Too much talk and pork in the US Senate?
Government offices are closed in Washington today because of the weather, but the Senators have not been spared. Why were they being asked to vote in the dead of the night in the middle of a snowstorm, asked the senator opening the debate, Tennessee Republican Lamar Alexander? His own answer was that there was a rush because Democrats didn't want to explain what the bill meant.
Two things are critical to getting a bill through the Senate: bringing on the pork, and cutting the talk. Some might consider these two are politics in its purest form: democracy as constituency-based self-interest and creative use of the rule book. Others may say that they are exactly the sort of thing that many people dislike about politics in general and Washington politics in particular.
This vote in the small hours in a snow-shrouded Senate was not about the contents of the bill. It was to stop endless debate designed solely to stop the passing of legislation, otherwise known as the filibuster. Most legislatures know something of the device but in the Senate it has been raised to a high art form. Over the weekend, clerks read 383 pages of amendments to an almost empty chamber for something like seven hours.
To put a halt to this sort of thing the Democrats running the Senate needed 60 of the 100 senators to vote for a motion. To get enough on side they had to offer changes to the bill itself. Some of these were general, like dropping a federally-run not-for-profit insurance scheme, usually known as "the public option". Too many conservative Democrats had doubts about it for it to live.
But the last vote they needed was of Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson. He too had a worry that also concerned many, over abortion. So it was agreed, via a fairly complex formula, that no federal money would be used to fund abortions. But that wasn't enough, so the pork barrel was wheeled in. Now I must make it clear, what I mean by "pork" doesn't suggest anything improper, just a politician getting a better deal for his or her constituency than is available for everyone else.
Senator Nelson has got a cool $45m for his state over 10 years, meaning the federal government will pay most of the costs of Medicaid, the health scheme for those on very low incomes, in Nebraska, but nowhere else.
Now the planned bill will expand Medicaid and many states feel they can't afford the bill at the moment, so Republicans put forward a proposal to extend the federal payment to all 50 states. The amendment was politely rejected. Putting aside the strong feels about healthcare itself, what do you think of business being done this way?
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Due to the "politicking" that goes on in both parties, and the pork ammendments, the simple fact is that any possibility of substantive reform of health care has been well and truely castrated....
"dropping a federally-run not-for-profit insurance scheme, usually known as "the public option".
Thus the profiteering of health will continue and the US will continue to languish at the bottom end of the health league table of developped nations.
What a tragedy.
And check out these comparisons of different systems and expenditure
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8201711.stm
Complain about this comment
What do I think of doing business this way? It's absolutely disgusting!
That Obama has been greasing the wheels has been reported (usually using the veiled term that he "wooed" Democrats). That he has been greasing their palms is entirely consistent with the style of government we have see under this administration.
You will note for instance that since Health Care has become priority uno no Congressman has been up before an ethics committee. Maybe they are just being good little boys and girls so that Santa brings them what they want.
Even your article suggests that the Republicans are doing something terribly wrong in trying to defeat this legislation despite the party line voting of the Democrats. Articles like to call the Democrats "fractious"...how fractious are they when in the end they vote en bloc as EVERYONE knew they would! The Democrats could have ended this earlier but they wanted to squeeze all the pork they possibly could out of this bad legislation.
Everyone tacitly admits that the resulting bill offers the worst of all worlds. It will result in mandatory, unaffordable health care without controls that will restrict the rapid rise in costs. This bill does not deserve to pass, and yet in due course it will be inflicted upon the American people and ballyhooed as the glory of our age!
The worst mockery is the argument that there is a moral need for each American to buy health insurance. You can only invoke a moral argument if medicine were practiced morally, if costs bore some relation to labor and materials expended, if the hospitals haven't grown fat by over-charging insurance companies who in turn have grown fat by overcharging customers with solid backing by unions who demand employer covered full coverage all family member plans.
This entire so-called health reform, from the moment it was introduced during the campaigns to this dreadful night has been a scandal. From now on it will be a tragedy!
Complain about this comment
So cold-hearted uncaring Republicans propose to extend the FEDERAL payment to all 50 states, and statist Democrats reject it?
Dems must have done it only because it was in the middle of the snowstorm (blame it on global warming) and in the thick of the night.
How would they otherwise justify the rejection to their constituances? ;)
Complain about this comment
2 shivering....
"That he has been greasing their palms is entirely consistent with the style of government we have see under this administration."
So pre-Jan 2009 there was no pork-barrel politics? Hmmmmm.
I too am disgusted by the entire US political system of lobbying, pork politics and overt vested interests .... but to lay the blame at Obama's door reveals you as a fantasist.
Complain about this comment
3. powermeerkat wrote:
"So cold-hearted uncaring Republicans propose to extend the FEDERAL payment to all 50 states, and statist Democrats reject it?"
Has it occurred to you that the Republicans put forward the 50 state ammendment, knowing it could not be accepted, as a political knock at their opponents? It wouldn't be the first time it's happened.
Your facile reasoning knows no bounds.
Complain about this comment
2 shivering
"You can only invoke a moral argument if medicine were practiced morally"
Have you heard of the Hypocratic Oath?
Complain about this comment
2 shivering....
"if costs bore some relation to labor and materials expended, if the hospitals haven't grown fat by over-charging insurance companies who in turn have grown fat by overcharging customers with solid backing by unions who demand employer covered full coverage all family member plans."
It requires the flexibility of a mental contortionist to lay the blame for the sad state fo US healthcare at the door of the unions.
And your other arguments are widely considered to be strong points in favour of a well-run single-payer universal healthcare system.
Well done - you defeat yourself.
Complain about this comment
It's pretty much endemic to democracy, or, indeed any other system of government. Powerful people have to be bought off. For once, we can't blame it on the mistake of adopting a written Constitution... ;)
Just to point out for shivering on the bill: it does contain cost controls - I believe the CBO, which even the GOP has refrained from criticising ("Don't trust the CBO! They're in the tank for reality!"), has scored it as bending the curve.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu
A well-run US GOVERNMENT single-payer universal healthcare system is a chimera. However, I would indeed PREFER a well run single-payer healthcare system...if such a thing were possible with the corruption and bureaucracy endemic in our political system...could such a thing be conjured into existence.
The fact is that the US cannot get to a well-run national health system from where it is positioned. It is a political impossibility, and would require a return to a form of morality long lost in terms of fair and honest billing for services. It would require a complete revision of the so-called justice system.
It is not I who have "defeated myself" but the political-economic and social realities the defeat such a proposal.
Nevertheless, it would be absurd not to point out that this is the worst legislation to come through a bad system for a very long time, and that it will indeed be FORCED upon the people. Your well-run single-payer universal healthcare system is somewhere out there with buying the world a Coke and keeping it company...peace on earth, good will toward men...something that exists only as the lyrics of a pop song!
Complain about this comment
This is clearly a gradual process, and out of it more good will come out of it than harm. Most importantly - the end of denial of coverage through pre-existing conditions - and the end of people who are insured - still being denied treatment. That combined with another 25m people who will now be covered means that the USA is on the way to joining the rest of the world in recognizing that healthcare is a right - not a priviledge.
Complain about this comment
I've puzzled over this most of this year - why can't we form a consensus, when almost everyone admits our health care system has become just another engine designed to fleece every citizen, on the threat of pain and death?
Too many interests are gathered around this carcass, and those who favor the status quo find it easy to set them against each other. So we find it nearly impossible to do what is right for the country because there soon come to be too many details. Obstinate legislators (or valuable, if you are one of their constituents) hold out simply to leverage their choice bit of pork into the barrel.
We need a stronger executive, one who can set national priorities and legislate effectively. Our president does not legislate directly at all - that requires the consent of a majority of the representatives of the people, sixty percent to release a bill from the Senate.
Just how much power do you want the American President to hold in his own hands? Remember Nixon? Remember W? Remember Cheney?
If we can't form a consensus, it's not a good idea to act anyway.
KScurmudgeon
politically conservative ... err, cautious
Complain about this comment
I disagree: I believe that public officials' bribing each other, with public money no less, is highly improper. Not only should it be stopped, but the solicitation of such bribes should be sufficient cause for removal of the offending Member.
Complain about this comment
9 shivering
Thanks for a well-reasoned reply.
It seems we agree on more than we thought. I just find it sad that the great USA cannot seem to work for the benefit of its people.
As to your comment
"Your well-run single-payer universal healthcare system is somewhere out there with buying the world a Coke and keeping it company...peace on earth, good will toward men...something that exists only as the lyrics of a pop song!"
Actually it's alive and well in France, Germany, the Scandi countries and many more.... It really is possible, but as you say it would require a radical overhaul of many systems in the current US.
Complain about this comment
The de facto defeat of healthcare reform in the USA has more to do with politics and philosophical convictions than the alleged flaws of what was being proposed.
The cynicism of those that claimed they could not vote in favor of the bill because they had not had a chance to read it (after months of deliberation) became apparent when after demanding it be read in its entirety they didn't bother to show up to listen to what was being read.
The truth is that Republicans scored, once again, a huge political victory. Not only did their beloved benefactors remain in control of medical services in the USA, they managed to portray the Democrats as sponsors of socialism and fiscally irresponsible for proposing changes to the most expensive healthcare system in the world.
Efforts to provide healthcare to all citizens were derailed with claims of socialism and the horrific probability that illegal aliens would qualify for medical care, all delivered under a mantra of Christian compassion!
Language was introduced at the request of Republicans and conservative Democrats to ensure public funds are not spent on family planning, abortion, or even things such as explaining to senior what a Living Will is and its importance. Alas, the latter was quickly transformed into a proposal for death panels!
I believe the Obama Administration could and should have done a better job at explaining how the bill was going to be financed. Instead they let the insurance industry lobby get the upper hand with predictable consequences.
The truth, however, is that the main reason a universal healthcare systems was not because of political conviction on the part of Congressmen or Senators, but because of OUR belief that our system is second to none and that even the slightest changes would turn it into something akin to systems in Europe and Canada. Ignorance, disdain for anything foreign, and a heavy dose of brain washing had more to do with the loss of what may very well be the last opportunity to implement desperately needed changes to our healthcare system than anything else.
Yes, a few concessions and increased regulation to mitigate the draconian policies of the insurance industry were introduced, and yes, dramatic changes are often achieved incrementally, but this is hardly the kind of change anyone can really believe in.
Complain about this comment
Not got a problem with pork-barrel politics, as long as it involves senators getting a better deal for their constituents (not feathering their own nests). You can't really blame them for wanting to get a better deal which will benefit the people that voted them in.
I wish my local MP would stand up for his constituents a bit more.
Complain about this comment
Only the naive believed that the Obama administration and the Dems would change the way things are done in Washington. Not the Republican were different but the polirazation , pettiness and behind closed doors is worse.
Complain about this comment
I'm from Nebraska and i think it is just great that he both managed to get the abortion clause out, and sell his vote for our state.
way to go ben!
Complain about this comment
ref #14
Two questions for you
1. Should the bill have had interstate isurance payer options?
2. Why was there no tort reform?
Complain about this comment
Good posts from RomeStu, KScurmudgeon, and St Dom. I wonder how many US citizens have died as a result of having no healthcare insurance, and how many have been declared bankrupt as a result of crippling healthcare costs since when the healthcare bill first appeared. I bet the Christians in the GOP and other conservative movements don't give a filibuster about them.
Complain about this comment
Ref 16, Magic
"Only the naive believed that the Obama administration and the Dems would change the way things are done in Washington."
Washington is not an abstract, it is the seat of our federal government. Contrary to what you insinuate, our representatives in Congress listen and react to the wishes of the populace. Few. if any, would dare oppose their constituents. Doing so would mean the end of their political career.
The defeat of meaningful healthcare reform was due by the ability of the insurance industry, with the unequivocal support of those whose campaigns they fund, to persuade the American people that what we have now is second to none, that providing services to those who can not afford them was tantamount to socialism and inconsistent with our emphasis on personal responsibility, and that a nefarious agenda was being implemented to transform our country into a replica of Europe and Canada.
Considering our xenophobic traits, our conviction of supremacy, and the fact that our exposure to life in other countries is often limited to an occasional trip to Tijuana or the Bahamas, the outcome was, indeed, a certainty.
Regarding the issue of expanded MEDICAID services and increased federal contributions to that program, I am not sure I would categorize that as pork. A program designed to provide medical care to our poorest citizens is not the same as building a bridge or road to nowhere.
Complain about this comment
The healthcare bill has been diluted, but it's still an improvement on what was there before. Thats the price of doing politics in the US and is tantamount to corruption
The real shame is that when a bill comes along where every vote counts, indivdual senators have the chance to withhold their vote unless their state is paid off somehow. If everyone else is doing it, is it wrong to disadvantage your state by doing the right thing and just voting?
Worse still is that it allows petty ideologues to put clauses into any bill just to cement a few more religiously intolerant votes and destroy the separation of church and state a little bit more. The bill's supporters then have to back it or loose the lot.
Pork is up there alongside campaign finance reform as the biggest problem in the US system. Cut those out and you take a way 90% of the incentive for representatives and senators to do something other than represent their voter's best interests.
Complain about this comment
11. At 11:59am on 21 Dec 2009, KScurmudgeon wrote:
We need a stronger executive, one who can set national priorities and legislate effectively. Our president does not legislate directly at all - that requires the consent of a majority of the representatives of the people, sixty percent to release a bill from the Senate.
The Executive branch is too strong already. During the Cold War Congress ceded much of its power to the Presidency in the hopes that they would be let off the hook of publicly making the big decisions - for which they might be voted out of office. That's why nothing ever gets done anymore that is really in the public interest. Obama is rightly tossing the legislative ball back into the court where it belongs.
Let Congress do its job and let us focus on the real culprits, please. The men who tinkered with the parliamentary rules of the Senate to the point where they have gridlocked the government, then treated politics like a high stakes game of chicken - where only you, the taxpayer, is in danger of being driven off a cliff or losing your pink slip.
Sadly, only they can change the rules back to something more sensible, so it is on them we need to focus all our anger and attention. If we do that, eventually they will become frightened enough to do what is needed - whether or not they really want to be responsible for governing. It is they who would like you to blame the President, so that they can go on getting reelected to their cushy jobs - with no consequences for their actions or deliberate inaction.
And if you don't believe me, watch how certain Senators suddenly point the finger of blame at Obama or Rahm Emanuel for everything that is bad, but take all the credit for what is believed to be good. If it turns out wrong, like deregulating the banks, they'll just lay the blame elsewhere and keep on telling you they're doing the best they can. Of course, this is a lie. But like the fools they are, they are driving our government toward a Unitary Executive, i.e. a dictatorship, because they want power without responsibility and you want government to work. So of course, you demand the Presidency ought to be more powerful than it already is, in order to make the necessary changes the system needs. Because if Congress isn't doing its job, somebody has to, right?
Complain about this comment
Ref 18, Magic
1. Should the bill have had interstate isurance payer options?
In my opinion, yes.
2. Why was there no tort reform?
I believe this is issue is of relative importance and should be addressed, but not as part of healthcare legislation. Frivolous law suits should not be allowed, but why should a patient who had the wrong kidney removed, the relatives of a person that died because a patient was administered the wrong medication or wrong dosage and other acts of neglicence such as these accept the consequences without compensation? I have never sued anyone and do not intend to, and if something like the examples above happened to me my reaction would not involve monetary compensation but ensuring the culprits never practice medicine again.
Complain about this comment
Name me one government created and run major social program which is cost effective and has been efficiently run?
Medicare? No. Medicaid? Nope. Obamacare?
I don't know about U.K.
Perhaps NHS is cost effective and efficiently run?
Complain about this comment
In response to powermeerkat's questions viz "in the UK is the NHS cost-effective and efficiently run?":
No, it's not - it's bureaucratic and suffers from that. What it is is dramatically better value than the US system. As a percentage of GDP ( much the best way of measuring the total cost of a health system) we English, and Europeans generally, pay at most 2/3rds of what American's do. There is not one measure of our total population's health (life expectancy, childhood death rates, vaccination rates etc etc) on which the US ranks higher. We pay less and get better results. You fund insurance and litigation.
Complain about this comment
I worry that they didn't do anything but create costs. I would love a single payer system as long term I can't see any other way to reduce costs, cover as many as possible, and keep the quality as high as possible.
At best they might have extended coverage to some, at a risk for losing it for others, and passed on huge costs to the states and our children.
One more thing I will say, and this is a more general issue with how the Democrats and Obama are running things. They all too often ram through bills unread by those voting for them, they never give the public a chance to see them before the votes, and they are spending like drunken sailors. Obama made promises, less pork, open government that would include publishing the bills some where so the people could read them with time before the votes happen, and less partisanship. Well he has not delieved on any other these things. Change we want, but not change we will be getting it would seem. He has failed to be the change we all expected, he has instead been all about him and what makes him look good. If he had the honesty and the courage we all hoped for he might have turned down the peace prize, done something to hang our hats on, but time after time he just proves he aint in this for us, but for himself.
Complain about this comment
Ref 26, John
"They all too often ram through bills unread by those voting for them, they never give the public a chance to see them before the votes, and they are spending like drunken sailors."
I am certainly not impressed with the way the Administration handled this critical legislation, and very disappointed by the fact that the public option is not part of the bill, but insinuating that those who are going to vote on the bill did not have an opportunity to read it is disingenous.
A few moderate Republicans have participated in this process since the debate began, and those that did not join the discussions did it because they did not want any part of it and want it to use their objections for political gain. The fact that Republicans did not even bother to go to the Chamber to listen to what was being read this weekend says it all.
When was the last time "the public" was given a chance to read legislation before it passed. Have you forgotten the votes that took place on Holidays or in the middle of the night, unannounced, when Republicans held a majority in Congress? Do you honestly believe any of us would actually read Congressional legislation before a vote is cast?
Yes, spending is horrible, but since the alternative is to allow the collapse of our economy, as announced by President Bush last year, there is no real option but to invest and bail out our institution in hope that we may be able to salvage what is left of our industry and our economy.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Mardell, the 'business' you refer to is simple politics. We as humans are at our most basic flawed, petty, and corrupt individuals. It is no surprise then that a bribe of sufficient size, no matter its disguise, won over the 'honorable' Senator Nelson. The term 'pork' is merely a facade, a ruse to hide the fact that the United States Senate is wracked with graft, bribe, and corruption.
In other words, the crusade to create a socialized health-care system was slowed by a senator who wanted a bribe. The Republican position to have the remaining forty-nine states receive similar packages was simply a move towards equality. Perhaps the opposition merely wanted to avoid the appearance of a bribe, but then note how quickly the motion was rejected.
The Democrats in the Senate do not care if what they do appears corrupt because they do not listen to the people. The ruling party does not heed the people, but rather carries on with its own ambitions. The Republicans had their wars in the sands of the East, and now the Democrats have theirs on the marble of the Capitol. This is the essence of partisan politics.
Partisan politics, when driven by the mob, are politics at their worst. The People, those to whom the elected are theoretically held accountable, are forgotten in oceans of pretty prose and the ragged cries of Non-Governmental Organizations. According to a recent poll by ABC forty-nine percent of the polled oppose health care legislation (with thirty nine percent strongly opposing). Those for the health care bill numbered some forty-eight percent (with thirty percent strongly supporting).
That one percent, a seemingly insignificant number, is what raises kings above men. How easy it is to ignore the people when graft and grease smooth the gears of one's government. How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy (Nietzsche). One supposes it was only a matter of time before the enemy became the citizenry of the United States.
Complain about this comment
Re #25 Steve Somer wrote:
"There is not one measure of our total population's health (life expectancy, childhood death rates, vaccination rates etc etc) on which the US ranks higher. We pay less and get better results."
We would have much better results as well, I suspect, and not only in the realm of health statistics, but also public schools education standards, safety, drug smuggling, etc., had it not been for close to 20 millionof folks euphemistically described as 'undocumented aliens".
[No, I'm not refering to UFO crews we've been jailing in Area 51 since times immemorial, or at least since Roswell.]
Perhaps if UK took just 1/4th of them we could talk about a level playing field. But as it stands...
