BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Via-Media

Listed below are comments made by Via-Media between Friday, 6th November 2009 and Wednesday, 25th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Afghanistan troops: Decision time for Obama 10:19am on 25 Nov 2009 56 Baron

You left out a few pertinent facts:
- Reagan: Grenada; Libya; I would think the largest arms buildup in history counts for something, too (esp. with the example set on the deficit)
- Eisenhower: 1st American advisors to Vietnam
-Teddy Roosevelt: (prior to presidency)a driving figure in the Spanish-American War

It's all very well and good to speak in generalities, but oversimplification does no one any good.

And, pray tell, what might be the "spoils of the presidency" of which Obama is partaking at the expense of the military?
US report on 'harm' of testing for cancer too young 00:28am on 18 Nov 2009 #5 GhostofSichuan
#6 McJakome

I'm sorry, but this is one instance where a conspiracy theory won't fit. There have been growing concerns over the past decade or so about the harm of overtesting, especially with mammography. Each x-ray exposes the body to a serious dosage of radiation, which while obviously isn't enough to kill, can cause cumulative damage through repeated exposure. This is one of the health care system's serious flaws, as some doctors are prone to order an x-ray at the drop of a hat. Given false positives or unclear results requiring additional radiology and other tests, the repeated exposure to radiation could possibly be a significant factor in the development of cancer.

I do not think that this is at all advocating that people start ignoring their bodies and neglect self-examination.
Too many questions? 10:11am on 17 Nov 2009 102 RomeStu

"2) the new and more electable Sarah Palin clone..."

Surely thou jesteth? Michelle Bachmann's history of the faux pas, her unabashed contempt for anyone not of the far right, would make her deadly for the Republican Party, just as Olbermann and Maddow would be shredded for being too far to the left for mainstream. This would be a critical injury to the Republican Party's future.

Then again, if this was the medicine that purged the extremists from that party, then maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all...
Sensible caution or more dithering? 10:35am on 13 Nov 2009 196 KS Curmudgeon

Another great post. I'd only contend that the corporate bonanza that resulted from Afghanistan and Iraq was most likely an unintended consequence, not a deliberate goal. Much as I disliked the former president (and VP) I won't attribute the profit motive, as this would be clearly far beyond acceptable politics. Take a little cash for the campaign fund? Sure they do. But start a war to benefit the military industrial complex? To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof.

What Bush & Co. were likely guilty of, however, is the corporatist mindset, the attitude that corporations are in and of themselves better and more efficient at everything they do than the government. I think this attitude led to a clear overreliance on technical solutions and a reluctance to adapt when confronted with clear evidence that we committed far too few troops on the ground in both conflicts. This corporatist or MBA point of view colored everything his administration did, which, combined with Bush's penchant for surrounding himself with people who thought like he did, for not asking for second opinions, and an apparent conviction that America is always in the right, turned into disaster on the world stage.
Spotting a red flag 10:21am on 10 Nov 2009 22 PorterRockwell

"It's absurd to expect authorities to pre-empt and prevent all crimes, and this kind of atrocity is no exception."

We live in a time of unrealistically heightened expectations. For nearly a decade or more we've been fed Hollywood fantasies like "CSI" that portray law enforcement as nearly omniscient and unerring. There has already been a noticeable impact on the court system as well.

As you say, there is no way that any law enforcement agency can identify violent individuals ahead of time. To do so, we'd have to transmute into some sort of Orwellian dictatorship, with every action and word and thought of every citizen and visitor monitored 24 hours a day.

And it isn't or wasn't solely the FBI's responsibility, either. Maj. Hasan was screened on entry to the military, and routinely since, and also has had to pass several background investigations. None of these, of course, are designed to catch the gradual evolution of someone's ideas.

Although tarnished of late, the FBI are probably also victims of their own self-generated 75 years of mystique.
The hard fact of healthcare costs 03:22am on 10 Nov 2009 189 David

I think you might have missed my point. My comment about government being the direct expression of the people was directed at the premise of the anti-government crowd that big government is in and of itself, by it's very nature, something to be feared and hated.

But, in a more philosophical sense, maybe we do get the government we deserve, at least as a purported democracy. If we do not care enough about education to train children in civics and history and social responsibility, if we make it so that politics is boring, and most people are apathetic about what happens in the county seat, or Harrisburg, or Washington, DC- should we be surprised if vested interests creep in with the lure of money to influence our elected representatives' votes?

If we as a society are that disinterested in what happens in politics, do we even have a right to object if things go awry?

If we are so uneducated and politically illiterate as to be swayed by demagogues speechifying with catchy soundbites and easy-to-remember slogans (never mind if they're true,) do we not get the political system we deserve?

In all of this I find at least one point upon which I can agree with the wingnuts on both sides: we simply have to care, have to watch what is happening, have to use our minds, and have to share our voices.

