his economic policies and his radical social agenda and not any other thing at all, certainly not the color of his skin no way sir.

Originally written by Jacek K. on November 3, 2009 9:58 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on October 31, 2009 11:50 AM America is not really racist any more, some parts of America were, in the past, unfortunately, but are almost non-racist compared to some other countries.    Anyway, this comes via Oliver Willis, who adds: President Obama is overwhelmingly popular in every region of the country except for the south. I am surely this is all entirely due to his economic policies and his radical social agenda and not any other thing at all, certainly not the color of his skin no way sir.

And except for the California business sector, but we all know they are as crazy as loons out there, so it doesn't count, I guess

Racial Discrimination In The United States - The Subtle And Ever-Present Insidious Discrimination

July 7, 2009

By Bruce Abel

[...] 

Don't think that racial discrimination is just happening in the dark corners of business. It isn't. Employers and companies engage in subtle, systematic racial discrimination. Sophisticated methods are devised to get around public policy and the common good which inevitably adversely target racial minorities. Recently the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for the United States reversed a U.S. District Court ruling that would, in theory, have allowed an insurance company to use secret formulas to determine the cost of insurance which coincidentally and predictably resulted in higher premiums for racial minorities - African-Americans in particular than for Caucasians. ...

http://www.losangelesemploymentattorneyblog.com/2009/07/racial-discrimination-in-the-u.html

There is no country where there is no slight discrimination against somebody and there will never be one in my view, because people have likes and dislikes. Even if some employers prefer to hire blond women as opposed to Hispanic or Indian, whereas other may just want to hire only Native Americans. Everybody feels equal, I think, in the United States to a very large extent. You do not feel the unequality here as you might in some countries, at least in the East. I have not been to the Middle West, but I think it is the same, since I have met a lot of people from the Middle West, and I did not see any racist attitudes in them. It was slightly more separated in the South many years ago, but i think it is different there now.   

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on November 3, 2009 11:13 AM ... You do not feel the unequality here as you might in some countries, at least in the East. ...

Okay...I anticipated this reaction so I moved my online inquiry to yes, you guessed it, New York City, where life is love and peace to all mankind...

“Many people think that with an African-American president, we are in a postracial society. Clearly, we are not.”

As soon as Mebrahtom Keflezighi, better known as Meb, won the New York City Marathon on Sunday, an uncommon sports dispute erupted online, fraught with racial and nationalistic components: Should Keflezighi’s triumph count as an American victory?

He was widely celebrated as the first American to win the New York race since 1982. Having immigrated to the United States at age 12, he is an American citizen and a product of American distance running programs at the youth, college and professional levels.

But, some said, because he was born in Eritrea, he is not really an American runner.

The debate reveals what some academics say are common assumptions and stereotypes about race and sports and athletic achievement in the United States. Its dimensions, they add, go beyond the particulars of Keflezighi and bear on undercurrents of nationalism and racism that are not often voiced.

[…]

Richard Lapchick, the director of the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida, said the argument about Keflezighi “tells us there are people that still have racial red flags go up when certain things happen.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/sports/03runner.html?_r=1&hp

Yes, I also heard one Black woman on the train say that she had a Black boyfriend from Africa, and she could not stand some of his customs and attitudes towards women, so she told him finally: what do you think, you will treat me like a donkey, I am an American woman. What can we do that there are likes and dislikes: there will always be to a certain extent. It is only bad when they are blind likes and dislikes based on some fanatic ideology, like racism, nazism, wrongly understood patriotism.  

 This is just to illustrate this particular woman's situation and dislikes, not to make any general statements about African men or African culture. 

In some countries there is a lot of age discrimination, as far as employment is concerned, from what I have heard. In some Eastern European countries, former Eastern European, it is hard to find any employment is one is over 35.   

What are the chances of a White woman being employed in an Indian restaurant anywhere?           

Even if he is not that popular some place, it is not because he is Black, but because he is quite a liberal Democrat.  

Also, the European "love affair" with Obama seems to be ending, as this article shows: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/27/obamas_european_honeymoon_is_over

The title seems to indicate that.  The article itself states the following:

- President Obama has the same vision as President Kennedy did
- in discussing issues, some of Europe's opinions differ from those of America
- Obama does not use grandiose rhetoric
- Obama presents a "pragmatic, unsentimental outlook" (which I suspect is much better liked than grandiose rhetoric in many parts of the world).

Despite the title, I saw nothing that would support a honeymoon having started or ended.

Maxi

Originally written by John Bunch on November 3, 2009 4:35 PM we will see how the Democrat does in the upcoming New Jersey election for governor.

"Christie, a former U.S. attorney, rode a wave of voter outrage over taxes and the recession to a decisive victory." Right, a Democrat-induced recession and wartime taxes... I am glad people are thinking

I think President Obama is the best you can get, so if he does not seem perfect to some people, this is the way it is, it will not get any better, at least for now. 