Complain about this comment
I have to laugh at all the mock outrage from right wingers about votes being "bought." NEWSFLASH people....this is how political business has been done in Washington DC for decades and decades. Hoorsetrading votes. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours. You support this bill, and I'll make sure your submarine base doesn't get closed. Vote for my bill, and I'll make sure you get extra federal funding. Etc etc....
Complain about this comment
For the record Mr. Mardell, the United States Constitution was designed by men who feared the interference of the uneducated masses upon their beloved institution. This is an old ideal. Unfortunately here in the United States few people care to study politics anymore, reducing what seems the majority to mobs who are too focused on fads and catch-phrases. Perhaps I, the author of this response, am too cynical and jaded to see the educated within the mob. How ironic, then that those elected by the mob now do not heed the mob's wishes.
Complain about this comment
@shivering...
The fact is that the US cannot get to a well-run national health system from where it is positioned. It is a political impossibility, and would require a return to a form of morality long lost in terms of fair and honest billing for services. It would require a complete revision of the so-called justice system.
I suspect that I am at the other end of the political spectrum from shivering. However, on this point, I think he's got it absolutely right.
Complain about this comment
I think this legislation will do exactly what it is intended not to do- increase health insurance costs for everyone and raise taxes.
There is a real solution to make health care more affordable. The states have imposed mandates that force insurers to cover a wide array of ailments. Since the insurance companies must cover this care whether the customer wants it or not, they are forced to charge higher premiums for everyone. In addition, states have barred their citizens and businesses from buying health insurance regulated by other states. This, in effect, creates an insurance cartel in every state, and in many states, the few options people have are unaffordable.
This legislation, among other things, will force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions. The care for these conditions will be needed often, and the insurance companies will need to pay out much more than they do now. This will lead to even HIGHER premiums for everyone, encouraging the young and healthy to forgo their insurance, making the insurance pool smaller and sicker, increasing costs even further. If the government wants to subsidize these payments, they're going to have to raise taxes on someone, since they have no money to give. Claims that this program will earn more than it costs are pipe-dreams with no base in economic reality.
This bill does exactly what has made health care so expensive to begin with- increases government mandates and control over the industry. If the government thinks it can provide high-quality, affordable health care for everyone, why don't they start with our veterans.
If you think the insurance companies are against this legislation, think again. Why would they have any problem forcing millions of people to buy their services overnight?
Our health care industry hasn't had a free market for decades, and it has only made health care less and less affordable, and the poor are the ones who suffer most. We need to reject our trend towards greater government control, as it only benefits the big insurance and drug companies at the expense of the poor and middle classes.
Complain about this comment
Re #31
There are plenty of people who criticize U.S. democracy without even realizing that U.S. is not a democracy but a REPUBLIC.
Or that at least it was designed as such by our Founding Fathers.
Perhaps that's why they cannot figure out what, for example, Electoral College has been set up for.
Complain about this comment
@ G McGee
"This bill does exactly what has made health care so expensive to begin with- increases government mandates and control over the industry"
That is the essence of a welfare state. The main outcomes of any increase in governmental interference and size are higher taxes and less personal freedom. Interesting how liberalism has been perverted over the centuries.
Complain about this comment
ref #20
SaintDominick wrote:
Ref 16, Magic
"Only the naive believed that the Obama administration and the Dems would change the way things are done in Washington."
Washington is not an abstract, it is the seat of our federal government. Contrary to what you insinuate, our representatives in Congress listen and react to the wishes of the populace. Few. if any, would dare oppose their constituents. Doing so would mean the end of their political career.
_________________
Well the polls say that the majority don't want the bill passed in it's present form.
And granted I live in a one party state but most Mass voters are lemmings and look at party more than actions or the person.
one district relected a rep who several years ago molested a male page and another who is still there whose SO ran an escort service out of his D.C home
Complain about this comment
@34
What is republic? It is oligarchy, pure and simple. Oh, elected perhaps, but that simply means the oligarchs are replaced from time to time. In short: yes, I realize that the United States is not a true, and I stress that word, democracy. It has never been such. To believe otherwise is ignorance.
Complain about this comment
Our people in DC are a bunch of out-of-touch wimps who are more concerned about themselves than about the people whom they represent.
I'm sorry to by so cynical about American Poli-Ticks*, but I have not been impressed by DC. At all. Ever. Srsly.
Sometimes it seems that the only things of value in DC are our National Documents, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonians.
Okay - some of the monuments are kinda cool looking.
Then you're done.
Show's over.
Go home.
___________
* 'Poli' meaning Many, 'Ticks' meaning Blood Sucking Parasites.
Complain about this comment
A needed correction to your statement, "Senator Nelson has got a cool $45m for his state over 10 years.."
The US CBO [Congressional Budget Office] says the Nebraska Democrat sellout’s special Medicaid expansion subsidy will initially cost an estimated $100 million.
Complain about this comment
Ref 36, Magic
"Well the polls say that the majority don't want the bill passed in it's present form."
As I said in an earlier post on this subject, I believe the real culprits for the derailment of meaningful healthcare reform are US - the people. It is us that pressured congressmen, Senators, and the Administration to abandon the public option, and specific parts of this legislation on the basis of moral and religious values.
The fact that the public option would have resulted in cost containment by forcing for-profit insurance companies to compete against them is of little interest to a populace convinced that ours is the best system in the world. The fact that almost 50 million Americans do not have healthcare coverage is immaterial to those that claim to be compassionate Christians.
Fear not, the spin will start as soon as the legislation is signed and don't be surprised if those that opposed change suddenly emerge as champions of the solutions they helped derail.
Complain about this comment
ref #40
As I said in an earlier post on this subject, I believe the real culprits for the derailment of meaningful healthcare reform are US - the people. It is us that pressured congressmen, Senators, and the Administration to abandon the public option, and specific parts of this legislation on the basis of moral and religious values.
______________-
there we disagree I think many people (including me)want healthcare reform.
but see a special interests bill with some of the major problems not addressed.
Complain about this comment
@ SaintDominick
It is those same moral and religious values that keep order in the world. If something is amoral it stands against what we build our societies upon. These same moral and religious values mean that the opposition will be less likely to denigrate themselves by reversing their positions. This is called integrity, and it is based in no small part on one's morality. If you prefer integrity is based on either one moral/ethical code or a lack thereov.
Complain about this comment
Okay - Story Time:
Once upon a time, Philly Mom was a Human Resources Benefits Administrator for a Phase III pharmaceutical research company. (I haven't worked there since '97) My HR Manager was a devout Catholic. When the company was small, my Manager go the organization onto a healthcare provider with limited OBGYN coverage. When we were bought by Corning, we moved to a larger employee insurance provider with a... ahem... more significant package. She hated it, but could do nothing about it.
Later Philly Mom moved to Los Angeles and worked in Higher Ed administration. The institution's HMO was 1/4 the price of the PPO, I was young, pregnant... and Pasadena Hospital dropped service to HMOs because they weren't paying the doctors fair wages for services. My only 3rd Trimester choices were to switch doctors & drive a very long way to another hospital, or switch coverage and pay a LOT more money (that I didn't have).
Later in Massachusetts, Philly Mom was a Grant Administrator for an academic research hospital. Rumor had it that students didn't want to become medical doctors or family practitioners because they would have to carry so much insurance that they wouldn't be able to pay off their academic loans.
Meanwhile - the US has an aging population and an impending nursing shortage. Give it a few more years and we'll have a doctor shortage.
The insurance industry is WAY out of control... but too many people's jobs are connected to processing all that ridiculous paperwork.
People's lives depend on this change, but it aint gonna happen any time soon.
- too many politicians with 'issues'
- too many lobbyists providing right-wing propoganda
- too many insurance coordinator's jobs are on the line
- too many big-pharm companies are at stake
- too many big finance fish to fry this year
Meanwhile, my glasses broke this weekend and I'm going to have to shell out hundreds of dollars (that I don't really have) to get a new pair. At Christmas. When I would have RATHER spent the money on my kids.
American Privatized Insurance Sucks.
Oh well. Have a nice day. I'm off to post YE TIAA CREF.
Complain about this comment
#35 Magnos:
Amen.
Complain about this comment
"That he has been greasing their palms is entirely consistent with the style of government we have seen under this administration."
Of course the Republicans do exactly the same when in the same position. We often hear Americans praising their system as a way of protecting their rights under the constitution, however it also provides for the kind of corruption we see here and under the Republicans from time to time, and makes for frequent paralysis in government - something the British wouldn't put up with.
Complain about this comment
ref #43
Later in Massachusetts, Philly Mom was a Grant Administrator for an academic research hospital. Rumor had it that students didn't want to become medical doctors or family practitioners because they would have to carry so much insurance that they wouldn't be able to pay off their academic loans.
Meanwhile - the US has an aging population and an impending nursing shortage. Give it a few more years and we'll have a doctor shortage.
The insurance industry is WAY out of control... but too many people's jobs are connected to processing all that ridiculous paperwork.
People's lives depend on this change, but it aint gonna happen any time soon.
- too many politicians with 'issues'
- too many lobbyists providing right-wing propoganda
- too many insurance coordinator's jobs are on the line
- too many big-pharm companies are at stake
- too many big finance fish to fry this year
___________-
Philly Mom if you were in Mass you should be mentioning the parasitic labor unions, the democratic party family members with 100K jobs and the trial lawyers.
Complain about this comment
" level increases to a point at which inviduals of a species start to attack and kill other individuals. and yes, iot's been observed ad recorded in our species as well."
meow.
this is the best argument for ridding ourselves of guns, creating a national health service and doing our best to stop effecting the planet
don't forget that most of the deaths in the natural situations you mention (over population rebalance) occur through hunger and disease. Not war fare.
You would have us spend the money we need to fix the real problems that we face from the planet and spend it on warring with all muslims.
Yep You Tino and Gherkin want have money for wars but nothing else.
No health care . no planet clean up . yes war.
Complain about this comment
Philly sorry about the specs.
"American Privatized Insurance Sucks."
yep I preferred the British system. the one where all get to go.
but glasses are not covered there. unless on dole and then you get a voucher for the private opticians.
Doesn't cover a prescription of - 13 and some strange stigmatism though.
Bugger.
Still at least when I'm keeling over from a heart attack at the cost I'm not going to get charged at the hospital for the ambulance .
The UK system no longer covers adults eyes or teeth unless you are broke and on national health.(I think)
But the rest is covered.
I think that scares some Americans. they like to have kids in braces at some stage "to get their moneys worth" .
Well it would if they were not too busy panicking about "death panels" turning up and saying "too fat ,old or skinny or young to bother with. let them go"
Complain about this comment
What I think of "business being done in this way?" I think its awful! As your E-Sharp! article so passionately called for, I think the rules of the Senate badly need "reform" themselves, so as to avoid the need to force its members to vote in the wee hours of the morning during freack snow storms in order to get a bill passed. And if they were fairer; if there was no such thing as a "filibuster"; if each and every Senator really did care about the needs of their constituants, then I have no doubt what so ever that any bill would have been passed in this most undemocratic of ways.
Just be thankful that there are no such things as "pork" and "filibusters" in the British parlament.
Complain about this comment
Gherkin you mention "parasitic" labour unions.
they are made up of workers and their representatives.
many of them union workers WORK. producing.
I am not saying they are in great moral shape but I would say if you wish to look at or for parasites you should fist understand what a parasite is.
It by definition gives nothing of want back to the host.
the unions do they provide the people to do the work and they try to give them the healthiest environment possible (as far as they understand).
That is more saprophytic than parasitic .
the Parasites the "bosses" who get bonuses when driving the company into the ground.
the "investors" the "share holders" who demand that their return outstrip inflation and provide them with "profit".
the wall street traders that play with futures (literally) that take and really provide nothing.
they all could be called parasites more accurately than unions getting a deal for their workers that is still less than the basic MC D job in the UK.
Health care, holidays. Enjoyed by All British workers.
AND DID THOSE FEET........
Complain about this comment
Philly don't worry about the doctor shortage. Cuba is not far.;)
Complain about this comment
"Putting aside the strong feels about healthcare itself, what do you think of business being done this way?"
It stinks. We have a saying (my emended version): You never want to see law, sausage, or software being made.
Complain about this comment
"Just be thankful that there are no such things as "pork" and "filibusters" in the British parlament." (from PursuitofLove at #49)
Pork-barrel politics is not unique to the United States:
Machael Brown in The Indpendent
Complain about this comment
Should have been "Michael" Brown. When will I start proofreading my posts?
Complain about this comment
ref #50
cheesefuller wrote:
Gherkin you mention "parasitic" labour unions.
they are made up of workers and their representatives.
many of them union workers WORK. producing.
I am not saying they are in great moral shape but I would say if you wish to look at or for parasites you should fist understand what a parasite is.
It by definition gives nothing of want back to the host.
the unions do they provide the people to do the work and they try to give them the healthiest environment possible (as far as they understand).
That is more saprophytic than parasitic .
the Parasites the "bosses" who get bonuses when driving the company into the ground.
the "investors" the "share holders" who demand that their return outstrip inflation and provide them with "profit".
____________________-
Labor Unions are an archahic idea that has far passed it's time. they exists to fatten the purse of union leaders and raise costs by forcing PLA restricting competition.
I've never seen any benefit from a union worker over a non union worker. And I can tell you working with them at the Javits Center in NY is just like a shakedown from community orginiazers.
We need a modern day James McFarland to fight them
Complain about this comment
#49 Pursuit:
Maybe if the Senate has to meet late at night during a snowstorm to pass a bill, it's not a very good bill.
Americans understand that the ramifications of this bill are enormous, and pushing this kind of legislation through while nobody's looking is both underhanded and outrageous.
Europeans don't understand that the rules that keep 'important' bills from being passed are the same ones that keep terrible bills from being passed. If a bill was a truly good bill, the Congress would have no problem voting for it. If, as in this case, a bill is not even READ (let alone understood) by Congress before they try to vote on it, and the bill will have a HUGE effect on one of our most important industries, I think it's extremely important that it is held under the highest scrutiny and kept from being passed until the consequences of such a bill are debated.
The Democrats have been extremely underhanded in getting their recent (and unpopular) legislation passed, and sure the Republicans have done their share of the same thing, but that doesn't make it right. Just because a loud minority wants this legislation doesn't make it right to punish the silent majority with it, ESPECIALLY if Congress has no idea how or even if it will do what it's meant to do.
Complain about this comment
54
lol that's the British independent.
Here independent seems to mean "republican with no balls"
Complain about this comment
@40 (StD): "The fact that the public option would have resulted in cost containment by forcing for-profit insurance companies to compete against them ..."
In all seriousness, how is it possible for a for-profit insurance company to compete against a not-for-profit entity backed by the Fed gov't?
a. The public option can and will set its rates anywhere its governing body (the Congress) decides that they be set. It doesn't have to make any kind of profit.
b. The public option has the "infinite" (so long as the Treasury debt is financed) resources of the Federal treasury available to deal with any losses sustained as a result of operations.
No private for-profit corporation can compete against an entity which combines these two characteristics. The public option can always set its rates low enough to drive the for-profit corporation out of business.
The only way the two can coexist is if they are after different market segments (and by definition are then not competing).
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I've just not seen any explanation of how this can possibly work. If the public option is competing for customers with the for-profit entities, it will always beat their rates, and will always destroy the for-profit entities. If you (or someone else) can explain otherwise, I'm happy to listen.
As an aside, if someone says that Congress would prevent the public option from doing that, that raises the question of what they would base that prevention on. That inevitably leads to the amount of protection that a for-profit entity obtains from the Congress most likely varying in proportion to the amount of campaign cash that that for-profit entity pays out. Isn't that just an updated version of the "protection racket" that used to go on (and still goes on)?
Complain about this comment
The Senate rule of unlimited debate (later restricted by the cloture rule) began in 1806, but the filibuster was not a big problem in the 19th century. The first filibuster didn't take place until 1841.
Here is a brief history of the filibuster from Time.
In my view the 3/5 cloture rule is not the problem; the problem is the increased polarization of American politics over the last three decades. The Republican Party today has driven out most of its moderates, and ideologues who remain in the Senate would rather obstruct Democratic legislation than compromise.
Complain about this comment
Mark - what do I think? I wrote this back in February this year. I have nothing else - constructive at least - to add. The first para is quoting another poster to the then Justin Webb site.
Quote "So the Republicans are sticking to their ideological guns in the hope that in two years they will win back a majority and go back to the merry games they were playing before Obama was elected."
Thanks again. And with the word "Shucks" and pausing to kick a near by pebble with embarrassment - could I ask a tenderfoot/greenhorn question about politicians in general over there.
Does the good of the Nation as a whole ever figure in these seemingly selfish plans?
I think the TV series "Commander In Chief" and "The West Wing" have rather blinkered my views.
I will just sit here next to this big block of cheese - waiting for the answer.
What am I sitting on - ah yes a pork barrel. lol
Complain about this comment
Arclight 58
"I'm not trying to be argumentative; I've just not seen any explanation of how this can possibly work. If the public option is competing for customers with the for-profit entities, it will always beat their rates, and will always destroy the for-profit entities. If you (or someone else) can explain otherwise, I'm happy to listen."
sorry
but what you are saying is the rights of the company to make profit are more important than the rights of the people of america to have access to healthcare.
Most people in Europe are probably reading this as I did wondering what America is there for.
the people or the companies.
You are also saying the better competitor should be penalised for not taking too much , for giving too good a deal to the customers.
Privatisation so the costs can go up.
great principles.
Complain about this comment
" ... pushing this kind of legislation through while nobody's looking is both underhanded and outrageous." (from post #56)
No, it's not. It's merely a consequence of the Democratic Party's goal of wanting to pass the bill by the Christmas break, the difficult division of the Senate, and the accident of a snowstorm.
Even in broad daylight on a clear day with no holiday looming, there are few "watching." Those in the gallery are mostly tourists. A few are reporters, and they will be there any time the Senate is in session. The proceedings will appear in The Congressional Record. The only significance is the inconvenience imposed on the Senators who will be forced by their leadership to report for a vote. Republicans will make a big deal of this, but they do that with everything.
Complain about this comment
Gherkin
you obviously don't know what a trade union is
you say they are there to make the leaders rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union
Doesn't mention "making leaders rich"
does mention collective bargaining, better working conditions etc.
union workers do get better working conditions. I could only dream of being in a Union shop. not one without the basic Osha requirements.
Union workers get better healthcare and pensions and holidays than their non union counterparts. that is why so many "industry" leaders try to knock them. Sure a few do make too much. show me the system where that isn't the norm.
but to compare the parasitical takings of the corporate to the "leaders" is not really that fair.
try working for a Union then complain. at least the complaints will be genuine not just jealousy.
Complain about this comment
"In all seriousness, how is it possible for a for-profit insurance company to compete against a not-for-profit entity backed by the Fed gov't?"
In all seriousness there are a host of Private companies in the UK providing health care.
They lease surgery rooms etc from the state. and the costs to the consumer are way less than in the USA.
sorry this has been answered before you asked the question.
if you had cared to read the debates for the last two years here.
you must have missed something there.
Complain about this comment
I'll never understand why people feel the need to insessontly start and engage in debates about World War II...I swear, at times it appears to me like an addiction; a need to hurt as many people of other nationalities' feelings via discussion of the most painful event in recent human history as possible. But nevertheless, I feel it important to lay out the facts of this event. Not offend anyone, just correct misinformation given.
On the previous thread, RomeStu (#114) wrote: "Ah, but would they have been in trouble?"
Well, according to this fireside chat, there was no doubt that we most definitely would have been in trouble if Britain fell.
"Let's go further ... with a totalitarian Europe, perhaps those unpleasant ideals would have seemed more "acceptable" in the US after a while .... leading to no black civil rights, and eventually a major civil uprising."
Very interesting. And unfortunately probably true at least in the south. But I'd like to think that if Europe were indefinitely occupyed by the Nazis, that we would still believe in our constitution. I do know one thing though, if the Confedericy (who was supported by queen Victoria by the way) had won our civil war, that they would have been hard and fast allies with the Nazis, and most likely would have given the Nazis the extra push they needed to win World War II.
ukwales #135 wrote: "With these negotiations for peace he (Chamberlain) bought the time, during which the RAF re-armed with the Super Marine Spitfires in numbers enough to en-able Britain and the Commonwealth to fight the Germans to a standstill in 1940. Standing alone,with America watching the outcome."