And, with that bit of optimism, I'm off.
The hard fact of healthcare costs 03:11am on 10 Nov 2009 188 Richard

You point out one of the basic, fundamental flaws in the anti-government rhetoric: we set up our own government, and we can't trust the government, so "we have met the enemy, and he is us."

How about another, formerly in-favor Republican maxim: "trust, but verify?" Build systems that have safeguards and protections, protect the independence of the press, fight the imperial presidency- and look out for the General Welfare? Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, and the Muckrakers independent journalists... It's quite possible to have government for the people, and to guard against abuse, too.
The hard fact of healthcare costs 02:13am on 10 Nov 2009 177 Richard
"I have learned a couple of things from reading the posts, the most surprising thing is perhaps the individualist nature of American society. It is famed to be individualistic but it still surprises me that it was not diluted by the emigration from, generally, collectivist societies. One would imagine a far more moderate viewpoint."

Please, do not make the same mistake that many on both sides of the American health care debate, and overgeneralize. In fact, almost all polls show that a majority are in favor of some kind of government health care program. I'd suspect that even more would favor it if there weren't (legitimate) concerns about our national financial situation.

American society is just to broad to make sweeping categorizations like this one. Large numbers support either extreme, and most would probably range somewhere in the middle.

Many in America's self-conception of us as a society, for better or worse, doesn't allow even consideration of the idea that the government is an instrument of the people, for the people, by the people. One of the most basic tenets of our founding, and it has been lost for who knows what reason- perhaps in the long perceived crusade against Communism, which used similar language. It's a substantial danger for any democracy when a substantial number of citizens start to see government as something apart, something foreign and enemy to their beliefs. If the government is a direct expression of the people, and the people do not trust the government, then whence democracy?

I just don't buy it. People in Europe and elsewhere have had socialized medicine, education, etc. for nigh on half a century or more, and still retain the same basic rights and democratic freedoms that the U.S. does, and remain competitive economically.
Healthcare plans: a threat to freedom? 10:47am on 06 Nov 2009 34 sumwatt

If the Founding Fathers (blessed be their names) intended for there to be no change save through Constitutional amendments. then I suppose that they weren't very good at practicing what they preached, were they?
-Where does the Constitution give the President power to invade states supporting piracy, without act of Congress? Mr. Jefferson...
-Where does it permit the purchase of millions of square miles of land? Mr. Jefferson again...

Other leaders later exacerbated this unbearable situation:
-establishment of the Coast Guard
-establishment of a standing army
-establishment of national parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges on public land
-cession of uncounted millions of acres to the railroad barons as they built across the country
-sending of troops more times than I can count to meddle in the internal affairs, and to support American financial interests, in just about every one of our neighbors in Central and South America and the Caribbean, without a declaration of war
-supporting the takeover of a sovereign kingdom by American business interests, then annexing it (Hawaii, anyone?)
-annexing and brutally suppressing partisan fighters seeking independence (the Philippines? Cuba? Puerto Rico?)
-massive foreign conflicts just about every decade without a declaration of war (Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq?)
-construction of a Federal highway and interstate highway system
-massive buildup of the world's most sophisticated and dangerous military force
-establishment of a Federal program to directly support religious groups' charity efforts

I find it very convenient that the only time objections are raised to government acting "unconstitutionally" is when it does so for the collective good. Actions under which we can rally round the flag, by jingo, are just the way it should be. So, Civil Rights, clean air and water and land, conservation of our dwindling natural resources, protection of endangered species, and now health care are all unconstitutional, unAmerican, socialist, and a threat to freedom...
Healthcare plans: a threat to freedom? 00:51am on 06 Nov 2009 "Hands off my Health Care?" I know that one shouldn't draw conclusions from individual examples, but at least in my experience with people of all income levels and social backgrounds, the loudest cries (apart from the agitators, of course) are coming from those who are most in jeopardy under the current system. I know a number of people who either have no health insurance or rely on Medicare/Medicaid for their support- and are deathly afraid of this change.

Who's to blame? Our educational system? Or our politicians, who for years used "socialism" as a bogeyman, responsible for all the direst evils in the world? If you preach fear enough, eventually all it takes is for someone to say, "there, that's what I warned of" and some people will react as conditioned.

As far as "... it was the responsibility of the churches and communities to look after those who couldn't afford healthcare, not the state"- while I am a regular churchgoer, the idea of churches "and communities" (whatever that means) to provide for all of those lacking medical insurance is absolutely, totally, ludicrous. So we should all break out the mason jars and stand on streetcorners to solicit spare change, so that we can pay for someone's cancer treatment?

The saddest part is, just about every time we go to a local grocery store or pharmacy, there's a collection jar for someone- usually a child- needing critical medical care.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Via-Media