Originally written by Jacek K. on November 4, 2009 9:45 AM  Right, a Democrat-induced recession and wartime taxes... I am glad people are thinking

With all that heavy duty thinking it's no wonder we're in trouble - here, there and everywhere. When bidding on jobs some people resort to really heavy duty thinking...

Originally written by John Bunch on November 4, 2009 4:12 PM New Jersey has the highest taxes in the nation

They didn't bother me.

...and they then wonder why the businesses are closing shop and moving

Do you know whether any of those taxes go to finance the trillion/year offence expenditures? Maybe that's why businesses are closing shop and moving? Maybe not all of them manage to win DOD contracts?

...In other words, you cannot build the world on sick foundations and hope that it will be healthy.

Come to think about it,

Here's one silver lining on an otherwise disappointing night: When taken together, the results from New Jersey and New York City can be read as a repudiation of the rich man’s politics practiced by Jon Corzine and Michael Bloomberg--both of whom used personal fortunes to launch themselves into the political arena, and both of whom were trying to buy an election for the third time in the past decade. http://www.tnr.com/blog/silver-lining-new-jersey-and-new-york-city

Good!

You can only build the world on intuition, in my opinion. As far Michael Bloomberg, he is a great man, regardless of his 17 billion. With him New York is much better. You would have to see the garbage all around, and the crime under all other mayors, including poser Gulliani. 

Originally written by John Bunch on November 4, 2009 6:27 PM President Obama states that he is "too busy" to attend the 20th anniversary celebrations of the end of the Berlin Wall. .... The most important geo-political event of the past 50 years, and the president of the U.S. is "too busy" to even show up ?

Maybe as a student of history he knows that the end of the Berlin Wall was but a spectacular crowning of the 10 months of crumbling that preceded it throughout 1989? He missed 1989 celebrations elsewhere, so it only makes sense to miss this symbolic one too. See the second entry in Post #188354.

I have a different view about this, I simply think that as a grandchild of a World War II soldier who took part in the liberation of Europe and some nazi camps, he does not really care that much about this wall.    

Maybe he wants to move on rather than be bogged down in the past, walls, etc.?

I think he would rather go and and celebrate the liberationn of Auschwitz, although it was not liberated by the American Army. He might get into trouble for that but Elie Wiesel might take him there one day.      

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on November 3, 2009 11:13 AM There is no country where there is no slight discrimination against somebody and there will never be one in my view, because people have likes and dislikes.

Yup. Take this woman who dressed as a rasher of bacon harassed Muslim food vendors in Manhattan. “Don't you like bacon?” she asked. “Bacon is so good. Do you ever put bacon on these hot dogs? 'Cause they'd taste really good wrapped up in delicious bacon. Maybe sprinkled with bacon. Or stuffed with bacon. Come on, don't you love bacon?”^{19 (Harper's Weekly Review)}

Originally written by Jacek K. on November 4, 2009 6:52 PM Maybe he wants to move on rather than be bogged down in the past, walls, etc.?

I like that idea and it's a very good 'guess'. It's much harder to be in the here and now than be bogged down by the past, which doesn't require real thinking or positive energy that could  influence the self or the immediate environment and thus create a good outcome, etc.

No, it much easier to whine and then hang yourself in various indignities - that really pays off.

Nanna

If she likes bacon, she should eat it herself, and not harras other people with it.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on November 4, 2009 6:57 PM I think he would rather go and and celebrate the liberationn of Auschwitz

But why? While I shed tears over every million of WWII victims, hence also the million killed in Auschwitz, let's not forget about every other of the remaining 59 millions who died during WWII. 

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on November 4, 2009 6:21 PM You can only build the world on intuition, in my opinion. As far Michael Bloomberg, he is a great man, regardless of his 17 billion.

And intuition and Bloomberg go together like what? How are they connected. Liliana?

The first part of the sentence was related to the foundations of the world: the second one to elections. As per intuition, yes, I would choose Michael Bloomberg for a mayor based on my intuition.  

WASHINGTON (AP) — Gen. Casimir Pulaski finally became an American citizen, 230 years after he died fighting in the Revolutionary War.

President Obama signed a joint resolution of the House and the Senate on Friday that made Pulaski, a Polish nobleman, an honorary citizen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/us/08citizen.html?_r=2

I think he has to give up his nobility. 

It is a great city, John, and New Yorkers mostly talk about fun things. You do not feel really the discrepancy between the poor and the rich on a class level, like you may in some other places in the world. You may even sometimes take millionaire for a begger, the way some of them dress to work. Or vice versa. It is very friendly, but to really know it, you have to live here for a while, not just to visit, a few years, because otherwise you know only the billboard, the  New York from a California movie.  