Point well made about Chamberlain. I too think he sometimes gets bad press. But the latter part of your post is not entirely factual. Though we had no troops in the war during that time, we certainly deeply cared for and sympathised with the British plight, and did everything we could to aid them without breaking our nutrality.
U4466131 #140 wrote: "5000 young men and women with very little training fought the nation that had subjugated the rest of Europe and beat them. The US sat on the sidelines and watched. It was, as Churchill, said 'our finest hour' and I don't care what else you did later on in WW2, you didn't stop Hitler, we did.
Don't tell us about appeasement, don't give us lectures, you joined in late and will never ever understand. I can have much more sympathy with the Russians than I can ever have with the US. You were always 'Johnny come lately'."
We certainly did let you down in a big way by not joining when you did. And on behalf of all Americans everywhere, I would like to offer my deepest and most sincere apologies. But nevertheless, I think it would benefit you to read the above links, as well as perhaps look up a pole of Americans' feelings on the war at the time for an explination as to why our government took so long to get its act together and join you. Just a suggestion.
Complain about this comment
"Putting aside the strong feels about healthcare itself, what do you think of business being done this way?"
Mr. Mardell, can you honestly say that politics in Britain's Parliament are conducted in an altruistic and above board manner?
The gentleman from Nebraska will no doubt be re-elected in a landslide. When Americans complain about Congress dishing out too much pork it is always understood that we are never talking about our own hard working and upstanding representatives but instead are referring to the greedy, unethical, and unpatriotic scoundrels who represent everyone else.
I have to hand it to the Republicans for hanging together and not breaking ranks on the health care issue, I honestly didn't think they could do it. Whatever problems or short comings arise from health care reform can now be laid at the Democrats' door but the Republicans have painted themselves into a corner--if health care reform works, even moderately well, the Democrats will gleefully remind the voters who was against it.
Complain about this comment
One of the amusing things about the "health care debate" has been the ranting of the anti woman's rights senators about the medical procedure known as abortion. Hell, I don't like wars, but I've had to pay taxes to support five or six of them.
Complain about this comment
Having waited for a couple of decades for Americans to reform themselves towards something resembling functionality, Mr Mardell, I have completely given up.
The American system of government represents the apogee of Mediocrity -- at best.
At worst, it becomes a reeking morass of ineptitude.
And repeating the mantra: "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good" is merely a way of enshrining Mediocrity.
Notice how effectively the US delegation succeeded in irritating the Chinese delegation to the point where they got exactly the kind of reaction out of China that the US needed: a digging in that allowed America to look as if it had been forthcoming, when in fact it was not being forthcoming at all -- with the added bonus of making China look like the villain of Copenhagen.
Is that political genius, or is it a natural and ingrained talent for manipulation, or is it just plain bungling?
Personally, I believe it is deliberate and calculated, just as the Congressional procedural quagmires and the baconfest you describe. The chief proponents of this system benefit directly from its deficiencies and thus have a vested interest in perpetuating the foolishness.
But now that the rest of us realise we also have to breathe, and risk having our respiratory capacity impaired by these kinds of machinations, perhaps we will have to devise countermeasures to mitigate against the effects of American dysfunctionalism. That may actually also work in favour of mitigating climate change.
One example: EU leaders could set an example by refusing to accept calls or visits from US leaders until they start acting like they actually care about the consequences of their actions -- or inactions -- on the rest of us. You could stop according them any kind of deferential or preferential treatment. You could subject them to the exact same kind of foot-dragging they exhibit on issues that matter to everyone.
You could review your association with US firms that do not promote a green policy & support green legislation. We should, indeed, be focusing on getting some kind of proper climate bill passed.
There is all kinds of leverage at the disposal of the great world powers. Waiting for Americans to get better without an overriding incentive to do so is pointless. So apply the leverage, instead.
Complain about this comment
"b. The public option has the "infinite" (so long as the Treasury debt is financed) resources of the Federal treasury available to deal with any losses sustained as a result of operations." (from arclightt at #58)
This is not necessarily true. Government Sponsored Entities (GSEs) are not necessarily backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. They are generally structured to be self-sustaining, not operating directly from Treasury funding. A GSE which gets into financial difficulty can receive help from the Treasury but, as we have seen, so can private companies, including insurance companies (AIG).
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove, your post #65 above is on the wrong thread. Regardless of the merits of the points you make, there is no reason to post them out of context.
Complain about this comment
ref #65
PursuitOfLove wrote:
I'll never understand why people feel the need to insessontly start and engage in debates about World War II...
____________________-
Because those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Complain about this comment
61 cheese
"Most people in Europe are probably reading this as I did wondering what America is there for.
the people or the companies."
No no, we've known the answer to that for a while now ;-)))
Complain about this comment
ref #63
you obviously don't know what a trade union is
you say they are there to make the leaders rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union
Doesn't mention "making leaders rich"
does mention collective bargaining, better working conditions etc.
union workers do get better working conditions. I could only dream of being in a Union shop. not one without the basic Osha requirements.
Union workers get better healthcare and pensions and holidays than their non union counterparts. that is why so many "industry" leaders try to knock them. Sure a few do make too much. show me the system where that isn't the norm.
but to compare the parasitical takings of the corporate to the "leaders" is not really that fair.
try working for a Union then complain. at least the complaints will be genuine not just jealousy.
______________
Labor Union not trade union. But how do the rest of us benefit? Costs increase when a state, municipal or commercial jobs are not open to 80% of the firms.
Why should we fund GM and Chrysler and job banks for union workers.
I want the best company if that is a Union shop fine but going back to my Javits example there is not an exhbitor I've spoken too that enjoys dealing with that union
When the firms I represent bid on a job we are judged on the merits: cost, performance quality and other factors.
Complain about this comment
"Most people in Europe are probably reading this as I did wondering what America is there for.
the people or the companies." (from cheesefuller at #61 in reference to #58)
A remark of President Calvin Coolige is often paraphrased as "the business of America is business." Business is, however, conducted by people, after all.
Here is what Coolige actually said:
Calvin Coolidge
There is still something to be said in favor of Coolidge's concept of Americanism, in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
53 gary & 66 scott
No, the British Parliament is not above politics, but if a single MP held out his vote on a key manifesto issue in order to blackmail some additional funding for his constituency, then he would have a very short future in politics.
Obviously the UK has a major difference in that it has a party system, where the MPs are obliged to follow certain manifesto issues, irrepsective of their local issues. They must balance their local representation aginst the party manifesto commitments.
It's not a perfect system by a long shot, but
a) no MP can blackmail his party so openly
b) personal campaign contributions are illegal - donations are made to the party itself. Thus, although certain MPs are loosely tied to certain lobby groups, they are not so obviously "owned" by their corporate contributors.
A criticism of the US system should not be taken as a statement that one or other European system is perfect - we are all too aware of the flaws in our system. Our MPs may not be all we wish of them, but when the big scandal involves a few hundred quid here and there or a couple of grand on a mortgage, we're not in bad shape really - especilly when you consider how little they actually get paid
Complain about this comment
I beg to differ from many of the posters here today. I don't see this as anything resembling a Republican victory. Far from it- no matter how messy the process, and no matter how it is spun, this is the first significant health care legislation since Medicare and Medicaid. Of course it's not perfect- rather the opposite, actually. But, it is that critical, crucial first step.
I'm sure it was inadvertent, but the powers that be have positioned the debate perfectly. They know that the cloud of obfuscation and the general mistrust by many in this nation of anything smacking of "socialism" (whatever that means) means that we're pretty closely divided on this issue. But public opinion has grown more favorable the more time has passed, and will likely continue to do so in the future.
So, this means we've taken a big step in preparing the way. This is the insurance company's- and the Republicans and conservative Democrat's- last chance to prove that private enterprise can provide a cost effective, fair system of health care for all American citizens. In a few years, it will become plain that it Doesn't work, that it isn't fair OR cost effective. Public opinion, already swinging further toward support of health care, will pivot even further. And the stage will be set for the next much needed round of reforms.
Democracies in general, and the United States' iteration of such in particular, suffer from a perpetual "nowism"- the urgent need of the present. It's an ingrained part of our culture; every day there is a crisis, a a near-panic that we absolutely have to do something right-this-very-minute-or-else-the-sun-won't-rise-tomorrow. It's endemic in our environmental community, in our social institutions. Yes, there are crises (largely brought about by that other great democratic tradition, the ignore-the-problem-til-it-grows-into-a-genuine-crisis)but we are terrible at taking a long term, analytical and logical look at our problems and finding lasting solutions. So, is this an urgent crisis- or a long-term problem that needs a long-term solution?
Complain about this comment
"The Republican Party today has driven out most of its moderates"
Completely agree. They actively undermined Scozzafava. She is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, for tax cuts. She is against more gun control, cap and trade. All I saw was "shes a RINO!", etc.
For someone like me it is nice to see someone kind of straddling the middle, who seems to evaluate each issue individually instead of viewing each with regards to what the party line is.
I will also say the Dems are pretty far to the left. It seems like both parties keep making the gulf between them even bigger. To me, the only bright side of this will be when they push enough people into the middle that we will finally be able to have more powerful Independents (or even just some other third party residing in the middle).
I cannot remember the last time us Independents had a good, solid middle-of-the-road choice.
Complain about this comment
Dearest Magic:
Philly Mom if you were in Mass you should be mentioning the parasitic labor unions, the democratic party family members with 100K jobs and the trial lawyers. (ref 46)
oh dear. Well, that would have to be another blog topic and another soapbox. Rest assured, one of the reasons I moved back to Philadelphia was because I figured I'd be able to afford to live here. Of course, I now make a lot less money...
Essentially, the Massachusetts Dollar doesn't go as far as the Pennsylvania Dollar... which doesn't go as far as the Texas Dollar...
Oh - and ABOUT THOSE UNIONS:
They're worse in PA than MA. The Unions here truly dishonor the civil rights efforts made by the original Unions' efforts. They have become the Bosses whom they once opposed, sacrificing the greater good for their own personal interests. Sad, ain't it?
___________________
Dearest Stilton-Full (#48):
The UK system no longer covers adults eyes or teeth unless you are broke and on national health.
Yeah - I'm not surprised. I'm just a bit grumpy 'cause I was knocked on my a$$ by a falling appliance while rummaging through the fridge for dinner last night. Ouch. (Thank God it didn't kill me. 'Death by Blender' would have been a very embarrassing demise.)
Most US plans provide bi-annual eye exams and discounts or co-pays on lenses and frames. Of course, I'm blind as a bat (without glasses), so my lenses cost about $450 (after discounts) and 3-6 weeks to grind. (bummer)
People with special medical conditions are never covered as well as normal healthy people. It's the nature of insurance to exclude anomalies, is it not?
Unfortunately, this means that people with awful medical conditions become a voiceless minority of suffering people. It's rather sad.
Thankfully, I'm fairly healthy (eyes teeth and klutziness excluded).
Complain about this comment
RomeStu (#75), thanks for clarifying the difference.
Complain about this comment
61. cheesefuller wrote:
Most people in Europe are probably reading this as I did wondering what America is there for.
the people or the companies.
That's easy, Stilton dear. The companies.
(I would like to apologize in advance for the following snarky digression and will blame my bruised forehead for the attytood.)
The voices of the people are heard by Federal Gov when they are very loud &/or have lots of $$$ to pay for volume amplifiers (lobbyists).
Big Industry is loud and has $$$. Now, if people form large groups and are willing to contribute $$ to them... then ordinary people can form lobbyist coalitions and be heard in DC. But, we tend to not do that so much. We pay taxes and vote, after all. Isn't that enough?
Therefore - Our 'Public Representatives' tend to hear from Big Businesses MUCH more than they hear from social experts, scientists, and economists regarding the health and welfare of the persons whom they represent.
I'd use the term 'Corporate Whoring' but I'm far too polite to post such trash-talk online.
Complain about this comment
59. At 6:19pm on 21 Dec 2009, GH1618 wrote:
"In my view the 3/5 cloture rule is not the problem; the problem is the increased polarization of American politics over the last three decades. The Republican Party today has driven out most of its moderates, and ideologues who remain in the Senate would rather obstruct Democratic legislation than compromise."
__________
Couldn't agree more strongly.
And what this points to is a need for electoral reform in any or all of three ways:
(1) Non-partisan redistricting with an explicit mandate to reduce the number of "safe" seats.
(2) Prohibition on "closed" primaries.
(3) Campaign Finance Reform.
Complain about this comment
77 Tino
I agree with you about the Republicans edging more to the extreme, and fundamentlist religious, end of the spectrum. They did themselves no favours with certain choices in 2008, but when you say...
"I will also say the Dems are pretty far to the left."
.... you show that you don't really understand left wing politics.
The only thing the Democrats are to the left of is the Republicans. They would still be a right wing party in Europe, because many of the emotive issues that characterise the "so-called left" in the USA (gun control, abortion, socialised medecin, welfare state, gay rights etc etc) are no longer even political issues in Europe.
There is little of the "old left" remaining even in Europe - when did the Labour Party last talk about nationalising industry. (Bank bailouts don't count as nationalisation - that was apolicy pursued by both sides in 2008-9 as being the "best guess" to keep the economy running in a situation with no precedent and no political playbook.
Certainly our left-wing parties would more heavily fund the healthcare and welfare, but no serious right-wing party would try to move to the US system - well, not if they wanted any votes that is.
Complain about this comment
78 philly mom
"People with special medical conditions are never covered as well as normal healthy people. It's the nature of insurance to exclude anomalies, is it not?"
Indeed so, and this nicely summarises the ethicl reasoning behind a universal health care system, versus a for-profit insurance baed system.
Even the extremely religious should be able to identify with the idea of "There, but for the grace (or otherwise) of God, go I".
Complain about this comment
80 philly mom
"Now, if people form large groups and are willing to contribute $$ to them... then ordinary people can form lobbyist coalitions and be heard in DC. But, we tend to not do that so much. We pay taxes and vote, after all. Isn't that enough?"
But, still that would still be the biggest buck getting the bang.
I know it's a bit much to ask, but it would be nice one day to have representatives who can objectively see what is best for the society in which they live, irrespective of the incessant clamouring of the hungriest chicks in the nest.
We need a "benign dictator" - let me know if you find one.
Complain about this comment
"you show that you don't really understand left wing politics."
And when you show this, you show you do not understand the USA. Why do I care about global left-wing parties? I care about the left side of the spectrum in the USA only. Your left-wing parties are not competing in my elections. Regardless, the Democrats are moving further to the left, the Repubs further to the right. All this means for me is that it is 100% impossible to vote for anyone without a grimace on my face and a feeling of disgust at how impossible it is to find someone in the center.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#81), Gerrymandering has always been a problem in US politics, but there have been efforts to improve the fairness of redistricting:
http://www.americansforredistrictingreform.org/
California approved an initiative this year to change the manner of redistricting.
I don't believe, however, that "safe seats" are much of a problem, and you certainly can't make removing safe seats an "explicit mandate" for redistricting. Redistricting must be objective, and blind to such things. A seat may be safe because the person holding it is doing a good job, not because the district boundaries have been manipulated.
Your second recommendation on "closed primaries" doesn't fly, either. It is the business of political parties individually, and no one else's, to decide who should be allowed to vote in their primary. I have explained this several times elsewhere in this forum, but some people just don't get it.
Your third item is a complicated one. Lots of people are for financing reform, and much reform legislation has been passed. However, individuals acting independently cannot be prohibited from spending as much of their money as they like getting their message out. It comes under "freedom of speech" in the first amendment to the US Constitution.
I'm for fair elections, but not for overthrowing Constitutional freedome in order (supposedly) to get them.
Complain about this comment
48. At 5:34pm on 21 Dec 2009, cheesefuller wrote:
The UK system no longer covers adults eyes or teeth unless you are broke and on national health.
Medicaid and Medicare both have very limited eye care coverage, unless you are going blind. You can see an ophthalmologist at a clinic, but finding someplace to have your glasses made that will accept either form of coverage is nearly impossible unless you go through a hospital where your choice of frames is, of course, extremely limited.
Only Medicaid covers dental care, and consists of having the tooth pulled when you get a cavity.
Complain about this comment
85. Tino wrote:
"you show that you don't really understand left wing politics."
And when you show this, you show you do not understand the USA. Why do I care about global left-wing parties?
__________________________________
You don't have to care about global left-wing parties, but for debate to be possible certain terms must have absolute meaning, both in the USA and abroad.
Thus it would be correct to say that the Democrats are moving "to the left" .... but not to say that they are a "left-wing" party, which they patently are not.
Likewise Obama is NOT a socialist, however much certain radio and TV show hosts like to say it.
Your comment I responded to was
"I will also say the Dems are pretty far to the left."
If you meant "left of the Republicans" then I agree, but in a debate on an international website it is important to be understood by others, and thus clarity and standards of meaning are relevent.
For reference, the British Conservatives are pretty far to the left of the REpublicans!
This may seem a little pedantic, but I believe it is important that concepts be understood, in order for comparisons and judgements to be made.
Complain about this comment
Well, I'm off now, and will be back in the New Year.
Wishing you all the very best for however (or if) you enjoy the Christmas season.
Recommended read from RomeStu is "The Atheists Guide to Xmas" - a series of essays from prominent atheists on how to enjoy Xmas without believing a word of it.
(ps to the mods - this is NOT a financial promotion . the book is profits for charity)
Complain about this comment
Ref 58, arclightt
"In all seriousness, how is it possible for a for-profit insurance company to compete against a not-for-profit entity backed by the Fed gov't?"
The public option meant the eventual demise of the for-profit insurance industry. That's the reason it, and its supporters, fought so fiercely to kill it.
Complain about this comment
RomeStu,
to 88:
Point taken. I meant they were moving further left than they have been in the past, while I see the Repubs doing the same in the opposite direction.
to 89:
Awesome post, lol. I celebrate Christmas with my mostly Christian family. I, however, am an atheist. In that spirit, I will have to check out this recommendation of yours. Regardless, this is probably my favorite time of year. I love the smells, the food, the family, and usually the weather.
Have a Merry Christmas yourself, look forward to getting back into it when you return!
Complain about this comment
SteelPulse #60: '"Could I ask a tenderfoot/greenhorn question about politicians in general over there? Does the good of the Nation as a whole ever figure in these seemingly selfish plans? I think the TV series "Commander In Chief" and "The West Wing" have rather blinkered my views. I will just sit here next to this big block of cheese - waiting for the answer."
Wait no more, your answer is here. Yes the good of the nation as a whole does figure in these plans; but mostly only by the minority of (for now at least) seemingly only Democrats. The Sheldon Whitehouses, the Anthony Weeners etc. Now that minority is dogged, determined and passionate; God bless their hearts. But unfortunately the rest of the 535 member strong (at times) preschool consists of people who either become corrupted by their power and as a result selfish, and/or can be bought and/or bribed off by others. I know your parlament has its problems; the expenses scandle its most recent. But I highly doubt that it is comprised of as many selfish and corrupt MPs and/or Peers as our Congress does. Be thankful for your system of Democratic government. You've got a good one. Our inadequacies are why Hollywood uses what is known in the movie business as "creative liscence," whereby a director doesn't necessarily lie about an event in history and/or present, but either doesn't tell the whole truth or massively embellishes the facts of that particular topic. Now that I've answered your question, do you think you can answer one of mine? Is there a process in Parlament designed to slow down and/or stop debate on a bill altogether similar to the "filibuster" here? Thank you.
Hope that cheese was good. And that joke about pork barrels was painfully funny!
GH1618 #70: I had a perfectly good "reason" for my post at #65, and it was that for some reason, the previous thread would not allow me to post. I don't know if the moderators had already closed it to commentary, or if I did something wrong when posting, but for whatever reason, it denyed my entry, so I did the next best thing by posting here. So now will you please give me your thoughts? I'd really love to hear them.
Complain about this comment
Well there is still hope...let me relate a little vignette. I am the news junkie; my wife could care less about the news, politics, or government unless Oprah mentions it. Tonight she heard that the Senate passed the Health Care Bill and exclaimed, "This is the end of America as we know it." She actually showed that she cared about pending Federal legislation; it was a first. The hope is that those...and oh there are so many...with no understanding of what civic duty in a democracy is about will finally realize that if they don’t participate they lose.
Complain about this comment
And now is the time for all good men in U.S. Congress to assemble again in the middle of the snowstorm and the thick of the night and try to reconcile the Senate version of the bill with the House one (which is much more radical and includes a significant state component).
Good night and good luck!
Merry Chris..err.. excuse me! Happy Holiday Season!
Complain about this comment
Re: 86. Gary:
Yes, we've had this discussion before. On redistricting the issue is making the races competitive such that voters believe that their votes count. One of the reasons that voter turnout is so anaemic is because many voters believe that their votes make no difference - in the constituencies (i.e., congressional districts) in which they live there is not even a remote prospect of a competitive race. So they simply don't vote.
This is a kind of de facto disenfranchisement, that leads voters to become alienated from the political system, and to tend to believe that government is "fixed" against them. Alientation of voters then undermines the cornerstone of a democracy - namely that governments are chosen by free and fair elections. Not healthy.
I take your point about the "explicit mandate". But I don't see how that can be squared with increasing the probability that people's votes will be cast in competitive races, such that they have more of an interest in voting. My gut feeling is that increasing active participation in the political process, e.g., by increasing the chance that elections will be decided in states other than, for example, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, is probably more important to making democracy function in the long term.
In any case, impartial redistricting with something sensible in terms of geographic cohesion and contiguity could go quite a long way toward both goals before getting anywhere near the point where a choice between those competing values would be required.
---------
I also hear you on the primaries issue, and, again, don't know how to square that circle. The problem with closed primaries is that they tend to facilitate the choice or irredentist special interest candidates, as opposed to central moderates and deal makers. I've been through this kind of thing first hand, and it is a plague on the body politic wherever it shows up.
It is fundamental that political parties must be free to choose their candidates according to their own lights, and yet it is easy enough to see that closed primaries are not in the greater public interest.
----------
On the third point, again, you are right that, in effect, everyone is in favour of campaign finance reform, but the Devil is in the details. Is it ever.
It does not help that the Supreme Court has said that the ability to raise funds, or the right to donate funds to the candidate of your choice is an issue of core free speech. You have to wonder how, once a certain level of spending is reached, additional spending isn't a question of diminishing returns. Is it really not possible to permit all voices to be heard freely and fairly unless unlimited fund raising and spending is permitted?
I am a great believer in, and defender of, freedom of speech. Yet I do not believe that permitting one side unlimited financing advances freedom of speech. Often it seems to smother freedom of speech by allowing those with the most expensive loudspeakers to drown out other, perhaps more thoughtful, voices.
There are public policy imperatives running in opposite direction on all of these points. Nonetheless, I am firmly convinced that the key to many of America's public policy impasses lies in electoral reform: America needs to become more democratic, not less. The idea that Senators from states accounting for 11 % of the total population can indefinitely filibuster legislation passed by the true rep-by-pop house is not a comfortable concept in a democracy. This is why the House of Lords (not electorally accountable) lost its ability indefinitely to refuse legislation passed by the Commons (based on the quirky first-past-the-post version of rep-by-pop).
Difficult issues, not likely to be solved anytime soon.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
Thanks for asking for my opinion. For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with the Majority using the rules to finagle a deal or to pass legislation. There is also nothing wrong with the Minority in using the same rules to disrupt any legislation. As they say, them's the rules.
How your opponent will frame your actions and how voters will judge you is a different question entirely.
Complain about this comment
@90 (StD): Thanks for the straightforward answer. I thought that was the way it was, but it's nice to see it confirmed.
@86/95 (GH/IF): Thank you both for the thoughtful posts. I think that gerrymandering is more of an issue than not, but I agree that redistricting can't be undertaken just to make seats "unsafe". It's amazing to me that in this age of computers we still leave redistricting to the politicos. Any decent college with a computer science and political science department should be able to write a redistricting program that would pass muster (it would probably do a better job than what's done today). It might be fun to help try to decide what criteria the program would evaluate.
As far as campaign finance is concerned, the most important reform would be a balanced-budget amendment with real teeth, that the Congress couldn't set aside for some "emergency". It would have to be detailed enough to disallow (a) off-budget declarations, (b) offsetting deficits by counting trust funds, (c) ignoring maintenance on capital expenditures, (d) failing to fund the execution of legislation that has already been passed, (e) unfunded mandates to the states, and (f) all the other shenanigans that have been common practice for the Congress since before we were all born. Getting a piece of the Federal budget pie is the motivation behind many of the large campaign contributions, and deficit spending is the way more contributors get rewarded. Cut that out, and the potential ROI decreases.
Pair this up with a similar amendment preventing the Congress from fiddling with the tax code to benefit the few, and the ROI decreases still further...to the point that at least some of the residents of Capitol Hill might look further out than just the next election.
Nobody is ever going to completely eliminate the deal-making and back-scratching that takes place, but we can reduce its importance, I think.
I'm personally in favor of public financing, combined with a lot more written communication ("written" in this case can be either printed or electronic, but not audio or video). I need to know what the candidate thinks, and what they believe, and why. I need to know what they are willing to commit themselves to, and what they are willing to commit the rest of us to, and why. I need answers that are accurate, complete, and relevant to the questions asked, rather than the bloated nonsense that has passed for political campaigns in this country for the past 20 years or so. I probably will be disappointed for a while longer; however, I hope that in time another generation of leaders will arise that will look at current practice and decide that it's just not enough any longer.
To all who celebrate Christmas, may your be a blessed one!
Regards,
Arclight
Complain about this comment
I for one, do not see how a European style Health Service can be made to work in the USA.
Firstly, the legal, political and financial systems are so very different to those in Continental Europe.
Secondly, the size of both the country and the population. Even in Spain with a total population of some 43 million, each Region runs it own. Catalunya Health serves 7 million, mainly through Centres of Primary Care and Public Hospitals.
More controversially, in my opinion the Federal system as established over 200 years ago, is now dysfunctional. The problem is how to bring about real change without a revolution or the breakup of the United States.
Do not say it cannot happen here. Who in Europe in 1909 could have imagined what lay in store in just five years time.
Complain about this comment
The Republicans are such hypocrits.....give a trillion to banks without a single question, bailout the auto makers but yell about "socailism" when talking about helathcare. I guess their followers are just that stupid. The healthcare industry with their lobbyist and business interest bought the congress again. Like the bankers they simply wave campaign contributions in the faces and get what they want. Would be nice if someone represented the people of the US in congress. Looks a lot like the Forbidden City at the turn of the last century. Always interesting how the corrupt never imagine that others see them for what they are.
Complain about this comment
pursuitoflove #92:
"Yes the good of the nation as a whole does figure in these plans...mostly only by the minority of...seemingly only Democrats...the Sheldon Whitehouses, the Anthony Weeners etc...unfortunately the rest of the 535 member strong...consists of people who either become corrupted by their power and as a result selfish, and/or can be bought and/or bribed off by others. I know your parliament has its problems...But I highly doubt that it is comprised of as many selfish and corrupt MPs and/or Peers as our Congress...Be thankful for your system of Democratic government."
Yes the good of the nation is at stake; however, you discount that other people might define the good of the nation in a different way, so you wrongly characterize all Republicans and anyone who is not unlike those who I assume are your own Congressmen and women as being corrupt and or having bad or selfish intentions when this is not true in all cases, though it can and does happen anywhere even in the Parliamentary system. This is classic American politics where you love and excuse your Senators and Representatives but hate everyone else’s because they don't represent your interests; other Congressmen and Senators aren't supposed to represent your interests anyways because they are supposed to represent the interests of their own districts. As a representative republic our system is democratic; however, unlike the parliamentarian system our system does not easily allow the tyranny of the majority and we are all the better for it.
interestedforiegner # 95:
"The idea that Senators from states accounting for 11 % of the total population can indefinitely filibuster legislation passed by the true rep-by-pop house is not a comfortable concept in a democracy."
I disagree...the Senate is directly representative of all the people of each state given that their districts are their state boundaries; filibusters provide a valuable stalling tactic to the minority party in Congress. Without it many more bills would be rammed through Congress before anyone, be it the average Joe or a Senator and his staff or even the media, could read and critic it.
rodidog # 96:
I agree with your sentiments exactly.
Complain about this comment
95. At 05:22am on 22 Dec 2009, Interestedforeigner wrote:
It is fundamental that political parties must be free to choose their candidates according to their own lights, and yet it is easy enough to see that closed primaries are not in the greater public interest.
I'm not sure the last part of your statement is entirely accurate. Most primary voters are the party faithful, true. But these are also the people who follow party politics most closely. This means that those making the decisions probably know more about the issues than the majority of the general public. Which, in my opinion, leaves the general public unqualified to vote for the candidate that best represents a particular party's interests.
I believe the vast majority of the politically disinterested general public assumes that their politically minded neighbors will make the right choice for them, i.e. the law of probability will come into play, giving them appropriate candidates for whom to cast their votes. Politically active "Independents" who lean one way or another and want to vote in primaries can register to vote as a member of the party whose candidate they prefer. This in no way prevents them from voting for the candidate of their choice in a general election. Which, in any case, is what most often happens. I have myself voted in Democratic primaries for the whole slate, only to vote for an Independent mayoral candidate, a conservative judge, or a moderate State's Attorney in the general election.
Open primaries also lead to people crossing party lines to vote strategically against one candidate or another. That's what happened when Republican voters were encouraged to vote for Hilary in open primaries, or register as Democrats for closed primaries, so that Obama would be forced to waste significant amounts of time and campaign funds prior to the general election campaign.
I have no problem with people voting strategically. But when you have the opposing political party attempting to disrupt another party's process, and encouraging their members to lie on voter registration forms about their affiliations, that really doesn't seem to be in the public interest. Open primaries are an open invitation to abuse. At least switching parties to cheat the system requires some effort and potential criminal prosecution as a deterrent.
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove (#92) "GH1618 #70: I had a perfectly good "reason" for my post at #65, ... "
Accepted.
"So now will you please give me your thoughts? I'd really love to hear them."
I agree that debating who did what in WWII is pointless. For one thing, more has been written about that event than about practically anything else in history. No one is likely to learn anything new here. Also, it's never been an explicit topic of the host. There ought to be a site somewhere else for WWII buffs to discuss it to their heart's content.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#95) "I take your point about the "explicit mandate". But I don't see how that can be squared with increasing the probability that people's votes will be cast in competitive races, such that they have more of an interest in voting."
For example, I happen to live in one of the most solid Democratic Congressional districts in the US. It's not because the boundaries have been manipulated, but merely because Republicans are a scarce breed here. You would have to engage in extraordinary Gerrymandering to bring enough Republicans into the district to make it competitive. Either that, or engage in "partisan cleansing" to remove Democrats from the district and replace them with Republicans.
"My gut feeling is that increasing active participation in the political process, e.g., by increasing the chance that elections will be decided in states other than, for example, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, is probably more important to making democracy function in the long term."
Here you seem to be referring to presidential elections, which have nothing to with Congressional districting, except in Maine and Nebraska. This is because all other states use the "unit rule," which is what gives a few large states more clout in the election. I favor using the "Maine plan" everywhere. Under that plan, electoral votes are allocated by Congressional district, except for the two per state which correspond to the Senators. Such a change would require a Constitutional amendment, however; large states would not give up the unit rule on their own.
Complain about this comment
InterestedForeigner (#95) "It does not help that the Supreme Court has said that the ability to raise funds, or the right to donate funds to the candidate of your choice is an issue of core free speech. You have to wonder how, once a certain level of spending is reached, additional spending isn't a question of diminishing returns. Is it really not possible to permit all voices to be heard freely and fairly unless unlimited fund raising and spending is permitted?"
I don't consider the fact that a few candidates for public office have a great deal of personal wealth with which to finance a campaign. When persons so situated win, it is usually said that they "bought" the election, but there are many examples of wealthy candidates losing. I just don't believe it's an important factor. We have a billionaire in the race for Governor of California, but she's no shoo-in.
Complain about this comment
arclightt (#97) "Any decent college with a computer science and political science department should be able to write a redistricting program that would pass muster (it would probably do a better job than what's done today)."
In fact, at least one paper on this subject has appeared in the computer science literature. I can't give a reference, because it was decades ago and I can't remember when or where I read it. It may have been in Communications of the ACM.
The problem is political, not technical. My position is that it is better to have boundaries drawn by impartial persons than by computers, however.
Complain about this comment
Re post #92.
pursuitOflove.
To those fed up of world war 2, pass this post over now...
Although I am not GH1618, I am from the land of Tom Jones, so it's "not unusual"that I hold the views of an ordinary Evans type of fella with middle of the road perspective.
You know my views on the first two years of WW2.The US entry into that conflict was crucial for democracy in this world.
When Hitler then turned on Russia,it sealed his fate.
I feel for the Russians, they endured the unendurable, with 70% of the fighting in the European theatre on the Russian front.
It was scorched earth and genocidal evil,quite different from the fighting endured by the commonwealth and US forces in the west.
With the end of WW2, the UK and western Europe was either flat broke and/or devastated.....
With Stalins' blood up,Russia would have kept coming west after the fall of Germany.The only reason they did not do so,is because of the USA.
We in the UK and west Europe owe our freedom to many countries, including the US,especially the US.
I dare say what I have just said will not be popular with some,but I don't give a Hoot..
Facts are stubborn things........
Happy Christmas...
Complain about this comment
48 cheesefuller
"The UK system no longer covers adults eyes or teeth unless you are broke and on national health."
There is no "UK system". There are 4 - one for each nation. They are very similar, but the entitlements vary from one to another.
Happy winter solstice to you all - along with whatever religious celebrations you might associate with it.
Complain about this comment
"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session
as when the baby gets hold of a hammer. Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."
-Will Rogers
Complain about this comment
4. At 10:20am on 21 Dec 2009, RomeStu wrote:
2 shivering....
"’That he has been greasing their palms is entirely consistent with the style of government we have see under this administration.’
So pre-Jan 2009 there was no pork-barrel politics? Hmmmmm.
I too am disgusted by the entire US political system of lobbying, pork politics and overt vested interests .... but to lay the blame at Obama's door reveals you as a fantasist.”
And a right-wing fantasist at that! This phenomenon has been in the US from the start; it explains the compromise with slavery and other flaws. However, do be honest, in what country does horse trading NOT go on. Does a PM with a weak majority in the Parliament NEVER gain support [or win an election] with sweeteners? Does the Canadian parliament never make deals to get a bill through or form a government?
Something has to be done to stop the deterioration of responsible government in the US [and other places], but what? It is a democratic and federal system in which votes are bought by appeal to local interests. An office holder who sacrifices the local interest [even for “the greater good”] would not likely be reelected without something to show for the cooperation [see #17 and #20].
Complain about this comment
The U.S. political system, admirable though it is in many ways, is now deeply paralyzed. No major change in direction is possible, even when it is clearly needed. Take health care: hugely expensive, laughably inefficient, deeply immoral, and shamefully unfair, but going to remain basically the same because of the lack of vision of a group of old millionaires in the Senate who already have the sort of health coverage most Americans only dream about. Responses to other issues have been similarly either flawed or bland, or both, and will continue to be so. Either hysterical and misguided (Patriot Act) or reduced to irrelevance by numerous exceptions and loopholes. Bets on upcoming decisive action on Climate Change, anyone?
Complain about this comment
#109 - Plato already told us in The Republic: Guardians should be chosen for their wisdom, own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Then those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state in what is best for all of its citizens.
Complain about this comment
re: 58. At 6:13pm on 21 Dec 2009, arclightt wrote:
"In all seriousness, how is it possible for a for-profit insurance company to compete against a not-for-profit entity backed by the Fed gov't?"
Um...FedEx and UPS do a pretty good job of being private sector, for profit companyies competing against a not-for-profit entity backed by the Fed gov't.
Thanks!!
Complain about this comment
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer "Present" or "Not guilty." - T. Roosevelt
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle, Gary and Bienvenue:
Thanks for your posts.
The idea of bi-partisan, or even judicial, redistricting according to a series of reasonably non-partisan criteria, seems to be a good, relatively uncontroversial step that certainly wouldn't do any harm.
For the rest of it, well, we'll no doubt bat around those issues a few more times before anything useful comes to light.
It isn't actually rich individuals that cause so much concern, but rather the ability of well funded and persistent interest groups to bludgeon both office holders and those who might even think of becoming office holders. I'm sure we could all make a list of at least a dozen special interest groups from across the political spectrum that would fit the picture.
On the subject of Re-by-Pop, the UK went through a long period of political crisis prior to WWI in respect of the power and privileges of the Lords. Ultimately, in a democracy, the popularly elected lower house has to be able to have the final say on legislation. If the majority cannot eventually determine which laws are made, then the country is not truly a democracy.
I agree with the sober second thought idea, and upper houses in bicameral systems are often expected to play that role. They are also often expected to act as something of a protector of regional interests in a geographically dispersed federation, often the protector of the rights of the economically weak or less populous regions against the rights of the strong.
Complain about this comment
paulsmith:
maybe you would like your water and sewer service in the private sector. Maybe you should look at all the abandoned waste sites that the private sector has left for the public to pay for clean-up. Maybe you should look at the private insurance system and how the profits, very large profits, keep many people out and how the costs continues to rise as individuals with families pay bigger and bigger portions of their income for less and less coverage. The world in most places has a single payer system and that also contributes to the economic competitiveness of the companies in those countries. The existing system is not very good and even though the crazies on radio continually say that the US has the best healthcare system, the world rankings show something entirely different. There are issues that need to be public, that is why countries try not to have private armies, but that seems even in question these days. The major issue is that the government is corrupt and provides great advantages to insurance companies, regulated, or more accurately, restricting competition, by states. The main reason or rationale for the expansion of government is the abuse of citizens by the private sector....citizens ask for protections and regulations are passed, mostly weak and unenforceable, but still people take notice.
Complain about this comment
115. ghostofsichuan
"your water and sewer service in the private sector."
My understanding is that the English already have that, but I'm sure one of them will clarify the point.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I believe the best way to ensure health care reform is fair, equitable and fully funded is to give every private citizen the same health care plan that Congress gets.
Of course there's no way it will happen but wouldn't it be fun to watch them squirm if such an amendment was introduced?
Complain about this comment
Or another great resource to show this is nothing new (and the bias of the media), Upton Sinclair's Brass Check:
"Mr. Sinclair, I know enough about the business-game to feel quite sure that all the reforms we read about are fakes. What do you think?"
I answered, "I know they are fakes, because not a week passes that I don't get a letter from some of the men in Packingtown, telling me that things are as bad as ever." And I showed him a letter, one sentence of which I recall: "The new coat of whitewash has worn off the filthy old walls, and the only thing left is the row of girls who manicure the nails of those who pack the sliced dried beef in front of the eyes of the visitors!"
http://teleread.org/brasscheckfull.htm
Complain about this comment
lol old Nat.
I hear the only thing worse than English dental care is Scottish.
I understand that your water flows to you courtesy of a few private intermediaries all private.
How does that work. Scottish water owns your water but them others get paid?
Seems you could cut a middleman out.
good luck on that.
Complain about this comment
111. At 9:28pm on 22 Dec 2009, frayedcat wrote:
Plato already told us in The Republic: Guardians should be chosen for their wisdom, own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Then those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state in what is best for all of its citizens.
Plato's Utopian vision, like that of Karl Marx, never took into account the needs or desires of real flesh and blood people. Plato's plan would not bring about good governance. It would bring about a system of bribery and corruption, because no one, no matter how dedicated to their nation, is going to live like a snake while the rest of the people are doing well. And if "the Chosen" were prevented from living as well as men with power expect to live, you'd get a bunch of bitter, angry old men, who'd pass draconian laws designed to suck the joy out of life for spite.
Which, by the way, is what Plato was by the end of his life when he wrote The Republic. A bitter, spiteful, angry old man who'd seen Athens' Democracy very nearly crushed under the weight of factionalism, tyranny, and war. His Utopian ideal was based on the Spartan model, but only because it seemed to offer stability in a world which had turned to chaos. Like a lot of people who are born idealists, reality eventually slapped Plato one too many times in the face, turning him into a cynic. Or, as Craig Ferguson said, and I paraphrase: If by the time you're old enough to start thinking of yourself as "old" and you aren't bitter about something, then you haven't been paying attention.