Originally written by John Bunch on October 28, 2009 8:27 PM one of the statistical tricks that people use to "prove" that "things are getting worse and worse all the time" is to use "household" income, rather than per person income, to measure income changes over time. Because many more people lived together in the 1950s in one house than today (where many households have one person), it is very easy to "prove" that household income has indeed fallen since the supposedly "golden era" of the 1950s and 1960s - (whereas, in reality, personal income has risen sharply since 1955). "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics" (- Disraeli).

More bad news about those damn households of liars: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/16/AR2009111601598.html?wpisrc=newsletter

Report: More Americans going hungry

The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a government report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children.

<form>     <script src="http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ad/quigo/article_inner.js" type="text/Java­Script"> <script type="text/Java­Script">adsonar_placementId=1483491;adsonar_pid=1900767;adsonar_ps=-1;adsonar_zw=228;adsonar_zh=215;adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com"; <script language="Java­Script" src="http://js.adsonar.com/js/adsonar.js" type="text/Java­Script">

Originally written by John Bunch on October 28, 2009 4:14 PM The reality is that when Americans do mobilize (see: the "tea parties" ...

An excerpt from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/15/michele-bachmann-president-sarah-palin:

Right-wing radicals are already pinning presidential ambitions on a mother-of-five from Minnesota who calls herself a 'fool for Christ' and condemns Obama as a socialist at the head of a gangster regime

<meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <meta name="Title" content=""> <meta name="Keywords" content=""> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <style type="text/css">  

Originally written by John Bunch on November 16, 2009 12:46 PM The same dynamic plays out with fast food. There is a hamburger chain called "In-N-Out Burger". It is hugely popular with progressives and richer people, and with Hollywood stars.

Hi John. I don't eat fast food and have never been to an "In-N-Out Burger." That richer people like it, though, is probably true –if only because top earners are part of the larger, mixed population that patronizes burger restaurants. “Burger chains were among those showing the least variance in patronage among high and low earners,” writes Restaurants and Institutions (R&I) magazine. The R&I  2009 Consumer’s Choice in burger chains ranked "In-N-Out” at the top  –same as last year, and many years before. 

And yes, "In-N-Out" has fans among celebrities; e.g. Jason Giambi and Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith. Not sure about Hollywood’s.  

It may also be true that progressives prefer In-N-Out Burger. Perhaps they like their food quality, rated at 83% by R&I (vs 49% for McD’s). Progressives may also identify with the chain’s ethical practices. In-N-Out Burger was family-owned for decades; it has never franchised since its first restaurant opened in 1948. The chain pays the highest wages in the FF industry. Their FTEs have a benefits package that includes medical, dental, and life insurance. How many other fast food companies provide that?

They love it, but at the same time, they vilify McDonalds. So the lesson is clear: expensive food is o.k., but cheap food is not ok.

I doubt that In-N-Out can be considered "expensive." And the problem with really cheap food is that is has other costs. Employee's wages, for example. And safety in food handling. According to R&I’s survey, the third most important priority among burger chain patrons (after food quality [1] and value [2]) was cleanliness, which was rated:

• In-N-Out: 70% (top rating)
• McDonald’s:  37%

This, however, does not prevent McD’s from being a top seller of fast food. McDonald’s ranks #1 in sales -- although their sales may not be absorbed much by progressives. In-N-Out ranks #80. 

Another reason for your assertion above may be awareness of the fast food industry practices? For example, progressives and liberals may have read:

I recommend it.

 (Could the moderators erase the code above, please? I've tried, but... Tx)

Originally written by John Bunch on November 16, 2009 9:46 PM  There is a hamburger chain called "In-N-Out Burger". It is hugely popular with progressives and richer people, and with Hollywood stars. They love it, but at the same time, they vilify McDonalds. So the lesson is clear: expensive food is o.k., but cheap food is not ok.

Though I am a nutrition-oriented person, regularly eat fish but refuse to eat red meats or poultry, I cannot resist  (shame on me!) an "In-N-Out Burger" meal. I didn't know it was more expensive than Mc Donald's. The times I have been to "In-N-Out" I don't recall paying more than 5 bucks for a burger.

On a side note, one time I ordered a meal to go, the guys at "In-N-out burger" gave me the usual bag plus a nice, big, red tray. I tried to give them the tray back and they told me I could take it.  Still have it.

Bertha

Originally written by John Bunch on November 17, 2009 9:28 PM Witness New York city, with its transfat ban. Instead of convincing people to do a certain thing, one simply bans it (all the while, patting oneself on the back for being so tolerant).

How long would it take to "convince" people to stay away from transfats? By the time they were convinced, they might all be dead as well.

Certain things have to be banned.  In my home country, for instance, authorities spent years trying to "convince" people not to smoke in public places to no avail. I remember seeing a guy smoking while leaning against a huge NO-Smoking sign. Three or four years ago, the president (who is an oncologist) simply banned cigarette smoking. If someone is caught, say, smoking inside a restaurant, both the restaurant and the smoker are fined and the smoker is ordered to leave the place.

Bertha