Complain about this comment
"It would bring about a system of bribery and corruption, because no one, no matter how dedicated to their nation, is going to live like a snake while the rest of the people are doing well."
Gav they would not be in total hardship they would be fed and housed. it seemed. so why be so down on your fellow people .
There are plenty that don't give a damn about your needs for themselves.
They don't give a damn for luxuries or what you or others might call basics .
(lol a local paper had an article on solar cells and complained that they were no good for powering all those necessities like electric food mixers; 0)
Check out those money grabbing Sadu's in India. (sure there might be some) but really humans can be so much better than you give credit to them for.
I started real cynical, still am really. Gramps said when I smelled flowers, I wondered where the funeral was.Probably Twain said it first.
But still I really believe there are real people and real nice people out there.
Shame you haven't met any obviously.
Good luck.(some priests that do not molest kids seem to be pretty nice folk working for little and helping others and organising parties on the weekends.Some even with da da daaa 'alcohol'(nasty stuff;)
I admit that I'd like to Puff there but, what the heck It is not a necessity.
Complain about this comment
120. cheesefuller
"I understand that your water flows to you courtesy of a few private intermediaries all private."
No. Scottish Water is a publicly owned utility. There are no private operators here. We pay for the water and sewerage through local property tax.
The English privatised it.
Complain about this comment
http://www.scotlandontap.gov.uk/view_suppliers.aspx
old nat sure for you at home that's the case. good for you. how long will it last. creeping privatisation is on it's way .
Starts with businesses. then people say "oi why do they pay less?" then they want the same deal.
Be careful with thinking you are now so isolated from the same problems.
So I take it the dentistry really is that bad;).
Complain about this comment
This is where the irony comes in for the Democrats. For so long we have heard how Democrats are for the people. But are they really?
Now that the Democrats have more control, they are beginning to get greedy giving politicians legal bribes in order to vote for their bill. Clearly, these politicians like Ben Nelson did not want to vote for the bill originially until the legal bribes were in place. That tells you that he didn't think the bill without his legal bribes was good enough to vote for. It is a big statement without his saying a word.
But who is strong enough to be the bigger person? We all should be. Whatever we have should be divided amongst all the states, not just a select few.
Where are the Democrats who are supposed to be for the people at now? Has the power really gone that quickly to your head? Where is our health care bill which is supposed to help us? Instead, you have mistakenly (or perhaps not so) given us one that taxes us if we do not pay for insurance. If we cannot pay these taxes, we will be thrown into jail and criminalized, even if we are good citizens who do not deserve jail for health care. This mandate is what's wrong with the bill. It is plain to see. I believe it is wrong to criminalize someone for health care.
I still don't understand how President Obama and Congress came to the conclusion that the best solution to health care was by forcing people to have it or pay taxes/criminalization/jail.
Complain about this comment
96. At 07:36am on 22 Dec 2009, rodidog wrote:
Mark,
Thanks for asking for my opinion. For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with the Majority using the rules to finagle a deal or to pass legislation. There is also nothing wrong with the Minority in using the same rules to disrupt any legislation. As they say, them's the rules.
How your opponent will frame your actions and how voters will judge you is a different question entirely.
_____________________________________
I agree too. The value of the constitutional process is that no legislation will become law that cannot muster a consensus.
If it cannot gather enough support, by hook or crook, by emendation, by persuasion of the public or those who are ultimately responsible to the public, if it would not stand the light of day when eventually its effects are felt by the nation, then democracy, i.e. the people, have not been served.
That is the test that it must pass to effect its change upon the country. This is the way we have discovered to determine the will of the nation, as fairly and truthfully as it can be known in a moment of time. This is why the walls seem to be so high, except when some great event or other common understanding momentarily unites the nation.
This system has many obvious faults, and much skulduggery has been done through our centuries as the direct result of the way it is structured. But laws that defied the will and interest of the people of the times have been rare exceptions. The worst example in our history was the work of the super-majority created by the North's victory over their fellow Americans in the Civil War. When victorious Republicans, suddenly lacking the restraining reason and compassion of Lincoln, suppressed all of the South and all of the labor and farm interests, East, West, North, and South from 1865 until T. Roosevelt came to power through assassination in 1901 and proved to be a populist in spite of his blue blood. We have not had tyrants except the Congresses of the gilded age, and those who appeared to approach or desire tyranny have felt the public anger, and like bad legislation have eventually been judged according to the majority's will.
So f your favorite project fails the test in Congress it is not worthy to be the law of the land - at least for the moment. It would be an oppression of the many by the few to make law by force and without consent. By all means try to persuade - many efforts have taken decades to succeed, many of our best and most valuable principles are the result of several generations' labor - generations spent persuading your neighbors your idea really is in their interests.
In Europe it may be most voters believe someone else is more competent than they are to defend the people's interests, but it is not so in America.
I have a good friend who was a procurator in Ukraine under communism, and then under the new democracy. He was here in Kansas in 1994 when the democrats were swept out of power, and I asked how they elected leaders there. He said, "We choose the best man, and then expect him to tell us what to do." I understood them that ancient empires often do not die, they just relocate their capital city. - but it is not so in America.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
The bill's opponents say that the bill is loaded with pork. Outside the $45 mils for Nebraska, I do not see any other pork. It seems like a small price to pay, in relative terms, for this huge bill that comes with enormous price tag. I have seen much worse. President Obama gave a campaign pledge to take on lobbyists, and one can say he has been quite successful on this bill that defines his presidency. Over all the Senate gets B plus for doing this business the way it did.
Complain about this comment
125. At 04:56am on 23 Dec 2009, LucyIllinois wrote:
Where is our health care bill which is supposed to help us? Instead, you have mistakenly (or perhaps not so) given us one that taxes us if we do not pay for insurance. If we cannot pay these taxes, we will be thrown into jail and criminalized, even if we are good citizens who do not deserve jail for health care. This mandate is what's wrong with the bill. It is plain to see. I believe it is wrong to criminalize someone for health care.
I still don't understand how President Obama and Congress came to the conclusion that the best solution to health care was by forcing people to have it or pay taxes/criminalization/jail.
___________________________________
Lucy -
Haven't you been listening all year? Everyone must be gastrically distressed by all the explanations already.
If it is insurance, there is a pool of members who all contribute premiums, and who share the risks that are insured. If the disbursements are greater than the pooled money, the company (originally, the companions who shared the risk together) broke and had to disband at a loss.
In a medical insurance plan, individuals of high risk put the company in jeopardy of failure because covering their expenses might well exceed the company's collective resources. A larger number of members of low risk could balance the pooled risk providing coverage for those of higher risk. To now, corporate for-profit insurance companies have increased their stability and their profitability by encouraging younger, low risk members, and refusing to accept higher risk applicants, limiting their coverage, or charging very high premiums. As a result, there are tens of millions of Americans who are without any insurance or who are unable to afford or be accepted for the insurance necessary to protect them from financial ruin, inadequate medical care or both.
It is clear that any insurance company, governmental or private, must include as large a pool of members as possible of all ages and risks, to work for long.
Presently all those who have not purchased their own insurance present a risk of their medical expenses becoming a charge on their neighbors insurance, public like medicare and medicaid or private like the hospitals and providers who care for them, or on the insurance companies and state governments who support public hospitals and clinics, should their bills become more than they can pay themselves, which often happens overnight. (You can take me as an example: it could happen to you or yours at any time. My unexpected personal medical bills this yearwill exceed $80,000.) People who do not purchase insurance are either unable to get it, or they expect to be bailed out by everyone else when that time comes.
That's why social security and medicare contributions are mandatory and now accepted - so that no one can get out of contributing, and because the benefit to individuals and to the nation (in the strict reduction of public indigents) is obvious. If we were fair, we would require payroll deductions to support a minimum level of 'emergency' and catastrophic care, because when these things happen to people they will receive the care they need, with or without insurance.
But to avoid a sudden shock to the semi-private system that most people prefer, the tax which will pay for those who cannot or decide not to care for themselves (and to help balance the risk pool so the system does not continue to spiral up in cost and down in coverage and quality), it is called a tax on those who have no other coverage.
Not the best, but it is likely to survive the legislative process I just described above.
I hope this helps you accept the way things are - the risk is yours if we can't make it work.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
122. At 01:00am on 23 Dec 2009, cheesefuller wrote:
Gav they would not be in total hardship they would be fed and housed. it seemed. so why be so down on your fellow people .
There are plenty that don't give a damn about your needs for themselves.
They don't give a damn for luxuries or what you or others might call basics .
You're very generous about planning out the lives of others, but how about yourself? What if you were chosen to help put the servant back in civil servant? Will you nill you. Because that's what being chosen means. Someone else makes the choice, not you. And in Ancient Greece, if you didn't do what the city asked you were considered a traitor. If you did, you were essentially offering yourself up as a sacrifice. Either way, your life was over. That's something Plato would have understood when he wrote The Republic. And of course it seemed reasonable to him. But if you can't imagine agreeing to do this yourself, don't assume that anyone else is more selfless than you.
By the way, have you ever met a monk? One of the ones who's taken a vow of poverty and lives in a monestary? You know, scratchy woolen robes, tonsure, sandals, etc. I have. It's a very hard life, even with central heating, comfortable beds, decent food and shelter. It takes great faith and hard work on one's inner self to completely give oneself over to the life. And most modern day monks struggle with the desire to acquire things, even little sentimental items, every single day. I assume that during the middle ages it might have involved very little sacrifice and seemed a step up to some. But I can't imagine any person, especially in this day and age, who would be willing to give up everything for the sake of the body politic, as opposed to God. Because that is what you are asking. That men and women should have power, but not use it. Privilige, but not avail themselves of it. Offer wisdom, but gain nothing in return, except perhaps a sense of personal satisfaction for doing their duty. No reward - ever - even in heaven. Or would you make the "national interest" a god to be worshipped and obeyed?
Human nature dictates that if one has power it is to one's advantage to do something for oneself. The nature of an intelligent organism is to increase its advantage through acquisition, i.e. wealth and/or power. The so-called Guardians, having absolute power, would be corrupted absolutely. Those that weren't, who created gains for the society, would soon see their gains negated by the ones who were corrupted. That's why Protestantism sought to decrease the power of the Church during the Reformation. All those selfless men turned out to be not so selfless. Those that remained faithful were kept in positions where they had little, if any power to change things.
And yes, I have met some very nice people. And every one of whom, including myself, has at some point been taken advantage of by those with the power to do either great harm or great good. Harm invariably wins out. Good luck is when you finally meet someone in a position of power who doesn't view you as their natural prey.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Gav really FINE I'll take the possition. PS I know a civil servent that worked for the UK who did not use his possition to get anything like the bribes he could have.
plenty of them. didn't take a high paid consultancy job after retiring and all the usual.
How Am i planning others lives
"give up everything for the sake of the body politic, as opposed to God. "
what if their God IS their democracy. Like america is really meant to be?
" willing to give up everything" It DOES NOT SAY GIVE UP EVERYTHING. Sorry (not) to shout.
"struggle " yes struggle No cave in.
"That men and women should have power, but not use it. Privilige, but not avail themselves of it. Offer wisdom, but gain nothing in return, except perhaps a sense of personal satisfaction for doing their duty. No reward - ever - even in heaven. Or would you make the "national interest" a god to be worshipped and obeyed?"
YES that is the point well done.
Sorry Gav but you have only met the people you know. Obviously not some I have been lucky enough to know.
"Human nature dictates that if one has power it is to one's advantage to do something for oneself"
There you go getting all american again.
"The nature of an intelligent organism is to increase its advantage through acquisition, i.e. wealth and/or power"
WHAT?
Are you really this crazy.
So all charities are thick heads ?
"And every one of whom, including myself,"(Umm some modesty please) has at some point been taken advantage of by those with the power to do either great harm or great good."
No kidding, why, because we do not often elect those that plato suggested. Too busy with our greedy agenda's to vote for the right person.
Complain about this comment
Vow of subsistence living is not impossible
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela
Pierre Vaudès
"Corruption is not a new problem. It's not just a Kenyan problem, or an African problem. It's a human problem, and it has existed in some form in almost every society. My own city of Chicago has been the home of some of the most corrupt local politics in American history, from patronage machines to questionable elections. In just the last year, our own U.S. Congress has seen a representative resign after taking bribes, and several others fall under investigation for using their public office for private gain.....What's worse - corruption can also provide opportunities for those who would harness the fear and hatred of others to their agenda and ambitions....In the end, if the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost. And this is why the struggle against corruption is one of the great struggles of our time..." - Obama 2006 http://obamaspeeches.com/088-An-Honest-Government-A-Hopeful-Future-Obama-Speech.htm
Complain about this comment
"Clearly, these politicians like Ben Nelson did not want to vote for the bill originially until the legal bribes were in place. "
lucy I disagree with nelson using this to address abortion.
but you'll probably find a bunch of his constituents do think it important.
he took money??????
or did he get money for "his" folk.
As someone who thinks America is too Statist I'd say fight for all to have those rights, not just your constituents. fight for the whole nation not just Nebraska.
But "legal bribe" might be a strong term and slightly inaccurate.
"You democrats--your head--Our nation"
Not sure if these quotes reflect your political leanings. they would seem to indicate a slight right bias.
We All could have had health care single payer no fine ,None other than the same as we have these days for not paying taxes if all them GOP senators had pushed for public option.
How about you deride the republicans for taking your health care. there were only a few democrats in opposition. (democrats being Bi partisan) but not one republican.
Why because they were and are a selfish bunch of narrow-minded stuck in their way's con-artists;)
but hey After all providing health care shouldn't be on a gop's lips. that would be traitorous.
Complain about this comment
ref #130
Can somone explain why when someone obvious takes Botox and exempts that from the healthcare plan it violates House Rules?
Complain about this comment
@ 131 cheesefuller
First, taking a single idea (the original quote from The Republic) out of context is both unfair to the author and to those who have never read the entire document. And taking Plato out of context, as you are doing now, is simply poor scholarship. The Republic as a whole is a pretty nasty piece of work, filled with plans for secret police, informants, and other unsavory practices, which Plato knew would be required in order to enforce the very notion you deem worthy of implementing in a democratic society. Turning it into what we would now call a Police State. Which is what has happened any time any of the ideas espoused in The Republic has been implemented.
In any case, to truly understand The Republic, it must be viewed in light of the historical events which surrounded its creation.That means having a comprehensive understanding of the Ancient Athenian mindset, which to those like Plato, who had lived through the Peloponnesian War and suffered under the oligarchy of the Thirty Tyrants, made a police state that enforced the rights of citizens (a bizarre contradiction) seem like a dream come true. It is a reactionary document which has been widely praised, though badly misunderstood by those with no background in Classical Studies and a skewered understanding of both Political Theory and Human Nature. And if you'd read it with an understanding of its cultural subtext, you'd know that.
That said, what do you imagine Utopias are? Perfect worlds planned out for other, by others. Usually based on the assumption that the world view held by the planners is not only the right one, but the only one of any value, and all others must perforce bow before their wisdom. That you also conveniently leave out the fact that the Guardians were to be taken from the ranks of philosophers, like Plato, to become philosopher-kings, says a lot.
As for not having to give up everything, what do you imagine these philosopher-kings would do if they had family and friends who came to them asking for help? It is naive to imagine that a man with social ties and obligations wouldn't be tempted to bend the rules, even a little, to do right by his own. Especially if he also controlled the flow of information, so no one would ever find out. Or do you also imagine that a free press would be allowed to exist once they started questioning the wise decisions of their Guardians?
What you are actually espousing, though I doubt you realize it, is a form of Social Darwinism. The kind of Social Darwinism that warms the hearts of NeoCons everywhere. That a small, select group of individuals be placed in charge of the vast majority, where the will of the few will be imposed upon the many. And as I said before, the nature of an intelligent organism, in this case Mankind, is to increase its advantage, i.e. survival of the fittest.
And lastly, the United States has never sought to raise democracy to the level of godhood, nor would it ever. Divine kingship is an Old World concept.
Complain about this comment
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#135), I found your explanation of Plato's Republic fascinating, but doubt the utility of offering scholarly analysis to the semi-literate.
Here's a tidbit from The Republic I found interesting in this context:
"And when persons who are unworthy of education approach philosophy and make an alliance with her who is a rank above them what sort of ideas and opinions are likely to be generated? Will they not be sophisms captivating to the ear, having nothing in them genuine, or worthy of or akin to true wisdom?
No doubt, he said."
Complain about this comment
136. At 9:11pm on 23 Dec 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#135), I found your explanation of Plato's Republic fascinating, but doubt the utility of offering scholarly analysis to the semi-literate.
I know, I know! But it's so rare that I ever get to use my area of professional expertise on a public blog that I sometimes get carried away and indulge myself. Still, I never write anything exclusively for the individual to whom I am responding. There's a vast silent audience, which I always assume is made up of intelligent, literate men and women, who deserve a cogent and thoughtful response.
Here's a tidbit from The Republic...
You are a wicked, wicked man! lol!
Complain about this comment
sophisms ... such as seemingly learned discourse that somehow supports the contention that our leaders should NOT be wise and without greed?
Complain about this comment
#136,
"where the will of the few will be imposed upon the many"
There is nothing new under the sun,welcome to the EU..
Complain about this comment
GH1618 #102: '"I agree that debating who did what in WWII is pointless. No one is likely to learn anything new here."
Oh I can't say I entirely agree with that. I mean, I certainly agree that it is not appropriate to debate it on threads that aren't remotely about it insessontly as some seem to do on here, but I don't see the harm in submiting a stray post here and there on a slow day. And since we have no real way of knowing each other's full knoledge of the event unless one of us knows someone else personally, then we also have no way of knowing whether someone else has learned something new from reading one of our posts. It is entirely possible, for example, that you may have learned something that you previously didn't know by reading one of my links in my post #65.
ukwales #106: '"We in the UK and west Europe owe our freedom to many countries, including the US,especially the US."
This was very flattering and generous indeed. I honestly don't believe I've ever heard a citizen of another country (not leader, but ordinary citizen) say something like this without including one of our flaws and/or many mistakes in the same sentence; sometimes even the same breath. Don't get me wrong I am totally aware of all those arrogant Americans who claim that "we saved your butts," as if to imply that we did it all on our own!! But nevertheless, this simple hard truth is seldum solely acknowledged. Which is why I'm very much interested to learn of your thoughts of my post at #65. As I've told you before on this blog, I think you are one of the sanest, fairest, most educated on historical and current international affairs of all the frequent contributors on here, and so I'd really love to get your opinion on the post, links included, if you please? Thank you so much.
Happy/Marry Christmas to all who celebrate!!
Complain about this comment
137. At 9:48pm on 23 Dec 2009, Gavrielle_LaPoste wrote:
136. At 9:11pm on 23 Dec 2009, GH1618 wrote:
Gavrielle_LaPoste (#135), I found your explanation of Plato's Republic fascinating, but doubt the utility of offering scholarly analysis to the semi-literate.
I know, I know! But it's so rare that I ever get to use my area of professional expertise on a public blog that I sometimes get carried away and indulge myself. Still, I never write anything exclusively for the individual to whom I am responding. There's a vast silent audience, which I always assume is made up of intelligent, literate men and women, who deserve a cogent and thoughtful response.
Gavrielle, I will never, ever tangle with you.
KScurmudgeon
who reads only in translation....
Complain about this comment
#140 PursuitOflove
Harold Ickes,
With this speech,fully understood the absolute gravity that democracy, government of,by and for the people could well perish from this earth.He was trying to sell that truth to an America that was sympathetic but in many quarters isolationist,Lindburgh ect.Had the UK gone under Lord knows how long communism would have survived,with out that example of West Europe,showing in stark relief what a total crap system communism was/is. With some people,more equal than others,in a single party system,some of the people would be fooled all of the time "there's Abe again".
My leaning for things American,is to to be traced back to childhood.My grand parents owned a small farm,oft I stayed for holidays.
Perched high in the tree tops flying some imaginary aircraft it was bliss.In the lower nearby fields you can still make out the marks in several hedges where a US flying fortress ploughed through.Bits of
alloy & perspex still come to the surface to day.I wanted to know all about this event and why Americans came to die in Wales.My grand folk farmers with few words at the best of times said "they died for your freedom" those words went deep and stayed..
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove
There are some on this blog educated beyond their humility, and for the likes of us ordinary mortals don't be intimidated and don't be denied. As that great American philospher and poet Forrest Gump said, "That's all I have to say about that."
A very merry Christmas to you and yours.
ukwales
Complain about this comment
135 addressing the quote as it stands it not acceptable to you?
taking on your version of what humanity and humans are capable is is not acceptable to you.
Plato could have been a drunken mentally ill psychotic by the end.(something like what you say)
I don't really care what else he said, because I really do not need Plato to think for me. sorry. probably might like more of it after all Atlantis is a great story.
I addressed your views on what humans are capable of.
I addressed the ability to do good. a answered you as to if I would serve if asked.
I dared to tell you Oh scholarly one that charities help others and not for their own benefit(should I add "materialistically" )
See the benefit could be mental. the same mental benefit a person living in Basic-NOT DEPRIVED conditions.
I took on your attitude to people in general.
You prefer to pretend you are some scholar and so smart.
carry on. Plato might believe you.
gary is the same dude that says that about my arguments but lo I got quotes of him using my logic (ie rewriting struck posts from me) in the past. so what does that make him if I am an uneducable fool.
You are so full of yourself it is funny.
It may fly with some who drool over plato's words but not me.
I take on Your cynicism and your using Plato to justify Your problems with people.
"But I can't imagine any person, especially in this day and age, who would be willing to give up everything for the sake of the body politic, as opposed to God. "
You obviously have a problem with that so on with what you would normally deride. the ridicule attack.
"to truly understand The Republic"
here you go off like gherkin.
I don't give a damn about Platos anything.
I do say that the comment that "Guardians should be chosen for their wisdom, own no private property, should live and eat together at government expense, and should earn no salary greater than necessary to supply their most basic needs. Then those who are chosen to be guardians will govern solely from a concern to seek the welfare of the state in what is best for all of its citizens"
was pretty good though.
So credit to the man.
That was what was what you quoted, and it still seems a pretty good Idea.
Even Marcus says truths sometimes. I never claimed to be a Plato fan scholar,but I can read what is in front of my eyes. And it seems better than you sometimes.
Off you go agian. oh scholarly one
" That you also conveniently leave out the fact that the Guardians were to be taken from the ranks of philosophers, like Plato, to become philosopher-kings, says a lot."
I didn't because I didn't talk much about plato at all. I talked about his comment you quoted. and your comments.
" You're very generous about planning out the lives of others"
well you are very very generous in making up others posts.Ideas and what they support.
I supported the restriction in wealth on people serving to make decisions.
You dear gav went off on a ludicrous lecture on Plato's ancient world and still seem to think that somehow justifies saying that all politicians look at us people as prey. that no man is beyond corruption.
I think you were so absorbed in proving yourself an expert in Plato you forgot where you were.
and what you were saying. thanks for the His story lesson.
but it still in no way backs your comment that all people are selfish and will only work for them selves.
Sure I didn't quote you but it is a lot closer to what you said than what you say I said.
Complain about this comment
"What you are actually espousing, though I doubt you realize it, is a form of Social Darwinism. "
Where ?
Complain about this comment
#144
Ignoring the fact that you obviously feel inadequate to the debate and are fairly angry about it, I never said that individuals couldn't behave selflessly at any time. What I said was that Mankind as a species is genetically and psychologically predisposed to seek the most advantageous results to ensure its survival. This is what you, and every other Utopian, inevitably fails to understand.
#145
Social Darwinism is what Plato, and all Utopians like yourself, ultimately preach.
Now, according to Norad, Santa is currently over Turkmenistan and inbound to Uzbekistan. So, if you will all excuse me, I have cookies to bake, milk to buy (the big man need sustenance) and a Christmas dinner to prepare. Fare thee well, and happy holidays to all!
Complain about this comment
Gav you are so inadequate you have failed to address anything other than your own post.
"I never said that individuals couldn't behave selflessly at any time"
UMM you did really you said there is no one who would etc...
look at your post.
" "because no one, no matter how dedicated to their nation, is going to live like a snake while the rest of the people are doing well. "
"That men and women should have power, but not use it. "
"What I said was that Mankind as a species is genetically and psychologically predisposed to seek the most advantageous results to ensure its survival."
What makes you major cynic think I am utopian.
Angry why think that.
I find your response as rude as you seem to find mine.
You suggest a lot about me that was not said by me. I am addressing what YOU wrote. you are acting like an american republican and making up what you wish to debate with me. Fine do it in your own head.
You don't like that I suggest that working for the industry you say makes you a tool of that industry.
I didn't go all ted K and say you deserve retribution for working for profit for an institution that some would consider criminal in it's approach to humanity.
"Social Darwinism is what Plato, and all Utopians like yourself, ultimately preach."
Ultimately. so you are gong to tell me that in the future I will say this.
OK maybe I will. who knows the future.
seeing as you decided to attack me on this. I would counter that you seem inadequate so you work for an industry that you may hate.
You are defensive of this as is shown by the hostility you show to my posts about how I think that people can be selfless.
That they do not need God to do the right thing.
What you suggest is that there are no decent folk who are selfless on the planet.
even thought you do admit that there are a few but they are sidelined.
Enjoy your turkey may it be better than your faith in fellow man.
Maybe you just got too old and cynical.
Complain about this comment
PPS america does hold its constitution like a religion.
"true faith and allegiance to the same"
"And lastly, the United States has never sought to raise democracy to the level of godhood, nor would it ever. Divine kingship is an Old World concept. "
So true. they like to make America the God. the constitution the holy spirit, jesus.. well he just couldn't be part of it.
Complain about this comment
well lol Gav. I thought to my self. was that GAv , hell it was Philly mom that I had needled about working for the industry that is so hated.
So sorry to say that was you.
but now I wonder why you took so much offence at the comments made about your cynicism of people?
Maybe it's just your the desire to have something written about your views on Pluto.
We all make mistakes.
apart from you of course.
Complain about this comment
@ Cheesie,
As I recall, it was frayedcat to whom I addressed my original post re Plato, not you. That you chose to insert yourself into the discussion, being woefully unprepared for the debate, is your own lookout. That you clearly believe I entertained myself at your expense... Well, consider it one of those life lessons in human nature, of which you've obviously had so few.
141 KScurmudgeon wrote:
Gavrielle, I will never, ever tangle with you.
Nonsense. There are some truly excellent translations out there. And I have just as much respect for armchair classicists as I do my colleagues - well, most of them anyway. Did you know that one of the foremost experts on ancient coinage was, at one time, a German woman who'd never gone to university? She loved the subject so much that in her later years she studied it to the point that not only was her opinion valued by the professionals, but sought after before anyone in the field dared publish. And there are many others just like her out there, even today. Perhaps you?
Complain about this comment
Gav still having issues admitting you are maybe a bit over cynical. bored with denying your own words and making up others so on to the suck up.
thats OK.
that seems to be your style.
OK lets get simple enough for you
"First, taking a single idea (the original quote from The Republic) out of context is both unfair to the author and to those who have never read the entire document. "
you wrote it you quoted it out of contect which was unfair of you to the author and those that never read it.
Most quotes are not used in the context of unmentioned texts. the quote is meant to stand alone.
"well I quote sir blah blah (please read full history of his life" Do you think those churchill quotes should be taken in the context of a guy that suggested bombing marsh arabs with mustard gas?
because he did.
Frayed cat quoted.
you derided the point of the quote by going on about your self and plato.
you go on about the selfishness of all man.
you suggest that all intelligent beings do every thing for their own wealth and power.
You then get upset that some one counters your point by suggesting that people can be selfless, we just have to pick them.
So off on your "in the context of plato "
You seem to be saying I am the fool but coming from you at this stage of the conversation I won't take that too hard.
sorry if you thought this blog was your property. I thought it was another example of the British PUBLIC attitude.
Woefully unprepared and angry I may be. but you disturbed your turkey etc to respond and you really are as unprepared as anyone it seems.
You will note that Frayedcat was responding to someone else . not you.109 JMM who in turn was commenting on Stu Romes number 4
but you replied. that is the nature of open debate.
or blogs.(mods willing).
No where was the rest of platos life history or the rest of the republic discussed.
The quote was quoted alone and in no context except as a nice way to put something.
So you get all" well people are just crap so that won't work" then you use a very long winded irrelevant argument about plato to justify your cynicism and try (eye is beholden) to paint me as a ignorant fool because I can see you are doing MAgherkin, and called you on it.
Then you pretend that you are not an elitist snob. while you mock others for not agreeing to the irrelevant wisdom of the life story of plato.
People Can be real good people and selfless.
your argument was with me and that was all I said. So I can only presume you still think all people are incapable of selflessness.
Not one comment you have brought provides enough evidence for that. And nothing plato ,a human, says will change the reality that Some d things for no return.
They are athiests out there who see no profit in Charity, no God for extras later and they still do good and pay out of their own pockets.
UK Wales might trip to Romania to help people. I doubt he would say it was to ensure God gave him a place.
kScurmudgeon does not believe in Abortion I think. I can't remember but I think he said that all women have it in them to carry the child to love it to nurture it. if just helped to do so.
Many thought him wrong to be anti abortion. I thought he was just wrong for having so much faith in people. he has more than me. but even I can see that some people are selfless.
You still try to worm around on a hook because you can't admit that there are Good people that will stay good.
(except those monks sidelined you accepted they could)
You argue with deceit today Gav
Complain about this comment
Mark:
Yes, there is way too much talk and pork in the US Senate and, in the particlar legislaion...
=Dennis Junior=
Complain about this comment
ukwales numbers 142 and 143. . .
Thank you ever so much for that generous, timely responce! I'm sorry I haven't responded with the same amount of speed as you have; busy time of year, as you know. While I included that 'Harold Ickes peech to both demonstrate that my government, while not fully involved in the war (I.E. with our troops,) it was issentially involved in every other way and to illistrate the definite perils that would face us if Britain ever fell, nevertheless, I had posted that link largely to show that we (government and a large percentage of the population alike) greatly sympathised with the British cause and struggle. The rebut that in those first two crucial years of the war we weren't just merely sitting on the sidelines watching as so many like to claim and the warnings of the certain danger that awated us if Britain fell was intended to be most evident in my other two posts, particularly the firesidecchat. So in that respect, while I certainly agree that Harold Ickes did a much better job at explaining why it was so important to support and aid Britain, if I may just ask, since Harold Ickes wasn't the president at the time and FDR was, what do you think of his case? Do you think that it denoted a message of '"lets wish them luck?" or "we aought to do everything we can to aid and support them for not only their survival, but our own?" And if it is the latter, do you think to some digree that we still sat on the sidelines because we didn't have any troops in the war at that time?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by people on this blog being "educated beyond their humility," so if you could be so kind as to please explain it I would greatly appreciate it. My point was that it just seems to me that at least half of the regular contributors to this blog are at best unthoughtful and at worst downright rude, and I don't see why they feel the need to be so offensive and what they're hoping/expecting to get out of being so offensive. For example U4466131's post which I copyed and posted in my post #65, was I feel wholly unnecessary written the way it was. They could have gotten their point across, in my opinion, much more affectivly if they had structured their post as kindly, or even as respectfully, as you do yours.
That story about your grandparents and their wonderful statement regarding my country to you was very moving indeed. I too am inspired when I reflect upon nearly every aspect of British society and/or history, and feel often times like my country doesn't hold a candle to yours in many of these areas. Whether it be the grit and determination with which you stuck to your values of not torturing etc during the darkest days of the war while we opened Guantanamo Bay right after 9/11, or the fact that you've banned capital punishment while we still have it in over half the states in our union, or the fact that you allow gay's the right to marry when we only do so in a handfull of states, or universal health care for over 60 years now, and the list gos on and on.
P.S. Those clever insertions of those Lincoln quotes were also very flattering!!
Complain about this comment
Hi PusuitOflove,
FDR was walking a tightrope,America was divided.He knew what was at stake if the UK fell,and America would be the next port of call for the nazis'.
Congress has to declare war,at least,is what the constitution says.. Roosevelt was harshly reminded that the constitution still stood.The isolationists raised a storm against him.America firsters quoted Jeffersons warnings about"entangling alliances" and urged isolation. Lindbergh said "that the security of our country lies in the strength and character of our own people & not in fighting foreign wars".
To be fair who in their right mind would want to be told,as was the UK by
Churchill that "all I have to offer is Blood Sweat & Tears".It took Pearl harbor for the US to fully rally around FDR.FDR with his secret order to the Navy to convoy Allied merchantmen & ramming through congress the lend/lease bill,the US was in truth a secret belligerent.It was this help that enabled the UK to keep going,because after two years of war at that scale we were spent.
Complain about this comment
Pursuit.
some posters have been banned multiple times. for polite posts they have argued here for a couple of years and hear the same lies repeated at such a regular rate and have debated with others so often that they have lost all respect for the opponents.
If it were not for the sheer overboard behaviour of those on the right then I doubt it would get to this stage.
As for my nasty nasty way.
I am one of them. I am a real lefty. not one of them american lefties that thinks death penalties are OK and cops are great when they get paid to suppress people so often.
Not one of those american "left" wingers who would be called Tory(party of the right) in the UK.
Complain about this comment
PS British soldiers are not innocent in regards to torture. maybe not on the same Gitmo scale. and maybe isolated incidents, but there have been cases.
At least there is a chance that even with the secrecy behind the way things work in the UK , we will find out more .
Complain about this comment
PusuitOflove,
My term educated beyond their humility,
Was in response to post 136,GH1618.I found the line "But doubt the utility of offering scholarly analysis to the semi literate" a cutting snub to all who may not have had the advantage,of being taught the classics.It was mean spirited and smacked of elitism.There are some very talented bloggers on this site who are kind & civil to all.But others!!! OK I have had many a Punch & Judy type of fun with MA2 but he always starts that fun.I think all folk have a right to voice their opinion
even if their education has left them at an disadvantage,with out the added ridicule from the advantaged.But I suppose this is a bear pit with
no quarter asked or given,heaven help the unaware..
Regards...
Complain about this comment
157 UK some ignore the classics when they are no longer in school.
I'd say the elitism of those that think their education is enough to justify their points just because they are"educated" is a joke.
They Assume others not educated.
They forget there are many different subjects to be educated in.
Some would say those that "waste " their time learning the classics just want to avoid thinking for themselves and allow others to do it for them.
I loved living in Oxford where there were loads of "scholarly "types studying English lit.
They always quoted other people. never said it them selves.
Some deliberately play down their education and others harp on about their degrees. Or make comments about grammar and "literacy" over content.
I'd prefer to be civil. and have been with many even those I disagree with.
but I do so when they deserve it.
Do you ever watch the past posts of people.
Those one time attack bloggers that pretend to not be a temporary name for another poster.
Bear pit yes it is.Then if some of the more rude racist commentators were taken to task. If people recognised race baiting and encouragement of Hate based on race and religion and stopped pretending it is just fine by them but.
If when someone says something factually correct and gets banned, because it is inconvenient to the argument of someone who is promoting that hate and bile, the others didn't stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing happened then maybe it would be less of a bear pit.
but the don't.
Neither do you.
So Gherkin and MA remain unmolested by the moderators and the fellow posters.And the same lies get debated the same hate promoted.
You know full well that it is offensive to say
"europeans didn't care to fight against the nazi" which was the gist of the post that started the WW2 part of this thread.
You should admonish those making such an offensive comment before jumping to defend that side of the argument.
It was blatantly wrong to allow that comment to stand un resisted.
You pick some strange battles.
Complain about this comment
ukwales #154. . .
Yes, I'm very much aware of the fact that FDR was walking a tightrope and all that that entailed during those first two years. In fact, when some of this blog's less respectfull contributors, on threads past, made the common accusation that we were never a true friend of Britain's because we "only joined the war when we were attacked" (I.E. implyed that we were too selfish to help you out in any other way) etc, I responded by citing a few things that FDR did that blatantly virtually ripped our constitution in two in an attempt to get us into the war via the back door, and it was "refered to the moderators" for some reason. I don't know why, because I don't think your average web cite, Wicki et al, would contain sensitive and/or classifyed information about things that happened 70 years ago. But nevertheless, the question that I was seaking an answer to, that of whether you thought that we were merely watching Britain fight for its life during those first two years since we had no troops in the fight, was answered, eloquently as usual, with your describing the US during that time as a "secret belligerent." Now again, I could give more evidence to prove that, bar our troops, we were esentially in the war, but it might be banned, and I wouldn't want that.
This being the case, I highly doubt that presidents realizing that the constitution still stands, if they really want to pursue something, will not either blatantly ignore the constitution to get what they want (as Bush did through his executive order setting up Guantanamo Bay until the Supreme court declared its existance was illegal) or bend it as FDR did with the Lend/Lease act (by pressuring it through Congress.) In fact, throughout our republic's entire 233 year history, we have only properly declared constitutional war (via Congress) 5 times, with the ones on Germany and Japan during World War II being the most recent. Every war since then were technicly "conflicts." Which is ironic, because the constitution was set up strictly to prevent against too much power being gathered in one branch of government and to protect civil rights at home, but with our less than exemplory track record of subverting and stretching it at best during times of crisis, it makes me wonder, what real good does it serve? Britain doesn't have a written constitution and it hasn't abused its citizens' rights in recent history and/or shamed its reputation abroad through policies such as the set-up of detention facilities in foreign countries. So what is it that makes Britain respect human rights when threatened and America disrespect them?
Regards...
Complain about this comment
#158 Cheesefuller.
"Others didn't stick their heads in the sand & pretend nothing happened then maybe it would be less of a bear pit,but they dont,Neither do you".
Ouch,I can honestly say that I do not fully follow the twists & turns of each entry on this blogg.
"You pick some strange battles"
The only battles I Fight & care about are the ones in raising money to help feed & care for the needy & desperate in Moldova, full stop...
Complain about this comment
#159 PursuitOflove.
"So what is it that makes Britain respect human rights when threatened & America disrespect them".
The UK was once powerful,it did as it wanted,but not any more.We have to abide with EU/UN rules and expects/hopes others do the same.
With out the frame works,any thing goes..
The US is still no1 in many areas,it can say how it's going to be.Its difficult for me to criticize the US after helping to secure my freedom.
May be that is why we went to war in Iraq?.
Complain about this comment
ukwales #161: '"We have to abide with UN rules and expects/hopes others do the same. With out the frame works,any thing goes. The US is still no1 in many areas,it can say how it's going to be. Its difficult for me to criticize the US after helping to secure my freedom. May be that is why we went to war in Iraq?"
Oh dear this opens up a whole nother can of worms...
As I'm sure you observed above, my question at the end of that post was mainly refering to our elected oficials not abiding by our constitution; the very DNA of our nation, its institutions and people. To be honest, I wasn't even thinking about international law when I wrote that. But going off of that premis, I don't care, would suspect that the majority of fairminded Americans don't care, and once thought (now doubting) that past presidents during our assent to international prominence and time in the spotlight didn't care about whether we were/are "no1" or not; about how powerfull we were/are; about whether, if we wanted to, we could technicly nuke the entire world to smithereens many times over, they still believed, with as much furver as those Britons who endured the Blitz, that we still must always live out the beliefs we espouse; practice what we preach; adhere to the values that we have, at times, dared to demand the rest of the world adhere to. But your above statement makes me scared. I mean I know that Bush obviously held the view that we could "say how its going to be," but I thought that Clinton had a bit more respect for the international comunity. Carter, Kennedy, Eisenhower, even Bush I. Do you think that all of our presidents since the war have essentially treated the world as if it was/is our own personal playground? Keep in mind, too, that in my post #159, I was refering to times when we've violated our constitution throughout our entire history, and not just during the time that we have enjoyed our turn as the world's sole superpower. Remember, that we had the world's 17th, not 3rd, not even 10th, but 17th largest military when Pearl Harber occured, and as I described in post #159, FDR still virtually shredded our constitution. This wasn't done because he felt he could have his way with the world, but in order to make the best attempt at joining us to the war effort as possible in the face of passionate domestic opposition. Our civil war was much the same. Britainia ruled the waves head and shoulders above all others. But Lincoln suspended Habius Corpus for Confederate soldiers held prisoner and Union civilians alike throughout the duration of the war. During World War I, president Wilson not only suspended our first and fourth amendment rights, but sent government police patrols, if you will, around to ensure that the American people were supporting the war effort once we had gotten involved in its last year.
As regards you finding it hard to criticise us, I would simply urge you to continue to do so if you think that we've done wrong or are doing wrong no matter how difficult it is. In my opinion, a true friend not only supports and fights for beliefs and causes espoused and fought for by their friend which they think are right (sometimes, yes, in the face of strong opposition,) but also criticises their friend when they feel that their friend is doing/has done wrong, and when they know that their criticisms are the last thing that their friend wants to hear. Please don't feel like you owe us anything; we not only fought for your freedoms, we fought for ours as well.
P.S. I think Blair supported Iraq because he honestly, in his warped twisted way of looking at international relations, thought that it was the right thing to do, and not because of a feeling that he owed us anything. But that's yet another can of worms, of which I haven't the strength to get into now.
Regards...
Complain about this comment
162 PursuitOflove,
Do I think that all of our Presidents since the war have essentially treated the world as if it was/is our own personal play ground?.
The US has been so successful & powerful that it has been difficult for it to read situations in other parts of the world.With that power comes pride understandable so.Vietnam was not a domino,but similar to the US in 1776.It wanted liberty from out side interference,China included.Personal playground? no,more like unable to see things in any other way except its own.
"To criticize a friend is to be a real friend".
Paradoxically the most valuable export of the USA down through the years has been optimism & hope,especially to Russian locked east Europe & oppressed people the world over.So you guys must have done some things right.
Guantanamo,secret renditions & the war with Iraq on spurious grounds are tactics that one would expect of Putin.
Blair was intoxicated by being with the big boys on the world stage.
But I will leave scathing criticism of the USA to others who are able to see more clearly than me.Others who have not got hedges that in spring & autumn have large sections that show some thing ploughed through here.
It has been brilliant exchanging views with you,thanks...
Complain about this comment
"P.S. I think Blair supported Iraq because he honestly, in his warped twisted way of looking at international relations, thought that it was the right thing to do, and not because of a feeling that he owed us anything. "
right on.
I think he was fed up with sanctions killing people and the fact that they could not bve lifted because America just wouldn't. To give the poodle some credit I think he mistakenly thought he could help steer GW away from making a total cock up o f it.
He failed that
UKWales. I'm with you this poster makes sense. I was trying to explain why some are so nasty.
Especially my comments and the U boat's.
Good luck on that Battle you do take on.
" Please don't feel like you owe us anything; we not only fought for your freedoms, we fought for ours as well."
That says it all on the old war subject.
Complain about this comment
"So what is it that makes Britain respect human rights when threatened and America disrespect them?"
CIVILisation;)
Complain about this comment
ukwales #163. . .
Ok I concede that the stupid things done by some of our presidents were not entirely done because they saw the world as our playground, but because they really, honestly couldn't possibly fathom how the people living in a country in which they wish to treat as their own personal "Risk" game (I'm not sure if its well known in the UK, but "Risk" is a popular board game here whereby its players seak to dominate the world through moving miniature cannons, tanks etc around on a map of the world) could possibly be anything but elated at the sight of our planes and tanks destroying their land (and, hard as we may try not to, innocent civilians.) But even still, I personally think that this is a rather immature way to look at the world, and that one who seaks the position of the most powerfull person in the world (for now) aught to be a hell of a lot more empathetic than that. Moreover, I wouldn't put it past at least a few of our presidents, Dubya most notably, to largely, if not entirely, see the world as their own personal playground. Power corrupts.
"Guantanamo,secret renditions & the war with Iraq on spurious grounds are tactics that one would expect of Putin."
Exactly! So you can see why I, many Americans, and undoubtedly the majority of the world, find it utterly shocking, not to mention shameful, that a nation, the only nation, who's founders had the forsight to found it upon the principle that "all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights" would treat men of other nationalities as inferior, even if those men hate that nation with every fiber of their being.
"Blair was intoxicated by being with the big boys on the world stage."
You mean "big boy," right? Remember, no other western nation joined us in Iraq. I don't doubt that he was, at least in part. But as one who had been spellbound by his oratorical skills as much as I was by Obama's, and as one who has scrutinized many an interview with him, I have to say that it does truely appear to me as though he really did personally believe the war the right action to take.
"But I will leave scathing criticism of the USA to others who are able to see more clearly than me. Others who have not got hedges that in spring & autumn have large sections that show some thing ploughed through here."
I apologize, I was not clear before. When I said that a real friend criticises
their friend, I meant, of course, with the utmost respect and kindness. Hard as it is to acknowledge it, I am not oblivious to the existence of anti-American people in the US and the world, and am no stranger to battling anti-American sentiment on this very blog. But there is a huge difference, in my opinion, between an anti-American, who seems to find fault with nearly everything America does, and a friend, who overall sees America as decent, but still has no problem making their voice heard when they feel that it has strayed off the straight and narrow. That is all I meant by that. I would suspect that it would be difficult for one to discern whether a Yes man is their friend just as much as one who constantly criticises them. Personally, I hope I never have to find out.
"Paradoxically the most valuable export of the USA down through the years has been optimism & hope,especially to Russian locked east Europe & oppressed people the world over. So you guys must have done some things right."
Thank you again for this very generous remark. This statement reminds me of a very moving incident involving Churchill and a group of New York reporters, in which in Martin Gilbert's extraordinary biography we find recorded these words from Churchill by his doctor, Lord Moran: "What other nation in history, when it became supremely powerful, has had no thought of territorial aggrandizement, no ambition but to use its resources for the good of the world? I marvel at America's altruism, her sublime disinterestedness." All at once I realized,'' Lord Moran went on, Winston was in tears. His eyes were red, his voice faltered, he was deeply moved." This doesn't deny or excuse the fact that selfish, naive, and sometimes both, presidents haven't treated the world like a vending machine, but merely acknowledges the fact that we, perhaps more so than any other nation at its hight, saw it in our own best interest to ensure that others in the world could enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. If only we could cut all the selfishness out of it.
It has been wonderful exchanging with you as well; but I'd really love a response to this post, if you get a chance. Thank you so much.
Complain about this comment
I have a question about the much respected Sir Winston Churchill. I have heard that he left some advice to his successors. The major piece of advice, that UK governments seem to have followed, being to sitck to America. 'Come what may, allow no distance to develop between the US and UK.'
Is this a true story, or is it baseless? If true do you see any sense in it, and, perhaps, has it outlived its utility?
Complain about this comment
# 166 PursuitOflove
We inherit our Ancestors & so are a fearful mix.
We inherit our history & that also is a fearful mix.
The human condition is full of contradictions & is not faultless .
The USA was set and run by humans.
Has the US been successful and wanted to share? = Yes.
Has the US wanted to be the star of the show with other nations seen as a supporting cast? = Yes.
Has the US been the bulwark for democracy? = Yes.
Has the US been the arsenal for democracy ? = Yes.
Have countless innocent civilians been killed in wars that did not need to be fought?= Yes.
Has the US, because of it's position, being damned if it does and damned if it doesn't? = Yes
Has the US been, by and large,a massive force for good ?= Yes.
Has the US difficulty in understanding different cultures and people?=Yes
Have the people of the US blind faith in their country? = some of the people all of the time....
I think Churchill knew a good thing when he saw it, and when he said 'jaw.jaw, jaw is better than war,war,war,' He knew what he was talking about.......
Complain about this comment
PursuitOflove,
Sorry,Best Wishes & happy new year...
Complain about this comment
#167 JMM.
If that was his advice it was good advice.We are in many ways family but sadly family's do drift.With the UK being merged more & more into the EU I fear that drift will accelerate.
Asked-unwisely-by a young MP how he could have put more fire in to his speech he had just made,Churchill's answer was predictable:`What you should have done is put the speech into the fire`....
Churchill was very difficult to work for & with.The war effort by the UK
would have dissipated into piecemeal raids & mad cap ventures,if he had his own way.Only the determined courage of an totally unsung hero Alanbrooke, Chief of the imperial General staff-Britain`s top soldier- kept the UK's show on the road..
Churchill on Alanbrooke:`When I thump the table and push my face towards him,what does he do?Thump the table harder and glares back at me`...
Complain about this comment
ukwales numbers 168 and 169. . .
If only the vast majority of the world would see the US the way you do.
However, "Have countless innocent civilians been killed in wars that did not need to be fought?= Yes."
Perhaps this is a little harsh, but I should think that we, after having witnissed the shere devistation brought on by the first two world wars, once we became powerful ourselves, would have thought a little more before engaging our troops in more war. Of all the empires in human history, the United States has the least amount of excuses, in my opinion, for starting and/or engaging in unjust wars.
"Has the US difficulty in understanding different cultures and people? = Yes"
Here again, I believe we should have the least difficulty, because of the nature of the interdependent world and instant comunication, and the ability to look back on the days of the French, British, Roman etc empires at their hights and learn from their mistakes when it came to understanding those around the world with whom they wished to interact with.
"Have the people of the US blind faith in their country? = some of the people all of the time...."
Regretably so. But do you honestly think that some Frenchmen, Britons, Canadians etc have blind faith in their countries as well? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here! I just find it hard to believe, somehow, that there are. No doubt you have heard about the amount of patriotism in my country, and I think patriotism is a good and necessary thing for all countries to possess; and don't get me wrong, I am very proud of my country for many things!! But if some Americans, most likely our most recent president, have blind faith in their country, then I think perhaps there is such a thing as too much patriotism, and that we possess it to some digree. And that, I'm not sure, is such a good thing for a nation to have at all.
"I think Churchill knew a good thing when he saw it, and when he said 'jaw.jaw, jaw is better than war,war,war,' He knew what he was talking about......."
I agree with nearly all you said in your post #168, and Churchill's very flattering and kind remarks regarding us should not, in my opinion, be taken lightly, because as a popular American saying gos, "he's been around the block a few times." I just think that given the time at which we enjoy our status as world's superpower, we can do so much better than we sometimes do.
While we're on the subject, this reminds me of yet another famous, rather psychoanalitical Churchill quote regarding the US, and it is that "America can always be relyed upon to do the right thing...after it has tryed every other conceivable alternative." - How true!
Best wishes and a very happy New Year to you and yours as well!!
Complain about this comment
JMM #167: '"Is this (the Churchill advice) a true story, or is it baseless?"
I honestly don't know.
"If true do you see any sense in it, and, perhaps, has it outlived its utility?"
Of course I see sense in it, provided that it is grounded in mutual respect and kindness. Something which, I am sad to say, hasn't exactly been forthcoming from the part of the US in recent years. But if these principles make up the foundation of the alliance, why wouldn't it make sense? Shared legal system, shared values, shared culture, shared language. Just as people gravitate toward those they have things in common with, so too do (and should in my opinion) nations.
ukwales #170. . .
I'm more ignorant about the workings of the EU than I am the US, as I'm sure you can understand. So if you don't mind my asking, what about the intigration of the EU do you think will hinder the alliance between our countries? I'm not a huge fan of everything the EU does, and think it oversteps its bounds in some important areas. But I would urge you to try to look at it through a similar lense to the one through which you view the US, if you can.
Thank you, and again Happy New Year!
Complain about this comment
PersuitOflove,
UK in the EU in very general terms.
The British Empire on which the sun never sets,but did!..
The race for domination with Spain,France and all others left Britain victorious,with an empire of unbelievable areas of land & about one forth of this worlds people.All this was run from London policed with the Royal Navy & Army,that in many cases maned by local troops with British officers.
Increasing trade competition from emerging powers,USA & Germany ect that empire,became a massive burden to run & control.Serves us right would not be out of place.
The first world war strained our finances the seconed world war broke us.
The lessons from 1776 defeat in America was not lost on us.You can not hold people that do not want to be held.Some of the empire longed for independence.It was decided to grant independence to all lands,that required it.We where to weak to do any thing other than that.So was born most of this worlds stable democracies.
So from being the worlds no1 power, hey presto!we found we are now a
medium size power. How the mighty fall.
The powers to be reasoned, 'As we are an European island, our future would be best suited with closer co-operation with mainland europe'.
Germany and France seem to be storming ahead. We were stagnating by comparison, so the UK requested, and after many refusals from France, joined the common market, for trading purposes only.
That Common Market has grown into a more political European Union, with it's own parliament and MP's.
The lisbon treaty has been introduced to stream line procedings.
Blocking procedures by a veto is now a thing of the past with the majority vote winning the day.
The EU parliament is getting stronger with more and more power granted to it.
Pro's for Germany...
The long shadow of ww1&2 still haunts europe.
Germany, one of the stronger members of the EU, fears it's own strength.
It does not want to dominate again because of it's tragic past.
It gives power to Brussels willingly.
In all fairness it gave up the mighty mark for the euro and has helped many weaker countries in Europe, for the general good of Europe.
Pro's for UK..
Hmmmmm.OK.If there are no more battles like the somme, ypres, El Alamein etc, the some loss of independence can be tolerated..
Con's for UK..
All our problems down through the 1900's came from main land Europe...
Germany and France have never had our best interests at heart, and now we are supposed to be partners with them..
As the EU gains in strength with it's own military, I know now there will be tension with the USA sooner or later and the UK will be outvoted and therefore silenced.
The End.
PS...After independence mostly all of our old commonwealth still have close relations with the mother country.(so we did some things right as well).I would have much preferred to have stayed out of the EU and trade with our old commonwealth and the rest of the world than be submerged into that melting pot of European countries called the EU=Evil and Underhanded.....I jest!!"well maybe".
Best Wishes...
Complain about this comment
ukwales #173. . .
Thanks so much for taking the time to give me that very informative history lesson of the UK and the EU more broadly; it was very generous! I already knew most of it, but was very intrigued to learn the things I didn't know and of course, it is always interesting to get the perspective of a nation/international institution/event from someone from another country.
However, "The lessons from 1776 defeat in America was not lost on us. You can not hold people that do not want to be held. Some of the empire longed for independence. It was decided to grant independence to all lands,that required it. We where to weak to do any thing other than that. So was born most of this worlds stable democracies. So from being the worlds no1 power, hey presto!we found we are now a medium size power. How the mighty fall."
Please don't take offense at this, but you sound to me a bit like a naive 18-year-old, freshly graduated from high school, who decides to go to Vagus in the hopes of leaving with a huge stash of money and loses everything. Yes that wise lesson you learned (and that, in my opinion, we have yet to learn,) that of you can't make someone do something they don't want to do and you can't hold people against their will, was learned at a dear cost to you. Yes we declared independence (and lets be honest here, purely because our founders felt they were being taxed too much; if they didn't feel that way, I highly doubt that we would exist as a separate country today.) I mean Jefferson nearly plagiarized John Lok in our "declaration of independence" for goodness's sake! (Money really does make the world go around.) But its not as if you lost everything. With our rise to power, and through the materialisation and nature of the much vaunted "special relationship," I guess one could say that in some ways you have been able to live on. And if you don't agree with that, you can always take pride in your country's (in my opinion) superior record, especially when compared to mine, of adhereing to your values and principles, particularly when threatened. And that, I believe, is what truely warrents the "great" in "Great Britain," not your former empire.
"Germany and France seem to be storming ahead. We were stagnating by comparison, so the UK requested, and after many refusals from France, joined the common market, for trading purposes only."
Unfortunately, it has to be said, because of your close relationship with us. So in a way, even though you didn't follow us into a pointless war, you still got penalized for associating yourselves with us.
"Pro's for UK..
Hmmmmm.OK.If there are no more battles like the somme, ypres, El Alamein etc, the some loss of independence can be tolerated.."
And if there are, I very much highly doubt, unless the battle is with us, that we wouldn't be fighting right along side you, so in this instance, militarily speaking, I don't think you will suffer such a great loss.
"Con's for UK..
All our problems down through the 1900's came from mainland Europe."
Well to be honest, since we weren't exactly the best of friends from the late 18th century down through the majority of the 19th, technically all of your big problems came from mainland Europe.
"Germany and France have never had our best interests at heart, and now we are supposed to be partners with them.."
Yes I know what you mean. They're like the popular cheerleaders in high school who, hard as you try, can't seem to get to be your friend because there's always something they don't much like about you. Very frustrating.
"As the EU gains in strength with it's own military, I know now there will be tension with the USA sooner or later and the UK will be outvoted and therefore silenced. The End."
Oh come on now. Do you honestly think that the EU will eventually one day have its own military with nation-state's militaries being but contributors to the big one? That individual countries will no longer have a say over what their militaries do? If this does happen then I agree, it is a very, very frightening concept indeed, and don't see as well how our alliance wouldn't be strained. Lets hope it doesn't.
I agree with the rest of your post, and as I said before, think that in a few respects, now seemingly increasing, that the EU has overstepped its boundries. And given what it has become, I don't know, but perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been better if you hadn't joined. But again, in the interest of fairness, it (military assistance from us aside) has managed to pick itself up out of the ashes of the most devistating war in human history, become a thriving economic power, not to mention show the US a thing or two on how to care for its less fortunate/unable to aford health care etc. No easy task!
It has been a pleasure talking with you and again Happy New Year!!!
Complain about this comment
As an American [4 generations minimum on all sides, and at least one ancestor on the winning side in 1776], I should probably not intrude on the UK-EU relationship. However, I do worry about Europe's commitment to democracy.
The BBC Americas page link to the Montana Constitution will lead you to a relatively young state's new constitution. Our belief in the absolute right of the people to control the government is on display here. Please pay attention to the mechanics of its writing and adoption and to the provisions for popular control of the government.
This constitution was decided on by the people of Montana, to suit their needs as they see them. It was not imposed by Washington, nor did Washington have any say in it's adoption. It might seem, in part, to have been plagiarized from older constitutions or from the Federal Constitution. That merely shows that the ideas upon which this country was founded still live in the minds and hearts of the people.
I worry about Europe's commitment to these ideas because in most EU countries the people were denied a vote on the constitution, and when three countries said no the result was to perpetrate a deceit. It is now called a "treaty" not a "constitution" and the nay-saying countries were forced to recant.
Perhaps the American system would not work or would be inappropriate in Europe. I am certainly not saying the European people should copy California and put everything in plebecites, but what was done does wory me as it seems so undemocratic.
The political elites do seem to distrust the EU's people to an amazing extent. The pols in Washington do, too, but they fear for the safety of their jobs should the public outrage ignite. This explains the interesting gyrations in their actions and inactions on the healthcare bill, bailouts, etc. They mightily envy the Brussels Eurocrats' ability to simply ignore the EU's people.
Oh, and Canada, dear me, suspending the parliament and ruling by ministerial fiat. Tsk, tsk.
Happy new year and a better and more democratic 2010.
Complain about this comment
175 JMM
Euro MPs`are elected by the individual country that they represent.
The guys in gray suits steering this unwanted vehicle,are appointed by governments who them selves were elected.
The EU government is gaining momentum & its ability to over ride an individual government is worrying & not wanted or welcome by most.I am
no expert in governing systems & instinctively feel small government is best government.
Could it be said that Europe at this time,we find our selves as did the the people of the 13 colonies in America after over throwing the British.
Some hoped for small government in each of the 13 and not a central Federal replacing the crown?.Patrick Henry said "I smelled a rat in Philadelphia" & I say I smell a bigger one in Brussels.
Lastly,that fellow of yours who fought against us,I have though it over &
will forgive him,as it was so long ago,every family has one black sheep & all were young once.By the way it is never a good idea to make tea with salt water which reminds me,that tea in Boston harbor has not been paid for to this day,so cough up buster....
JMM a happy new year to you...
Complain about this comment
ukwales #176: '"Could it be said that Europe at this time,we find our selves as did the the people of the 13 colonies in America after over throwing the British. Some hoped for small government in each of the 13 and not a central Federal replacing the crown? Patrick Henry said "I smelled a rat in Philadelphia" & I say I smell a bigger one in Brussels."
Some did fear a potencial monarchical tirony, and so wanted 13 individual countries, as aposed to one country. The only problem with that was that had 13 countries been formed, they would not have lasted too long (lost colony etc.) So it was decided among the founders, with passionate descent amongst them of course, that one nation stood a better chance of surviving over 13. Hence Ben Franklen's "United we stand and devided we fall" comment and Abraham Lincoln's "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
However the founders were aware of the parils of too much government, which is why they designed the constitution the way they did, with its clearly separated and defined branches of government and nation-wide rights.
What makes our founding different from Europe, in my opinion, is two fold. First, we fought one (well, technically two) wars to gain and secure our independence, with the goal all along to be a federal republic with checks and balances on power at both the local and federal level. Europe, on the other hand, was divided against itself for centuries, finally culminating in two massive all-consuming wars which not only tore Europe apart, but the world before its member-states decided that it was probably best for them to get along than fight, and thus devised an institution to ensure that another such war would never happen again. And second, unlike our constitution, designed with the fears of good intentioned governments gone arie at the forfront of our founders minds, the various European treaties (most recently the Lisbon treaty) were not designed with such fears in mind, hence firm checks and balances of power are not as clearly marked out, hence politicians, both at the national and European levels have more wiggle room and some say can get away with more. Not that a strict constitution benefits our people all that much better than the Lisbon treaty as you can see from my above posts! But those are the main differences, in my opinion, between the American and European styles of governing.
Complain about this comment
176. At 5:12pm on 01 Jan 2010, ukwales wrote:
175 JMM
“By the way it is never a good idea to make tea with salt water which reminds me,that tea in Boston harbor has not been paid for to this day,so cough up buster....
JMM a happy new year to you...”
Bygones should most definitely be bygones. I have many British friends and colleagues. My Irish heritage did not incline me to support terrorism [of the IRA or anyone else]. At the risk of being a spoilsport, though, some anglophile citizens of Boston did, in fact, make amends with a token payment on the Bicentennial.
And a very Merry [remainder of the 12 days of] Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours.
“Blwyddyn Newydd Dda”
McJakome
Complain about this comment
166. At 7:29pm on 29 Dec 2009, PursuitOfLove wrote:
ukwales #163. . .”Power corrupts.” This comes from another British statesman, Lord Acton,
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
And since the US attained overwhelming, though not absolute, power we can see the effects clearly in the actions of the Neocons and their infamously wooly headed “leader” George W. Bush. He may go down in History with King Canute for ordering the North Sea to roll back [not a correct reading of the history here], Mohammad for ordering the mountain to come to him [to show his followers that he was human, not out of hubris], and other [seen as] hubristic leaders.
President Obama seems to be returning to statesmanship, I hope the trend continues. Of course, since he is responsible first and formost for the security of the US, the Left will be as dismayed at his nationalism as the Right will be at his conciliatory attitude and policies.
Best wishes to him, to Mr. Mardell and to all of you for a happy, heealthy, sane and peaceful new year.
Complain about this comment
PersuitOlove,
A CASE FOR THE CROWN,
By that fellow ukw whose knowledge on air craft & all things requiring spanners, is only matched by his bewilderment of the art of clog & morris dancing...
With the 13 colonies thriving & moving ever westward towards the proclamation line set by King George,attacks on the vulnerable settlers by the French,who laid claim to the hinterland and Indians whose land it actually was, increased.
A recce with the young George Washington fired a volley at the French in the back woods of America that set the world on fire.
The seven year war with France,a world war with Britain eventually being victorious.
Taking the territories of Canada to India and many lands in between, including near domination of the worlds oceans.(it does seem that French foreign policy towards the British since this time is based on revenge)
The 13 colonies in their own defense did supply and finance a militia which was initially superior than the red coat regulars, fighting the irregular Indian and French forces.(see Braddocks rout), but the vast bulk of finance came from Britain.
Victory brought a day of reckoning regarding the cost of that war.
The security of the colonies benefited from that victory.
The taxes back in Britain were punitive and with others benefiting,a small sharing of that debt burden was deemed fair.
No taxation without representation was the case for the majority in Britain, and what a hollow chant after independence with the Fed doing exactly the same thing leading to Shays rebellion.
Seeing how inflamed the Americans had become, all taxes were repealed by supporters and friends of America, in Parliament.
The king thought that a handful of radicals were not going to hijack his American dominions and loyal subjects and tried vigorously to stop this.
After fighting a world war that incurred a massive debt that increased America's security, Britain was by armed rebellion ejected from the land it fought to protect.
Not dissimilar from, if the US was from armed force, ejected from Europe, after helping defeat Hitler and Stalin.
I REST MY CASE.....
Regards ukw.
Complain about this comment
PersuitOflove.
Please respond to my post 180 only if so inclined,& forgive my presumption.
Complain about this comment
ukwales numbers 180 and 181. . .
My goodness! It seems there is no topic within law/foreign policy that we haven't debated!
First, my post #177 was largely a comparison between the European and American styles of governing; it was in no way intended as an American virsion of a history lesson of the revolution/war for independence. Perhaps I misread your post #180, but I somewhat gathered from it that I may have angered you a bit, and so before I respond to it, let me just apologize for any offense I may have caused. The last thing I want to do is start a cantankerous heated debate with one of the few fairminded people on this blog; my goal is to offend less people in life, not more.
"Seeing how inflamed the Americans had become, all taxes were repealed by supporters and friends of America, in Parliament."
Something which, no doubt, the 40% of the loyalists (those who wanted to remain part of Britain) knew and were working feaverishly with those MPs to help defuse the heating argument between rebels and king through "jaw jaw," and not "war war." 40% wanted independence, and about 20% were indifferent. So unlike Hollywood likes to portray, we were not all jumping up and down screaming "give me liberty or give me death!" So if the taxes were repealed, then the founders really had no just reason for doing what they did (what with their '"tirant 3000 miles away" propaganda that they spread to stirr up support etc.) So our founders lied to us just as every president down through the centuries. Wow! And to think I once thought our constitution the most prideful asset of my country; but I don't anymore, not if it came into force like this.
"The king thought that a handful of radicals were not going to hijack his American dominions and loyal subjects and tried vigorously to stop this."
He obviously drasticly underestimated the power of propaganda and one-sided stories.
"After fighting a world war that incurred a massive debt that increased America's security, Britain was by armed rebellion ejected from the land it fought to protect. Not dissimilar from, if the US was from armed force, ejected from Europe, after helping defeat Hitler and Stalin."
Well please keep in mind, that I haven't studyed our independence movement in great detail since the 8th grade (nearly 10 years ago now,) so I can't provide a cojant rebut nearly as affectively as I could had I decided to major in American history, but if this is true, then you have every right to be angry at us to this day over our unjust independence; and to be honest, I think it might have been good, perhaps for us not to be removed via force from Europe after the Cold war, but at the very least for Europe to rais its voice as one in protest against our military bases being there, because they are simply not needed anymore, and help to feed the very thing that president Eisenhower (a Republican president!!) warned against, that of a "military industrialised complex."
If you please, I'd love a responce to my posts numbers 174 and 177, along with this one, if you feel so inclined. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Dear pursuitOflove,
I have just started reading your last post & long before I reached the end
I wanted to say you have never ever angered me in any way shape or form.
May be my flippant Welsh humor does not come over well on theblogg,please
forgive me, perhaps I should be more formal and cut the risk of causing an international incident.The exchange of views with you I have learned SO much & thank you for your patience in responding.Now back to your post....
ukw...
Complain about this comment
pursuitOflove,
My posts which you responded with 174,177& the last one,were in response to my opinion/questions.I feel you answered with depth & self evident logic.I have taken your answers from an American who has that rear condition these days no matter where one hails from,common sense.I have reread 174&177 & will leave them stand,as they are your opinions,& thats good enough for me.
If I can be of any use in any way I will try,& will not drone on about things I am weak on,I will be honest.At least in this quiet back water we
have not been torn to shreds by the rest of the pack....
regards ukw
Complain about this comment
ukwales numbers 183 and 184. . .
Please don't feel bad!!! As one who has learned the hard way that humer sometimes doesn't exactly translate all that well in writing, and who's jokes have been known on more than one occasion to fall flat when told in person, I completely understand where you're coming from! Also, I think its worth remembering, that humer, though largely universal, does differ somewhat from country to country, no matter how similar certain countries may be to one another. So again please don't worry, I was just making sure you knew, that if I had offended you, that I was sorry for it.
Though my posts numbers 174 and 177 are of course in part my opinion, they also largely contain my knoledge of certain events/countries/institutions. My citation, for example, of Europe's violent past, the inception of the treaties that later made up the European Union, and even my country's founders' thoughts regarding what kind of nation to be in post #177 were historical facts, not opinion. Now I developed opinions from those facts, but I merely recited what I had learned from school, the news etc about those respective things. So even though my opinion is heavily woven throughout (and in post #182, solely evident) I would still love to learn, if you wish, your opinion of my opinion, if you will. Don't worry, you won't start an international incident!
"I will be honest. At least in this quiet back water we
have not been torn to shreds by the rest of the pack...."
Forgive me, but I'm not quite sure what this means. Will you please explain? Thank you.
Regards...
Complain about this comment
P.S. ukwales, I have learned so much from your wealth of knoledge on events as well; and am much intrigued by it. So forgive me if I have irritated you through my somewhat pesky requests for responses to my posts, I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.
Complain about this comment
pursuitOflove.
Yes I should have said "your opinion of the facts" & just not your opinion,
I could tell you have more than surface or passing interest in views exchanged & assumed that you knew that I knew that fact.Boy is it any wonder that wars brake out!.
"I will be honest"
Was in relation to,If you wanted an opinion on things from a British & there by European slant,I would do my best,& not pretend on giving the impression of being an expert in areas where I am not,I will be honest.
"At least in this quiet back water/torn to shreds by the pack"
On the current main blog,when on opinion is given & where some do not agree,there is a tendency to be rude/ridicule.Instead of giving a gentle
answer in pointing why you disagree,some want to hurt.So you do not get beyond that barbed facade & learn about the person,back ground & culture
or why they hold that view.All my posts I could expand & defend but can not be bothered when things, degenerate to,point scoring with anoraks.
With my "Case for the Crown"
I was so taken aback,that you could see a point of view,instead of chanting that usual mantra that Americans automatically fall into,tyrant
King,because he just was not,no taxation with out blaa blaa blaa.
Mind you I could equally make a case for the revolution using John Adams as a person of high ideals,courage & tenacity who was self made by hard work.No wonder he was received at the court of St james by the defeated king George with honest respect.With sound views for & against the separation war was inevitable,with the victor witing the history, although if you guys had waited, independence would have been granted with out that war!.
Lastly,If you want to ask any thing please do..
ukw.
Complain about this comment
To: UKW and PoL, RE above,
You are both having an interesting and mutually respectful discussion. Even though the US [including the colonial period from 1608] has, relative to any European country, a rather short history, there are a dozen interpretations of that history. In my university course on historiography, we went into detail on Federalist, Whig, Northern, Southern, Marxist [both old and new versions] and a few others.
The point is there are facts and then the interpretation of the facts.
Marxists, no surprise, claim that everything is economic, including the American Revolution and subsequent history.
One fact that rather counters the notion that everything was about taxes, is the people of Boston arresting Governor Andros of the Dominion of New England in 1689. This precipitated the fall of the Dominion.
So to your points about Loyalist vs. Tory, yes the percentage , as I learned it, was about 1/3 each Patriot, Loyalist and undecided. New England, especially Massachusetts, were restive almost from the beginning, with far lower Loyalist numbers. Religion and a tradition of local government were major factors here. In Virginia, the wealthy planters seemed to be interested in liquidating their debt by liquidating the political connection with the UK.
As to getting rid of one powerful government only to create another, that is not quite accurate. With a few exceptions, power was a state not a federal matter until the Civil War. Shays' Rebellion was an internal Massachusetts matter that scared the almost independent confederate states into a closer union [which would also serve to keep European imperialists at bay]. Review the link to Montana's constitution to see that the situation was and has remained different from the colonial arrangements.
The UK and US have had a tumultuous family relationship. The family relationship continues despite the wrangling. Like a family, we seem to pull together in times of crisis, which will, I hope, continue.
Let us, by all means, wrangle amicably about the facts and their interpretation.
McJakome
Complain about this comment
ukwales #187. . .
I feel stupid; rather it is I who should have taken a step back and thought about what you said. I have conversed with you enough to know that you're not one of those people who would automaticly presume me to make up things that happened in history just to bulster my argument and make me look good. I apologise. No wonder indeed!
It is good that you haven't been torn to shreds by the rest of the pack; you're very strong! Because I have to tell you, even though I haven't been torn, I have been torn at, leaving my edges looking a little frayed. I envy your ability not to get caught up in all that hysteria.
"No wonder he (John Addams) was received at the court of St james by the defeated king George with honest respect."
I didn't know that. Was this during his presidency?
"The separation war was inevitable,with the victor writing the history, although if you guys had waited, independence would have been granted with out that war!."
Oh I don't know about that. The war of 1812 (who's orogins I do not wish to get into a debate on, as they don't particularly flatter either one of our countries) did, after all, nearly allow you to reclaim us as part of the British empire again. What I think might have been a far more likely scenario is that we may have evolved into a state not much different from present day Australia or Canada, whereby we essentially are independent minus, of course, the queen still being our head of state.
Thank you for your kind invitation to ask you my questions. In acceptance of that invitation, I would really love to know your thoughts on my posts numbers 174 and 177. I'm sorry, its just that there are a lot of topics covered in them, especially post #174, for me to simply be able to be an adult and let it go. Thanks so much!
Regards...
Complain about this comment
JMM #188: '"The UK and US have had a tumultuous family relationship. The family relationship continues despite the wrangling. Like a family, we seem to pull together in times of crisis, which will, I hope, continue."
To my knoledge (despite what the tabloids say) we haven't exactly had a real bad falling out since about the turn of the 20th century. It may not seem like much, but when compared to the record of any other two nations periods of peace, and it looks pretty impressive. There's bound to be disagreements (and to believe otherwise is utter foolishness.) But as long as we remain on friendly terms with one another throughout them, then things will be fine.
Complain about this comment
PursuitOfLove (#189) "I didn't know that. Was this during his presidency?"
John Adans was the first US Ambassador to Great Britain.
Complain about this comment
PersuitOflove,Post189,
A few observations on post 174.
"please do not take offence at this,but you sound like a naive 18 year old freshly graduated from high school,who decides to go to Vagas in the hopes of leaving with a huge stash & loses every thing ?."
Any one who thinks I am 18 & there fore young,I will never take offence with!.
But this one went over my head,lost in translation, perhaps it was
similar to our old adage,Lost my shilling but found a sixpence may be?.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes we declared Independence but lets be honest here purely because our forefathers thought we were taxed to much".
I will not go over taxation again,but was that excuse used to incense people & mask perhaps a hidden reason for separation?.That proclamation
line,was seen as a barrier to massive profits to be made on a land grab & speculation, by those controlling the strings.But I am on thin ice here,With the British empire ect,
To live to fault the USA,
Its wisdom he doth lack,
With his forefinger pointing at them,
he has three more pointing back...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferson / money makes the world go around.
I totally agree with money ect,but for me any one who loves the French &
takes total liberty's with his ahem "maid servant"!! is a creep.Ok if he married the Lass he would be a hero but he did not,...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But it is not as if you lost every thing".
But to many here thats just what happened.The past with our value systems
of to day,is a very foreigin country, why empire?.But with its passing found the UK with out a role,compared to what went before & readjusting
has been difficult & humbling.I only wish we did not marry into Europe with out trying out the commonwealth with as much investment as goes in to the EU from the UK..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adhering to values & principles,
Some times that observation can best come from others with self praise being no recommendation.
Our NHS has come in for at times scathing condemnation.But this how it has been for us of late.My daughter who after giving birth to darling
Phoebe,was going down with every thing doing the rounds,colds flu & more
of the same & eventually with a constant sore throat.The General practitioner gave anti biotic ect.Late one night her condition deteriorated alarmingly so with the GP surgery closed the emergency services had to called.She was taken to Carmarthen hospital at 1am after an xray at that time of night the consultant ready to operate on cyst between her voice box & spine there & then,but had experienced a similar event that year.They zapped it with industrial amounts of tailored antibiotics.It saved her life,10 days of constant care 5 intensive,total cost other than general taxes nothing.I used to begrudge paying tax not any more!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh come on,do you honestly think that the EU will eventually one day have its own military"
Yes I do,some are hell bent on a federal united states of Europe,& want ever closer union,this has been voted out but still "they" keep on.
Politicians can see such a gravy train,doing as far as I can see putting
burdens on the backs of others,oh don`t get me started.....
Best wishes ukw...
Complain about this comment
ukwales #193. . .
No, the '18-year old annalogy was refering to your description of the decline of the British empire which, rightly or wrongly, read to me like an '"Boo hoo...woe are we" pitty party, and I was merely pointing out, with subsequent examples to back up my claim, that I didn't agree that you lost everything when the empire declined. I was worried that you might misconstrue that annalogy as a diplomatic way of calling you immature or childish, and therefore take offense at that.
"Jefferson / money makes the world go around.
I totally agree with money ect,but for me any one who loves the French & takes total liberty's with his ahem "maid servant"!! is a creep.Ok if he married the Lass he would be a hero but he did not,..."
In mentioning Jefferson I was pointing out that as one of the most ardant voices for independence, I found it ironic that he was saying '"We'll form this new nation on new ideas, and it will be totally different from that of that tirant king George," and yet when it came down to his turn to present his ideas for
that new nation, what does he do? He boarderline plagiarizes John Lok and Thomas Hobbs to construct our constitution. Its sort of like a teen-ager hating the way in which their parent parents and swear up and down not to be so strict when they become a parent. And then when they do they are just like their parent was when they were young. Who knows the real reason(s) our founders had for separating from the British empire? I thought I did, but now I'm not so sure. My point, however, was merely to show that for all our founders' talk of "tiranical
king" etc, that aside from the sheer genius of the system of checks and balances, they essentially took all of the great ideas from the British government and British philosophers from that time and used them to build our nation. Could there have possibly been some secret admiring going on there? (I didn't much care for his choice of personal lifestyle either, but that's an entirely different story!!)
"The past with our value systems of to day,is a very foreigin country, why empire?"
This has, I'm afraid, gotten lost in translation. Will you please explain?
"Adhering to values & principles,
Some times that observation can best come from others with self praise being no recommendation."
But of course I think you aught, and have every right to praise yourselves!! You already know about my views regarding our adhereance to our constitution, and to be honest I wasn't even thinking about the NHS when I wrote that, but that is yet another example of you practicing what you preach and us still struggling to find a way to provide health care for all. I'm glad to hear that your daughter and granddaughter are doing well!! (and at no personal cost? no fear of going bankrupt? no preexisting conditions?) I tell you one thing, if we don't have universal health care coverage by the time I turn 40, I'm moving to the UK!!
If many of your countrymen want to believe that Britain lost everything when it lost the empire then they of course have every right to do so, but I will eternally disagree with them because of reasons such as our rise to power and your adhereing to your values and principles when times are hard, not just easy.
Best wishes...
Complain about this comment
PersuiteOflove.
The past is a foreign country,why empire,?.
People who lived in the very same area as us in times past,would have a mind set in keeping with their time in history.That mind set,compared with our perceptions of today,we would find it difficult to get on their frequency & them ours.Different life pressures also with the passage of
time,views on what was excepted & acceptable change.So even in our own back yard the past would be like visiting a foreign land.
I have experienced this in my life time.Holiday time on the farm with my
grand parents,they were born in the 1880s`& died in the mid 1970s`& were of another era.I as a boy was thrilled with the ripping yarns of heroic deeds from the heroes of empire that my grand father told me.General Wolf of Canada,Clive of India.But best of all was the stand taken at Rorks Drift by about 150 British with many Welsh amongst them,holding out against the Zulus who had earlier that day wiped out 1000 British officers & men.Boy how I lapped this up.
But with the passage of time my views changed.If you where to ask what were the aspirations the Zulu nation in the 1800s`I would bet serious money that,invading Wales was quite low on the must do list.So what on earth were Welsh men doing shooting Zulus`on their own land.If they were attacking Cardiff I could understand shooting Zulus,but South Africa to Wales is one megga trip in a canoe...
I hope you get my drift on the,past is foreign & why empire.
Regards ukw...
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS