Back in the swamp
I haven't seen the book yet, but both George W Bush's interview with NBC and in the Times are much more interesting than I expected.
It is the nature of these things that we pull them apart in the search for news headlines, but it is the texture, style and nuance that is really engaging.
He is promoting his biography Decision Points and defending his most controversial pivots for posterity, while denying that is the case. George W Bush told NBC that he hadn't given any interviews for two years because he didn't want to be back in the swamp... but he now finds himself knee deep in familiar waters.
When you boil down the actual defence of each policy they are rather predictable. The near drowning of al-Qaeda prisoners, waterboarding, to get information? The lawyers said it wasn't torture and he'd do it again because it saved lives.
The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No-one was more saddened and angry than he was but he wouldn't apologise because that would suggest the war was wrong and the world was a better place without Saddam Hussein.
Bailing out the banks? He couldn't worry about the angst it caused friends to see a free marketer intervening - he had to stop an economic depression.
But it is his primary purpose that is revealing. At one point he says: "I am a deliberative person", and he is out to counter the image of a politician who made snap decisions on gut instinct alone, when brains rather than intestines might have been a better guide to action.
He says at another point, when it is suggested to him that Vice-President Dick Cheney pushed him to invade Iraq, saying: "Are you going to take care of this guy or not", that he was reflective. "I was a dissenting voice: I didn't want to use force." He says at that stage he turned Mr Cheney down.
He clearly feels that he hasn't got enough credit for the apparent success of the surge in Iraq, pointing out: "I am the sort of person, the tougher it got the more willing I was to make a tough call."
He is also clearly offended that some saw him as the puppet of Mr Cheney and top presidential adviser Karl Rove. He shrugs it off saying Mr Rove knew he wasn't the president's brain and Mr Cheney knew he wasn't running the White House. But the body language is prickly, hurt and awkward.
Whether that is because there's some truth in it, or because there's none and that's even more irritating, I can't tell.
He can afford to be more discursive than any politician in office who'll find their words carved into potentially career-destroying soundbites.
These longer exchanges are revealing. Early on he tells the interviewer that he has heard all the "psycho babble" about his relationship with his father, President George HW Bush - that it was about competition, that he wanted to overshadow his dad. He dismisses this saying it is a much less complex relationship than that, based on love.
He continues that he decided to run for president in large part out of admiration for his father and "the truth of the matter was the final motivating factor was my admiration for George Bush and I wonder if I had what it took to get in the arena the way he did".
He concludes that he hopes history will judge him a success, but he will be dead before that happens. It is certainly true - whether you see him as hero or villain, you are unlikely to be swayed by the words on the page or the interview, but it was certainly a more interesting hour than I had expected.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~02~RS~)
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 
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"The near drowning of al-Qaeda prisoners"
MM, quite a few al-Qaida prisoners have been released from Gitmo.
And almost immediately joined al-Qaida in Arab Peninsula, as subsequent arrests in Yemen have clearly demonstrated.
Complain about this comment
No matter what any president says in his memoirs (and they all seem compelled to write them, just as they all seem compelled to open libraries in their own namesakes) the ultimate judgment of their legacy will be made by the public and by future historians. Those who are contemporaries of the presidents, already made up their minds and these memoirs are mere trivia.
Complain about this comment
It is still too soon for me to think about GWB.
If the resurgent Republicans can rehabilitate that memory, there are no ghosts we can feel are safely at rest.
KScurmudgeon
- there were only four parties of trick-or-treaters last week, but maybe we aren't quite done yet.
Complain about this comment
Interesting that Bush still cannot make the connection that the US use of torture makes them no better than the terrorists. Presumably Al Quaida could justifiably make the same argument - that torturing invading American soldiers may ultimately save innocent Arab civilian live by deterring them. The footage from Abu Graib destroyed US credibility for very many people! George W. Bush would have been well advised to stay in obscurity and keep quiet.
Complain about this comment
#4
"Presumably Al Quaida could justifiably make the same argument..."
Except that they don't. They are in only one business, that is the business of murdering anyone who disagrees with them, be they Americans, Arabs, Muslims or non-Muslims, men or women, adults or children, etc. Torture is too lenient, as far as they are concerned.
That is the difference and it's a rather glaring one which somehow still manages to escape you.
Complain about this comment
"He concludes that he hopes history will judge him a success, but he will be dead before that happens."
I suspect history will be dead before that happens.
Complain about this comment
Way OUT of swamp...
"Raul Castro has taken steps to promote small private enterprise.
He announced plans to lay off around a million state employees - around a fifth of the workforce - and encourage them to find work in the private sector."
Now, what has Raul finally learnt that Barack hasn't? [yet]
Complain about this comment
The whole tone of the Mardell piece is of a President defending his decisions and actions. The problem is that the President was only put in that position by people like Mardell. Perhaps Mardell and the BBC - who lied about the Iraq War - need to defend their position.
This is like the '...it was all about oil...' line taken, usually by people of the yah boo persuasion who know little about the Iraq War. There was never any evidence that it was about oil beforehand; the oil contracts were auctioned in public; they went to all sorts of bidders, some of them contracts revived from before the war - yet these people still say it was 'all about oil'. Perhaps they should defend their accusations.
The most modern aspect of this war is the attitude of the mainstream media. The media is populated by people like Mardell. Well paid upper echelon people who don't want their boat rocked. They care little or nothing about people dying in Iraq or Darfur, they just want their little Orlando or Emma to go to the nicest school.
O and they strike because their already privileged public sector pension wasn't good enough for them.
Yer gotta larf.
Complain about this comment
When West does it, it is because of love. When others do it, it is a rape.
Complain about this comment
Whilst we all know Saddam Hussein wasn't the most savoury character on the planet, has anyone asked Bush or Blair why they didn't feel the need to invade other countries with dictators as bad as Saddam eg Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan etc?
Do they really think the deaths of so many Iraqis,US/UK military & NATO personnel is justified by the invasion of Iraq? Is Iraq really a better place now?
Complain about this comment
I'd be interested to know his reaction if the lawyers had said the rack was legal - it was in the UK once.
Waterboarding may have prevented terrorist attacks, this is obviously hard to prove. Allegations of torture and misconduct have increased extremist recruitment and increased the risk of future attacks - once again it is hard to quantify by how much.
When faced by such unquantifiable numbers I think the best thing is to act morally. If you wouldn't want your citizens to be waterboarded by other nations - don't waterboard theirs.
Complain about this comment
...but it was certainly a more interesting hour than I had expected.
______________________
Given there is basically no new information here I struggle to see what about it would be interesting.
The one thing that got my interest was this quote: "I was a dissenting voice: I didn't want to use force." I would imagine that anyone disagreeing with a sitting president would be the dissenter. Does this give an insight into the balance of power in relationship between Bush and Cheney, or am I applying Obama levels of scrutiny here?
He timed this well. Seeing Bush back in the limelight before the midterms might have swung the vote away from the republicans a bit. A timely reminder of what its when America is ruled by the princple that the ends always justifies the means.
Complain about this comment
I think it's interesting that the reasonable-seeming idea that GWB was 'the worst President ever' has now come back to haunt the Democrats as this phrase is now routinely applied to the cerebral Obama by Republicans, and without any kind of irony. Reagan has of course gone from clown to saint, and I suppose GWB wants to do the same thing. It's hard to imagine he is going to pull it off, but if these people believe in Noah's Ark then I suppose anything is possible. But a non-American is tempted to see a failure of the whole Presidential idea. Any Tea Party type Republican will probably be even more divisive than Bush or Obama. I think W's legacy is that he introduced the idea that the President's main function was to be a cute TV personality, with complicated stuff like reading newspapers and talking in sentences delegated to the backroom boys. Obama was elected on the same basis - as a TV personality, this time a more glamorous one - and has lost the media battle because apparently nobody believed that all his clever-sounding policy talk was anything more than froth. But look at the TV ads for the mid-terms - and especially Sarah Palin's victory ad - and you see that the Republicans aren't going to make the same mistake. Openly nonsensical policies, presented by highly professional TV productions with glamorous candidates that are as predictable and mindless as the most moronic soap opera or situation comedy show. That's the brave new world he made for us. Let us salute him at this tipping point where actual memory becomes hazy and the Republican hagiographers are still just sharpening their pencils.
Complain about this comment
Number 5 is spot on...
...al killya do just that - they kill anyone and anything that doesn't believe in their warped mindset and persuade people that there is no hope but to die for the cause.
You could compare it to a mindset prevalent in 1930s Germany taken to an absolute extreme degree. Their mindset today is you're either with us or you're against us and their goal is to either kill us or get us to accept their warped ideals.
There is only so much freedom we can allow these people to have before a line has to be drawn.
If no line is drawn and the current appeasement continues (under the guise of freedom of speech and human rights) then there will come a time where the actions of these people and their followers will cause untold bloodshed here and the UK and the Western world.
Complain about this comment
#10 neilsolomons
...has anyone asked Bush or Blair why they didn't feel the need to invade other countries with dictators as bad as Saddam eg Zimbabwe, North Korea, Sudan etc...
Do they really think the deaths of so many Iraqis,US/UK military & NATO personnel is justified by the invasion of Iraq? Is Iraq really a better place now?
A popular line, this 'why didn't you invade...'. The obvious answer is the logistical problems involved. It's like someone watching a man being beaten up in the street and going to help and then someone walking up to him and saying 'why don't you help other people who get beaten up around here ? - and what about solving the murders...'.
Is Iraq a better place ? Well, at least that's up to the Iraqis. Are you saying that a dictator should be kept in place to stop factions warring with each other ? Do you think the Soviet Union should still exist ? If it did, a few dozen Chechens would be in prison but there would have been no Chechen war.
Look up Operation Anfal if you want to see what kind of place Iraq would have been under Saddam. He ruthlessly murdered some 180,000 people because they were in the way of his oil - the real oil story of Iraq. The no-fly zones were stopping him killing tens of thousands in the north and south of Iraq - coincidentally where the oil is. Do you think those no-fly zones would have stayed if there had been no war ?
Then what ?
Complain about this comment
#12 PartTimeDon
America is ruled by the princple that the ends always justifies the means
Well if America is ruled by that principle, why was waterboarding ever an issue ? And why is torture banned at all ?
Complain about this comment
#11 WearyPedant
...Waterboarding may have prevented terrorist attacks, this is obviously hard to prove. Allegations of torture and misconduct have increased extremist recruitment and increased the risk of future attacks - once again it is hard to quantify by how much.
When faced by such unquantifiable numbers I think the best thing is to act morally. If you wouldn't want your citizens to be waterboarded by other nations - don't waterboard theirs...
How do you know that waterboarding has increased terrorist recruitment ? Given that it is normal among even some non-terrorist muslims, particularly in the Middle East, to believe that Mossad or the CIA organised the 9/11 attacks, I think waterboarding is just a drop in a very large bucket.
I agree with the latter do-as-you-would-be-done-by principle completely. It is a more important feature of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which has passed notice because of all of the vituperation that has been screamed at GWB, Tony Blair, etc. One of the most significant failings of the US army is that they treat their citizens - mostly soldiers - as more important than the population of the nation they are in.
I believe it's probably partly for legal reasons. It's only a matter of time before someone sues the US government for ordering a soldier to be careful not to shoot civilians and that soldier gets killed or wounded because of that order.
I believe it's a lesson the British Army learned in Northern Ireland, where they were all the same, soldiers and citizens.
The Iraq and Afghanistan wars - and probably the Vietnam war - might have been very different if the US military had treated non-combatants with the same respect as they had for their own soldiers.
Complain about this comment
I used to really enjoy your blogs on Europe but now that your based in the USA they are in the main boring and predictable. Try to be more like Charles Wheeler, now that's what you call a journalist. His reports on Newsnight were always spot-on. Buck-up your gameplan Mark.
Complain about this comment
"America is ruled by the princple that the ends always justifies the means
Well if America is ruled by that principle, why was waterboarding ever an issue ? And why is torture banned at all."
Well if it had been we would not have had fanatical thugs released from Gitmo only to rejoin al-Qaida.
Complain about this comment
I may be jumping the gun as we haven't got onto the bit about the economy yet, but wasn't he the president who said - and I quote - "deficits don't matter"? No, of course they don't George. Take your family to Disneyland.
Complain about this comment
Why didn't you follow The President to India?
Complain about this comment
There's a lot of fantasy being played out on this thread, and in Bush's head. Iran hates the USA? Big shock. What do you think they would do after the US assassinated their elected president, put in a puppet ruler and then, when Iran kicked him out the US spent 10 YEARS dropping gas and plague on them via Saddam's army? (You remember Saddam - he's the guy America installed in Iraq in place of the previous leader who they had killed to make way for him).
Do you really think the Iranians would love America after that?
And people randomly rounded up and sent for years without trial in a concentration camp where they were occasionally tortured? You're not telling me that afterwards they went and joined people who are fighting the thugs that did that to them?
How very unreasonable of them! Clearly born evil, if all that it takes to turn them against us is a few brutal beatings and a bit of illegal kidnapping.
America struts around the world bombing villages, killing suspects on the flimsiest of evidence, assassinating leaders, and bullying countries from Japan to Denmark into doing what they want yet we're all supposed to act surprised when people fight back. What a load of hypocritical claptrap.
Complain about this comment
Back in the swamp?
He never left. It's the natural habitat of his kind.
Complain about this comment
Matt, I have felt for some time now that you are not a happy camper here in the USA and you writings have shown it. You have alienated many of your American readers and your readership has dwindled for it. Could there be any other reason?
Complain about this comment
What happened Mark? Nothing good to say about Bush?
Lots of contradictions - but aren't those a reflection of the dilemmas encountered daily in the office that he held? Consequence of the weight of being the "Leader of the Free World"?
The memories of 9/11 perhaps faded too soon. There's virtually nothing he did in the following years that he did not indirectly say he would do in his speech after the incidence - those things were OK in November 2001 but it's repulsive to even attempt to justify them in November 2010?
Why does the majority of the discourse focus on what is considered as his "errors of judgment"? Why is there not much commentary on his assertion that he kept America safe for all the years after '01?
Complain about this comment
"The lawyers said it wasn't torture and he'd do it again because it saved lives."
GWB quite obviously has lost the plot. Even if the lawyers were telling him that waterboarding wasn't torture - then he should have at the very least been well aware that it would have been SEEN as torture by all those around the world - including the terrorists. Can you even imagine a better recruiting tool for the terrorists ?!?!
"The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? No-one was more saddened and angry than he was but he wouldn't apologise because that would suggest the war was wrong and the world was a better place without Saddam Hussein."
The US had for years swamped Iraq with 100s of spies and enjoyed the input from many other countries as well. The CIA had devoted years to this topic and the resounding conclusion was that there were NO WMDs in Iraq. So how the heck did GWB conclude the opposite ? It's almost as if he wasn't listening. It's as if he lived in a bubble of paranoia being drip fed horror stories in order to support some right wing ideological agenda. Erm. Hang on ...
"Bailing out the banks? He couldn't worry about the angst it caused friends to see a free marketer intervening - he had to stop an economic depression."
This line tells me that he definitely, absolutely, held off publication until after the mid-term elections. To have the Republicans admit that GWB had been bailing out banks before Obama ...
5. At 07:02am on 09 Nov 2010, Jeremy Clarkson wrote:
"Except that they don't. They are in only one business, that is the business of murdering anyone who disagrees with them, be they Americans, Arabs, Muslims or non-Muslims, men or women, adults or children, etc. Torture is too lenient, as far as they are concerned."
Nope. This is pure baloney. The aims of AQ are well stated, and have been repeatedly stated. Then conveniently forgotten substituted with this sort of hate drivel.
17. At 09:19am on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"How do you know that waterboarding has increased terrorist recruitment ?"
Because AQ have explicitly said so. And lets face it, they didn't even have to - it's a gift for the AQ recruitment drive.
And of course, AQ now have learnt how to torture prisoners without leaving marks - and now have a moral justification to do so. Can you imagine the Western outrage if AQ started sleep deprivation, threatening prisoners with dogs, humiliation techniques, stress positions - as in Abu Graihb ?
Complain about this comment
17. Clive Hill:
"The Iraq and Afghanistan wars - and probably the Vietnam war - might have been very different if the US military had treated non-combatants with the same respect as they had for their own soldiers."
***********
If you are looking at behaviors that could have changed events, you also need to look at the way those countries treat their citizens and neighbors. If they had interacted with their neighbors the way, say, Canada and the US co-exist, things could have been very different.
If only modeling good behavior were the answer.
Complain about this comment
Bush was elected twice by the American people (OK so once was very narrow). The BBC in particular couldn't stomach this and their reporting of him was the usual scoffing left-of-centre superior, patronsing drivel. What they couldn't understand was that they were applying their cultural norms and those of the UK to him and his electorate. This was an error as the cultural norms of the USA ARE different, and his 'folksy' style had plenty of appeal with home-loving, insular Americans. That isn't to support or disagree with him but it is rather ironic that the multi-cultural obsessed Guardian readers at the BBC should make such a fundamental cultural mistake.
Complain about this comment
I've seen the book; I've read exerpts; I saw part of one interview, but have not yet digested the book itself - afraid it might make me sick.
What's with this "swamps"? Pardon my ignorance, but do they have "swamps" in Texas?
If George W. Bush made his own decisions, if he had courage and a sense of correctness, don't you think he would have challenged the lawyers that said water-boarding was NOT torture? Maybe he should have tried it himself, and made his decision therefrom!
On the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, George W. Bush was "saddened and angry" but he wouldn't apologise because that would suggest the war was wrong. The war was wrong; in fact, the war was illegal. What if George had stopped, apologized, withdrawn the troops...what if?
Bailing out the banks? George says he was "blindsided" by the scale of the economic crisis. What kind of president does NOT know when his country is in severe economic convulsion? He had to stop an economic depression. Who advised him on this immediate, course-changing, potentially global-impacting decision? Wasn't it the same guys now telling Obama to deluge the economy with Q.E.2?
"I am a deliberative person" Oh goodness, Mark, it's so hard to go on. This is just one little pile of malarky, following another until there is so much malarky, you can't see the sky for the water on your eyes from the smell.
I've seen the cover of George's book and it certainly looks Texan and very "decisiony"; I'm guessing that he designed the thing himself, right?
According to Crown Publishers, "Decision Points" offers "gripping, never-before-heard detail" on historic events.
I haven't read the entire book, but I can imagine a few of these Decision Points:
Decision Point: What should I do with this here memo which says: "Bin Laden is determined to strike in US"? Ah well, maybe I'll read it later.
Decision Point: I think I'll land on an aircraft carrier in full flight regalia with a huge sign that says "Mission Accomplished".
Decision Point: Do I really have to leave my personal comfort and go down to New Orleans after Katrina...Well maybe I can do a little fishing.
Key Decision: What should I call my book? Maybe:
Decision-Taking: It's What I Do!
No, that sounds like I take decisions, you know, from other people; and that doesn't sound very decisiony...
Complain about this comment
#22 Bob Long
There's a lot of fantasy being played out on this thread, and in Bush's head. Iran hates the USA? Big shock. What do you think they would do after the US assassinated their elected president, put in a puppet ruler and then, when Iran kicked him out the US spent 10 YEARS dropping gas and plague on them via Saddam's army? (You remember Saddam - he's the guy America installed in Iraq in place of the previous leader who they had killed to make way for him).
Well, why don't they hate Germany, France and Britain as well ? These nations also supplied WMD materials, particularly Germany. It appears that Holland, Egypt, Singapore and India were also suppliers of WMD materials.
And people randomly rounded up and sent for years without trial in a concentration camp where they were occasionally tortured? You're not telling me that afterwards they went and joined people who are fighting the thugs that did that to them?
'Randomly rounded up' ? Really ? Some of them weren't (say) captured in Afghanistan ?
America struts around the world bombing villages, killing suspects on the flimsiest of evidence, assassinating leaders, and bullying countries from Japan to Denmark into doing what they want yet we're all supposed to act surprised when people fight back. What a load of hypocritical claptrap.
Do you have any evidence for any of that ? I mean I'm sure the USA has bombed villages and so forth but there's a presumption of unreasonableness I think I'm detecting in your tone which would stand further clarification.
Complain about this comment
17. Clive Hill:
"How do you know that waterboarding has increased terrorist recruitment ?"
Because AQ have explicitly said so. And lets face it, they didn't even have to - it's a gift for the AQ recruitment drive.
*************
The free world is a gift that keeps on giving to AQ.
AQ is adept at turning the actions of the West into recruitment opportunities. Cherry-picking the actions you find offensive and complaining that they are recruitment opportunities while ignoring the many other actions that have and will be used to recruit just weakens your argument.
Complain about this comment
All these gimmicks by GWB are more to do with his book sell than anything else. I doubt if he can even write a book by himself! It is HE, who dragged US into this current mess, both financial and political. I know he will not undertake extensive interviews with different TV channels and other news media to promote his book (in guise of an attempt to re-define his FAILED presidency, in almost EVERY FRONT). Sarah Palin and Christine O’Donnell are the only two probable candidates who can unseat GWB to become the worst president a civilized country like USA can ever have.
Reputed media like BBC should leave that chap into his own created swamp (it does not matter whether he can perceive that or not) and concentrate on something more meaningful.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 16 Clive Hill
America is ruled by the princple that the ends always justifies the means
"Well if America is ruled by that principle, why was waterboarding ever an issue ? And why is torture banned at all?"
_________________________
Poor grammar on my part. The ends justifying the means was a reference to US policy under Bush. I did't mean to imply that is the case now or in general.
Complain about this comment
Ref#25 Ologz
"those things were OK in November 2001 but it's repulsive to even attempt to justify them in November 2010?"
________________
Believe me they were still repulsive in November 2001, but a combination of shock, bloodlust and any nay sayers being threatened or labelled "unpatriotic" put paid to that.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Thomas Jefferson
What was done in the aftermath of 9-11 - specifically Gitmo, the patriot act and then Iraq puts Bush firmly in the category of the type of characters to whom Jefferson was alluding.
Complain about this comment
There was a typiing mistake in my previous post (#32).
It will be:
"I know he will NOW undertake extensive interviews with different TV channels (MAINLY THE hardcore Republican media, like Fox) and other news media to promote his book (in guise of an attempt to re-define his FAILED presidency, in almost EVERY FRONT)".
Complain about this comment
30. At 1:30pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"Well, why don't they hate Germany, France and Britain as well ? These nations also supplied WMD materials, particularly Germany. It appears that Holland, Egypt, Singapore and India were also suppliers of WMD materials."
Er. They do.
"'Randomly rounded up' ? Really ? Some of them weren't (say) captured in Afghanistan ?"
Yep. Randomly rounded up in Afghanistan. Just because its Afghanistan doesn't make it any less random. And maybe you mean "abducted", instead of "captured" ?
"Do you have any evidence for any of that ? I mean I'm sure the USA has bombed villages and so forth but there's a presumption of unreasonableness I think I'm detecting in your tone which would stand further clarification."
Er. The US routines uses predator drones to kill in Afghanistan & Pakistan. No trial. No justice. Nothing. Whatever you do in Pakistan, don't take a leak by the roadside - you'll be shot on the assumption that you're planting a roadside bomb. After your death, selected highlights of a shaky, high-altitude video will by shown around the world to justify the murder, and no questions are expected to be asked.
The recent revelations from WikiLeaks show just how widespread and cavalier this practice is.
The US is currently 1 of only 2 countries in the world that has admitted to kidnapping and murder of foreign nationals on foreign soil. The other is Israel.
Complain about this comment
#26
"Can you even imagine a better recruiting tool for the terrorists ?!?!"
Join us and you too can be waterboarded? Are you sure that you understand how recruitment is supposed to work and why?
Complain about this comment
31. At 1:43pm on 09 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"AQ is adept at turning the actions of the West into recruitment opportunities. Cherry-picking the actions you find offensive and complaining that they are recruitment opportunities while ignoring the many other actions that have and will be used to recruit just weakens your argument."
Hah hah hah ! "Adept at turning the actions of the West into recruitment opportunities" ?!?!?!?
You make it sound as if they actually had to twist the truth in order to make the US torture a "recruitment opportunity" !!
It was a free gift ! They didn't need to do anything ! They didn't even need to say anything ! Any teenager with a beef a gainst the West looks upon Abu Graib and waterboarding and "extraordinary rendition" and (quite rightly) is horrified. AQ don't have to "adept at turning the actions of the West" into anything ! The West did it for them !
Complain about this comment
I'va already commented on inept foxes which cannot reach grapes, so they try to make up for their failure by spending all their waking hours on repeating that those grapes are sour - rather than bulding themselves a ladder and climbing up.
So I am not going to repeat Lafontaine's story.
Complain about this comment
#26 The Toothbrush Man
The US had for years swamped Iraq with 100s of spies and enjoyed the input from many other countries as well. The CIA had devoted years to this topic and the resounding conclusion was that there were NO WMDs in Iraq...
The CIA's conclusion was that there were WMDs in Iraq.
To have the Republicans admit that GWB had been bailing out banks before Obama ..
George W Bush and Barack Obama were both involved in the bank bailout. The Bush Administration allowed Lehmann Brothers - a huge multinational bank - to crash and burn and there was murmuring that the markets would not stand more bank failures. The congress by this time was Democrat so the TARP was proposed by the Bush Administration but - after initial rejection - was passed by a Democrat congress.
Complain about this comment
#26 The Toothbrush Man
Sorry, I forgot this:
You have offered no evidence for anything you have asserted but never mind...
Because AQ have explicitly said so. And lets face it, they didn't even have to - it's a gift for the AQ recruitment drive.
'...they didn't even have to...' ? Al Qaeda - Ayman Zawahiri in particular - have been acutely sensitive to western politics for many years. They gear what they say to western public opinion and say those things which, as far as they can, embarrass western politicians.
This is one of those things.
Complain about this comment
#33 PartTimeDon
Poor grammar on my part. The ends justifying the means was a reference to US policy under Bush. I did't mean to imply that is the case now or in general.
Perhaps you forget that the CIA is overseen by Congress as well as the Administration. Nancy Pelosi was one of those involved in congressional oversight at that time and - it appears - offered no objection.
Complain about this comment
Soon after Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured, British intelligence officials began receiving intelligence from their US partners. Some of it proved valuable.
It helped identify al-Qaeda operatives in the UK and disrupt a plot - still in its early stages - to fly hijacked planes into Canary Wharf.
British officials puzzled over where the intelligence was coming from - the source of and method of producing intelligence that is shared is never normally revealed.
They say they only later realised it came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and that he had been waterboarded dozens of time to produce it. (BBC)
Complain about this comment
37. At 2:23pm on 09 Nov 2010, Jeremy Clarkson wrote:
"Join us and you too can be waterboarded? Are you sure that you understand how recruitment is supposed to work and why?"
More along the lines of ...
"Join us and help defend fellow Moslems from being waterboarded, arbitrarily shot, bombed, being abducted and abused in prison."
Defense of others is a far more powerful recruitment motive - especially if those others are deemed to be less able to defend themselves - e.g. women, children). The concept can be extended to the defence of abstract idea. E.g. "Join us and help defend Islam", or "Join us and help defend freedom".
Nobody ever said "Join us and save your own skin".
Complain about this comment
#36 The Toothbrush Man
Yep. Randomly rounded up in Afghanistan. Just because its Afghanistan doesn't make it any less random. And maybe you mean "abducted", instead of "captured" ?
Why is the population of Afghanistan not in Guantanamo Bay then ? At its peak there were only 759 detainees there.
Er. The US routines uses predator drones to kill in Afghanistan & Pakistan. No trial. No justice. Nothing. Whatever you do in Pakistan, don't take a leak by the roadside - you'll be shot on the assumption that you're planting a roadside bomb. After your death, selected highlights of a shaky, high-altitude video will by shown around the world to justify the murder, and no questions are expected to be asked.
Predator UAVs don't shoot people. They fire missiles. You suggest the attacks are random which is anything but true.
You still offer nothing but your assertion for any of this.
Complain about this comment
40. At 2:30pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"The CIA's conclusion was that there were WMDs in Iraq."
Not strictly true. The Bush adminstration cherry picked those CIA reports that DID conclude there were WMDs in Iraq. Hence some of the claims that the CIA did conclude that there were WMDs.
In the meantime, the rest of the CIA were unable to report that were WMDs - concluding either that the WMDs did not exist, or that their presence was a very well kept secret.
Complain about this comment
40. At 2:30pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"George W Bush and Barack Obama were both involved in the bank bailout. The Bush Administration allowed Lehmann Brothers - a huge multinational bank - to crash and burn and there was murmuring that the markets would not stand more bank failures. The congress by this time was Democrat so the TARP was proposed by the Bush Administration but - after initial rejection - was passed by a Democrat congress."
I can only point you to GWBs own words - he seems to think that he did bail out the banks ...
"Bailing out the banks? He couldn't worry about the angst it caused friends to see a free marketer intervening - he had to stop an economic depression."
Complain about this comment
"Presumably Al Quaida could justifiably make the same argument..."
"Except that they don't. They are in only one business, that is the business of murdering anyone who disagrees with them, be they Americans, Arabs, Muslims or non-Muslims, men or women, adults or children, etc. Torture is too lenient, as far as they are concerned.
That is the difference and it's a rather glaring one which somehow still manages to escape you."
_______________________________________
You are spot-on correct. Waterboarding SAVED LIVES, no question about it. This is an enemy that understands ONE THING: FORCE. This is an enemy that beheads unbelievers. This is an enemy that ruthlessly flew planes into our buildings and killed nearly 3000 people who just went to work one day. My friend's brother was on flight 11; every September 11, she gets to see the film footage of his death. What if your loved one was one of the "jumpers" that day? Waterboarding is ugly, but IT SAVES LIVES. However, since that cannot be measured concretely, it is scorned by some of the very people it saves.
Complain about this comment
#27 AndreaNY
If you are looking at behaviors that could have changed events, you also need to look at the way those countries treat their citizens and neighbors. If they had interacted with their neighbors the way, say, Canada and the US co-exist, things could have been very different.
If only modeling good behavior were the answer.
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about treating them with kid gloves, just trying to avoid killing them.
Imagine a hostage situation in New York where the police resolved the problem by bombing the building, killing everyone.
I'm not even saying that might not sometimes be necessary. I'm really saying what General Petraeus is saying and what Admiral Mullen has said. I just wish it had not taken so long.
Complain about this comment
#46 The Toothbrush Man
Not strictly true. The Bush adminstration cherry picked those CIA reports that DID conclude there were WMDs in Iraq. Hence some of the claims that the CIA did conclude that there were WMDs.
In the meantime, the rest of the CIA were unable to report that were WMDs - concluding either that the WMDs did not exist, or that their presence was a very well kept secret.
I offered evidence in my link to the CIA report for the CIA's position. Please offer evidence for your assertion.
Complain about this comment
49. Clive Hill:
"I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about treating them with kid gloves, just trying to avoid killing them."
**********
Yes, sorry, I did misunderstand.
Complain about this comment
I think there's a discernible pattern in Republican presidents since Nixon. They're nice, sincere and most importantly easy-to-steer men that can be relied on to do what they're told. America likes them because they're like daddy: ready to hire a pony for your birthday party and kiss it and make it better when you skin your knee.
McCain didn't quite fit this mold. I think that's why they strapped Sarah Palin on him: they didn't want him to get elected.
God only knows who they're going to run in 2012.
Meanwhile, the real evil lurks behind the Republican president. It takes the form of a smart but morally bankrupt power guy like Dick Cheney, a political huckster like Karl Rove, or a smart sycophant like Condoleezza Rice -- to mention just three that were in the public eye.
Ultimately though, the disaster that was George W. Bush goes down to the American voter. A mistake the first time perhaps, but no excuse for the second.
Complain about this comment
The problem with a lot of arguments here (Clive Hill's included) is that it is very hard to get hard evidence.
Governments do not release all the information they have for us to pore over - on the whole they prefer to issue the facts that support their case.
It is also difficult to prove what might have been. The argument that lives were saved by waterboarding can be countered by saying it caused an increase in terrorists leading to more attacks - neither can really be proved.
It boils down to whether we trust our governments - who have the most information and experts - to act correctly. The fact (and it is one) that they were wrong on WMDs and invaded Iraq on this premise (according to their announcements at the time) has reduced the amount of trust that I, for one, have in them.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Predictable posts on this topic: those who disliked Bush still dislike him, those who supported him still support him and those who did neither are willing to let time and history be the judge of his presidency.
Next topic please Mark.
Complain about this comment
On Water-boarding: Water-boarding is scary, painful and humiliating, but done properly, is not life-threatening. It is one of the procedures that the US puts its own military personnel through during some forms of survival training (we never expect our enemies to ever play by the rules), which all SF operators endure themselves. The question all need to ask is, if a person who has himself experienced water-boarding decides to administer same to an illegal combatant (no protection from any international law or treaty) to extract information that may save friendly lives, why should he refrain?
Complain about this comment
53. At 3:42pm on 09 Nov 2010, WearyPedant wrote:
Governments do not release all the information they have for us to pore over - on the whole they prefer to issue the facts that support their case.
____________________________________________________________
Sometimes governments withhold information that may have helped their case, but, at the same time, put their service-members in additional jeopardy over and above the normal occupational hazard of getting shot. In his interview, GWB said he was disappointed that we found no “stockpile” of WMD.
Complain about this comment
A thought for all to ponder (in case you have never spent any time in the Middle East or never had the opportunity to have a political conversation with an Arab Muslim:
There is no Arab Street, just as there is not Anglo-sphere Street. To say that there is the same as to say that the US, UK, Australia, Canada, NZ, and Ireland all have the exact same popular opinion and that the respective governments have the same national security interests all the time. The one big difference between us and them is that there is no argument or law or concern even for the idea of Separation of Church and State. What does that mean? In some Arab countries the Clergy have a lot of say in both public opinion and gov’t policy, whereas in others the gov’t has an Imam as a gov’t officials who send sermon outlines to the country’s Mosques to make sure the people are getting the right holy message.
Complain about this comment
Another thought for all to ponder (in case you have never spent any time in the Middle East or never had the opportunity to have a political conversation with an Arab Muslim:
That Western evils are a great recruitment tool is not verifiable, at least, if you factor out the West’s (at least the US, Germany and a few others) insistence that Israel has a right to exist. From talking to many Muslims and studying how people make these decisions, I would postulate that any additional Western scandal (e.g. Abu Ghraib) may affect the timing of a young future terrorist’s arrival at the AQ recruiting office, but that person would have showed up their eventually because of Israel and all the sermons he has heard.
Complain about this comment
Yet another thought for all to ponder (in case you have never spent any time in the Middle East or never had the opportunity to have a political conversation with an Arab Muslim:
Complain about this comment
#60 was launched prematurely...
Yet another thought for all to ponder (in case you have never spent any time in the Middle East or never had the opportunity to have a political conversation with an Arab Muslim:
I get the feeling from many Muslims I talk to that, in their minds, the Jihadists are the “good Muslims.” Many wish they had the courage and commitment to go on the Jihad against the West, themselves; since they don’t, they cheer on those that do, and donate money to the cause. That’s why you don’t see a lot of condemnation on that mythical Arab Street.
Complain about this comment
I supported both the wars, against Saddam Husain’s Iraq and Pakistani sponsored Taliban government in Afghanistan (that provided safe shelter to Al-Quida). But I do support those wars due the reasons GWB told us.
In case of Iraq, it MUST not be due to WMD or its link to Al-Quida (as was perpetrated by Bush-Cheney regime). I support war against Iraq simply because human rights issue and of barbaric rule of a dictator which past US administration itself created (for detail one can watch the excellent National Geographic documentary on Saddam Husain’s Iraq). But then the question comes, was Iraq the ONLY place where similar human Rights violation occurs? The answer is a clear “NO”. Many of our “close allays” (e.g China, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arab, UAE, many other countries in middle East and Africa) are/were involved in gross human rights violation. But we had no problem to publicly acknowledge them as our “friends”! Then why did US single out Iraq and that too after 9/11, when we already started an expensive war with Afghanistan! To me it was more of a personal agenda for Bush-Cheney administration (that initiated by his father, senior Bush during/after first gulf war) than anything else. Moreover, Bush admin never had any exit strategy and defined goals (in accordance with international laws and its own long term interest) to end any of these two wars. Besides several questionable economic policies initiated by Bush, those two wars not only made our economy worse, but also weakened US national security (and image even among our friends) in the long run.
We, the general public, did not have much idea about the condition of economy that time, we did not know if US is/was in a position to undertake such an expensive and prolonged war. On top of that many of Bush’s economic policies (tax cut in general and more for wealthy Americans) and reduction of government oversight over many corporate policies gradually weakened our (and global) economy which resulted in near collapse in 2007-2008.
Complain about this comment
I supported both the wars, against Saddam Husain’s Iraq and Pakistani sponsored Taliban government in Afghanistan (that provided safe shelter to Al-Quida). But I do support those wars due the reasons GWB told us.
In case of Iraq, it MUST not be due to WMD or its link to Al-Quida (as was perpetrated by Bush-Cheney regime). I support war against Iraq simply because human rights issue and of barbaric rule of a dictator which past US administration itself created (for detail one can watch the excellent National Geographic documentary on Saddam Husain’s Iraq). But then the question comes, was Iraq the ONLY place where similar human Rights violation occurs? The answer is a clear “NO”. Many of our “close allays” (e.g China, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arab, UAE, many other countries in middle East and Africa) are/were involved in gross human rights violation. But we had no problem to publicly acknowledge them as our “friends”! Then why did US single out Iraq and that too after 9/11, when we already started an expensive war with Afghanistan! To me it was more of a personal agenda for Bush-Cheney administration (that initiated by his father, senior Bush during/after first gulf war) than anything else. Moreover, Bush admin never had any exit strategy and defined goals (in accordance with international laws and its own long term interest) to end any of these two wars. Besides several questionable economic policies initiated by Bush, those two wars not only made our economy worse, but also weakened US national security (and image even among our friends) in the long run.
We, the general public, did not have much idea about the condition of economy that time, we did not know if US is/was in a position to undertake such an expensive and prolonged war. On top of that many of Bush’s economic policies (tax cut in general and more for wealthy Americans) and reduction of government oversight over many corporate policies gradually weakened our (and global) economy which resulted in near collapse in 2007-2008.
The only person in whole Junior Bush’s administration who was some morality and acceptability (in international community, even among our own “friends”) was Colin Powell. And we all know how he was (almost forced) to leave in second Bush’s term. In fact, it is speculated in reputed British media that GWB started thinking about using nuclear weapon against Iran. The then British foreign sectary, Jack Straw, described that idea of GWB as “nuts” and GWB was furious and forced Toni Blair to replace Mr Straw. (Source CBS news: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/07/politics/main1596108.shtml)
Many of Bush’s policy indicates his lack of understanding of many world issues, his presence (rather, absence) of mind and (in-)ability to think rationally (despite of his heavy weight degrees from some ivy league universities in US).
Complain about this comment
Apart from Collin Powell, most of Junior Bush’s team came from the cronies and sycophants of Bush family; from the same people of his father’s presidency with dubious record of corporate links and personal integrity. Richard (Dick) Bruce Cheney, Donald Henry Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Lewis (Scooter) Libby etc are few such high profile examples. Bush’s appointment of Robert Gates was mainly out of desperation to prevent further damage after Rumsfeld was forced to resign, mainly due to severe public criticism.
Complain about this comment
Clive @ 8
This is like the '...it was all about oil...' line taken, usually by people of the yah boo persuasion who know little about the Iraq War. There was never any evidence that it was about oil beforehand; the oil contracts were auctioned in public; they went to all sorts of bidders, some of them contracts revived from before the war - yet these people still say it was 'all about oil'. Perhaps they should defend their accusations.
Your ignorance of the middle east is obvious. The West's involvement in the mid-east since the invention of the car has always been about oil. It doesn't matter who owns the oil, but rather who is in control of it. The West is now in control of Iraqi oil. As I think you are thick skinned I shall repeat this: it is all about control, not ownership.
Do you really think the West invaded Afghanistan and Iraq for purely humanitarian reasons? If so, you are in no position to patronize those you claim are the yah boo persuasion who know little about the Iraq War. You know less than most. Before you go off on one about Afghanistan not having any oil may I remind you of a very important pipeline that runs through the country? NATO wants to change its policy to protect these 'geo-political strategic energy sources' throughout the world.
BTW it wasn't the BBC that lied about the Iraqi War, it was our elected politicians. We punished our politicians by re-electing them!! The BBC does not need to defend its position, its the politicians that supported the war and the voters that supported them that need to defend their positions.
Complain about this comment
45. At 2:53pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"Why is the population of Afghanistan not in Guantanamo Bay then ? At its peak there were only 759 detainees there."
Er. What ? Why do you think I would think the population of Afghanistan is in Guantanamo ?
"Predator UAVs don't shoot people. They fire missiles."
I don't think the method of dispatch is an issue here ...
"You suggest the attacks are random which is anything but true."
You have suggested that I have suggested the attacks are random. I did not.
You still offer nothing but your assertion for any of this.
Complain about this comment
Oh, again there is a mistake in my post#62. The third sentence will be "But I do NOT support those wars due the reasons GWB told us".
Complain about this comment
I think it's unfair to make president Bush a lone villain,he is part of the Worst Generation in U.S. history who should bear that as one big group.He is not much different than Clinton or even Obama.They are Boomers.They all do they same thing no matter the party,both parties voted to got to war in Afghanistan and Iraq,and deregulate business for Banks/Corporations.Bush continued Boomers attitudes from Clinton,Clinton signed NAFTA,Clinton deregulated banks,etc...Boomers witness after math of awful wars,Communists like Russia,China,Cambodia,many others and large extermination of people in many continents.American always told you should have intervened sooner and less people would have been dead.Why don't you help America.As far as Katrina I will say one thing Bush shouldn't have waited for Governor of Louisiana, The Detroit riots of the 60's were far worse than our previous riots because Governor Romney didn't call the National Guard soon enough unlike earlier Governors in Michigan dealing with race riots.It's the protocol for Governors to Ask for Federal Assistance as is their State Right.It was a failure of the Governor of Louisiana just as it was Governor Romney in Michigan during the Detroit riots of the 60's.Boomers were feed fear by their parents generation,fear of nuclear war,genocides,and massive poverty,less government more freedom,it guides their decisions.They are trying to always limit human death tolls.The road to hell is always paved with good intentions,and I have always believe the oxymoron called Boomers have always done what they thought was right,but was not their job to do.
Complain about this comment
I concur completely with Jay at #62.
In addition, I would like to add that the plan to "liberate" Iraq was hopelessly idealistic - Rumsfeld and Cheney initially proposed a paltry 25,000 troops would be needed, and to their disgrace, insisted on such a small force well after the rioting broke out, civil government broke down, the Iraqi army had been disbanded (dumping approx 1m Iraqi soldiers on the streets) and despite the US military asking for more men.
I once heard Cheney justify the Iraq war by saying that there hadn't been another 9/11 since.
Complain about this comment
64 Jay
Wasn't Robert Gates in the CIA with George Bush Senior? When Bush Senior headed the CIA, Gates was head of CIA Operations. But as you say few of GWB's senior cabinet were from outside his fathers circle.
Complain about this comment
65. At 4:48pm on 09 Nov 2010, dceilar wrote:
Your ignorance of the middle east is obvious. The West's involvement in the mid-east since the invention of the car has always been about oil.
_____________________________________________________
OK, if I concede your point about oil in Iraq, how do you bring Af'stan into that logic train since it has no oil? Could you not, at least, give the benefit of the doubt that Af'stan was about 9/11 and where the attacks originatied from?
Complain about this comment
Obama in Indonesia: Much work needed on Muslim ties
Muslim nation.
Mr Obama also expressed affection for a country he lived in as a boy
Mr Obama also referred to his childhood times in Jakarta, saying: "It's wonderful to be here although I have to tell you that when you visit a place that you spent time in as a child, as the president it's a little disorientating
Obviously I have a sister who is half Indonesian he said, my mother lived and worked here for a long time, so the sights and the sounds and the memories all feel very familiar
.......................
Just pointing out the reason there is a disconnect with Obama and American voters is he was not raised here in America and does not have the generational ties and bonds to America a president should have,we dont need a wannabe world leader,we need an American President and commander in Chief
And now more reaching out to muslims,better start reaching out to Americans.
Complain about this comment
68. At 5:01pm on 09 Nov 2010, faeyth wrote:
Just one thing: Obama is, technically, Generation X as he was born after 31 December 1966, the official end of the Baby Boom. So, the only 2 booners to serve as presideent were Clinton and GWB, so far.
Complain about this comment
I have no doubt that Afghanistan was about 9/11.
I mean, who else was GWB going to attack ? I'd like to have been in the room when a gentleman of the press asked the question as to why the US attacked country X when the perpetrators were in Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
54. At 3:43pm on 09 Nov 2010, you wrote:
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Not only was it removed but it was never posted.
All of the words in the removed posting were repeated, but spread out by me in 58 - 61 which were all posted by the moderators. Go figure. I was trying to see which part they found offensive, and I still don't know, since they left all of the separate postings!
Complain about this comment
72. RHCracker:
Obama's link to Indonesia is far more important to the Indonesians than it is to Obama.
Complain about this comment
RHCracker, Hawaii is not America? Could've fooled me.
Complain about this comment
Oldloadr, OBAMA IS A BABY-BOOMER. He was born on 4 August, 1961.
Complain about this comment
Interesting. Typical politician. What is probably certain, is that he vies for worst President in the last 50 years along with Jimmy Carter. Obama, if he doesn't change course will be there with them...
Complain about this comment
Mark Mardell wrote: He concludes that he hopes history will judge him a success, but he will be dead before that happens.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
History is in the making right as we speak.
After Bush, President Obama, a Democrat, was widely voted for, treated like a rock star and became the first African American President of USA.
Would this have occurred without the voters first rejecting Bush Repubs?
Before GWBush, USA owed hardly any money. After GWBush, we entered recession.
At the end of Bush years, our economy suddenly tanked and Bush did bailout, (then Obama after did bailout, too), saving our economy temporarily, but trapping it by creating even huger deficit. Since end of Bush years, USA has been in economy troubles. Clearly, economy wise Bush did not do something right and harmed our economy. That much is obvious and I believe, yes, GWB's 'mishandling' of our economy is currently and futurewise, will go down in USA history as one of the worst of all time...
Complain about this comment
@ excellentcatblogger #70. Yes, Gates was with Bush (senior) as CIA employee.
“After leaving the CIA, Gates became president of Texas A&M University and was a member of several corporate boards. Gates also served as a member of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan commission co-chaired by James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton, that has studied the Iraq War. He was also the first pick to serve as the first Director of National Intelligence (DNI), but he declined the appointment in order to remain President of Texas A&M University”. (Source Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates).
Although Gates has present generation of typical Republican “elite” type corporate connections, he had a background of active intelligence service (probably can differentiate between rhetoric and reality in intelligence world) and in-depth study of Iraq before he took the current position (unlike GWB, Cheney and Rumsfeld). That made him more suitable for his current position. Moreover, as a government employee in CIA or DNI puts more pressure (to compromise) as compared to defense sec to pursue one’s own policy. CIA and DNI etc are there to implement/follow whatever civilian law makers decide, not the other way round. As part of the administration (as a secretary) he has more freedom to follow his own policy.
He was made defense secretary ONLY after “loyal” Rumsfeld was forced to resign. It also indicates a lot that Gates had huge bipartisan support during Nov 2006 to become US sec iof Defense and the fact that he was chosen by Obama to continue after republican defeat in 2008.
In short, Bush administration did NOT like anyone to play the role of “devil’s advocate in policy making. They hardly heard any contradictory/conflicting views while deciding on any issue. They always wanted “yes boos” type people around them and became a bigger megalomaniacs who live in their own world of fantasy. Many people admits (for detail one can watch Charlie Rose’s (in PBS) interviews with ex and present administration insiders) that Obama always keep few informed people to play the role of Devil’s advocate in his decision making process, unlike Bush.
Complain about this comment
80. At 6:00pm on 09 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"Before GWBush, USA owed hardly any money."
Wrong. The US debt has been growing for decades - it was horrendous way back before even Carter.
Complain about this comment
oldloader wrote: That Western evils are a great recruitment tool is not verifiable, at least, if you factor out the West’s (at least the US, Germany and a few others) insistence that Israel has a right to exist. From talking to many Muslims and studying how people make these decisions, I would postulate that any additional Western scandal (e.g. Abu Ghraib) may affect the timing of a young future terrorist’s arrival at the AQ recruiting office, but that person would have showed up their eventually because of Israel and all the sermons he has heard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The extremists don't like us because many of us love and support Israel, because many of us believe in God and are Christians/other religions/no religions/atheists/ect., because we put our troops in past next to their Holy site to protect it from extremists when asked by that country to defend it, because we do what we want to do, which makes us in their eyes infidels, unholy, etc. Basically, the only people extremists like is themselves and other extremists.
Extremists are targeting Westerners because we represent everything they aren't: love, freedom, forgiveness, equality between gender and allowance of the female to enjoy same freedoms as males do.
And because Islamic extremist terrorists believe that murdering infidels (us) will get them to Heaven.
Just look at France and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and some other ME nations have laws in which females have to wear burkas or long dresses, etc., cannot drive a car by self, have to be with male outside of home, sometimes cannot leave home at times, and so on...that is their laws. Some are governed by Sharia Laws. France wants to ban the burka, that is what they want for their law, as stated by Sarkozy.
When in Rome...
(do what Romans do)
So Saudi Arabia does its laws and France does its laws. Yet many Islamic extremists claim that France is against their religion and now France is being targeted by some radicals because France wants to ban burka...France has every right to do what they want.
What France wants to do is up to France and not up to extremists around the world to tell them what to do.
I applaud France for not letting the terrorists tell them what to do, because it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with who France is as a country, which is pro-female.
Complain about this comment
ToothbrushMan wrote: Wrong. The US debt has been growing for decades - it was horrendous way back before even Carter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
When Bill Clinton left office, there was no deficit or it was very, very small...
When GW Bush left office, there was trillion dollar plus deficit...
And when Obama leaves office...well, let's hope our President and Congress can work together to create jobs and reduce deficit...Obama is focusing more on businesses in private sector now...
Complain about this comment
Could not prevent the temptation to add LucyJ's post #83.
"The UAE's highest judicial body says a man can beat his wife and young children as long as the beating leaves no physical marks". Yahoo News (also published in many different news media world over): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_emirates_wife_beating
This is the situation in one of THE MOST progressive ME countries!!! And US is a "friend" for such governments/countries!
Complain about this comment
Dear LucyJ,
"I applaud France for not letting the terrorists tell them what to do, because it has nothing to do with them and everything to do with who France is as a country, which is pro-female."
______________________
You are absolutely right. With Muslim extremists, there is a tendency to use ANY western policy as a rationale for terror. ANYTHING WESTERN is made out as a reason to kill. It's a "heads, I win; tails, you lose" philosophy; there is no middle-road with islamic extremists. Furthermore, they use Western religious tolerance as a Trojan horse.
When the city of Mecca is opened to Christians, then I will lend an ear to ME complaints of "Western intolerance".
Complain about this comment
The torture was not about 'saving lives', but was about trying to find links between al-Qaeda and Saddam to justify the illegal invasion.
In the Senate Armed Services Committee report former Army psychiatrist Maj. Charles Burney testified that "a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link ... there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results"; that is, torture. The McClatchy press reported that a former senior intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue added that "The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime ... [Cheney and Rumsfeld] demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al-Qaeda-Iraq collaboration. ... 'There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder'."
http://documents.nytimes.com/report-by-the-senate-armed-services-committee-on-detainee-treatment#p=72
Complain about this comment
Lucy @ 84
If the GOP and Tea Baggers believe that government 'should get out of the way' then there is not much Congress and Obama can do to create jobs to reduce the deficit is there?
Let's face it, what the GOP says goes; and what the Democrats say, the GOP stops them. Is there an unelected estate of power in the USA?
Complain about this comment
Many in the other intelligence services and democratic governments believe using torture as a method of interrogation is not only “illegal and abhorrent” but also counter-productive. In reality US has far worse public image than the British in Afghanistan and Iraq. Local civilian cooperation (which is very important to win ANY war) also reflects that fact. It makes US job more challenging in those hostile territories.
“The head of MI6 (British intelligence) emerged from the shadows yesterday to describe the moral dilemma over the use of intelligence obtained by torture while facing the threat of terrorism. Speaking to the Society of Editors in London, Sir John said torture was "illegal and abhorrent" and that he was sure his agents had "nothing whatsoever" to do with it.” : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi6-chief-admits-to-his-dilemma-over-torture-2119591.html
Complain about this comment
84. At 6:31pm on 09 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:
"When Bill Clinton left office, there was no deficit or it was very, very small...
When GW Bush left office, there was trillion dollar plus deficit..."
Debt and budget deficit are two different things.
In 2000 the total US debt was $3 trillion or 58% of GDP
In 2008 the total US debt was $5.8 trillion or 70% of GDP.
Part of the reason the US has such a large debt burden (as compared to the past), is that the populous of the US doesn't understand the difference between debt and deficit.
Complain about this comment
@Clive Hill (#30)
"Well, why don't they hate Germany, France and Britain as well"
I'm not 100% sure but I think there is a fair amount of dislike for all those countries too. However, it was American troops who were on the ground in Iraq manning and instructing Saddam's men on how to use the WMD that had been provided for use against Iran, so it would be reasonable for any nation to have a particular anger against them. It is so often the case that the West expects unreasonable levels of forgiveness in the "Axis of Evil" - far beyond anything we could expect from the USA if some country had done the same thing to it.
"'Randomly rounded up' ? Really ? Some of them weren't (say) captured in Afghanistan ?"
Of course they were. Many of them on the simple say-so of locals settling scores, and some because they were standing beside someone else who was being picked up. That's pretty random. Some were, of course, genuine "terrorists" ("shock and awe" not being related to terror, of course), but many many were just mugs who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and are now radicalised by America's moronic short-sighted interventionist policies.
"Do you have any evidence for any of that ? I mean I'm sure the USA has bombed villages and so forth but there's a presumption of unreasonableness I think I'm detecting in your tone which would stand further clarification."
I'm not really following you. It's public knowledge that US foreign policy involves assassinations from Chile to Columbia to, indeed, Iraq. Likewise their constant bullying of other countries is hardly breaking news - for example just this week we heard about how they pressured Denmark's government to not do what the Danish public had asked them to three times with regard to legalizing cannabis.
US interference in Northern Ireland led to many deaths of British people. Vietnam and Cambodia can report similar interference, as can most of Central and South America.
America is no one's ally. That's a simple fact that we would all do well to grasp.
Complain about this comment
72. At 5:17pm on 09 Nov 2010, RHCracker wrote:
Just pointing out the reason there is a disconnect with Obama and American voters is he was not raised here in America and does not have the generational ties and bonds to America a president should have,we dont need a wannabe world leader,we need an American President and commander in Chief
And now more reaching out to muslims,better start reaching out to Americans.
-----------------------------------------
I think that spending a few years abroad during the formative years is a positive thing, as it is a good way to become inured against xenophobia. It helps a person to understand that there is merit to cultures and points of view that are different than one's own. It helps a person to understand that they themselves, and their country, exist as citizens of the world.
The President's mother and her family were American and he spent only four years of his childhood outside the USA. This is more than enough of a relationship to this country to make him a 'real' American.
As for reaching out to the American people, he addressed them on national TV just the other day.
When on a state visit, a Presiden't job is to address the people of the country that he is visiting and capitalizing on his childhood to forge stronger positive ties to the largest Muslim nation in the world is a smart move.
Seems like some people can never be satisfied.
Complain about this comment
90 diverticulosis,
"In 2000 the total US debt was $3 trillion or 58% of GDP"
"In 2008 the total US debt was $5.8 trillion or 70% of GDP"
FYI,
In 2000 the total us debt was 5.6 trillion or 50% of GDP
In 2008 the total US debt was 10 trillion or 71% of GDP
In 2010 the total US debt is currently 13.6 trillion or 94% of GDP
Complain about this comment
Ref 72 RHCracker-
"Just pointing out the reason there is a disconnect with Obama and American voters is he was not raised here in America and does not have the generational ties and bonds to America a president should have,we dont need a wannabe world leader,we need an American President and commander in Chief"
The sixth President of the United States of America, John Quincy Adams, left the new nation at age 8 to accompany his father, John Adams, to France. JQ Adams received much of his primary education at Leiden University in the Netherlands. JQ Adams spent about 13 of his formative years in the Netherlands, Great Britain,Russia, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark. He served as Ambassador to Prussia, 1797-1801; Ambassador to Russia, 1809-1814; Ambassador to the U.K., 1815-1817. Altogether, JQ Adams spent 20 years of his youth outside the U.S.A. before becoming President in 1825.
Even though JQ Adams spent a large portion of his life outside the United States, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after serving as President of the United States. Obviously his constituents did not think Adams as not having "bonds" with America.
Herbert Hoover spent some 22 years living outside the United States of America prior to being elected President of the United States. Elected even after being accused of supporting Bolshevism because of the humanitarian aid he provided for millions of starving Russians during the early years of USSR.
President Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 to 1971 when his mother moved with her second husband to that nation.
If Obama's 4 years outside the U.S. breaks his "generational ties" and "bonds" with America, just think how un-American JQ Adams and Herbert Hoover must have been.
Complain about this comment
Ref rodidog-
"In 2010 the total US debt is currently 13.6 trillion or 94% of GDP"
It appears the U.S. had better stop pointing fingers of blame at one another and get on the ball stimulating our economy before our debt exceeds GDP. Where's that private sector when one really needs them?
Complain about this comment
90 wrote: Part of the reason the US has such a large debt burden (as compared to the past), is that the populous of the US doesn't understand the difference between debt and deficit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I admit I did get confused. I was looking at a chart of total deficits vs. national debt increases, rather than the national debt by itself. All the numbers and terminology is confusing, just not my thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rodidog wrote:
In 2000 the total us debt was 5.6 trillion or 50% of GDP
In 2008 the total US debt was 10 trillion or 71% of GDP
In 2010 the total US debt is currently 13.6 trillion or 94% of GDP.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.6 trillion doesn't sound so bad if you now owe 13.6 trillion.
I guess its projected to get higher before it gets lower. Kind of like that saying, "Expect things to get worse before they get better."
Apparently, everything has just accumulated over the years...what goes up must come down...
Complain about this comment
Any Country that allows hate, revenge, violence against another country; more precisely with a aim to defeat its people and enjoy the “glory” to becoming a winner and, of course, associated financial benefits is bound to face huge negative consequences. That is true for colonial Britain, France and many other European countries and USA. All other smaller nations that constantly fight amongst each other are no exception. But the consequence of massive oppression by industrialized nations (I like to avoid the term “civilized”), due to its technological and financial muscle is much more harmful and long term as compared to tribal/feudal conflicts among less developed countries. Nonetheless, none can be supported and eventually face negative consequences. No one can seek “progress” at the expanse of others without having any negative impact on both. It is a lose-lose situation.
There is no denial that USA foreign policy groomed many rogue regimes in the past and even now, that include present American “enemies” like Bin-Laden, Iraq and Pakistan. And US is bound to face consequences. The same is true for practically anything; be it nationality, religion, political affiliation, race, language and so on. Sooner we accept this fact, the better.
Complain about this comment
Nice explanation to differentiate between "national debt" and "national debt".
What's the difference between the national debt and the federal deficit?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm
Complain about this comment
Probably we are deviating a bit from our topic of discussion.
You can get a nice bird’s eye view of US (as compared to other countries, in many different categories (national economy, energy etc)
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Complain about this comment
Probably we are deviating a bit from our topic of discussion.
You can get a nice bird’s eye view of US (as compared to other countries, in many different categories (national economy, energy etc). You can change the time scale (to past and even near future). I do not know how authentic the data are.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html
Complain about this comment
googlebux wrote: With Muslim extremists, there is a tendency to use ANY western policy as a rationale for terror.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's no 'winning over' radical terrorists who want infidels dead because they believe it will lead them to Heaven...
The key is for moderate Muslims to preach to their fellow Muslims against terrorism, extremism, ect.
How many moderate Muslims have the courage to speak out against the radical terrorists?
Complain about this comment
95 publiusdetroit,
Ref rodidog-
"In 2010 the total US debt is currently 13.6 trillion or 94% of GDP"
It appears the U.S. had better stop pointing fingers of blame at one another and get on the ball stimulating our economy before our debt exceeds GDP. Where's that private sector when one really needs them?
The irony is that the private sector doubled GDP from 1992 to 2010 while government more than tripled the debt. It seems to me the private sector did its part while government spent beyond its means.
Complain about this comment
Jay wrote: Any Country that allows hate, revenge, violence against another country; more precisely with a aim to defeat its people and enjoy the “glory” to becoming a winner and, of course, associated financial benefits is bound to face huge negative consequences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What about any terrorist organization that allows hate, ect., ect.?
The Islamic terrorists' goal is to destroy or enslave all infidels, so shouldn't they be facing huge negative consequences by the world?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay wrote: There is no denial that USA foreign policy groomed many rogue regimes in the past and even now, that include present American “enemies” like Bin-Laden, Iraq and Pakistan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So what are today's generation supposed to take out of this? That they are being saddled with mountains of debt and terrorists who want to destroy them for our country's past actions which they had no control over?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ LucyJ (#103). Yes, LucyJ, it applies to all, including the terrorists. But the problem is they have something totally different in mind that any sane person. Their target is to terrorize and (probably) die. They think they will get EVERYTHING (that they are so against in this life) once they achieve “martyrdom”. They love death, we prefer to live!
If religious terrorists or any other terrorists knew that, then they would not use terrorism and violence to hurt the, most favorite cause in their whole life (i.e. religion) the most they claim to love so much! Yes, I fully support use of force against them. That’s the only language they understand. No sane person can teach a mad dog by the mantras of love and peace. First it need to be trained enough to understand verbal command. But we need to be careful enough to minimize colorectal damage to non-target population and also remain within our own laws, international laws. We must not erase the difference we have developed for so long with so much sacrifice, with those thugs.
In fact, my point was, USA MUST not differentiate between “good” terrorist and “bad” terrorists. USA practically supported many acts of terrorism against countries like India (by Pakistan sponsored terrorism) while condemning the same in Afghanistan till few years ago (until US itself started suffering the consequences). When countries like Pakistan started using state-sponsored (Islamic) terrorism in India, US remained silent for far too long. The same is true for violence by Israel state. Of course, I do not support Hamas or Hezbollah’s acts of violence in any way. But we must not apply different yard stick when we deal with terrorism.
LucyJ, you asked, “So what are today's generation supposed to take out of this?”. We all, young and old alike, need to learn mistakes from our own past and by others. I do not blame present generation of Britain for the racist and other crimes its past rulers committed (e.g Churchill: for detail one can read BBC blog: How Churchill 'starved' India: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html) .
We should try to force our politicians (who are also mere mortals like us and do mistakes) not to support ANY form of terrorism to gain some geo-political or economic advantage. In the long term, the cost is too high for everyone, including ourselves.
Complain about this comment
55. At 3:45pm on 09 Nov 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"Predictable posts on this topic: those who disliked Bush still dislike him, those who supported him still support him and those who did neither are willing to let time and history be the judge of his presidency."
"Next topic please Mark."
_____________
Agreed.
Complain about this comment
@ LucyJ (#103). Yes, LucyJ, it applies to all, including the terrorists. But the problem is they have something totally different in mind than any sane person. Their target is to terrorize and (probably) die. They think they will get EVERYTHING (that they are so against in this life) once they achieve “martyrdom”. They love death, we prefer to live! The reform for Islam (or any religion) MUST come from within. We can only provide necessary support to make that a little faster and easier.
If religious terrorists or any other terrorists knew that (what they actually achieve other than destruction and fear), then they would not use terrorism and violence to hurt the, most favorite cause in their whole life (i.e. religion)! Yes, I fully support use of force against them. That’s the only language they understand. No sane person can teach a mad dog by the mantras of love and peace. First it need to be trained enough to understand verbal command. But we need to be careful enough to minimize colorectal damage to non-target population and also remain within our own laws, international laws. We must not erase the difference we have developed for so long with so much sacrifice, with those thugs. We must not make a disciplined dog into a mad one!
In fact, my point was, USA MUST not differentiate between “good” terrorist and “bad” terrorists. USA practically supported many acts of terrorism against countries like India (by Pakistan sponsored terrorism) while condemning the same in Afghanistan till few years ago (until US itself started suffering the consequences). When countries like Pakistan started using state-sponsored (Islamic) terrorism against India, US remained silent for far too long. The same is true for violence by Israel. Of course, I do not support Hamas or Hezbollah’s acts of violence in any way. But we must not apply different yard stick when we deal with terrorism.
LucyJ, you asked, “So what are today's generation supposed to take out of this?”. We all, young and old alike, need to learn mistakes from our own past and by others. I do not blame present generation of Britain for the racist and other crimes its past rulers committed (e.g Churchill: for detail one can read BBC blog: How Churchill 'starved' India: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/soutikbiswas/2010/10/how_churchill_starved_india.html) .
We should try to force our politicians (who are also mere mortals like us; do mistakes and many cannot resist temptation/greed for money, power, lust etc) not to support ANY form of terrorism to gain some geo-political or economic advantage. In the long term, the cost is too high for everyone, including ourselves.
Complain about this comment
Making too many mistakes today. Sorry.
Correction to my last post:
But we need to be careful enough to minimize COLLATERAL damage to non-target population and also remain within our own laws, international laws.
Complain about this comment
8. At 07:54am on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote: "...This is like the '...it was all about oil...' line taken, usually by people of the yah boo persuasion who know little about the Iraq War."
I agree with you that the "It's all about oil" mantra is wrong. That ignores egos, geopolitics, and graft for friendly corporations, not to mention military reasons.
It is just as mendacious, though, to to insist that oil played no part in it. Do you really think that we would give a rat's *$$ what happened to anyone in the Middle East if they did not have any oil or we weren't hooked on it? Does it make sense that the Bush family [founded on and beholden to big oil] had no interest in the Persian Gulf and it's oil?
So both sides, as usual, play propaganda games. But "the truth is out there."
Complain about this comment
On a long drive from Buffalo, I first heard on a liberal hate radio station, bill Press, Stephanie Miller and Ed Shultz all blast Bush and his book.
They also admited they were not going to read it.
then I heard about an hour of his interview with Hannity.
Any objective observor would have to see despite his lack of polish he is far wiser about the world than Obama ever could hope to be; and he has far more respect for the Presidency than a traitor like Jimmy Carter ever would.
Complain about this comment
ref #94
John Quincy Adams also had a lot of instruction from heis father, Jame s Madison and James Monroe.
In other words unlike Obama he was qualified to be President.
Hoover was a failure as Presidnet.
I don't think it's Onbama Indonesia upbrining that is the problem, it is his extreme liberal views
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man, (#36. At 2:17pm on 09 Nov 2010)
“... 30. At 1:30pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
‘Well, why don't they hate Germany, France and Britain as well ? These nations also supplied WMD materials, particularly Germany. It appears that Holland, Egypt, Singapore and India were also suppliers of WMD materials.’
Er. They do ... “
Excuse me? Americans hate Germany, France and Britain?
Do you have anything which can be offered as evidence for this bizarre claim?
Complain about this comment
91. At 7:44pm on 09 Nov 2010, Bob Long wrote:
"US interference in Northern Ireland led to many deaths of British people."
The interference you are most likely referring to was not officially sanctioned by the US government. It was money and weapons donated by the victims and decendents of victims of English brutality against the Irish. As an Irish American, I dislike the British actions, but have never supported the IRA, murdering people for what their ancestors may have done to my ancestors is wrong.
My family were horified when local police discovered and confiscated a large cache of weapons intended for the IRA in our neighborhood in the 1960's. The Irish-Americans responsible were also punished. That is the official American position, so don't blame the US government for the bad actions of some citizens.
And don't blame all Americans or all Irish-Americans either. Some of yo
ur points are actually on the mark, but you do go over the edge on occasion.
Complain about this comment
94. At 8:26pm on 09 Nov 2010, publiusdetroit
Of course Cracker and other "real" Americans won't accept JQA as being a "real American" coming from Massachusetts, he had to have been a socialist or communist who never should have been elected president. You might find GOP/FOX/Tea people sympathetic to aview expressed by a former GOP wannabe president that the East Coast ought to be sawed off and pushed out to sea. The modern, if I may use the term, ones would also saw off the Pacific Coast and try to give Detroit to Canada as well.
Complain about this comment
US is fortunate enough to get a president like Obama. Self-made man who made his way to the top. That’s what I call, “American dream”; NOT a spoiled brat of a rich and powerful dad who was tactically imposed on American people and led us into this mess.
Now it is up to the (majority) people of this country to utilize or waste this opportunity under President Obama (and invite someone like Sahra Pallin in 2012!). It will be very unfortunate if we still do not learn our lesson against uncontrolled corporatization of US society; find out the exact role of a government in our society (of course big corporations will not like government control/oversights that bar them to do whatever they like as in Bush era), downfall of American middle class and destruction of so-called “American dream”.
No, I have no plan to waste my time reading that book (and make already rich Bush family a bit richer). We all have our facts and figures to analyze. I do not need to listen the “worst US president in my lifetime” to feel pain that a stupid person can also become the president of US!
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man, (#36. At 2:17pm on 09 Nov 2010)
“... 'Randomly rounded up' ? Really ? Some of them weren't (say) captured in Afghanistan ?’
Yep. Randomly rounded up in Afghanistan. Just because its Afghanistan doesn't make it any less random. And maybe you mean ‘abducted’, instead of ‘captured’ ? ...”
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your concurrence with the claim that Afghanis were ‘randomly rounded up’?
Complain about this comment
104. At 9:46pm on 09 Nov 2010, Arrrgh wrote:
"At the end of the day Nigel rolled over and kissed his wife goodnight. It had been a pleasant day and he was ready for sleep. Then something deep down made him laugh out loud. "Whatever are you laughing at" cried his naked wife. "You should of read the crap comments on the Mark Mardell's blog today. Carrying on as if it really matters and was important. I'm sorry but it tickled me. Goodnight". "Goodnight Nigel, love you."
A few minutes later though, Felicity switched her bedside lamp back on and said "You know Nigel, you really have a serious blindspot in your understanding of the kinematics of international power projection in the post-9/11 era of the protracted counter-insurgency and asymmetrical warfare. We're going to have to work on that if we're ever going to see you into Number 10."
"Oh, thank you SOOOO much Felicity. Do Google some links for me so we can "Debate" the matter over breakfast... As if I'm not under enough pressure at the ministry. Now shut up and go to sleep or you'll wake the children -- THEN we'll be up all night listening to -their- tirades about austerity measures within the framework of a post-Keynesian global economic paradigm..."
"Oh ---THERE--- you go again Nigel, criticizing the children for not falling lock-step behind the government's revisionist pseudo-conservative economic policies..."
[Your turn :-) ]
Complain about this comment
LucyJ wrote: "When Bill Clinton left office, there was no deficit or it was very, very small..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
As of Sep. 2000, the US gov debt was $13,561,623,030,891. As in TRILLIONS.
Now LucyJ, you may be rich enough that this seems like a small amount. Would you care to write a check or, use cash to pay that down?
Complain about this comment
MagicKirin (110), you would think any liberal radio is hate radio no matter what they said. That is what makes you a Republican. George Bush won't explain in his book, why he let Cheney out Valerie Plame Wilson, the CIA spy working on WMD. Scooter Libby didn't spend a day in jail for that, thanks to Bush, though Wilson's outing undoubtedly caused the death of many of her sources, in countries where we have spies. While Bush was lying about WMD, Wilson and her husband, former diplomat, Joe Wilson were searching for them, and their sources in other countries on our behalf.
Bush's book explains that a lawyer told him that waterboarding was legal, so he ordered it. He was also told that we signed a treaty that said it was illegal, that we prosecuted American soldiers for doing it, and prosecuted Japanese soldiers for doing it in WWII. But one lawyer said it was okay.
During six years of his Presidency he had a Republican Congress. They systematically removed the laws and regulations that controlled the way that Banks, insurance companies including AIG, and Wall Street did business. These had been in place since FDR and the Great Depression. He ordered Government sponsored lending companies to lend to people who didn't meet ordinary standards. These were bad loans, that were sold in pieces, bundled with other pieces as securities, which Wall Street then resold, and bet against. Bush and the Republican Congress brought down our economy with a borrowed $700 Billion in tax cuts for the rich, an unnecessary war on Iraq, not paid for with taxes, but with borrowed money from China. They Crashed our economy, left us in Free Fall, bleeding 750,000 jobs a month when Bush left office. He had a giant surplus when he came in, a balanced budget, a smaller deficit, and he squandered everything.
Obama's big mistake was in not telling the American People the depth of our disaster, so they wouldn't expect it to be fixed in a few months. Telling them that it was the worst economy since the Great Depression didn't mean anything to them; they don't remember the Great Depression. If the Obama administration had not worked a miracle, there might be bread lines, and families living in one room of a two bedroom apartment. We had a lot more to fear, than fear itself Mr. Roosevelt.
MagicKirin, when you were driving from Buffalo, I take it you were driving on one of our government built roads. That is Socialism. Do you use the US Mails? Socialism. Do you depend on the police and fire department for your safety? Socialist. A liberal Republican freed the slaves. A liberal brought you Social Security, Medicare, votes for women, votes for black people, and equal pay for equal work. Liberals brought you the 8 hour day, five day work week, time and half over time, holidays off, paid vacation, any benefits you get from work. Unions fought business and industry for those things for you for 100 years. They lost their lives to give those things to you. That is why child labor is illegal. They don't work in the mines, and mines are safer. Industry must install safety devices when they become available. Liberals did that for the benefit of ordinary people who work for a living, and not off the money that was left to them.
Complain about this comment
"Wasn't Robert Gates in the CIA with George Bush Senior? When Bush Senior headed the CIA, Gates was head of CIA Operations"
Indeed. That's why Barack Hussein Obama chose him. :)
Complain about this comment
116. At 02:48am on 10 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"Do you have any evidence to substantiate your concurrence with the claim that Afghanis were ‘randomly rounded up’?"
They are not my words - but I do concur with them. I think the best explanation as to why they were "randomly rounded up" comes from #91m,
Bob Long ...
"Of course they were (randomly rounded up). Many of them on the simple say-so of locals settling scores, and some because they were standing beside someone else who was being picked up. That's pretty random. Some were, of course, genuine "terrorists" ("shock and awe" not being related to terror, of course), but many many were just mugs who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and are now radicalised by America's moronic short-sighted interventionist policies."
113. At 02:29am on 10 Nov 2010, JMM wrote:
"The interference you are most likely referring to was not officially sanctioned by the US government.
My family were horified when local police discovered and confiscated a large cache of weapons intended for the IRA in our neighborhood in the 1960's. The Irish-Americans responsible were also punished. That is the official American position, so don't blame the US government for the bad actions of some citizens.
And don't blame all Americans or all Irish-Americans either. Some of your points are actually on the mark, but you do go over the edge on occasion."
This sounds like a long winded way of saying exactly that - that the US did indeed interfere with the problems of Northern Ireland.
112. At 02:27am on 10 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"Excuse me? Americans hate Germany, France and Britain? Do you have anything which can be offered as evidence for this bizarre claim?"
You appear to have misread. The claim was that if Iran hates America, then why doesn't Iran hate Germany, France and Britain ? I merely said that Iran does.
Complain about this comment
ref #115
Self made man? Self made creature of Chicago political machine. a non voting state senator, no acomplishments of any kind in the Senate. a man who since graduation and his wife who have been given a free ride
ref #119
there is a differnce between Press, Miller and on the conservative side Michael Savage and liberal radio like NPR or the BBC
The justice dept found waterboarding legal and so there was no war crime as far as Plame she was not an agent she was an office worker.
The melt down was primarily due to Fannie Frddie and Country wide although Bush deserves blame much more belong to Frank and dodd who blocked regulation
Like Roosevelt Obama policies will increase the problem and legthen the recssion.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 42 Clive Hill
Perhaps you forget that the CIA is overseen by Congress as well as the Administration. Nancy Pelosi was one of those involved in congressional oversight at that time and - it appears - offered no objection.
_________
As I said in post 33, to object at teh time would have been political suicide. Pelosi may have a lot of detractors, but she didn't get where she is by being politically naive.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 226 Bogdan(prev thread)
Please forgive my carrying forward discussions from the previous thread, but its closed. I was asked a question and it would be rude not to answer...
"If level of measurement is as high as nations and not individual then the question in response to your comment becomes "US opportunities are far less common as compared to what other nations"?"
_______________
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/17/social-immobility-climbin_n_501788.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility
Individual acheivement is a determining factor in whether a person may have success or not, but it does not affect the range of opportunities potentially open to them.
Think of it as a job interview. For every hundred job going in a US company 3 go to guys who came from (or whose parents had) significantly less well paid jobs, but in France, that will be 5 guys. So anyone in the US who is is the 96% percentile, will have opportunities denied to them that are available to someone in the same percentile in France. (I know - this is a very crude example - it's illustrative only).
When dealing with countries, the range of individual abilities within their respective populations normalises (unless you're suggesting that being of one nationality means you can expect to have a higher IQ than someone of another nationality). There have to be opportunities for gifted individuals to take advantage of and the means for them to do so. In the US these opportunities are less prevalent than in most other western countries ad that shows in the social mobility figures. Only Italy and the UK fare worse.
Complain about this comment
To MagicKirin #122
So if you had "President of the United States 2008-2010" on your CV you wouldn't value this achievement!?
There's no winning over people like MagicKirin. The key is for moderate Americans to preach to their fellow Americans against belligerant radicalised evangelising fundamentalists. How many moderate Americans have the courage to speak out against these extremists?
Complain about this comment
Worth reading this all the way through to get an impression of how random things can get in the Iraq/Afghan conflict:
Adam Curtis' BBC Blog - Mr Pink, Mr White, and Bottom
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man, (#121. At 09:28am on 10 Nov 2010)
“...’Do you have any evidence to substantiate your concurrence with the claim that Afghanis were ‘randomly rounded up’?’
They are not my words ...”
I did not say they were.
“... but I do concur with them. I think the best explanation as to why they were "randomly rounded up" comes from #91m,
Bob Long ...”
So I take it that you can provide NO evidence as to why you concur with the with the claim that Afghanis were “randomly rounded up.”
Faith based assumption. OK.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon, (#123. At 09:37am on 10 Nov 2010)
“... As I said in post 33, to object at teh time would have been political suicide. Pelosi may have a lot of detractors, but she didn't get where she is by being politically naive.”
It follows then from you statement above that she was aware of, and by not objecting to, is complicit in the treatment of the prisoners, is that correct?
Complain about this comment
125. _marko:
To MagicKirin #122
So if you had "President of the United States 2008-2010" on your CV you wouldn't value this achievement!?
There's no winning over people like MagicKirin. The key is for moderate Americans to preach to their fellow Americans against belligerant radicalised evangelising fundamentalists. How many moderate Americans have the courage to speak out against these extremists?
******************
The problem is that the more Obama does as POTUS, the more moderates abandon him. The "extremist" behavior most Americans are worrying about right now is the government's and its over-reaching.
Your definition of "moderate" is off the mark. They are not fundamentalist-hating but rather big-government averse.
Complain about this comment
127. At 11:28am on 10 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"'They are not my words ...' I did not say they were."
And I did not say that you said they were either !
"So I take it that you can provide NO evidence as to why you concur with the with the claim that Afghanis were "randomly rounded up.'"
Strewth. How clear can I make it ? Bob Long was just repeating common knowledge - even US state department has admitted to the random way of how suspects were rounded up. There are scores of former soldiers who have gone on the record and hace admnitted the same, and even if this doesn't convince you you can always go to Wiki Leaks and have a read. How much evidence do you need ?!
Complain about this comment
"Iran doesn't hate Britain"?
:-))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Complain about this comment
Levelled at the European people on this blogg is the label of anti Americanism,some times justified.But it is very clear that you guys do not like each other either :) ...
Complain about this comment
ref #125
_marko wrote:
To MagicKirin #122
So if you had "President of the United States 2008-2010" on your CV you wouldn't value this achievement!?
There's no winning over people like MagicKirin. The key is for moderate Americans to preach to their fellow Americans against belligerant radicalised evangelising fundamentalists. How many moderate Americans have the courage to speak out against these extremists?
___________
there is no arguing with Obama philes.
Obama had no resume going into the job of President. You can argue Bush's ability but he was the Govenor of Texas. Sarah Palin was the govenor of Alska which made her qualified than the clueless Obama.
So it is now extreme to criticize Obama? Now what we heard when the left was criticzing Bush.
Complain about this comment
132. ukwales:
"But it is very clear that you guys do not like each other either :) ..."
**********
Eh, just some rivalry, as in "My health care is better than yours!" and "We work harder!"
Apples and oranges, although people insist on trying to equate the two.
Complain about this comment
@ MagicKirin #122. "Self made creature of Chicago political machine. a non voting state senator, no accomplishments of any kind in the Senate. a man who since graduation and his wife who have been given a free ride".
Probably US deserve president like GWB so long people like you are in majority. So long Raush Limbo type idiots are having a place in "popular" talk shows. In reality, lately there is a rise of feudal dynasties of rich and powerful families like Bush, Kennedy etc to dominate US power skylines. There are always corporate America to undertake propaganda to glorify such efforts that pay them millions of dollars of profit. That's why people like Bill Clinton dared to describe Barak Obama, “Bill Clinton has sparked fury after allegedly saying of Barack Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/01/11/clinton-slur-over-coffee-boy-barack-115875-21957798/). That is NOT the America we all, all sane people like to build.
How many Harvard degree holders (I am not referring “education” here as GWB once again showed us that university degrees, even from Yale and Harvard, meaning nothing in real education and knowledge) in law will devote in community service, leaving jobs of huge salary? GWB do not even understand what law is (despite of his a law degree holder and being governor of a state and insider of power politics)! In reality, many Americans have NO idea what collective social responsibility means, what social welfare means. That’s why here employers, even in small and medium businesses, get away with paying less than legal minimum salary to their employees and pass their responsibility (as an employer) to customers and force the employee to earn tips to bridge the gap. I know many will justify that as it “improve quality of service”. They do not think that we are supporting breaking of laws and cheating of poor employees. No employee dare to report if she earns less (in tips, to bridge the gap of minimum wage in a state) in a real fear to lose the job (as the employer will lay him/her off next month, in the excuse of not serving customers!).
Any rise of common people to the powerful offices will be described with the “coffee boy” adjective by rich and powerful who treat politics as a hugely lucrative business, sustainable over generations. This is taking more notorious turn these days as politics and corporate America is coming even closer (to save each other) in such competitive and tough economy. Attempts by (Bush’s party) Republican’s attempt to block political donation disclosure bill is just another example and indication what is in store for American people from some of its political masters.
In such a socio-political situation, Obama’s election as the president of US is like a fresh air. It give us the hope that not everything is lost in this great country.
Complain about this comment
Ref# 128 Chryses
"It follows then from you statement above that she was aware of, and by not objecting to, is complicit in the treatment of the prisoners, is that correct?"
________
If you read the link in #42, she did not object during discussions about new interrogation techniques which were in the planning stage, but did raise a letter of objection to the CIA about it in 2003 (waterboarding became a media issue in 2004).
Could she have done more? Possibly, I don't know. But you are jumping to conclusions to accuse her of complicity.
Objecting to administration policy post 9-11 wasn't just political suicide, it had an impact on the media too...
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/07/harvard-university-study-catches-major-u-s-media-pants-down-systematic-reporting-of-u-s-waterboarding-as-not-torture/
Complain about this comment
129. At 11:54am on 10 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"The problem is that the more Obama does as POTUS, the more moderates abandon him. The "extremist" behavior most Americans are worrying about right now is the government's and its over-reaching."
__________
So you say.
But can you give an example of this over-reaching?
President Obama has led one of the most centrist administrations in US history since WWII. That is his actual record, not the baseless allegations of made-in-right-wing-nut-fantasy-land.
On his major policy decisions, including health care, he has been smack-dab in the middle of conventional policy wisdom, or (as on health care) slightly to the right of center.
Complain about this comment
133. MagicKirin:
"there is no arguing with Obama philes.
Obama had no resume going into the job of President."
*****************
True. Many Americans supported Obama because he was the antithesis of Bush. They also believed his intelligence and eloquence trumped every concern -- i.e., of his inexperience, lack of business acumen, etc.
Obama is now being judged by his track record. This is something that Americans haven't had the opportunity to do. We have it now.
Anybody who believes this recent election wasn't about Obama is in denial. Americans have shown they don't appreciate politicians who are in denial about their wishes. Liberals seem to be the most deluded, believing he wasn't liberal enough. Obama doesn't seem to be far behind, believing the voters missed some things.
Complain about this comment
US, as a government, almost always wanted to produce factory workers for its common citizens, NOT scientists and other professionals. That’s why it made basic education free while turning higher education hugely expensive (fiefdom of rich and powerful from US and abroad), beyond the reach of majority Americans. To become a factory worker and remain a loyal factory worker, some basic reading and writing skill is necessary and that’s what US government (mostly controlled by big corporate houses) emphasized so far. US cannot produce sufficient qualified skilled professionals to fulfill its own industrial and institutional requirements (in almost any field, except law and medicine practice, not in research even in that field). Higher education and research machinery is overwhelmingly dominated by foreign born students.
When politicians give lip service against outsourcing, both manual and intellectual labor (in political rallies and senate speeches), I cannot stop laughing that still these politicians can get away with such stupid rhetoric and there are many idiots who believe them! But such crocodile tears seem to have huge impact on electoral success. US has NO choice but to outsource many of its jobs that need qualified professionals, simply because they do not produce enough of them in this American profit making higher education industry. American industries and politicians are not interested to change the status quo either. Any voice to demand something different will be drowned by loud, aggressive corporate propaganda, tactically supported by many politicians (most, but not exclusively, from Republican party).
Companies like GM, Citi group etc (who also donated massively in political campaign for Republicans in this by-election) are the worst violators of American jobs and also American dreams. They treat US just as a market; hardly feel about its people. Probably they and their political masters in state capitals and Washington do not consider local people as human beings, other than another input to their industrial “growth” and profit making machine. GM has the worst track record in creating and/or retaining jobs in US as a car manufacturer (worse than many so-called foreign car manufacturers like Honda, Toyota etc). Yet they can use the patriotic ranting in their advertisements to attract naïve American customers.
Complain about this comment
118. At 08:17am on 10 Nov 2010, Illogicbuster wrote:
LucyJ wrote: "When Bill Clinton left office, there was no deficit or it was very, very small..."
--------------------------------------------------------
As of Sep. 2000, the US gov debt was $13,561,623,030,891. As in TRILLIONS.
Now LucyJ, you may be rich enough that this seems like a small amount. Would you care to write a check or, use cash to pay that down?
----------------------
Actually the debt was just under $6 trillion (i.e. under half what it is now) when Clinton left office. And that $6 trillion was the culmination of all the debt the US acquired in it's entire +200 year history. The next administration amazingly was able to doubled that in only 8 years.
But I believe Lucy was referring to the Budget Deficit/Surplus, rather than the US National Debt, which are two separate things. In that regard, Lucy is correct (and your condescending attitude isn't). While the US wasn't brought out of debt, when Clinton left office (with the help of the opposition congress of course), there was a budget surplus (i.e. the government was spending less than it took in).
Complain about this comment
The mistake Obama did was not concentrating on politics part in his first two years as a president. He was busy in governing, in policy making (that’s the constitutional job of the president). That’s why we got two milestone bill passed, health-care and finance regulation bill. Very few US presidents showed the ability to do even a fraction of those in past years. But Obama forgot that he also needs to keep the public in loop, in political agendas to win elections. Probably the Democratic Party organization was depending on Obama too much and forgot to do their job to organize and mobilize political agendas.
Moreover, the financial mess created by the republican presidents like Bush, was too much for any president or economists to handle. It was far worse than anyone can imagine (as per many professional economists), comparable to 30s only. Yet ground reality tells us that the situation is not that bad as in 30s. Obama told in several interviews that he is ready to listen any economists who can suggest a better way out. Even economists of noble prize winning category do not agree on practically anything on how to come out from this recession and job loss. On top of that US corporate houses are using this recession excuse to maximize their profit. Many companies are making record profit (more than even pre-recession era) yet not ready to hire people. Banks took the money from government but did not lend that to customers. They sat on the federal cash till the worse is over (without doing what was expected from them to do) and paid it back. This attitude was personally helpful only to the CEOs and big shareholders of the companies but made thing worse for US as a country and general US citizens. And we always want to vent our anger on someone else. So we all had Obama, this time.
Complain about this comment
ref #135
Jay wrote:
@ MagicKirin #122. "Self made creature of Chicago political machine. a non voting state senator, no accomplishments of any kind in the Senate. a man who since graduation and his wife who have been given a free ride".
Probably US deserve president like GWB so long people like you are in majority. So long Raush Limbo type idiots are having a place in "popular" talk shows.
_____________
How long are you goig to defend Obama by bashing Bush? When does that old chestnut crumble?
Complain about this comment
134. At 1:53pm on 10 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
132. ukwales:
"But it is very clear that you guys do not like each other either :) ..."
**********
Eh, just some rivalry, as in "My health care is better than yours!" and "We work harder!"
Apples and oranges, although people insist on trying to equate the two.
----------
Hmmm,As an American Lass,I will take your word for it,but by-gum,you could have fooled me.Any way how dull would this place be if every one
was too shy & polite :) to voice a different view...
Complain about this comment
"The president's short trip has afforded him little leisure time, but before the university speech Mr Obama and his wife Michelle managed a visit to Jakarta's Istiqlal mosque, the largest in South-East Asia." (BBC)
I am so pleased to hear that.
Complain about this comment
"GM has the worst track record in creating and/or retaining jobs in US"
Care to look at figures pertaining to GM's performance in the 3rd quarter? :)
Complain about this comment
Interesting figures. We are getting into sociological matters more than I am comfortable but let's look at this from the standpoint of research design. So when we talk about mobility we specify what mobility we mean (generational mobility, racial groups, income levels, gender groups and so on). The data you present talks about mobility from one generation to the other. So we established, assuming sound study design, that people tend to stay in similar social strata from generation to generation. This finding however does not give any indication of the cause. The problem with the sources then becomes that false attributions are made by people with one agenda or the other. And then we make conclusions that people don't advance to higher social classes because somehow the opportunity is withheld from them. I don't think we can make that statement unless we actually conduct an experiment . The lack of mobility could be explained by variety of other factors like family traditions, upbringing practices, other social influence from immediate environments (friends and such). I’m not making attributions. I’m simply pointing out that until alternative explanations are ruled out we cannot attribute the rate of social mobility to any particular cause.
"Individual acheivement is a determining factor in whether a person may have success or not, but it does not affect the range of opportunities potentially open to them."
Now this is the statement I have the biggest problem with. Let's look at it from an opposite angle. Assume that as a high school student you decided not to go to college for whatever reason. Would you agree that you have limited your opportunities by making that decision? Ultimately jobs that require college education are now out of reach, correct? So then wouldn't the reverse be true that a decision to increase your level of achievement would expand the number of opportunities available? If not, then the only plausible explanation is that despite your level of educational achievement the employer will not hire you due to your belonging to a certain social class.
Complain about this comment
77. At 5:46pm on 09 Nov 2010, Lipani wrote:
RHCracker, Hawaii is not America? Could've fooled me.
Barry soetoro fooled you long before me.
Complain about this comment
Bogdan ...
Stop raising the tone of the discussion.
I'm getting a headache.
Complain about this comment
138. At 2:08pm on 10 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
"Obama is now being judged by his track record. This is something that Americans haven't had the opportunity to do. We have it now."
"Anybody who believes this recent election wasn't about Obama is in denial. Americans have shown they don't appreciate politicians who are in denial..."
[[There have been lots of studies that correlate election outcomes to the rate of unemployment. If you are trying to deny that unemployment is a factor - and a big factor - in electoral outcomes, you've got an even bigger problem with denial.
I see lots of amorphous complaints about President Obama, but very little criticism that has any actual substance.
What I see is that President Obama is being blamed, largely unfairly, for the Junior Bush Great Recession, much as Herbert Hoover was left, largely unfairly, as an easy scapegoat for the excesses of the 1920's.
What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]
Complain about this comment
I think Jay nails it on the head.
It is ironic that the president who really got the ball rolling in terms of the destruction of our economy, is also the one that President Obama should have emulated in terms of communication. I speak of President Reagan of course. Reagan's popularity was not policy based, he made the public feel like they sitting in the office with him as he made his decisions. Obama really needed to get the word out on why we were at where we were and what was necessary to get us out of it. He sort of assumed that things were self evident and that left an opening for his opponents.
Also, I think he focused on the mistakes of the previous administration and kind of laid it all at President Bush's feet. Which while easy to do given the lack of popularity of the Bush administration, it really didn't give a proper perspective. Ultimately Bush was just a sort of "natural end result" of trickle down economic schemes the nation has languished under for the last 30 years. The whole system needed to be put in the spot light. Not just Bush. In a sense President Bush also inherited a messed up economy. He just happened to be a true believer, and ran with it.
Sadly I think we're going to need another FDR. But that's going to take a great deal of courage on a president's part. Because the President that gives the country what it needs is going to anger some VERY powerful people. So he will need to make sure the public is on his side. Communication and transparent policy making is the only way to do it.
Complain about this comment
#142 Dear MagicKirin,
The Lefty Obama-zombies will never stop the Bush-bashing... Tiresome as it is, it's largely due to the fact that their "savior" over-promised and under-delivered. The "race card" and "class warfare" card have been overplayed by the Obama camp; the only card left is "W". Democrats have nothing concrete to stand upon (e.g., On the whole, Dem. candidates in the recent mid-term elections DID NOT CAMPAIGN ON THEIR SUPPORT OF HEALTHCARE. Wonder why?)... Thankfully, the majority of U.S. voters appear to see this.
This president is a prom king; we need a quarterback. Every president inherits the good and bad from the man he replaces. I think 12 months is the limitation on the "blame-the-former-guy" tactic; after that, YOU OWN IT, MR. PRESIDENT.
Complain about this comment
I knew that this post about George Bush would spark, rather incite comment and so I've read a good bit of them and can't help but be saddened. Saddened not by hurt feelings but saddened by the fact that I agree and can do nothing. I just feel (like many other young Americans) trapped... Completely stuck in a country that where if your politicians do it, it means that your population must believe in it. I just want to spread some awareness that the majority of the younger generation in America that I know completely feels as though their policy makers have zero interaction, connection, or reverence for what we want.
We (me and my circle of friends) are embarrassed by some of the decisions of our policymakers however, aside from assembling a protest (and of course, being made to look like a crack pot by the media) we all feel as though we have no recourse.
When I traveled internationally I completely attempted to dress and carry myself in a European way in order to have friendlier conversation with others at pubs. This disguise was also to keep myself safe from anyone that may want me to FEEL their distaste of American policy.
And so I ask you... Could you please judge and criticize our politicians but not all of the country? (Because in this decade the two entities are very very separate from one another) I know this may be met with criticism but I just want all of you out there in Europe and surrounding areas that your views are usually agreed with, just not out loud..
Nothing but love to you all.
RH
Complain about this comment
Illogic wrote: As of Sep. 2000, the US gov debt was $13,561,623,030,891. As in TRILLIONS.
Now LucyJ, you may be rich enough that this seems like a small amount. Would you care to write a check or, use cash to pay that down.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love USA. If I had the trillions to pay off our debts, I gladly would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bro_Winky wrote: But I believe Lucy was referring to the Budget Deficit/Surplus, rather than the US National Debt, which are two separate things. In that regard, Lucy is correct (and your condescending attitude isn't). While the US wasn't brought out of debt, when Clinton left office (with the help of the opposition congress of course), there was a budget surplus (i.e. the government was spending less than it took in).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bro_Winky,
Thank you, this is what I was talking about. Remember reading about it in the newspaper and it really surprised me how we actually had budget surplus at that time. (before Bush, Jr.)
Sometimes all the terminology and so on can be hard to understand, but when you hear surplus, that's a good sign. Yes, in Clinton days, there were many jobs- especially private and industrial, most people could afford health care as most jobs covered it, ect. Many Americans had very happy childhoods and livelihoods in these days, which is why the ones like myself associate the word Clinton with good times.
First four years of Bush, Jr. economically was tough, but the last four years of Bush were what really altered economy. Too bad we didn't get Kerry, but he was married to the Ketchup Queen, Teresa Heinz, and some people just didn't trust him for whatever reason. Plus, some did not want to change the war effort in the middle of the war. Because many Americans thought Bush Sr. did a good job, they thought Bush Jr. would do good, too. I know thats why my parents told me they voted for Bush, Jr.- cause' they liked his dad and also because they are more conservative, due to being Christians and following the Bible.
Anyhew, although things seem out of control crazy right now, at some point, our jobs are going to come back or there will be new jobs to replace the old ones. I know it will happen, but I just wonder how long it will take and what kind of jobs will be available...obviously the jobs we want back are industrial/private- many Americans want to make our own products again- I believe whoever will win in 2012 is whichever political party that will upstart job creation and bring back some of our products Made in USA in the next two years...
Complain about this comment
One issue is becoming the determining factor in any political discussion in this country. To make general working class people (color of collar does not matter) understand that if you want ten times more salary/benefit as compared to any other worker in other country, you must have ten times more productivity in terms of the product/service you are developing. US or any other developed country can NOT expect to maintain this usual high quality of living (as compared to developing and under-developed world) by simply doing the jobs they used to do before this globalization. You can not sustain that, even if you can bring back those old manufacturing jobs in US (by some miracle). Either you have to make the car you manufacture 10 times more pricy, that means consumers will be willing to pay 10 times more (than a car manufactured by a Chinese company in China). That is totally absurd in this flat (as per NY Times columnist Thomas L. Freidman’s terminology) world and that flatness (of the world) seems to be irreversible. It is also getting more and more acceptance that scientific and technological gap is becoming smaller day by day between old, industrialized countries with the rising economics/powers. That’s why we got G-20 now, replacing G-7.
In this changed world, US employers/policy makers need to develop jobs that can bring 10 times more profit as compared to China, India to sustain 10 times better quality of living. That means constant invention and innovation by US industries and 10 times more efficiency in general governance (as a whole). That translates into better education and training for its young, next gen students. If you cannot do that, then be ready to accept the same or worse salary and benefits as compared to average third world workers. For more detail discussion one can watch yesterday’s Charlie Rose’s interview with TL Freidman. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11281
But the main stumbling block in this whole change in attitude are the US corporations and associated politicians. They are now addicted to cheap and easily exploitable labor force from aboard to maximize their own earnings. To do routine maintenance job in IT sector, one does not need great talent. But American and other IT companies and other industries (depending on them) are addicted to cheap, technical labor from India than to develop their own manpower. Our senate and Congress are too busy in in-fighting to focus on any serious problems the country is facing. They hardly can take swift decisions, many times due to political gridlock. Republicans are showing more and more arrogance to take part in any policy decision, even if that is good for the country. They offered NO practical solution to any problem whatsoever (be it job loss or economic downturn) in recently concluded by-election campaign. Anyone can check a typical example of Ohio’s Republican elect John Kasich, after winning the election. He has no clue how to strengthen local economy (but while reducing “big government”, boosting budget cut, tax cut etc), how to use the federal money given to Ohio to develop 3C railway project without proceeding to build the railway! I hope within a short time people (at least those who still have some grey mater to think independently) will realize the mistake many Ohioans made by electing this ex-Lehman Brothers general manager to run the state and by punishing the past democrat government for a “fault” they did not create. In fact, Ohio’s economy is far better now than many states in the USA in this recession time.
Complain about this comment
pmk wrote: Care to look at figures pertaining to GM's performance in the 3rd quarter? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All GM needed was a boost and they are doing great. I love my Pontiac, its awesome and very dependable. Our vehicle companies are bouncing back and people are still buying lots of vehicles, especially the trucks. Trucks are so incredibly popular, as long as there is fuel, there will be people driving trucks in America...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay wrote: The mistake Obama did was not concentrating on politics part in his first two years as a president.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Obama chose sides on many ultraliberal, divisive issues, which is one major reason why Dems lost votes. (The Ground Zero Mosque being number one, immigration spat with Arizona number two and repealing DADT three and Holder's comments/agenda on race as number four) Because of Obama's ultraliberal stance on these issues, he turned many people off of Democrats, myself included. If Obama had taken the side of majority and if he had said although they had right to build there, they should build elsewhere, that he was on American people's side and not illegals, that he did not want to disrupt military in time of deep war, that Holder and Admin. would treat us all equally with justice regardless of race- including Black Panthers- then Dems would have likely stayed in power.
The second reason is that the Dems did not focus on economy and job creation enough- Obama's stimulus helped produce temporary jobs, but not many long-term jobs. There are goals set, but we don't understand how we will get there without details of a clear, understandable plan.
His health care bill was lengthy and confusing- people want to hear what under his plan the exact cost of health care will be for people- details, details, details, not his ramblings (which Obama does do a good ramble), but rather facts of plan. And the mandate scared many people, as well, who do not want future mandates by govt. because they are scared of government taking over their paychecks and lives.
Bottom line: many Americans want lowered health care costs or universal health care, but we don't want it done the same as other countries. We want it done our American way, but without mandate.
Complain about this comment
Ross wrote: When I traveled internationally I completely attempted to dress and carry myself in a European way in order to have friendlier conversation with others at pubs. This disguise was also to keep myself safe from anyone that may want me to FEEL their distaste of American policy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's pretty sad, Ross, if you have to disguise yourself as European in Europe just cause' you don't want to talk American politics...
Personally, I don't think I could fake a British accident or it would sound really strange...
Complain about this comment
I agree with rtcon. It was NOT GWB’s fault that he wanted to steer the country the way it was being governed for quite sometime. He just followed the generally accepted path of US politics, since last few decades. Everything was going fine. Only few incidents and men behind those put a strong spanner into the otherwise smooth running wheel during GWB’s otherwise “decent” tenure as US president. The main incident was surely 9/11. That forced Americans, young and old, rich and poor alike to take stock of our national policies, not only for national security but in other areas as well. In the meantime, US economy stared speeding fast towards a dead crash (fueled by increased greed of corporate bosses due to over corporatization of our society and totally ineffective/corrupt government oversight policies to monitor US business practices). Expensive wars abroad also made things worse and allowed many financial sharks (like Halliburton and other civilian companies involved in those operations) to grab the golden opportunity to make few more quick bucks. So everything headed to a screeching halt in 2007 Dec. By that time, election was due. It was surely NOT GWB who made things that worse in his only 8 years presidency; it was accumulating since last few decades (under presidentship of both dems and reps). But GWB was the last guy and could not foresee the consequences of prevailing US policies, as expected from a person of his intellect (rather lack of it). He was the last person in any scam that did not have a well-planned exit strategy. He was the last “associate of Craig Adams — a guy who wound up defaulting on more than $2 million” in a mortgage scam (for detail one can read “Inside our toxic assets”.
After a long time in US history, US president tried to do some structural reform in our society. That infuriated many people (including some demarcates). Most importantly, many among them are really powerful people in US society, both in business and politics. They do not want general American people to understand the reality, as that will surely hurt their own interest (business-wise and politically). It was not so surprising that even many Democrats tried to distance themselves from recently passed health care bill (and also accepted the term “Obama care” and NOT “democratic health care bill”). They just wanted to exploit public sentiment the news channel like Fox and political destructive (conservative is an understatement for such idiots/criminals) political commentators.
If US want to maintain its high quality of living and a civilized society, where law is practically equal for each and every American, in long term future, we have to counter that attitude and intension.
Complain about this comment
re.#45. At 2:53pm on 09 Nov 2010, Clive Hill wrote:
"Why is the population of Afghanistan not in Guantanamo Bay then ? At its peak there were only 759 detainees there."
They live in Afghanistan, isn't that punishment enough?
Complain about this comment
150. At 4:16pm on 10 Nov 2010, rtcon wrote:
"It is ironic that the president who really got the ball rolling in terms of the destruction of our economy, is also the one that President Obama should have emulated in terms of communication. I speak of President Reagan of course. Reagan's popularity was not policy based, he made the public feel like they sitting in the office with him as he made his decisions. Obama really needed to get the word out on why we were at where we were and what was necessary to get us out of it. He sort of assumed that things were self evident and that left an opening for his opponents.
Also, I think he focused on the mistakes of the previous administration and kind of laid it all at President Bush's feet. Which while easy to do given the lack of popularity of the Bush administration, it really didn't give a proper perspective. Ultimately Bush was just a sort of "natural end result" of trickle down economic schemes the nation has languished under for the last 30 years. The whole system needed to be put in the spot light. Not just Bush. In a sense President Bush also inherited a messed up economy. He just happened to be a true believer, and ran with it.
[[No, he didn't. Here is what Junior Bush inherited from Bill Clinton:
(1) A budget that was in surplus - i.e., they were paying down debt, not racking up more of it.
(2) A growing economy.
(3) The lowest unemployment seen in a generation, coupled with low real interest rates.
(4) A country largely at peace with the world, respected internationally, basking in the glow of being the only super-power left standing at the end of the cold war.
(5) A country living in a world where, in no small measure due to it's own efforts in international affairs over the preceding 60 years there was a broad consensus that the road to success for any country was the adoption of democratic government and a market economy.
One author even called it "the end of history".]]
----------
Sadly I think we're going to need another FDR.
[[Whether you realize it or not, that's what America got on January 20, 2009]]
"But that's going to take a great deal of courage on a president's part. Because the President that gives the country what it needs is going to anger some VERY powerful people."
[[Which is exactly what he did: Why do you think the oil industry is ecstatic over the mid-term election results? Do you think that the "Tea Party" isn't awash in oil money?
Why do you think that Likud/AIPAC believe they won the mid-term elections?
Do you think the Health Care and Health insurance industries aren't powerful enemies? They account for 1/6 of the US economy.
Do you think that the financial sector isn't a "powerful enemy?]]
----------
"So he will need to make sure the public is on his side. Communication and transparent policy making is the only way to do it."
[[Good luck with that.
America's schools have, for half a century, turned out graduates with almost no knowledge of history or geography, and very little knowledge of anything outside the US (and often not much knowledge about anything inside the US). The poor quality of American education has had enormous consequences. It has, among other things, led to the rise of private, largely religion based schooling; it has led to the rise of private, overwhelmingly religion based, home schooling.
America's broadcast industry is controlled by a very small number of corporate entities, none of which have an interest in presenting "hard" or uncomfortable news. It was telling that in the midst of the worst financial crisis in 70 years that the news was dominated by stories of rock stars dying and badly behaved starlets being arrested. The only news source not besotted with fluffy nonsense is PBS. But PBS has a miniscule budget, and nobody watches it anyway.
For example, never, at any time on any major US broadcast network have I ever seen any program that asks, in depth, what genuine interest of national importance the United States has at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea between the Jordan River and the sea coast. Yet an enormous proportion of America's security budget, and of the managerial resources of its government is consumed by an area of, as far as I can determine, no genuine national importance. The Tea Party screams about "out-of-control" spending. Here is a big expenditure. Why is the American taxpayer funding this expenditure? Why does the US media never ask this question?
"In the marketplace of ideas the truth is often a poor competitor" - George Kennan.
It is all the more so when the US Supreme Court says that anybody can spend as much as they like on election advertising. This doesn't protect free speech - it merely makes it easier for the oil industry to shout down everybody else. Or AIPAC. Or the Health Care industry. Or the Financial sector.
Failure genuinely to protect political freedom of speech, and the persistent failure of the US Supreme Court to stand up for, and to protect, the institutions of democratic government in the US is a huge topic. Perhaps Mr. Mardell might like to look into that a little more?
We have had two years of solid, seamless, never ending, day-and-night campaigning against the Obama Presidency. There has been nothing fair or reasonable about it.
The guy has done a reasonable job in extremely difficult circumstances.
He has shown himself to be a fairly capable administrator, and a fairly capable President.
Yet he is being judged against circumstances and yardsticks that were never applied to his immediate predecessor.
George W Bush ruined four Presidencies - John McCain's in South Carolina; Al Gore in Florida; his own in Iraq; and Barack Obama's in the boarded up houses of Cleveland, Detroit, Las Vegas, and too many other US cities to name.
And the price for that utterly calamitous adventure in foolishness is still being paid, and will continue to be paid for years, and years, and years to come.
And Americans think they are "taking back America" by voting for the candidates of the oil industry and AIPAC, two groups who have done way more than their fair share to get the country into the mess it is in in the first place.
"Take back America"
Right.
God help us.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry, all. I have moved a conversation about abortion from the previous thread, which is closed to comments. I don't particularly want to cause some big free-for-all about abortion on this thread, but I've been asked a question and, as Bogdan wrote earlier, it would be rude not to answer it.
230. At 11:04pm on 09 Nov 2010, AndreaNY wrote:
I'll ask you much more straightforward questions:
Should a procedure performed to kill a baby be outlawed?
Since a baby, from conception, relies on his/her mother for life, when does the mother's responsibility to protect this life begin?
-------------------------------
You've answered my previous question in a roundabout sort of way. If you believe that conception is the time that the blastocyst, embryo, fetus etc.... has the same rights as you or I, then an IUD or pill that prevents a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in the wall of the uterus is in fact murder to you. Right?
As for your question, the answer is a two-parter:
1) A mother has the solemn responsibility to protect the life of the fetus growing inside her the moment she decides that she wants to carry it to term. Contrary to viewpoints from some in the pro-choice comunity, I think that a mother who takes drugs/ drinks or does some other risky behavior that results in a child being born with deficits/defects/addiction should be held accountable for her actions. Whether or not she hurt a fetus doesn't even enter into it. What matters is that she's chosen to give birth to a child that will suffer because of what she did before it was born. Since this is a country that lets a woman choose whether or not to have a child, a woman also needs to be held responsible for her choice.
2) The trickier part of the question is: When does the fetus have rights above and beyond those conferred to it by its mother. If I were the one that got to make that decision for the rest of the world, I would say that once the fetus becomes viable and no longer needs to live parasitically off its mother the window for abortion is closed. This opinion is open to revision based upon any new scientific data relating to when the fetus can feel pain or when it becomes conscious.
Of course there are grey areas here. If a mother requires prescription medicine to live and this medicine could hurt the fetus, what probability of fetal damage is acceptable?
If a mother drinks like a fish before she finds out she is pregnant, but not afterwards, is she still to be held responsible?
If you will give birth to a child that is going to be extremely handicapped, and you only find this out late in the pregnancy, should you be given the choice to terminate? (because maybe as a mother you feel that giving birth to a child that will endure a lifetime of suffering is not fair to the child)
And once again, I would say that using the term 'baby' to describe an embryo or fetus is just as dishonest as using the term 'baby' to describe an adult. There are words that exist for different stages in human development. Trying to equate an embryo with the image of a cute little baby is dishonest.
Complain about this comment
The link did not work for my post (#157). Here it is:
He was the last “associate of Craig Adams — a guy who wound up defaulting on more than $2 million” in a mortgage scam (for detail one can read “Inside our toxic assets”: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/07/23/128720556/atc-flipping
Complain about this comment
151. At 4:18pm on 10 Nov 2010, googlebux wrote:
"... we need a quarterback."
Oh Christ. Are you sure?
Not a baseball guy, or a B-movie cowboy?
How about a retired pro wrestler?
Mr. Gorbachev, disarm these idiots!
Complain about this comment
158. At 5:25pm on 10 Nov 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
"They live in Afghanistan, isn't that punishment enough?"
No, -Yemen- would be punishment enough.
Good thought though.
Complain about this comment
@ LucyJ (#155):
GM plans to shift overseas production: (From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20090509/AUTO01/905090337/GM-plans-to-shift-overseas-production#ixzz14u5PWaSk)
General Motors Corp. will shift more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here.
In a confidential 12-page presentation to members of Congress, obtained by The Detroit News on Friday, GM said it will boost U.S. sales of vehicles built in those four countries by 98 percent -- or about 365,000 vehicles -- while shrinking production in Canada, Australia and European countries by about 130,000 vehicles. GM also disclosed it will start importing vehicles made in China in 2011, reaching 51,546 vehicles in 2014. Imports from South Korea to the United States will jump from 36,967 vehicles in 2010 to 157,126 in 2014.
One can also read: GM Paid Toyota Employees to Sabotage Assembly Lines: http://hubpages.com/hub/Breaking-News-GM-Paid-Toyota-Employees-to-Sabotage-Assembly-Lines
Complain about this comment
A Quick Thought:
Two years ago I was chatting with my Washintonian born and bred mother about GWB. She was terribly disturbed that people were criticizing him so much and characterizing him so badly.
She had known many people who had met him, and they all said he was a very good natured and patriotic man who was completely well-intentioned.
I had to pause a bit, before gently responding to Mom:
"But -- his personality doesn't really matter as much as his policy decisions, right Mom? And -- I think that people are just a little bit frustrated that some of those decisions didn't work out too well."
I love my mother. I find her 1950's era Poli Sci education and ideals a bit outdated... but I still love my mother.
Complain about this comment
Ref 146 Bogdan
I agree with most of what you say. There are clearly myriad reasons for restrictions on social mobility. Many of which have thankfully lessened in impact in the western world (prejudices etc). However, these other factors you mention could only act as a brake on mobility, not as an accelerant. To suggest that the US was more prejudiced, bigoted, nepotistic or less cosmopolitan than other countries in the western world is just plain wrong, in fact the level of mobility in the US is probably enhanced by the low levels of racism etc. So if all these factors are not significant brakes on mobility in the US, then where is the brake if not down to the failings in the education system?
Complain about this comment
Ref 152 Ross Hageman-
"When I traveled internationally I completely attempted to dress and carry myself in a European way in order to have friendlier conversation with others at pubs. This disguise was also to keep myself safe from anyone that may want me to FEEL their distaste of American policy."
It is wonderful to hear that you have had the opportunity to travel as a young person. Travel broadens the mind.
Trying to fit into the population of a foreign country takes more than a mere 'disguise' of one's nationality. It is more often how one portrays themselves and adapts to the local demeanor.
Until the last couple months I have lived my entire life within 30 miles of the Canadian border. Most often only a few miles from the border. I visited and traveled in Ontario rather extensively. Any attempt to 'blend in' with Canadians by trying to speak as they do, or dress as they do was futile. As soon as one speaks, Canadians would often say, "You're from the States.", or sometimes, "You're a Yank."
The key to opening doors was for me to tone-down my "Yank" attitude and demeanor. Most all the Canadians I have met have a much more quiet manner than those of my fellow citizens. If I would offend someone, it was likely because I was a little too boisterous; or used 'American' wit and humor that did not translate well in the Canadian culture. I always changed my attitude at the border. Not my appearance.
Cultural differences even occur within these United States. In the Northeast, we are always in a rush. People take their time in the South and the West. Adapting to the pace and demeanor makes travel very enjoyable. Once again opening doors that lead to interesting experiences and relationships.
Now that I live in Wyoming, I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm not in Canada. The pace is slower. Strangers passing in the street greet each other, often stopping to have a brief chat. I have had to change the way I look at things. I am welcomed by my new neighbors. I am very happy for the change of pace and lifestyle.
It is not the clothes one wears. It is how well one treats others. I believe that stands true most anywhere in the world.
Complain about this comment
159. At 5:27pm on 10 Nov 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
A thoughtful, well-constructed and well-written summary of recent American history.
But what to do going forward, Interestedforeigner?
The seems people -want- Forrest Gump to be in charge. It makes them feel, well, "normal."
The ball really is in youth's court. Some signs of hope I guess -- in Britain and France at least. But here? Not looking good. A generation that could sleep through Bush can sleep through damn near anything.
Complain about this comment
re. #154. At 4:54pm on 10 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
"One issue is becoming the determining factor in any political discussion in this country. To make general working class people (color of collar does not matter) understand that if you want ten times more salary/benefit as compared to any other worker in other country, you must have ten times more productivity in terms of the product/service you are developing. US or any other developed country can NOT expect to maintain this usual high quality of living (as compared to developing and under-developed world) by simply doing the jobs they used to do before this globalization. You can not sustain that, even if you can bring back those old manufacturing jobs in US (by some miracle). Either you have to make the car you manufacture 10 times more pricy, that means consumers will be willing to pay 10 times more (than a car manufactured by a Chinese company in China)."
Jay,
The auto industry is probably a bad example of the point you're trying to make. Your argument assumes that a car maufactured in China is equivalent to one manufactured in the U.S. That is not the case now and may not be for several decades.
China's quality control standards are decades behind the west and their consumer safety standards are almost non-existent. The "Made in China" label still carries the implication of cheap goods much as the "Made in Japan" label did fifty years ago and Chinese brands will have to fight to overcome that image just as Japanese and later Korean auto makers did when they began to sell cars here.
Also, the auto industry is highly protectionist in most countries, the U.S. included. In additon to the political clout of the auto workers unions, the United States government considers its auto making industry a strategic national resource and will not allow foreign competition to threaten it by undercutting it on labor costs. Most foreign label cars sold in the U.S. are actually manufactured here with American labor just as most cars sold with the Ford brand in Europe are made there.
Your point about the relative value of labor and its relationship to productivity is well taken though.
Complain about this comment
165. At 6:01pm on 10 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
@ LucyJ (#155):
GM plans to shift overseas production: (From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20090509/AUTO01/905090337/GM-plans-to-shift-overseas-production#ixzz14u5PWaSk)
General Motors Corp. will shift more production of vehicles bound for the U.S. market to China, Mexico, South Korea and Japan, but will keep total imports at roughly one-third of all sales here.
In a confidential 12-page presentation to members of Congress, obtained by The Detroit News on Friday, GM said it will boost U.S. sales of vehicles built in those four countries by 98 percent -- or about 365,000 vehicles -- while shrinking production in Canada, Australia and European countries by about 130,000 vehicles. GM also disclosed it will start importing vehicles made in China in 2011, reaching 51,546 vehicles in 2014. Imports from South Korea to the United States will jump from 36,967 vehicles in 2010 to 157,126 in 2014.
------------------------------------------
When the US Government was bailing these guys out, I didn't hear one peep from anybody about how they had moved so much of their manufacturing overseas. At the time I wondered what good it would do the country to keep them in business, since they had abandoned this country long ago. Doesn't anybody remember "Roger and Me"? That was over 20 years ago and nothing has really changed. Detroilet is still in the toilet, but they came beggin' for some cash from whom?
Complain about this comment
re.#169. At 6:21pm on 10 Nov 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"...here? Not looking good. A generation that could sleep through Bush can sleep through damn near anything."
Maybe if they hadn't been up so late partying under Clinton they'd have been able to stay awake.
I think you'll find the nation is more resilient that you give it credit for. Looking back at our history there are numerous examples of less than stellar leadership by presidents from left, right and center, and yet here we still are.
Complain about this comment
169. At 6:21pm on 10 Nov 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"But what to do going forward, Interestedforeigner?"
________
An answer to this question may have to wait until I have more time.
Yours,
IF
Complain about this comment
168. At 6:19pm on 10 Nov 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
Ref 152 Ross Hageman-
"When I traveled internationally I completely attempted to dress and carry myself in a European way in order to have friendlier conversation with others at pubs. This disguise was also to keep myself safe from anyone that may want me to FEEL their distaste of American policy."
----------------------------------------
It is wonderful to hear that you have had the opportunity to travel as a young person. Travel broadens the mind.
Trying to fit into the population of a foreign country takes more than a mere 'disguise' of one's nationality. It is more often how one portrays themselves and adapts to the local demeanor.
Until the last couple months I have lived my entire life within 30 miles of the Canadian border. Most often only a few miles from the border. I visited and traveled in Ontario rather extensively. Any attempt to 'blend in' with Canadians by trying to speak as they do, or dress as they do was futile. As soon as one speaks, Canadians would often say, "You're from the States.", or sometimes, "You're a Yank."
The key to opening doors was for me to tone-down my "Yank" attitude and demeanor. Most all the Canadians I have met have a much more quiet manner than those of my fellow citizens. If I would offend someone, it was likely because I was a little too boisterous; or used 'American' wit and humor that did not translate well in the Canadian culture. I always changed my attitude at the border. Not my appearance.
Cultural differences even occur within these United States. In the Northeast, we are always in a rush. People take their time in the South and the West. Adapting to the pace and demeanor makes travel very enjoyable. Once again opening doors that lead to interesting experiences and relationships.
Now that I live in Wyoming, I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm not in Canada. The pace is slower. Strangers passing in the street greet each other, often stopping to have a brief chat. I have had to change the way I look at things. I am welcomed by my new neighbors. I am very happy for the change of pace and lifestyle.
It is not the clothes one wears. It is how well one treats others. I believe that stands true most anywhere in the world.
-----------------------------------------
Your take on the differences between Canadians and Americans is spot-on. My mother's family is all Canadian and my american 'boisterousness' sometimes makes me feel like the bull in the china shop, socially speaking.
As for travel abroad, when my husband and I went to Italy and France in 2003, I made very sure that we looked dead-on European. In fact, on a few different occasions French people assumed on sight that we were German.
Mostly I did not want to have to discuss the recent policies of my country. I did not just disagree with them. I was downright embarassed of them.
Then there's idea of not standing out like a sore thumb as a matter of politeness, and of not looking like a tourist rube that attracts pickpockets and thieves.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon wrote: "So if all these factors are not significant brakes on mobility in the US, then where is the brake if not down to the failings in the education system?"
Well, again without a proper analysis it's hard to make such a conclusion. For example poor school achievement could be attributed to low achievement motivation, low conscientiousness, or even low cognitive ability (this one is hereditary) so then "the child just chose the wrong parents :-)".
In addition we would have to be much more specific than that. What exactly are the educational system failings? Is it the skills and knowledge that schools do not provide that are needed to move to a higher paying job? Or is it the attitudes and values? If it’s the latter, how much influence do school environments actually have on values as opposed to parents? I can't comment on US schools' quality, I studied in former USSR and came to US for grad school. Colleges seemed pretty solid in preparing people to enter workforce. But ultimately I don't think it's safe to blame whatever social phenomenon on one exclusive factor, especially the one that takes individual out of the equation.
PS. I agree on the racism comment, although in some of my encounters quite a few people in education still blame things on that. I certainly don't see this as an issue in the US and glad you do not either.
Complain about this comment
@ Scott0962 (#170). I also feel that auto industry is more of a national sentiment than a business issue for many people and government alike. And I was responding some other posts related to that issue.
Now the question You raised (about China’s quality control) have a serious implication in our overall industrial growth. We need to understand that the products China (rather factories in China) make do not necessarily come from technology or quality control regime from Chinese people with “Chinese” sense of quality. It is the same Western companies (that produces in US or Europe or elsewhere) strictly control all the production and marketing issues related to their products in any country, including China. In that sense, technology, machinery, raw material, design may come from abroad (which is the majority case in China). Companies only use cheap Chinese labour, raw material (whenever possible and cost effective), lack of stringent labour and environmental laws and of course booming local market. The quality control issue in any industry is not that talent intensive and can be automated to a large extent, these days.
You can see more profound impact of what I was trying say in photopragy industry. Once mighty Kodak is all but gone in professional photography. Most of the consumer preferred camera (and other related equipments) are from Japanese companies (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax etc) and high end market dominated by Germans (Hasselblod, Leica, Zeiss etc). (The same trend is also there in global car industry). Germans still retain their manufacturing base but shifted ONLY to high-end products, while Japan-Korea rely more on volume. America is losing in both.
Both quality and quantity of education and “research” in US is NOT sustainable with our own human resources. Just consider the fact that about 36% of scientists in NASA are from only one country, India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/36_of_scientists_at_NASA_are_Indians_Govt_survey/articleshow/2853178.cms).
Do our politicians blame India to supply scientists in our own premier research organization that is also involve din many confidential (related to national security) projects? The simple fact that more than 4170 universities in US are nothing more than part of a ~ $ 400 billion industry and does NOT provide “education”, groom real talents for our own students. It has been reported that even our “best” ivy league universities like Harvard, Princeton and Yale mostly take students from rich and powerful families (more than 82%) more than based on talent. The famous faculties in those institutes are/were groomed elsewhere, and not produced by their own “education”. Such students from “prestigious” universities dominate where networking maters, mainly in politics, government jobs, management etc. What else can we ascribe that all of the justices (in US Supreme Court) will have been at either Harvard or Yale law schools, and 5 of the last 7 American Presidents attended either Harvard or Yale! (for detail check BBC news: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8690868.stm)
Number of full paid scholarships (that enable talents from less privileged background to pursue higher education), procedure to judge “talent” has become too much compromised in recent past (since 70s-80s as per NSF (National Science Foundation, USA). Our gradual loss of quality sense, coupled with “awesome” culture worsened that issue. We appreciate our kids when you should have applied a bit more stringency. It may boost the confidence, but also make a heavy dent in our and kids’ sense of “quality”. That has a long term devastating impact on our society, industry and general governance.
Complain about this comment
You can experience the same in fields either, e.g arts and culture. We are losing our ability to produce/groom not only original performers but also even talented critiques. All most all the trusted/critical judges in many popular TV shows in US (e.g America Got Talent , American Idol etc) are British.
With a lighter tone: one show in Comedy Central’s John Stewart and also in NBC’s Jay Leno- it described that to become a “authentic” “expert” in any matter in US, one need to wear specs and Brit suit (I am not sure what is the difference between “American” and “Brit” suit), most importantly, speak in a typical British accent.
Complain about this comment
You can experience the same in fields either, e.g arts and culture. We are losing our ability to produce/groom not only original performers but also even talented critiques. All most all the trusted/critical judges in many popular TV shows in US (e.g America Got Talent , American Idol etc) are British.
With a lighter tone: one show in Comedy Central’s John Stewart and also in NBC’s Jay Leno it described that to become a “authentic” “expert” in nay matter in US, one need to wear specs and Brit suit (I am not sure what is the difference between “American” and “Brit” suit), speak in a typical Brit accent.
In reality this system in US higher education and research was developed by West European scientists (during/after second world war). After late 70s-early 80s inflow of European students declined and almost dried up lately. It is mainly because American society (as well as, science) is no more attractive for them. They do not like the workaholic work culture here, sacrificing their family and personal time. It is mainly the students from second or third world countries became the major supplier of our technical/scientific manpower. We still did not reform our system and neglect to grooming our own people.
When a Chinese or India or Russian student compare US system with their own (and the only) “quality” sense, of course, US looks pretty great to them. But we forget that US should not be compared to those “quality” standard, particularly from social view points. Work ethics and corporate culture in those countries are even worse (more so, after current economic boom) than what we have here. They have a more feudal, least equal, more hierarchical social and corporate structure. They will put more pressure on already over-worked American work force (of course, with reducing salary). And that is/will take huge toll on our family lives and social values. But that is just great news for our business leaders! They just love it. Typical working culture in US is deteriorating further with a huge toll on our social and family values (and time). That will also put more pressure in our creative ability and ability to think out of the box.
Many US companies (and almost all US universities) actively promote over-time work culture, working in weekends. If you can sufficiently neglect your family and dedicate your life for the company (who will not hesitate to kick you out when feel needed), you will be awarded with “employee of the month/year” and will be allowed to park your car in a designated area for next month/year (may be with some more money in your bank)! We must change our working habit, not only for salaried people but also form small and medium business (there should be one day mandatory holiday for all businesses in an area, so that those people involved in such business can spend time with their kids/families). I do not think it will cost them too much in lost revenue (provided it is mandatory for all, except few designated shops for emergency).
But to the ears of many Americans, particularly with business/industry connections, it is just another "socialistic" issue!
Complain about this comment
In reality, this system in US higher education and research was developed by West European scientists (during/after second world war). After late 70s-early 80s inflow of European students/scientists declined and almost dried up lately (barring few who still want to make money and/or remain engaged after mandatory retirement at 60-65, in many European countries). It is mainly because American society (as well as, science) is no more attractive for them. They do not like the workaholic work culture here, sacrificing their family and personal time. It is mainly the students from second or third world countries that became the major supplier of our technical/scientific manpower. We still did not reform our system and continue to neglect grooming our own people. Our politicians do not have time to think all these.
When a Chinese or Indian or Russian student compare US system with their own (and the only) “quality” sense, of course, US looks pretty great to them. But we forget that US should not be compared to those “quality” standards, particularly from social view points. Work ethics and corporate culture in those countries are even worse (more so, after current economic boom) than what we have here. They have a more feudal, least equal, more hierarchical social and corporate structure. They will put more pressure on already over-worked American work force (of course, with reducing salary). And that is/will take huge toll on our family lives and social values (which is bound to reflect in our kids’ education). But that is just great news for our business leaders! They just love it. Typical working culture in US is deteriorating further with a huge toll on our social and family values (and time). That will also put more pressure in our creative ability and ability to think out of the box.
Many US companies (and almost all US universities) actively promote over-time work culture, working in weekends. If you can sufficiently neglect your family and dedicate your life for the company (who will not hesitate to kick you out when feel needed), you will be awarded with “employee of the month/year” and will be allowed to park your car in a designated area for next month/year (may be with some more money in your bank)! We must change our working habit, not only for salaried people but also for small and medium businesses. There should be one day mandatory holiday for all businesses in an area (so that those people involved in such business can spend time with their kids/families). I do not think it will cost them too much in lost revenue (provided it is mandatory for all, except few designated shops for emergency). But to the ears of many Americans, particularly with business/industry connections, it is just another "socialistic" issue!
Complain about this comment
As many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians.
If that's not proof enough of Indian scientific and corporate prowess, digest this: 34% employees at Microsoft, 28% at IBM, 17% at Intel and 13% at Xerox are Indians.
Read more: 36% of scientists at NASA are Indians: Govt survey - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/36-of-scientists-at-NASA-are-Indians-Govt-survey/articleshow/2853178.cms#ixzz14uiNMqig
Complain about this comment
172. At 6:52pm on 10 Nov 2010, Scott0962 wrote:
re.#169. At 6:21pm on 10 Nov 2010, Curt Carpenter wrote:
"...here? Not looking good. A generation that could sleep through Bush can sleep through damn near anything."
Maybe if they hadn't been up so late partying under Clinton they'd have been able to stay awake.
I think you'll find the nation is more resilient that you give it credit for. Looking back at our history there are numerous examples of less than stellar leadership by presidents from left, right and center, and yet here we still are.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just so, and sorry for the blunder in #169. Post in haste, repent at leisure.
Regarding resilience, I think we should all wear our "I Survived George Bush" T-shirts with pride. I do. (Nobody remembers The RayGun anymore, so that shirt is now used to polish the silver.)
Complain about this comment
@InterestedForeigner,
I wasn't trying to imply that "state" of the economy was all that bad when President Bush got into office. What I was meaning was that the general deregulation and trickle down philosophy that he practiced to our detriment, had been in place for decades. Clinton while much more fiscally responsible than the presidents who came before and after him really didn't do much to change that direction. He was more responsible in how he guided the nation under those principles but he really didn't rock the boat all that much.
Also I don't mean do disparage the accomplishments of President Obama he has made enemies but he's made them without really stepping outside of the lines all that much. The HCR while better than what we had is still basically a Republican plan. My personal opinion is that he should have went ahead and did the single payer solution. If he was going to make enemies might as well go all the way. My feelings run the same on Wall Street reform.
I will take a proper chastisement for implying a lack of courage on the President's part, but I'm not ready to say he's the second FDR. Obama has made brave choices but those choices haven't been drastic enough. The US is beyond the point of half-way solutions it needs change, and it needs it now.
Honestly I don't like being that critical on this because really President has done everything that we say we want an enlightened President to do. He's tried to be diplomatic and even handed. Very admirable qualities. But the forces he's up against will not accept that. I mean the HCR was in reality a coup for the insurance companies but they bit the hand the fed them on it. We're in an era of self-destructive behavior here. And decisive action is required.
That is my opinion anyway. I appreciate your views.
Complain about this comment
Dear Jay ,
"There should be one day mandatory holiday for all businesses in an area (so that those people involved in such business can spend time with their kids/families)."
-------------------------------
Mandated by whom? YOU? What businesses do you deem "emergency shops"? What business is it of yours to mandate this? If you want a 40-hour workweek, GO TO FRANCE.
Complain about this comment
Dear googlebux.
I was expecting something like that (#183). :)
Now coming to your point.
1. Mandated by city council/government. That IS THE role of a government, to govern.
2. Just visit countries like Zurich, or other cities in Swiss or some other west European countries (if you are so against France) and you MAY understand what I mean.
3. 40hr week is more than sufficient for the work average people do. But I know even smaller business owners in this country will oppose it (after all it's a childhood habit for them to think otherwise).
Just ask anyone who went out of their small world in US (or any other country) and visited at least few other places in the world.
Complain about this comment
It is a typical habit for Republicans to destroy any potential policy that might do good for general people (but might hurt its own business interests) in some small pre-text or other, in form of a ambiguous opposition, in form of defining a term (“designated” or “emergency” in this case) than to come to a point to accept the concept. First they will try to derail, then delay and then continuously oppose the policy (supported by concerned/affected business houses), without giving any viable alternative or acknowledging the danger to main the status quo. That’s what we witnessed in health care debate and now in economic reform. I highly doubt if current economic crisis were not happen associated with public fury, Republicans would have done the same aggressive opposition to finance regulation bill, passed recently.
We all can remember how they opposed health care and finance regulation during Bill Clinton’s era.
Complain about this comment
Correction (# 185):
First they will try to derail, then delay and then continuously oppose the policy (supported by concerned/affected business houses), without giving any viable alternative or acknowledging the danger in MAINTAINING the status quo.
Complain about this comment
184. At 9:34pm on 10 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
Dear googlebux.
I was expecting something like that (#183). :)
Now coming to your point.
1. Mandated by city council/government. That IS THE role of a government, to govern.
------------------------------------
Well thank you Jay for demostrating to the rest of the class just how tyranical and power mad liberals really are....
it is NOT the role of government to rule OVER the people, unless you want a Castro or Chavez dictactorship...which you just might be easier than those pesky election things right Jay?
It IS the role of government in a constitutional representative republic to do what is best interests of ALL the people, not just the ones that voted for you.
"Why o why can't we just force our liberal will on those stupid serfs? Elections are so bothersome"......
Complain about this comment
re.#176. At 7:30pm on 10 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
@ Scott0962 (#170). I also feel that auto industry is more of a national sentiment than a business issue for many people and government alike. And I was responding some other posts related to that issue.
Now the question You raised (about China’s quality control) have a serious implication in our overall industrial growth. We need to understand that the products China (rather factories in China) make do not necessarily come from technology or quality control regime from Chinese people with “Chinese” sense of quality. It is the same Western companies (that produces in US or Europe or elsewhere) strictly control all the production and marketing issues related to their products in any country, including China. In that sense, technology, machinery, raw material, design may come from abroad (which is the majority case in China). Companies only use cheap Chinese labour, raw material (whenever possible and cost effective), lack of stringent labour and environmental laws and of course booming local market. The quality control issue in any industry is not that talent intensive and can be automated to a large extent, these days.
----------
Foreign owned firms producing goods for export understand the issues of quality and consumers protection but even they don't test for everything, just look at look at the recent pet food poisonings and the toys that have turned up with lead based paint. Do these incidents have an effect? You bet they do. I personally will not buy a product from China if I can find a substitute that is made elsewhere. I may pay more but my peace of mind is worth it.
To be fair, western nations have been developing quality control and consumer safety standards since the industrial revolution began while China is playing catch up ball but the stakes are high and as a major exporting nation China can't afford to be seen as lacking in this area.
Complain about this comment
Dear CuriousAmerican (#187), probably I need to remind you that- if people, general people and "rulers" can behave responsibly and logically THEN we do NOT need ANY government anywhere in the world. It is not even government; we can practically get rid of almost any social and also religious bindings and bonding altogether.
But we all know that is far from truth. When a “smart” person cheats another fellow citizen who is not that "smart", we need government; when a powerful criminal do crime against a less powerful victim, we need Government. Got it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@ Scott0962 (#188). I partly agree with you. I also do the same, personally.
But there is a problem in assuming that the local business entities are not involved (or colluding) with exporting authorities (in this case, China). I have enough reason to believe that many big retail chains in US (knowingly) import toxic substance infested ponds in China and market those fish as “farm raised Atlantic Salmon”. When they get caught (by Government agencies), they blame China, in public at least.
I know many such instances. IN India, government allowed the concerned industries to sell the tea in local (Indian) market after that was refused by Germany and few other European countries (due to copper toxicity, used as pesticide).
There comes the role of a government.
Complain about this comment
The Toothbrush Man, (#130. At 12:39pm on 10 Nov 2010)
"... How clear can I make it ? ..."
Evidence would help.
"... Bob Long was just repeating common knowledge ..."
And you concurred. So are you saying that you believe it "because he said so"?
"... even US state department has admitted to the random way of how suspects were rounded up ..."
So it should be easy to provide evidence that the arrests were conducted in a "random way", correct?
"... There are scores of former soldiers who have gone on the record and hace admnitted the same ..."
So where are the links?
"... and even if this doesn't convince you you can always go to Wiki Leaks and have a read. How much evidence do you need ?!"
A few links to substantiate your concurrence with the claim would be nice. So far you have not provided anything at all. Now remember, you'll need to provide some evidence that these arrests - or "abductions" as you have called them - happened in a "random" manner. You seem so convinced that you are correct, you should be able to deliver the goods. Remember - random arrests.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon, (#136. At 1:56pm on 10 Nov 2010)
"...she did not object during discussions about new interrogation techniques which were in the planning stage, but did raise a letter of objection to the CIA about it in 2003 ..."
And did what else?
"... Could she have done more? Possibly, I don't know. But you are jumping to conclusions to accuse her of complicity ..."
Why? You just stated that "she did not object during discussions about new interrogation techniques". She knew exactly what those were.
"... Objecting to administration policy post 9-11 wasn't just political suicide ..."
And she was unwilling to do what she knew she should have done.
"... it had an impact on the media too...
http://blog.hiddenharmonies.org/2010/07/harvard-university-study-catches-major-u-s-media-pants-down-systematic-reporting-of-u-s-waterboarding-as-not-torture/ "
So that made it OK for her to remain mute?
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#137. At 1:59pm on 10 Nov 2010)
“... President Obama has led one of the most centrist administrations in US history since WWII. That is his actual record, not the baseless allegations of made-in-right-wing-nut-fantasy-land.
On his major policy decisions, including health care, he has been smack-dab in the middle of conventional policy wisdom, or (as on health care) slightly to the right of center.”
I accept that as your considered opinion. You realize, of course, that if you are advancing that proposition as objectively true, you will need to provide some evidence to persuade others. Just saying it is true doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#149. At 4:09pm on 10 Nov 2010)
“... What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]”
I trust you will accommodate another’s response to your inquiry to AndreaNY.
I shall assume you asked your question honestly, and that you do not understand why so many people have criticized The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and voted to punish those they held responsible for passing it. Before going further, I am confident that other policies implemented during the last 22 months or so contributed to the election outcome, and so any suggestion that this issue is the ONLY reason for the results is this unwarranted. You explicitly inquired of the measures he took that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields. One valid way which that question may be asked, and to which it may be responded is relative to the results of his efforts as measured by the results of the immediate past election.
I shall attempt to explain to you the basis for the voters' rejection of what he has claimed to be good.
The U.S. Constitution entitles Congress to regulate commerce (Article 1, Section 8). This permits compelling employers to provide health insurance, and compelling insurers to provide coverage. That part will withstand constitutional challenge. The law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is on untested Constitutional legal ground where it uses the same authority to mandate that citizens purchase health insurance, either through their employer or through government sponsored entities. As there is a provision for an individual mandate, Section 1501, there is legal standing for the States' suits.
"Sec. 1501. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. Contains findings of Congress related to the individual responsibility requirement.
Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. Requires individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage beginning in 2014. Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty of $95 in 2014, $350 in 2015, $750 in 2016 and indexed thereafter. For those under the age of 18, the applicable penalty will be one-half of the amounts listed above. "
http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill05.pdf
Note that Congress, at the behest of President Obama, has passed a law compelling, on pain of ever-increasing penalties, individual citizens to purchase health care coverage. Note also that the Federal Government is not offering health care coverage to Americans free, to take or leave as they might; it is using the coercive power of the state to compel citizens to purchase it.
Perhaps Congress has elected to base its citizen mandate on the Commerce Clause. If so, this would be a valid basis for a State to challenge the constitutionality of the law, as the Commerce Clause addresses commerce, not individuals. Perhaps Congress is employing some other foundation for this law. It so, that foundation must be located in the Constitution, either explicitly or implicitly.
If you are sensitive to the intent of the Bill of Rights, by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known, you will also know that they are limitations on the power of the United States Federal government. Many people, represented by their respective states in at least one of the cases filed in Federal court against the law, believe that the Constitution does not empower the US Federal Government to compel the American citizen to purchase health care coverage.
Amendment 10."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The constitutional challenge by Virginia, Michigan, et al. may prove unsuccessful. I hope, however, that by laying before you the basis for the opposition by many people, across the political spectrum, to the imposition of this law on and in to their private lives, you will at least now understand why so many people have rejected what he and his allies in Congress advanced as an attractive government entitlement.
Complain about this comment
Government is not the solution to a time-management-family-morality issue! This is for each to decide ON HIS OWN. This is for each business to decide on its own.
I'd love to know where a regulated work-week is mentioned in the Constitution. At what point do liberals just rely on personal responsibility and freedom to gauge the actions of men? We REALLY need government to regulate how much we work? Really? Should the government regulate how many hours of sleep I get each night? Should the government regulate how many candy bars and beers I consume on a weekly basis? It's all wrapped in that silly liberal notion of "FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIRNESSSSS"....
Life isn't fair. Michael Phelps EARNED eight gold medals by training 5+ hours per day. His talent and hard work earned him glory at the Olympic games. The government doesn't seize 3 of his medals and give them to other slower swimmers in the competition to make things "FAIR". If you win them, they're YOURS. Not everyone gets a trophy, but everyone gets 24 hours per day to try to earn it.
'Got anything against Happy Meals, too?
For someone who doesn't care much for religion, you sure spend a lot of time at the altar of the "GOVERNMENT GOD".
Complain about this comment
rtcon, (#150. At 4:16pm on 10 Nov 2010)
“... It is ironic that the president who really got the ball rolling in terms of the destruction of our economy, is also the one that President Obama should have emulated in terms of communication. I speak of President Reagan of course ...”
Why do you claim that President Reagan was the president “... who really got the ball rolling in terms of the destruction of our economy ...”?
Complain about this comment
@ #196.
1. "We REALLY need government to regulate how much we work?"- YES, we do.
Have you read today's news about newly proposed tobacco labeling law with very graphic packing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11730112)? Do you (or other Republicans, conservatives?) argue that it is up to the customer and tobacco manufacturers to decide whether one can die/suffer by smoking tobacco (in his/her "free" will)? Do you think we should leave that up to the knowledge and/or willingness of the customer and good will of tobacco manufacturers?
2. I surely understand your concern when Government invade in private matters (probably you are too much influenced by stories of "communism").
3. Most of the citizens do not compete for Olympic gold or winning Noble prize or becoming the CEO of a company. They just want a peaceful, civilized life. And for that they need to have a healthy daily routine and some sort of social security.
4. I do believe that US should implement a legally binding limit to force big corporate bosses' salary and executive compensation.
Else let's pray to your God that the current situation will change. Currently majority of rich and powerful people allow ONLY that much space, wealth and freedom to others (whom they need to serve them) deemed necessary by law.
Ohhhh, sorry, we can get rid of laws/constitution etc; after all, it was created by some(government?) men and can surely be termed as "government" control!!!!
Complain about this comment
Almost all Republican/Conservative ranting of “free” society promote brute strength to suppress or defeat others, so long they are the stronger party. Whenever they feel the pinch of the same medicine, they ask for “bailout” by the same “small” government who will just big enough to bail them out, when THEY need. Once they are out in “bail” they will promote the idea of “small” Government again, so that they can promote their age old agenda of “might is right” and “smaller” government will (or should?) have “smaller” ability to regulate them. They practically want to “socialize” the loss while privatize the profit.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#180. At 8:35pm on 10 Nov 2010)
“As many as 12% scientists and 38% doctors in the US are Indians, and in NASA, 36% or almost 4 out of 10 scientists are Indians ...”
So some would say, but it depends who you are listening to.
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/indians-are-a-force-in-us-but-beware-of-statistics_10027868.html
Complain about this comment
Yes, I agree with you.
That's why I choose the link based on Indian Govt report in INdian parliament (and publihsed in one of the most circulated news daily, Times of India).
The same link you sent also says, "You can’t blame just Indian politicians for faulty data,” said Vivek Wadhwa, a Harvard fellow and Duke University professor, who also said that US companies cannot ask employees about their ethnicity.... “US senators and congressmen have been citing inflated numbers on the graduation rates of engineers in India and China versus the US,” added Wadhwa, who has led a study at Duke on engineering and globalisation."
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#201. At 02:46am on 11 Nov 2010)
"Yes, I agree with you ..."
Well, OK, but my point was that the statistics being tossed about are misleading.
Complain about this comment
149. Interestedforeigner:
You keep asking for proof but then claim to be unable to understand it, or you simply deny it.
First, I have a problem with the serial over-promising Obama did during his push for health care reform. He spoke about "my health care plan" and promised to reduce costs and improve outcomes. Anyone who has ever had to do either of those things knows how difficult either can be. To promise both was a mistake a brand new, eager 20-something salesman might make, but it's not a mistake that an experienced person makes.
He spoke about "competition" in health care without really understanding it. NPR did a series on health care costs. During it, Obama's claim about driving down costs through competition -- the way he envisioned it would work -- was shown to be wrong. So now we have a president who doesn't even understand the market he is changing.
He was so too inexperienced to know what he could and couldn't do, and he was too arrogant to know the limitations of his position. He spoke as though he could do anything. That's a frightening thing for a president to do. Who wants a president that doesn't even know that he cannot do things but promises them anyway? Not confidence inspiring.
Futher, he has demonized business at a time when we desperately need private sector job growth. To this day, he cannot acknowledge his effect on businesses. He now mentions "middle class uncertainty" and impacting businesses "on the periphery", but he still cannot get himself to acknowledge that he has to take action that will benefit business.
He's tried everything in his bag of tricks, a bag, by the way, which only contains government solutions. He's out of ideas. Yes, he wants to help the middle class but his ego won't let him do the things that might give them jobs. Thus, his ego problems have become America's problems.
Complain about this comment
Dearest Jay, you are terribly misguided; also, what's with the left-wing ranting? I didn't say anything about supporting bailouts. I was talking about government REGULATING the most MINISCULE ASPECTS OF EVERYDAY EXISTENCE, that you proffer as a viable solution to counter the breakdown of the American family. Furthermore, I'm not a Republican. I was just making the point that government has no right to tell me how much I am "allowed" to work. I don't see that it's the job of the government to ban Happy Meals from McDonalds or that it's a government necessity to mark a pack of cigarettes with larger warnings, or pictures of cancer patients. I CAN READ. I GET IT; CIGGIES ARE BAD! I chose long ago not to smoke, and I have faith that most people know that cigarettes are coffin nails. However, do we really need the "big scary pictures"? Really? Well, I guess it helps Obama in a way; he can actually say that he created some "tobacco warning" jobs....
Again, I don't support bailouts, or the notion of "too big to fail"; I believe I've made this clear. If GM rots from within due to CEO greed, union corruption AND overzealous government regulation, then LET IT ROT AND FAIL. Give someone else a try. It'll hurt at first, but it's best to take bad medicine quickly, and get on with the healing.
You have said: ".... I will have no hesitation to salute Obama and openly acknowledge his superiority over me. I will be honored to do that if I can get the chance to do that in front of him, just like I’ll feel the same way for Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandala...."
I'm just baffled by people who willingly kneel down at the altar of a "GOVERNMENT GOD". Obama "sheeple" are buying into the same old lie. NO MAN can offer you your utopia. No man grants you rights, lest they be taken away. You either don't know history, or your name is "Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov" and you've recently been thawed from your cryogenic freezer..... Let me bring you up to speed. The Cold War is over. Marxism, communism, socialism, et al are poisons to a free society, ultimately leading to societal atrophy, economic ruin, and political collapse. At some point, YOU RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. (E.g., the UK student austerity riots/protests). However, maybe that is your aim, like other American Progressives; "destroy, demoralize, then replace with ____________ (fill in your superior form of government god)"..... Utopia (via governmental god) does not exist.
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
"That-thar Thomas Jefferson talk" sure is a stumbling block to the everyday socialist/progressive, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
Chryses, on Pennsylvania 192. At 00:44am on 09 Nov 2010, wrote:
Gratefully Free Marie, (#189. At 9:32pm on 08 Nov 2010
“This is a long one. I bunched them all together ...”
Doing so makes it a bit difficult to understand. It is not immediately obvious in what way your response relates to my post #154.
********************
Chryses, Thanks for the tip. I sloppily bunched my random comments on one post, kind of accidentally including your EPA comment, although I didn’t have any disagreement with it.
I’m too busy this week - Where’s the weekend????? :)
P.S. It seems strange to be talking about Bush right now. Maybe I'm missing the purpose for his timing. Of course, if his book had come out before the elections, the results may have been quite different. So I suppose I'm happy with his timing. :)
Complain about this comment
182. At 8:53pm on 10 Nov 2010, rtcon wrote:
"What I was meaning was that the general deregulation and trickle down philosophy that he practiced to our detriment, had been in place for decades."
[[On this part, I disagree with you. "Trickle down" is a pejorative term of, typically, the left of center. There is nothing wrong with a market economy - in fact, over the long haul market economies have shown themselves better able to deliver the goods to the population generally, and to do it more consistently, than any other system. However, they don't do it 100% of the time, and when things go sour for a time there is a tendency to stop thinking rationally and to worship false gods. But, having Presbyterian ancestors, my faith is less fair-weathered and more rock-ribbed.]]
"Clinton while much more fiscally responsible than the presidents who came before and after him really didn't do much to change that direction. He was more responsible in how he guided the nation under those principles but he really didn't rock the boat all that much."
[[Clinton believed in a market economy. But in huge contrast to his two predecessors, he had the sense of responsibility to balance the budget.
The irony here is that social democratic governments in North America have to balance the budget, whereas right wing governments never feel obliged to be responsible.
Why?
Because right wing governments want to tie their successors' hands by putting the country so far in debt that it can't afford any kind of social programs, and so that it becomes preoccupied with debt reduction to the exclusion of all other priorities. They aren't upset by debt, because it is a huge guaranteed, essentially zero-risk, earner for financial institutions and private credit holders generally, who are generally supporters of right wing parties. It is, more or less, usually corporate welfare for their own supporters.
Left wing governments, as typified by the CCF under Tommy Douglas, dare not borrow because they do not want to have to dance to the tune of their creditors. His view was that if the province was beholden to the banks, then, inevitably, the government would have its policy options and freedom of action foreclosed accordingly. He was plainly right.
We have had an object lesson this past month in Saskatchewan on precisely that point. In the 1970's Allan Blakeney bought (i.e., nationalised) all the potash producers in Saskatchewan. It was an extremely shrewd purchase.
However, in 1981 the CCF (i.e., NDP) was thrown out of office. A right of center government took their place and promptly bankrupted the province. A federal bailout was required - which, to his credit, Brian Mulroney provided - to keep the province from defaulting on its debts. At the end of the day, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan had been privatized.
What an incredibly stupid, short-sighted, idiotic blunder.
How many in Saskatchewan now wish that Potash Corp were still in public hands? Last week the polls suggested that the number may well be over 80%.
The policy of the CCF under Douglas was that Saskatchewan would have just as much socialism as it could afford, and not a penny more.
Between 1944 and 1981 the CCF governed Saskatchewan for 33 of 37 years. The CCF balanced the budget or ran a surplus in 32 of those 33 years. This is an unmatched record of fiscal probity. When they left office in 1981, the books were in really good shape. Overwhelmingly, that was due to the innate small-c fiscal conservatism of Allan Blakeney. That government was, in my view, the only government in North America ever run by genuine "socialists" - and I say this as a disciple of CD Howe.
Fiscal conservatives believe in recognizing merit and quality, in giving credit where credit is due. Dollar for dollar, socialist though it may have been, the CCF government in Saskatchewan was one of the finest governments ever to serve in North America. I pay them homage because they served the public extremely well, and never forgot to live within their means. That is the mark of outstanding government, no matter where they are on the political spectrum.]]
----------
"Also I don't mean do disparage the accomplishments of President Obama he has made enemies but he's made them without really stepping outside of the lines all that much. The HCR while better than what we had is still basically a Republican plan.
[[Exactly. That it should be derided as "Socialism" is so laughable.]]
"My personal opinion is that he should have went ahead and did the single payer solution."
[[Yes, but in America, he simply couldn't corral the votes for single payer.]]
"If he was going to make enemies might as well go all the way. My feelings run the same on Wall Street reform."
[[There are two old sayings, one from England, one from Spain: "You might as well be hung for a sheep, as for a lamb" and "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."]]
"I will take a proper chastisement for implying a lack of courage on the President's part, but I'm not ready to say he's the second FDR."
[[He may not be, but in the present circumstances, in most democracies he would have been considered at least good enough, and probably a darn sight better than good enough.]]
"Obama has made brave choices but those choices haven't been drastic enough. The US is beyond the point of half-way solutions it needs change, and it needs it now."
[[Yep. The thing is that America doesn't actually need particularly "drastic" steps. It just needs to stop doing some things that are really remarkably perverse, and start doing some sensible things that other democracies have been doing for many, many years. More on this in another posting.]]
"Honestly I don't like being that critical on this because really President has done everything that we say we want an enlightened President to do. He's tried to be diplomatic and even handed. Very admirable qualities."
[[Yep.]]
But the forces he's up against will not accept that. I mean the HCR was in reality a coup for the insurance companies but they bit the hand the fed them on it.
[[Yep.]]
Complain about this comment
GratefullyFreeMarie:
"It seems strange to be talking about Bush right now."
Why? If you need to deflect attention from our current president...
Complain about this comment
#65 dceilar
It doesn't matter who owns the oil, but rather who is in control of it. The West is now in control of Iraqi oil. As I think you are thick skinned I shall repeat this: it is all about control, not ownership
Leaving the usual anti-Iraq War invective aside, you will have to explain to me the virtue of having what you call 'control' over oil when you have no power over its disposal. Iraq plainly sells oil to whoever it wants. If you want to suggest something else, show some evidence for it.
...may I remind you of a very important pipeline that runs through the country? NATO wants to change its policy to protect these 'geo-political strategic energy sources' throughout the world...
There is a large oil pipeline in many countries. Afghanistan happens to neighbour two major oil producers, Russia and Iran, it would be surprising if there were no pipeline going through it. Still, you offer no evidence for the pipeline or any geopolitical significance it may have.
BTW it wasn't the BBC that lied about the Iraqi War
Why did the BBC chairman and director-general resign ? Why did the acting driector-general offer an apology ? I cannot go into the detail because every time I do the moderators ban the post.
Further, why is NATO not in Darfur ? Block 6 of Sudan's oil prospecting map - owned by the Chinese - falls over Southern Darfur.
The whole oil conspiracy theory falls apart whenever it is subjected to the slightest scrutiny. Still, the 'wise' tap their noses and say they understand - without any evidence whatsoever - what's really going on.
Yeah, sure.
Complain about this comment
Ref#175 Bogdan
But ultimately I don't think it's safe to blame whatever social phenomenon on one exclusive factor, especially the one that takes individual out of the equation.
_________
I agree. My assertion is that it is one of the more significant factors that influences it rather than the sole factor.
On racism in the US. I think it's important to note that while racism is no longer the issue it was, there are still inequalities - specifically in terms of education available to non-white kids. While there are a plethora of reasons for this that have nothing to do with active racism,
the impact on those affected is still to disadvantage them.
Complain about this comment
Ref 193# Chryses
"And she was unwilling to do what she knew she should have done."
___________
Quite possibly. I assume many politicians acted out of self presevation at this point. I just can't prove it either way though, so I'm giving an opinion rather than following you and making an assertion without facts.
Interesting that you should accuse just Pelosi of being complicit though after my original point was that this paralysis affected everyone. Way to score political points off of a national tragedy.
Just out of interest, what was your reaction when you found out? How long did it take for you to write to your congressman or take to the streets to protest?
Complain about this comment
"Australia's highest court has backed migrant claims of unfair laws as the government tries to strengthen borders.[...]
Ms Gillard's minority government relies on support from the Green Party to stay in power; the Greens have long been critical of the harsh immigration laws.
But many Australians dislike the prospect of many more migrants arriving in the country." (BBC News)
Tea Party anyone?
Complain about this comment
"Afghanistan happens to neighbour two major oil producers, Russia and Iran, it would be surprising if there were no pipeline going through it. Still, you offer no evidence for the pipeline or any geopolitical significance it may have."
Because there isn't.
There are however strategically important pipelines (an oilpipe from Baku to Turkish Ceyhan harbor, and a gas line from the same Baku to Erzurum and farther to Europe) running through GEORGIA.
Which bypass not only Iranian but Russian spigots as well.
Now, do you finally understand, folks, why control over Georgia is so important to some regional ex-superpowers?
Complain about this comment
Re Pelosi:
Indeed it's unfer to blame just Nancy Pelosi and not some other liberal leftlegislators:
"A self-published guide giving advice to paedophiles that is for sale through online retailer Amazon is stirring up controversy on the internet, with some threatening to boycott the website.
The availability of the Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover's Code of Conduct has led to questions over scrutiny on the site."
Complain about this comment
#136 PartTimeDon
Ref# 128 Chryses
"It follows then from you statement above that she was aware of, and by not objecting to, is complicit in the treatment of the prisoners, is that correct?"
________
If you read the link in #42, she did not object during discussions about new interrogation techniques which were in the planning stage, but did raise a letter of objection to the CIA about it in 2003 (waterboarding became a media issue in 2004).
I think you are misreading the article. It is ambiguous because it refers to 'Harman' - Congresswoman Jan Harman, a former Nancy Pelosi aide - and says she raised a classified letter of objection. That 'she' is actually referring to Jane Harman, not Nancy Pelosi. This article clarifies that.
The article also says that Republicans claim that Nancy Pelosi knew the technique was being used but did not raise it as an issue until after waterboarding became controversial.
Nancy Pelosi denies being briefed by the CIA about it which may be technically true, but her aides certainly were and it seems inconceivable that they did not tell her.
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon, (#210. At 09:24am on 11 Nov 2010)
"... I'm giving an opinion rather than following you and making an assertion without facts . . ."
You were the one who stated that she was aware of the plans and did nothing "out of self preservation", not me. Go back and read the posts. I merely pointed them out.
"...Interesting that you should accuse just Pelosi of being complicit though after my original point was that this paralysis affected everyone . . ."
It is interesting that you are advancing the proposition that as others were as guilty as she was, her misbehavior should be accommodated.
"...Way to score political points off of a national tragedy . . ."
Ah, so you criticize me for criticizing her. Sure. OK.
"...Just out of interest, what was your reaction when you found out? . . ."
Distaste and embarrassment. How about you?
"...How long did it take for you to write to your congressman . . ."
6 weeks. It was an email. How about you?
"...or take to the streets to protest?"
Don't be absurd. I'm 57 years old. How about you.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner,
I noticed the absence of a response by you to my post #195. You were quite pressing in you post #149 for a response . . .
"... What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]"
I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field.
Your silence is deafening.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#206. At 04:27am on 11 Nov 2010)
"...[[He may not be, but in the present circumstances, in most democracies he would have been considered at least good enough, and probably a darn sight better than good enough.]] ..."
Interesting, possibly correct, but irrelevant. President Obama is president of the United States, and that is where the consideration of the voters was to the effect that he has been weighed in the scales and been found wanting.
Perhaps he can change his behaviour enough over the next two years to avoid a repeat of what has just happened to him though his proxies in Congress. Two years is a long time in politics.
We shall see.
Complain about this comment
Clive Hill, (#214. At 10:42am on 11 Nov 2010)
“... Nancy Pelosi denies being briefed by the CIA about it which may be technically true, but her aides certainly were and it seems inconceivable that they did not tell her.”
Plausible Deniability.
Perhaps we see a future presidential candidate?
Complain about this comment
PartTimeDon,
In re #215, please try to remember that the debate is not about you, and it is not about me, is it? Nancy knew what was happening and made a decision to do nothing. Fair enough. That’s her decision. One might criticise her for it, but it was her decision to make, as did the others who were in the know.
I, among many others, was somewhat surprised when she later took grave exception to the behaviour when it became roundly condemned. Turning a blind eye to one of many peccadilloes employed to advance national interests goes back at least as far as Augustus Caesar. Obvious hypocrisy is rather less acceptable for national figures.
Still, unto each their own. However, remember that it is Nancy’s ethical judgements you brought up, not yours, and not mine.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#189. At 11:08pm on 10 Nov 2010)
“... When a “smart” person cheats another fellow citizen who is not that "smart", we need government; when a powerful criminal do crime against a less powerful victim, we need Government. Got it?”
And what crime does compulsory health coverage correct?
As best as I can tell, if one citizen coerces a second citizen to do something the second doesn’t want to do – purchase health coverage for example, the first citizen is probably breaking one law or another. So why is it acceptable for a government – the US Federal government for example, to coerce on pain of ever increasing fines, the same behavior from the same citizen?
Many people voted in the recent election in a way that suggests that they do not think such behavior is acceptable on the part of the government – at least the US Federal government.
Complain about this comment
216. At 10:52am on 11 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
Interestedforeigner,
I noticed the absence of a response by you to my post #195. You were quite pressing in you post #149 for a response . . .
"... What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]"
I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field.
Your silence is deafening.
__________
Pardon me, I missed this. I will look at your posting 195 later in the day, and will probably reply this evening.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses (#202). That’s is the best available statistic we can get on that issue. If you have a more authentic, then let me know. There is no denial that US now heavily dependent on foreign trained workers.
Complain about this comment
@ Googlebux (# 204). I know my arguments sounds like a “Left wing ranting” to your otherwise accustomed ear to hear all the right wing rhetoric by those Republicans and/or business lobbies to protect their personal interest more than America, as a country or society. Health care, public awareness (against unhealthy food/drink/smoke habits), regulating cheating business practices are NOT any “MINISCULE ASPECTS OF EVERYDAY EXISTENCE”. That’s why any civilized country likes to have a functional government.
It is the duty of the Government to promote the healthy work culture, even among private businesses that allows majority people to have a productive family life. There is no doubt that current (average) US system of (24x7) business is taking a huge toll on general US families. And I think, we need to change that by social awareness. It has been long that US was a society established by immigrants and acquired the typical habits of “me first” and “winners take it all” attitude. Now it is time to make the transition to become a more of an “established” society where we can take collective social responsibility. Europe has passed the stage that US has achieved after 2nd world war (in terms of economic and political power). And there are reasons why Europe now behaves more like a “socialist” country than typical, colonial society.
Wise people learn from other’s mistake.
I feel pity on those people who kneel down in front of an imaginary GOD and “pray” to him (more for personal comfort and problems). Probably that’s why the percentage of “believers” (on formal religions/Gods of different shape and sizes) is gradually reducing in almost all democratic, civilized countries, including USA (http://www.thearda.com/quickStats/qs_46.asp and for detail one can read the latest PEW report on religion (http://religions.pewforum.org/) and ““Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God”: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html) .
In that sense, I deem it perfectly fine to praise a real figure, a real hero to assist him in solving many of our problems than to kneel before an imaginary and non-existent figure (many people call “God”.
Yes, I know that we probably can NEVER be able to create a perfect society. A lot of people tried that before and many are much more talented and with honest desire to achieve just that. But that seemingly impossible task did not prevent them to trying doing that! Right? Probably they have enough reason, even today, to achieve that “impossible” task! And if you ask any such person, why they even try doing it? What is their benefit; probably many will be surprised to know that they keep on saying, “because that’s the RIGHT thing to do!” Otherwise we could have maintained our own past in forest, where we openly practiced “might is right”; no treachery, no lying, just plain and simple rule!
Probably, you do not know facts when you say, “At some point, YOU RUN OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY”. In reality, we are now witnessing more consolidation of wealth in USA than any point of time in history. I can tactfully grab the public money and start considering that as mine and then blame public when we all run out of money to run even the basic services (even accepted by the “conservative” standard who are so against “big government”). Probably you can get a better view of that if you search Gooogle about it (or read the following report: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17742 OR “Saving American Capitalism”: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/saving-american-capitalism/)
I am neither a follower, nor asking anyone to follow communism; but asking a bit more fairness to make our own society a little better for everyone.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses #220 . You asked, “What crime does compulsory health coverage correct?”.
Do you consider that a civilized country with one of the richest wealth (national wealth) in the world cannot provide health care for its citizen is not a crime? Each and every citizen must have their due share in our national wealth, irrespective of his/her talent, hardworking ability/desire and so on. And if you think, that there is no wrong to deny health care for those who cannot AFFORD to buy it, then you need to think a little deep about the basic principle of “democracy”. Else we all can auction our democracy to the highest bidder (which is the way probably many Republicans like GWB want it to become by so many of its policies, starting from gun control, denying climate change in the first place and then human responsibility for that, allowing uncontrolled corporate lobbying and unlimited political funding from unaccounted/unknown sources and so many more issues).
I do not believe that, “Many people voted in the recent election in a way that suggests that they do not think such behavior is acceptable on the part of the government – at least the US Federal government.” Recent election only suggests that general public is frustrated for what is going on in their lives more than anything else. It does NOT reflect support to conservative/Republican agendas in any way. Moreover, I do not think general people have any clue why we ended up in this mess and more importantly, how to get out of it. Does those people who won the election EVER showed any viable alternative. Even eminent economists are not sure about the way out. Probably you have read opposition of many western governments and economists voice their severe reservation against the $ 600 billion stimulus package by US government. And now the same republicans (who were shouting against “big” government, against “uncontrolled spending” just a few days ago) are not saying anything against that!!!
Complain about this comment
94. At 8:26pm on 09 Nov 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
Ref 72 RHCracker-
If Obama's 4 years outside the U.S. breaks his "generational ties" and "bonds" with America, just think how un-American JQ Adams and Herbert Hoover must have been.
.......................
Well lets see neither John quincy Adams nor Herbert Hoover ever held citizenship in another country. John Quincys father was also a U.S. President,the town of Quincy Mass. was named after his great great grandfather,and when he was out of the country it was as an American envoy to France,or on other diplomatic assignments for the U.S.A.
Herbert Hoover was born in Iowa,and left the U.S. on business,he was a mining engineer,while working in Tianjin china in 1900.during the boxer rebellion Herbert helped lead U.S. marines around the area he had become familiar with.
Obama hardly has the ties to America the two ex Presidents you mention do,and I dont believe he will be leading any troops if we ever have to go into Indonesia or africa.
And come on born in Hawaii with a Connecticut social security number?
Complain about this comment
@ 94. At 8:26pm on 09 Nov 2010, publiusdetroit :
Almost forgot,John Quincy Adams birthplace is now Adams National Historic Park.
Where was Obamas?
Complain about this comment
145. At 3:12pm on 10 Nov 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
Care to look at figures pertaining to GM's performance in the 3rd quarter? :)
G.M. while starting to look good on the surface,has been paying back bailout money with tarp funds.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/23/how-did-gm-pay-off-its-bailout-loans/
And their exemtion from the tarp exice tax will end up costing the taxpayers around $43 billion dollars that will not be repayed,so its easy to show a profit when someone is paying your bills for you.
In 09 and 10 taxpayers paid around
$9000.dollars for every car that rolled off G.M. and chryslers line.
Complain about this comment
"G-20 Nations Criticize U.S. Fed's $600 Billion QE2 Stimulus": http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/g20-criticize-fed-600-billion-qe2-stimulus/19707099/
"Germany rebukes U.S. over $600-billion Treasury bond stimulus plan": http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/10/world/la-fg-germany-economy-20101110
Is there any report that prominent Republican leaders oppose this latest $ 600 billion stimulus by US Fed?
Complain about this comment
Ref 225 RHCracker-
"Well lets see neither John quincy Adams nor Herbert Hoover ever held citizenship in another country."
Nor has Barack Obama.
Ref 226 RHCracker-
"Almost forgot,John Quincy Adams birthplace is now Adams National Historic Park.
Where was Obamas?"
Obama's birth certificate was issued by the State of Hawaii. The State of Hawaii stands by the validity of Obama's birth certificate. The "birthers" still have not been able to prove otherwise in a court of law.
Who can say? Perhaps in a couple hundred years Obama's birthplace in Hawaii may be named a National Historic Park. Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
223 Jay wrote: I feel pity on those people who kneel down in front of an imaginary GOD and “pray” to him (more for personal comfort and problems). Probably that’s why the percentage of “believers” (on formal religions/Gods of different shape and sizes) is gradually reducing in almost all democratic, civilized countries, including USA.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And why the percentage of "believers" in ME is gradually accelerating?
Anyhew, don't feel sorry for us, Jay, because people like me refuse to accept your pity and instead, give it back to you in return...
no pity party here.
May God Bless America and our allies forever and ever...
Complain about this comment
I really like to know the stand those “conservatives” and republicans like Bush will take when we understand that US is one of the least empowered countries among developed world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4758036.stm) or role of religion in US society and politics. The basic idea I get form many of their policies are not much different (in developed countries’ standard) than those in typical real conservative societies like Saudi Arab. That mentality is reflected in Bush’s decision in banning/prohibiting embryonic stem cell research, to abortion and so many issues that indicate a very primitive, orthodox mentality. They exploit orthodox religious sentiments (that touch raw nerve for many Americans, mainly those in under-developed areas) to their best to fulfill their personal political and financial agendas in a country that they accepted as a “secular” democracy!
These people have distorted the meaning of “liberal” and perception of a progressive society among many semi-educated and/or underprivileged Americans who prefer to live in their small well as a frog. Probably religion is the only source for them to tolerate and survive all these hardship in life. And these Republican politicians know it very well and nicely exploit that.
Complain about this comment
Dearest Jay,
"224. At 3:28pm on 11 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
@ Chryses #220 . You asked, “What crime does compulsory health coverage correct?”.
Do you consider that a civilized country with one of the richest wealth (national wealth) in the world cannot provide health care for its citizen is not a crime?"
-----------------------------
WRONG AGAIN. Healthcare IS available and provided to everyone. My father-in-law is a retired heart surgeon who operated on the governor of Kentucky. ONE OF THE FINEST IN THIS COUNTRY. He did many MANY surgeries "for free" (i.e., "free" to the patient who cannot pay). I do not know of any physician who will not give care based on one's inability to pay. The losses get absorbed by the practice, hospital, and remaining paying patients. NO AMERICAN IS DENIED HEALTHCARE. You can get 'free' regular care at the health department. This outrage over "people dying in the streets because they can't get care!" is disingenuous. A little honesty from the healthcare proponents would be so refreshing. At best, your argument wants "better" healthcare for those who cannot pay; you want all to have a Cadillac plan for the price of a Yugo. A nice thought, but the fact is that this DRIVES UP COSTS, DRIVES AWAY THE BEST HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS, (conveniently) SECURES MORE POWER FOR DEMOCRATS, and ultimately bankrupts a nation. Perhaps that is your aim, though. The unintended consequence of government healthcare is AN OVERALL WORSENING OF THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD. You want your child's brain surgery done in Cuba for "free", by all means, go ahead. I prefer the best, even though it costs ME PERSONALLY.
"Fairness" is yet another TIRESOME lefty political trap; conveniently vague and defined by the changing winds. How fickle is today's liberal; whatever is NOT BEING DONE is somehow ALWAYS the choicer option. Fortunately, most Americans still understand that we are a nation of LAWS, not rulers and popular opinion.
The "Fairness" argument might have more creedence if the people who tout it would pay their taxes, and play by the same rules that they create "for the rest of us". (E.g., Tom Daschle, Timmy Geithner, Charles Rangle, Maxine Waters, Al Gore etc...). Mr. Gore pontificates on the dangers of the American carbon footprint, yet he's not too eager to give up HIS SUV, is he? Michelle Obama implores us "little people" to "take vacation in the Gulf!", yet she goes to Spain and Martha's Vineyard. Just as I don't trust dieting/fitness advice from Rush Limbaugh, I don't trust politicians to fix anything lacking (or not lacking) in my country. If you trust men over laws, you are forfeiting your liberty for FAKE MAGIC BEANS.
Complain about this comment
@ LucyJ (#230). That "gradually accelerating" belief may be analyzed in many different ways and may have many reasons, which is beyond the scope and mandate of this discussion. I just indicated a general trend among people, NOT among specific member of our society.
A “secular democracy” like US, as our founding fathers accepted, MUST not follow any biased policy on based on any specific or global religious sentiments so far national policies are concerned.
Complain about this comment
223 Jay wrote: I feel pity on those people who kneel down in front of an imaginary GOD and “pray” to him (more for personal comfort and problems). Probably that’s why the percentage of “believers” (on formal religions/Gods of different shape and sizes) is gradually reducing in almost all democratic, civilized countries, including USA.
----------------------------------------
Dear Jay, so what is your view of Islam? Do you pity them, too? How does a liberal indoctrinate and convert the Muslims of the world to the liberal utopia of Jay?
Complain about this comment
233. Dear Jay.... I think you mean "constitutional republic", don't you? Technically, the USA is not a democracy. The founding fathers were deeply spiritual men, who desired a separation of church and state NOT to protect the atheist, but to protect the diversity of faith, and to prevent a church-of-England type scenario. The founding fathers were not ACLU-types; quite the contrary!
Complain about this comment
Dear Googlebux (#234, 235), It does not matter whether founding fathers was or was not PERSONALLY religious/spiritual (two different issue although). This country is NOT and NEVER will be, neither intended (to me, at least). “The United States Constitution serves as the law of the land for America and indicates the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Constitution forms a secular document, and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being.”: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
You can express your view to the Qs I asked (# 231, 233).
You asked me about my view about Islam! Do u really you cannot guess from so many of my posts? Anyway, I have no specific grudge/feelings against Islam, but I do feel that Islam (the way it is interpreted by many people around Muslim world) does not portray a religion of peace. I do feel equal pity for them as well. For detail you can read my blog on that topic (http://jaychatterjee.blogspot.com/2007/05/god-created-man-or-man-created-god_11.html)
When I am in a constitutional position, particularly in a powerful position like the President of a country like US (or any other SECULAR democracy) I MUST not show any biasness towards any religious faith and/or in favor or against religion or atheism. In that sense I do oppose the oath taking of US president by placing his hands on Bible (or any other religious book). That’s why I like the French interpretation of “secularism” and when French presidents do not take constitutional oath by placing their hands on any religious book (but on constitution). Probably that’s why France dared to ban bouqua (full face covered veil, mainly worn by Muslim women) and I totally support that.
In fact, the controversy few years ago regarding placing 10 commandments in a court house in USA (Ten Commandments monument moved: http://articles.cnn.com/2003-08-27/justice/ten.commandments_1_monument-state-judicial-building-alabama-judicial-inquiry-commission?_s=PM:LAW) first attracted my attention against Republicans.
Complain about this comment
Jay,
Maybe you feel pity for them and maybe they feel the same exact pity for you...personally, I don't like the word pity. I would rather say that I myself don't feel pity, but rather compassion...
Tis a two-way street here...
Complain about this comment
Dear Googlebux (#232), my father is a doctor (general physician with specialization in pathology). He opted to practice in a rural area. Many times he not only treat them free but also pay from his own pocket (particularly for medicines and lab work) to those poor people, he decided to serve after completing his medical education. He could have opted for a typical lavish life of an average doctor. He was/is not rich in any sense of imagination, nor enjoy political power/clout. He is among very few people I draw inspiration from and whom I never saw unhappy. I raised the issue here because my father’s service does NOT mean that all the poor in our village neighborhood enjoy “free” health care, as you like to think.
You need to understand that, “At least 15.3% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population (35%) is "underinsured", or not able to cover the costs of their medical needs. A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 46.2% of all personal bankruptcies and in 2007, 62.1% of all bankruptcies were medical.[10] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[11]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States.
You wrongly mentioned that, “The unintended consequence of government healthcare is AN OVERALL WORSENING OF THE BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD”. This is a typical drug and insurance controlled propaganda. US health care is NOT “the best” in the world in any sense of the term, neither qualitatively nor cost wise. IN reality, US health care is not only among the worst in developed world, but also heavily influenced by medical malpractice, not only by doctors (How To Win Doctors And Influence Prescriptions: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130730104; Drug Companies Hire Troubled Doctors As Experts: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130644774)
, but also by big drug companies (few typical examples- “Pfizer Is Sued Over Lipitor Marketing”: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119811136568740957.html; “Spitzer sues drug giant for deceiving doctors”: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6992/full/429589a.html; “$100m payout after drug data withheld”: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v388/n6644/full/388703a0.html). I only mentioned few reports involving malpractices in health care industry in USA. Not mentioning the huge fraud/scams by health insurance companies.
In short, US health care is one of THE WORST among developed nation. For a comparative analysis of US health care you can check the link I posted before and posting again (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/In-the-Literature/2005/Jul/Health-Spending-in-the-United-States-and-the-Rest-of-the-Industrialized-World.aspx ; http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama)
Complain about this comment
LucyJ (#237), I appreciate your position of PERSONAL faith.
But I’ll oppose if you or anyone else try to impose that interpretation (and related behaviour) in disposing your constitutional duties as one of the members of US constitution/administration. The same way, I am totally opposed to any political party that exploit such PERSONAL faith for electoral success, which many Republicans always try to achieve. And if anyone trying to do that then I’ll interpret that s/he is totally unfit to occupy any government and constitutional position in this country, at least. George W Bush is no exception.
Complain about this comment
I found another nice website to depict health care of US in comparison with other developed countries: http://www.visualeconomics.com/healthcare-costs-around-the-world_2010-03-01/
Those who believe US has the best healthcare system need to wake up and come out from the spell of Republican propaganda to accept that US HEALTH CARE IS ONE OF THE WORST AMONG DEVELOPED WORLD. Not one or two, not from our enemies but from our friends too; so many unbiased, neutral sources tell us just that. Republicans can win an election by constantly propagating false, distorted data BUT they cannot change the reality on the ground.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#221. At 2:53pm on 11 Nov 2010)
“... Pardon me, I missed this. I will look at your posting 195 later in the day, and will probably reply this evening.”
Fair enough.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#222. At 3:07pm on 11 Nov 2010)
" @ Chryses (#202). That's is the best available statistic we can get on that issue... ."
That's not the best available statistic, that's garbage.
Let me quote you quote from the article. From your post #201 "... You can't blame just Indian politicians for faulty data ..." The numbers are imaginary, pulled out of thin air.
Let me quote from the portion of the article you seem to have overlooked:
"... a spokesperson for the American Medical Association saying out of 900,000 doctors in the US, 720,000 actually see patients and of them 48,000 have degrees from India.
This places the share of Indian doctors in the US at 10 percent - the largest among all physicians educated in the US, but not 38 percent as stated in the Rajya Sabha.
This also corroborates the data available with the American Association of Physicians of Indian Origin (AAPI), that claims a membership of more than 40,000 doctors and another 15,000 medical students and residents."
38%! Complete nonsense! Utter hogwash!
40K is approx 5.6% of 720K.
"... If you have a more authentic, then let me know..."
Easily done. The next quote from the article you quoted from but seemed to have overlooked reads as follows.
"... On NASA numbers, Inder Singh said, there are a good number of Indians - and not just astronaut Sunita Williams - working for the space agency but they are far less in numbers than the 36 percent as cited by the Indian minister ..."
'Nuff said.
Complain about this comment
We should chase George Bush to Outer Space
http://bajan.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/world-trade-centre-911-debate-continued/
Complain about this comment
Wicked Man where you going to run to
The Rocks can't hide you..
(I Kong) ☆ Sinner Man ☆ I Wish (We'll All Be Ready) ☆
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWfpYQazvCw
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#224. At 3:28pm on 11 Nov 2010)
"@ Chryses #220 . You asked, 'What crime does compulsory health coverage correct?'.
Do you consider that a civilized country with one of the richest wealth (national wealth) in the world cannot provide health care for its citizen is not a crime? ...".
Don't be absurd. The non-event of not extending a government entitlement program can in no way be honestly described as a "crime".
"Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime
I am minded of "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll: "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm.
"... Each and every citizen must have their due share in our national wealth, irrespective of his/her talent, hardworking ability/desire and so on ..."
You are starting to sound suspiciously like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#236. At 7:10pm on 11 Nov 2010)
“... that’s why France dared to ban bouqua (full face covered veil, mainly worn by Muslim women) and I totally support that ...”
Those who are comfortable with a government exercising its coercive power down to the level of personal apparel are the same people who will not blink an eye at a government that will punish anyone who fails to purchase enough of whatever that government deems expedient.
Complain about this comment
Feng Shui, (#244. At 00:28am on 12 Nov 2010)
“ Wicked Man where you going to run to
The Rocks can't hide you..
(I Kong) ☆ Sinner Man ☆ I Wish (We'll All Be Ready) ☆ ...”
Penetrating insight!
Complain about this comment
195. At 00:58am on 11 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"...The law, The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is on untested Constitutional legal ground where it uses the same authority to mandate that citizens purchase health insurance, either through their employer or through government sponsored entities. As there is a provision for an individual mandate, Section 1501, there is legal standing for the States' suits...."
___________
This I find, frankly, hilarious.
The whole compulsory purchase of health insurance crap was put in there to buy of the health insurance industry, not because anybody really wanted it. This is the feature that makes Obamacare right-of-center, and makes it similar to the compulsory purchase of automobile insurance. The mainstream approach to this problem is to get rid of this kind of expensive sop to the private insurers, and use public health care in the usual way.
I take it, therefore, that your complaint is that the President simply didn't go far enough, and you would have been happier with his performance if he had brought in a single payer, public system.
Is that you complaint?
Please confirm.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#248. At 01:09am on 12 Nov 2010)
"... The whole compulsory purchase of health insurance crap was put in there to buy of the health insurance industry, not because anybody really wanted it ..."
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim? Now, I do mean evidence, not some sort of "because someone said so", or "hey! it's common knowledge." No. What I am asking you to provide is evidence to support your claim that "... The whole compulsory purchase of health insurance crap was put in there to buy of the health insurance industry ..." I don't expect any evidence, but I have been wrong before. Surprise me.
"... This is the feature that makes Obamacare right-of-center, and makes it similar to the compulsory purchase of automobile insurance ..."
That the Federal government has imposed itself further into the private lives of its citizens is an act which increases the citizens' freedom. Ah.
"... The mainstream approach to this problem is to get rid of this kind of expensive sop to the private insurers, and use public health care in the usual way... ."
You are assuming that a non-American approach is "mainstream". The American voters have shown in this last election what they think of that POV. Perhaps if you considered Americans within the context of America...
"... I take it, therefore, that your complaint ..."
If you take the time to read my post carefully, you will notice that I complain about nothing. You posted in #149, "... What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]"
I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field. And for that you accuse me of complaining. Tut tut.
"... is that the President simply didn't go far enough, and you would have been happier with his performance if he had brought in a single payer, public system ..."
There are any number of alternatives to what is currently available.
I notice, however, that you have failed to respond to the answer I provided to the request you made in post #149.
As we say in chess playing circles, "You're busted."
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner,
You posted in #149, "... What, specifically, did he do to merit your scorn? What measures did he take, specifically, that are outside mainstream, centrist policy in major policy fields? I'm still waiting for an answer on this one.]]"
I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field.
I gave you what you asked for.
You reply was “This I find, frankly, hilarious.”
Now everyone can see the degree of integrity you apply when engaged in discourse on a serious topic with people who do not share your POV.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Chryses (# 246) for pointing out the limitations.
You can also consider the following news report. “Number of Foreign Students in U.S. Hit a New High Last Year”: http://chronicle.com/article/Number-of-Foreign-Students-in/49142/.
And then “America's got talent—can it keep it?”: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n3/abs/nbt0310-181.html
Excerpts from that Nature Biotech article:
“The study is the first to examine systematically the involvement of immigrants in patented biotech inventions. It finds that nearly 31% of lead inventors in biotech are foreign-born. This is a disproportionate contribution considering that only ~11% of the general US population and ~22% of the college-educated US workforce are foreign-born. The study analyzes a sample of >1,900 US-based inventors with patents not only granted in the United States, but also filed in Japan and Europe from 2000 to 2003.
This result aligns with a study published last March (Issues Sci. Technol. 45–52, 2009), showing that foreign nationals residing in the United States were inventors or co-inventors in one-quarter of all World Intellectual Property Organization patent applications filed in 2006 emanating from the United States. The apparent overrepresentation of immigrant talent is also reflected in entrepreneurial data; over a quarter of US companies in all industrial sectors have foreign nationals as founders. For biotech startups, the number is 20%—somewhat lower, but still disproportionately high compared with the proportion of immigrants in the US population as a whole”
(Source: Nature Biotechnology (2010). 28, 181) .
Complain about this comment
French ban on borqua is NOT based on dress freedom, but more `on obligation of every citizen to display one’s biometric identification in public which is very important, particularly in this volatile and violent world. Moreover, it was NOT specific to Muslims, ANY expression of religious faith is banned in French schools and any full face covered dress is banned.
And your dress purchase argument is vague. In fact if the muslim women do not wear the full face covered borqua, they can save some cloth and save some money. In reality, Muslim women do not wear less for borqua, but wear everything they like to wear and then wear borqua on top of that, i.e extra expanses over their normal dress
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#251. At 02:23am on 12 Nov 2010)
"Thanks Chryses (# 246) for pointing out the limitations ..."
You're welcome.
Complain about this comment
Chryses wrote: "Through the Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Love Lewis Caroll. Truly an artist.
His words live on, which speaks volumes...
My favorite quote, "We're all madd..." Chesire Cat
Complain about this comment
Dear Chryses (# 245). Probably you need learn few more lessons on “law”. You can consult Harvard University Justice website: http://www.justiceharvard.org/. Then you may understand the difference between “law”, “morality” and “ethics”. It is NOT the duty of judiciary to find out what is “moral” or “ethical”. They are hand tied to decide if that is “legal” or not. And it is the duty of our law makers to consider all issues, including morality, ethics etc before framing law. Current American law makers, more precisely Republicans mainly (NOT only) fail to carry out their constitutional duties as a elected law makers (in senate and congress). Moreover, election of Jjustice in US system is taking a huge negative toll as many business and political parties are campaigning against judges (during their re-election) if they do not like any of their judgments. Such incidents are making our judiciary susceptible to follow our broken political system which is heavily influenced by personal and corporate interests.
Lastly, You probably could not follow what I meant to say in my post #224. In no way I referred to “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". DO you agree or not that each citizen has its legitimate right to get their DUE share in our national wealth (irrespective of his/her talent, ability and so on); a minimum share to have a minimum quality of life. That “minimum” quality of life (as determined by our policy makers on majority vote) is NO way as per their NEED, as you seem to suggest.
Complain about this comment
Jay wrote: somewhat lower, but still disproportionately high compared with the proportion of immigrants in the US population as a whole
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not surprised in the aspect that USA has recruited many foreigners to play sports here, as other countries like UK have for soccer aka football...if we recruit athletics, why wouldn't we recruit intellectuals, as well? I'm not surprised they're doing well, either, cause' USA has the resources and freedoms...
But I absolutely think there should be a limit on the amount of immigrants that come here...
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#252. At 02:29am on 12 Nov 2010)
"... French ban on borqua is NOT based on dress freedom ..."
But that is exactly how it is expressed - as a restriction of the freedom of dress of French citizens.
"... And your dress purchase argument is vague. In fact if the muslim women do not wear the full face covered borqua, they can save some cloth and save some money ..."
There are those who would sell their ethical principles to save some cloth and save some money.
"... In reality, Muslim women do not wear less for borqua, but wear everything they like to wear and then wear borqua on top of that, i.e extra expanses over their normal dress "
The French government has passed legislation dictating what French citizens may wear in public. Is that what you want the US Federal government to do to American citizens?
Complain about this comment
Jay wrote: French ban on borqua is NOT based on dress freedom, but more `on obligation of every citizen to display one’s biometric identification in public which is very important, particularly in this volatile and violent world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is true that a male terrorist could dress up like a woman to do suicide bomb, sneak in somewhere and wouldn't know it was a he if he was wearing burka...its important to see people's faces for security, I agree, as well...personally, I am in full support of body scans at every airport. I do not believe there should be pat-down option, because of Underwear Bomber...
Complain about this comment
250. At 02:21am on 12 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field."
[[No, you didn't. You provided an answer with one single measure that you do not like. You didn't provide anything that establishes that there are "measures" plural, that justify the criticism heaped on President Obama.
I think it is true that many Americans resent the idea that they should be compelled, on pain of a fine, to buy health insurance - I would too, when there is no good reason why America shouldn't have public health insurance like everybody else in the western world. I don't think they give two hoots whether it is constitutional or not. That's just a load of self-justification horse manure. I think they simply don't want to have to buy health insurance. That sounds a lot more like the truth to me.
As for the motivation for putting those features in the bill, no, I'm not going to spend time looking for that. I don't believe anybody seriously questions that the Democrats couldn't round up enough votes for single payer; or that the public option was eliminated and compulsory insurance included as a way of buying off the health insurance industry to get the bill passed, at all. The shame of it is that while it did get Obamacare passed, just barely, the health insurance industry is still adamantly opposed to universal health care, public or otherwise.]]
"I gave you what you asked for."
[[No, not so much. What you gave me was a single strained rationalization, that doesn't ring true, for why one industry has waged a jeremiad against the President. That's not going to get you there.]]
____________
Complain about this comment
249. At 02:04am on 12 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"You are assuming that a non-American approach is "mainstream". The American voters have shown in this last election what they think of that POV. Perhaps if you considered Americans within the context of America..."
[[No, actually, they haven't.
Voters in America have never had the choice to vote directly on a straight universal, single payer public system. To say otherwise is simply misleading.]]
Complain about this comment
In continuation of my post #255:
I will consider it to be highly unethical if I deprive any of my son/daughter from my property depending on his/her talent or ability. Even my most idiot and lazy kid will get some share of my property (unless s/he is convicted in any violent crime or do something very wrong). And if my most “smart” kid(s) deprive my stupid kid(s) after my death (and in absence of my will), I will consider that as crime.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#255. At 02:43am on 12 Nov 2010)
“Dear Chryses (# 245). Probably you need learn few more lessons on “law” . . .”
You are mistaken. You have confused law with justice. You cannot even get the website right. http://www.law.harvard.edu/index.html
You see misfortune and confuse it with crime. Your heart is in the right place, and for that you have my empathy. The fact remains, however, that only in utopias is everything peachy keen. Utopias are fiction. This planet, your life, and my children are real. Your thinking is sufficiently muddled that you support a government so intrusive that it can dictate what apparel its citizens cannot wear.
Take off your rose tinted glasses.
Return from Oz.
Come home.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses #258,
Probably I need to post you the link that tells the actual law that has been passed in France. “The French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools bans wearing conspicuous religious symbols in French public (i.e. government-operated) primary and secondary schools. The law does not mention any particular symbol, and thus ban all Christian (veil, signs), Muslim (veil, signs), and other minor religions' signs” : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools.
French ban of full face borqua is supported by Some 82 percent of people, while 17 percent disapproved (Muslim population in France is about 10%) . Moreover, Muslim leaders concur that Islam does not require a woman to hide her face. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/07/officials-france-burqa-ban-legal-law-goes-into-effect-immediately/; http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-10-08-muslim-veil-france_N.htm).
You need to know the recent religious and ethnic problem in France that prompted French govt to introduce that law. And that sentiment is not limited to France, but quickly spreading to many West European countries (which were having very liberal immigration and social acceptance to any foreigner and religious minorities). Now ask majority French people if they support it (dress code) or not. It has an overwhelming majority support. How many citizens will prefer to sacrifice their lives and property damage to keep your version of “dress code freedom”? I do not think many will!
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#259. At 03:03am on 12 Nov 2010)
"...'I provided a careful, detailed answer to one of the measures he took that is outside of mainstream American centrist policy in a major policy field.'
[[No, you didn't. You provided an answer with one single measure that you do not like. You didn't provide anything that establishes that there are "measures" plural, that justify the criticism heaped on President Obama ..."
Now that you have been utterly refuted on the health coverage issue, you take refuge in saing "Oh I asked for more than one, and you only gave one refutations, so I win!'
Yeah. Right.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses #262.
No dear, I got it (Harvard justice Website) perfectly right I did NOT mean Harvard Law school website (http://www.law.harvard.edu/index.html).
In the website I mentioned, you can get "episode guide" (Top left panel) and then watch the different episodes starting from one (http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5)
I do not have any glass, I see through naked eye and my eye sight is 15/15 (better than average 20/20, as doctors said last year).
In my personal opinion, no sane person can support a regime of a stupid guy like George W Bush and republican party (as whole). Those guys neither understand society, country, religion or logic. The only thing they know in their whole life is money and power, nothing else. I really wonder how an truly educated person can ever support that idiot, pain and simple Dumbo!!!!
BTW, I am NOT any registered voter of democratic party. If I give Obama 8 out of 10, I'l give Bush -4 (yes, minus).
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#259. At 03:03am on 12 Nov 2010)
"... I think it is true that many Americans resent the idea that they should be compelled, on pain of a fine, to buy health insurance ..."
You have found common ground with many American voters. Congratulations.
"... I don't think they give two hoots whether it is constitutional or not. That's just a load of self-justification horse manure. I think they simply don't want to have to buy health insurance. That sounds a lot more like the truth to me ..."
Ah. So now that your position has been shown to be on shaky constitutional grounds, you dismiss that reality, and accuse people who don't agree with you as being greedy - unethical. Nice ad hominem argument there.
" ...no, I'm not going to spend time looking for that ..."
I didn't really think you would.
"... The shame of it is that while it did get Obamacare passed, just barely, the health insurance industry is still adamantly opposed to universal health care, public or otherwise.]] ..."
Amusing. You DON'T feel shame at the US Federal government coercing their citizens to purchase some particular product, but you DO find it shameful that people remain opposed to it.
"... 'I gave you what you asked for.'
[[No, not so much. What you gave me was a single strained rationalization ..."
You are mistaken. The refutation required very little effort.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#260. At 03:06am on 12 Nov 2010)
"... 'You are assuming that a non-American approach is "mainstream". The American voters have shown in this last election what they think of that POV. Perhaps if you considered Americans within the context of America ...'
[[No, actually, they haven't.
Voters in America have never had the choice to vote directly on a straight universal, single payer public system. To say otherwise is simply misleading.]]"
Actually, your response is one long non sequitur. If you take the time to read my posts, you'll find I never suggested that Americans have ever voted directly on any Federal law, much less "a straight universal, single payer public system".
To suggest otherwise is simply misleading.
Nice try.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#263. At 03:21am on 12 Nov 2010)
"... French ban of full face borqua is supported by Some 82 percent of people, while 17 percent disapproved (Muslim population in France is about 10%) . Moreover, Muslim leaders concur that Islam does not require a woman to hide her face. (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/07/officials-france-burqa-ban-legal-law-goes-into-effect-immediately/; http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-10-08-muslim-veil-france_N.htm) ..."
Most Germans in the late 1930s approved of the Nuremberg Laws, which reduced certain German citizens to a special status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_laws
I take it that you see no similarity?
"... ask majority French people if they support it (dress code) or not. It has an overwhelming majority support. How many citizens will prefer to sacrifice their lives and property damage to keep your version of "dress code freedom"? I do not think many will!"
Perhaps not. Have I mentioned that most Germans in the late 1930s approved of the Nuremberg Laws, which reduced certain German citizens to a special status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_laws
I take it that you see no similarity?
Complain about this comment
Some time pass, interesting to read: "President George W. Bush Blames Kanye West for 'Worst Moment of Presidency": http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/president-george-w-bush-blames-35067?utm_source=outbrain&utm_medium=textlink&utm_term=09.10&utm_content=thrnews&utm_campaign=OB090210
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses #266. I ahev a few Qs in that regard:
1. Do YOU always buy Auto insurance (in case you live in USA)?
2. Don't you find it shameful that "Federal government coercing their citizens to purchase some particular product"?
3. Do you know that many Americans can not afford or do not like to buy compulsory auto insurance?
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#265. At 03:32am on 12 Nov 2010)
You realize, of course, that your entire post contained nothing to support your position(s), but only stated that you believe you are right, and that you loath Bush the Younger?
You managed to accuse most Americans of being insane, not once, but twice. You called someone who has a Masters degree in Business stupid. You also claimed that someone who was able to achieve the very same position (twice) as President Obama was stupid. Are you making any sweeping generalizations about the Presidency? If so, do those generalizations also apply to President Obama, of whom you approve? You also claimed that Republicans (as whole) “neither understand society, country, religion or logic.” I can only presume you have some evidence to support such a sweeping condemnation of millions of your fellow citizens.
Perhaps you believe that is a trenchant, penetrating technique in support of your opinions, but I’m not so sure of that.
Still, you are entitled to your opinions.
Good luck.
Complain about this comment
@ 277. Ohhh dear you are soooo RIGHT. YES, I am saying that, "You called someone who has a Masters degree in Business (from one of "the most presitgious universities") stupid. You also claimed that someone who was able to achieve the very same position (twice) as President Obama was (even, IS) stupid. YES, I DO.
Are you making any sweeping generalizations about the Presidency? NO. That characterization is ONLY applied (till now) to our great GWB.
"You also claimed that Republicans (as whole) “neither understand society, country, religion or logic.”- YES, I Do. If you have any specific issue (that sugggest otherwise) then please raise your issue (not hand, now). Starring from embryonic stem celll research, to abortion, to use of religion in US politics, to campaign fund disclousure bill, healtth care, financial regulation bill, (proposed) education reform bill and so on.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses #268:
No, I can NOT see ANY similarity between those two issues. Do you?
Did the Germans in Nuremburg trail had any independent voice? I had the impression that Germany was defeated and any independent German, who did not support US (or allied force, to be more precise) was not allowed any freedom during the “trail”. You can watch the movie “Nuremberg” (2000 release. Acted by Alec Baldwin) and then listen the testimony of Hermann Göring (acted by Brian Cox).
Muslims in France is not a defeated race/religion, neither they were put on trial by winning party!
Complain about this comment
Ohh, let me correct my statement in #272 (first para).
GWB is EITHER too stupid to understand the long term interest of his own country, USA and its people, OR, too shrewd to ignore that and work for his personal and political interest more.
Complain about this comment
270. At 04:01am on 12 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
@ Chryses #266. I ahev a few Qs in that regard:
1. Do YOU always buy Auto insurance (in case you live in USA)?
2. Don't you find it shameful that "Federal government coercing their citizens to purchase some particular product"?
3. Do you know that many Americans can not afford or do not like to buy compulsory auto insurance?
______________________________
Apparently no Republicans support this legal argument, and few if any purchase auto insurance. They are then either rich enough to bear the liability out of their own pockets, or have no regard for the risks that others face who get on the road with them.
In the present scheme, the medical expenses of the uninsured are paid by those of us who are insured, or under medicare etc., by the taxpayers.
Those who can afford medical insurance and yet choose not to, place just as much a risk and an expense on the rest of us as do those who drive the public roads without purchasing appropriate insurance.
Thanks, Jay, for bringing out this clear example.
KScurmudgeon
Complain about this comment
Jay,
In your post #263, you provided a Wikipedia link, to “the link that tells the actual law that has been passed in France.”
I followed the link you provided
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools.
Permit me to quote from the page, if I might: “Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools.”
In other words you have been reduced to posing bad links in your effort to persuade others that your position can somehow be ‘right’. I can only presume that you thought no one would follow your link to discover your misreferral to a source of authority.
Pitiful.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#274. At 04:36am on 12 Nov 2010)
“... GWB is EITHER too stupid to understand the long term interest of his own country, USA and its people, OR, too shrewd to ignore that and work for his personal and political interest more. “
Ah, so now you directly offer corruption “... work for his personal and political interest more ...” as one of two plausible explanations for Bush the Younger’s actions as President.
OK. As political corruption is the use of legislated powers by a government official for illegitimate private gain, are you going to provide any evidence to support this suggestion?
Or are you, like some others in this forum, able only to make baseless accusations?
Complain about this comment
KScurmudgeon, (#275. At 06:52am on 12 Nov 2010)
“... Those who can afford medical insurance and yet choose not to, place just as much a risk and an expense on the rest of us as do those who drive the public roads without purchasing appropriate insurance ...”
So it necessarily follows that the US Federal government should coerce its own citizens to purchase a product?
“... Thanks, Jay, for bringing out this clear example.”
Thanks, KScurmudgeon, for bringing out the rationale used by President Obama and his allies in Congress to justify the PPACA.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#273. At 04:26am on 12 Nov 2010)
“No, I can NOT see ANY similarity between those two issues. Do you?
Did the Germans in Nuremburg trail had any independent voice? I had the impression that Germany was defeated and any independent German, who did not support US (or allied force, to be more precise) was not allowed any freedom during the “trail”. You can watch the movie “Nuremberg” (2000 release. Acted by Alec Baldwin) and then listen the testimony of Hermann Göring (acted by Brian Cox)."
Well, if my knowledge and understanding of Nazi Germany was also limited to contemporary films (“Nuremberg”; 2000 release. Acted by Alec Baldwin), I might also have not seen any similarity between the anti-burqa law recently passed in France and the Nuremberg Laws.
That’s because you don’t know the difference between the Nuremberg Laws (1935) and the Nuremberg Trials (1945 - 46)
The Nuremberg Laws were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws
The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
I referred you to the Nuremberg Laws, with a link. As your response referred to “Germany was defeated” and “not allowed any freedom during the ‘trail’”, I can only presume that you did not follow the link, or you would have known the two were not the same. That was your choice.
You referred in your post #263, in two different paragraphs, to the “82%” and “overwhelming majority support”. I pointed out the interesting similarities between it and that with the popular support given to the Nuremberg Laws.
“... Muslims in France is not a defeated race/religion, neither they were put on trial by winning party!”
And now you know that is utterly irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
229. At 4:38pm on 11 Nov 2010, publiusdetroit wrote:
Ref 225 RHCracker-
"Well lets see neither John quincy Adams nor Herbert Hoover ever held citizenship in another country."
Nor has Barack Obama.
................................
This dead horse needs another beating I see.
Soetoro/Obama was registered in a public school as an Indonesian citizen by the name of Barry Soetoro and his father was listed as Lolo Soetoro, M.A. Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, the child’s name and citizenship status were verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education). The Indonesian school record, indicates that Soetoro/Obama’s name is “Barry Soetoro;” his nationality is “Indonesia” and his father “Lolo Soetoro, M.A. There was no way for Soetoro/Obama to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.
..........................
Whatever the case there are too many loose ends and unanswered questions about this guy for him ever to have been elected to the highest office in the land.
How(why} did so many follow this guy so blindly?
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses# 279.
I apologize that I did not understand that you were referring "Nuremberg Laws", and not "Nuremberg trial". Sorry again.
I also agree that "majority" rule is not always right.
But in this case of French ban, I still do sport France, more so as a secular and democratic country. I still believe that every citizen has the responsibility (and must be made legally mandatory in any SECULAR democracy, including in USA) NOT to hide/cover his/her main biometric detection parameter (mainly face) in general public and/or in public places.
Complain about this comment
Cont. to my post #281.
Thanks for the link, Chryses.
there is a severe difference between French ban and Nazi law. It is both in scope and implementation. Nazi law was to differentiated ONLY group of people from others, while French ban is equally valid to each and every citizen in that country, irrespective of race or religion. One practical example is the Sikhs, a particular sect/religion from Indian sub-continent who wears turban due to their religious faith. France banned that turban as well. You can check the link:
http://www.unitedsikhs.org/rtt/
Complain about this comment
@ RHCracker #280.
Do you think that Republicans do not know what you know? Or are they so kind on that guy (Obama) that they allowed him to continue as US president? Why don't they (or people like you who knows so much) sue him and dislodge him from this presidency and expose him in public, in front of the whole world!!!!
Makes sense?
Complain about this comment
To #280 RHCracker
"These facts indicate that Obama/Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.... Whatever the case..."
so even if he's not or there's no case, it doesn't matter because you can generate other suspicions that people find appealing and can blindly believe!
1) Why do you think Republicans or yourself are unable to rise to Jay's challenge in #281 and make a legal case against Obama being president?
2) Does your objection to people having strong links to other countries extend to other prominent positions in the US government and does it depend on the specific country involved? I assume you believe that people having strong links to other countries is detrimental to America if that person is involved in any national or international government function.
"there are too many loose ends and unanswered questions about this guy"
3) Please name them and ask them and show how you believe these may have affected any specific decisions or policies.
Complain about this comment
ks wrote: Those who can afford medical insurance and yet choose not to, place just as much a risk and an expense on the rest of us as do those who drive the public roads without purchasing appropriate insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every American has the choice of whether to drive or not. If they want to drive vehicle legally, they must pass driver's test and pay vehicle insurance.
Requiring Americans to have health insurance means there is no choice- you must pay it if you are alive and breathing...
(it is not option like car insurance)
America has to take care to make sure it is not too expensive to live...
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#281. At 3:08pm on 12 Nov 2010)
“... I apologize that I did not understand that you were referring "Nuremberg Laws", and not "Nuremberg trial". Sorry again.
I also agree that "majority" rule is not always right.
But in this case of French ban, I still do sport France ...”
You have persuaded me that there is no data set, no historical precedents, no corrections that could cause you to change your mind.
Complain about this comment
@ Chryses (#286), "You have persuaded me that there is no data set, no historical precedents, no corrections that could cause you to change your mind".
Yes, you can; if you have supporting data and analysis. So far I am not convinced and still favor French ban. It has more to one's understanding (and interpretation) of the meaning of "secular" and "democracy". There is a very thin line in democracy to follow "majority" wishes, and then, taking decision which MAY go against majority rule, yet necessary for the long term (and sometimes, short term as well) wellbeing of a country. That's why many suggest that, "a true leader does not always say what people like to hear, but must know to talk what people need to understand and hear".
Cheers :)
Complain about this comment
278. At 11:20am on 12 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
KScurmudgeon, (#275. At 06:52am on 12 Nov 2010)
“... Those who can afford medical insurance and yet choose not to, place just as much a risk and an expense on the rest of us as do those who drive the public roads without purchasing appropriate insurance ...”
So it necessarily follows that the US Federal government should coerce its own citizens to purchase a product?
“... Thanks, Jay, for bringing out this clear example.”
Thanks, KScurmudgeon, for bringing out the rationale used by President Obama and his allies in Congress to justify the PPACA.
and...
285. At 6:44pm on 12 Nov 2010, LucyJ wrote:
ks wrote: Those who can afford medical insurance and yet choose not to, place just as much a risk and an expense on the rest of us as do those who drive the public roads without purchasing appropriate insurance.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every American has the choice of whether to drive or not. If they want to drive vehicle legally, they must pass driver's test and pay vehicle insurance.
Requiring Americans to have health insurance means there is no choice- you must pay it if you are alive and breathing...
(it is not option like car insurance)
America has to take care to make sure it is not too expensive to live...
________________
Your arguments hold water only for those who never need medical care, or who strictly limit medical care to what they are willing to pay for themselves.
One of the major causes of the steady increase in the medical costs in this country is the expense of providing care to those who cannot or do not pay. 'Cannot' includes not only the indigent but almost anyone who receives significant services or who requires a hospital stay of more than a few days. The cost can be thousands of dollars per day - as we all know. Insurance is a necessity few of us can avoid in today's system if we hope for any measure of financial security. Unpaid emergency room services are a common reason hospitals are forced to close down or face financial insolvency.
Most conservatives I know really resent being forced to pay someone else's bills - which is the current system. Our economy cannot continue to support the medical system as it is. Since we must change it, why do you object to expecting everyone to pay their own way??
Cryses - I have brought out the rationale for a portion of the reform bill. What rationale do you have for denying coverage, and regular medical care, to the people around you - or - how would you provide it?
Lucy - You must have medical care from time to time 'if you are alive and breathing'. On what rationale would you deny it?
KScurmudgeon
who is here today only because medical insurance paid over $100,000 in the last two years to keep him here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
KScurmudgeon, (#288. At 04:34am on 13 Nov 2010)
“... Cryses [sic]- I have brought out the rationale for a portion of the reform bill. What rationale do you have for denying coverage, and regular medical care, to the people around you - or - how would you provide it? ...”
You have made the mistake of assuming that health coverage is a ‘right’. It is not.
The following claim is true: “Because I am an individual, I am responsible for my actions.”
I demonstrate: Remove the individual from a society from which the individual can demand “X”, in this instance personal responsibility, and determine if the “X” is possible. In this instance it is. The “X” is dependent upon the individual.
Consider another claim, this time false: “Because I am an individual, I am entitled to health coverage.”
I demonstrate: Remove the individual from a society from which the individual can demand “X”, in this instance health coverage, and determine if the “X” is possible. In this instance it is not. The “X” is dependent not upon the individual, but upon the society.
This removes health coverage from the set of “human rights” and places it in the domain of government domestic entitlement programs. Once the mirage of ‘right’ has been dispelled, the relationship between others and their decision to secure health coverage or not secure health coverage becomes clear.
That some people do, or do not have access to health care is not because I, or anyone else for that matter, have given it, or denied it to them.
There is a variety of ways such an entitlement program might be implemented. The particular techniques selected to implement the PPACA have been the subject of enough criticism that the result has been a change in membership in Congress.
I trust this measured response to your inquiry satisfies, if only on an intellectual level, rather than the emotional level where most of these posts reside. Ref here the various and sundry epithets and exclamation marks.
Oh, and congratulations on having the foresight or good fortune of having secured adequate health care coverage before you needed to avail yourself of it.
Complain about this comment
Jay, (#287. At 02:30am on 13 Nov 2010)
“... ’You have persuaded me that there is no data set, no historical precedents, no corrections that could cause you to change your mind’.
Yes, you can ...”
The data, in this instance, your posts to this thread, have persuaded me otherwise.
Complain about this comment
in post 259 Interested foreiner
I would too, when there is no good reason why America shouldn't have public health insurance like everybody else in the western world. I don't think they give two hoots whether it is constitutional or not. That's just a load of self-justification horse manure. I think they simply don't want to have to buy health insurance. That sounds a lot more like the truth to me.
......................
For one thing we as Country are unique,and do not want to be like the rest of the western world,and do not want to turn into another Canada where you cant even own a gun for self defence.
And looking at canadas version of (free) health care,important facts about single-payer health insurance in Canada that are seldom reported by the pundits or politicians include the following:
• In 1993, Canadian patients waited an average of 9.3 weeks between the time they saw their family physician and the time they actually received the treatment they needed. By 2007, the average wait time had almost doubled to 18.3 weeks. The median wait time in Canada is nearly double the wait time that physicians consider clinically reasonable
• Between the fiscal years 1997-98 and 2006-07, government spending on healthcare grew in all 10 Canadian provinces at an average annual rate of 7.3 percent, while total available provincial revenue grew at an average annual rate of 5.9 percent and provincial GDP grew at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent. This level of government healthcare spending is unsustainable over the long haul.
Canadian patients on waiting lists are worse off than uninsured Americans, the latter of whom are at least legally allowed to use their own money or credit to buy healthcare.Canadian patients who want to escape the delays in the public system are also barred from paying privately for healthcare services. In practical terms, Canadian patients are unable to buy quicker access or better care than the government health program provides. In this sense, Canadian patients on waiting lists are worse off than uninsured Americans, the latter of whom are at least legally allowed to use their own money or credit to buy healthcare.
Ironically, while Canadian-style healthcare appears to be gaining support in the United States, it is losing support and legitimacy in Canada. In a 2005 case challenging Quebec’s government-run health insurance program, the Supreme Court of Canada declared the single-payer system a violation of a person’s right to preserve his or her own health. Similar cases are now underway in two other Canadian provinces.
If this government spent as much time effort and money,working on creating jobs in this country as they have wasted on this health care bill,people could afford to buy their own insurance,the last thing we need are more citizens dependant upon goverment social programs.
Complain about this comment
283. At 3:48pm on 12 Nov 2010, Jay wrote:
@ RHCracker #280.
Do you think that Republicans do not know what you know? Or are they so kind on that guy (Obama) that they allowed him to continue as US president? Why don't they (or people like you who knows so much) sue him and dislodge him from this presidency and expose him in public, in front of the whole world!!!!
Makes sense?
Those who have even mentioned doing so have been branded racist,so for now we just have to sit back and let him sink his own ship,hes doing just fine.
So you keep you blinders on and follow your hero on his final lap around the whitehouse.
Complain about this comment
RHCracker, (#292. At 3:49pm on 13 Nov 2010)
You may find it valuable to include links to the references substantiating the claims you make. Certainly, I am interested to learn more about the bullet points in your post.
Complain about this comment
KS,
I believe that we need to find a way to either lower health insurance to reasonable amount or yes, universal health care, if done appropriatly.
In both cases, the most important things to remember is not to make it too expensive to live, not to take patients/families decisions away, continue quality of care and not to punish people if they can't pay it.
Sadly, Obamacare does not guarentee a fixed rate or set price- why not say an individual would have to pay $100, a couple has to pay $200, ect.? Why has Obamacare never given us the exact amount that we would have to pay under his plan? Is that really so much to ask?
Or is it that we will all pay different amounts- will the young, like me, be forced/mandated to pay very high fees just because we are young? What if many of the young and old only have part-time jobs? Will the young be forced to pay for the old?
Sadly, Obamacare does not guarentee all Americans (and no, not talking about illegals) will be covered. Why not?
(and don't say its cause some are young and healthy, don't want insurance- I am young and healthy, I would like reasonable insurance and everyone I know likes me wants it to even if we're in good shape)
What will happen under Obamacare when patients who are old, sick, have cancer, ruthless diseases, ect. all require expensive treatments which they were not able to get before?
(obviously they will be helped)
But who will pay for all the expensive treatments?
(I'm talking each very ill individual such as cancer could potentially costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, in some instances like Octomom, it cost millions to deliver her eight babies)
Obamacare does not isolate how to bring the expensive treatments, ect. costs down, which is why people don't have insurance in the first place. (well, health care costs going up as jobs go down or part-time)
Will Obamacare pay for health care for all poor and umemployed people if they cannot pay for it?
Complain about this comment
re: 294 You may find it valuable to include links to the references substantiating the claims you make. Certainly, I am interested to learn more about the bullet points in your post.
Sigh. It's cut and paste from a Fraser Institute report, "Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health Care," available as a PDF. Google it.
Note please that the wait time figures refers to waits for elective procedures. Bear in mind that the system is provincially administered, and wait times vary greatly from province to province, and even region to region.
I could tell you about my family's experiences with cancer treatments, and for cataract surgery. All very positive, with two weeks from GP referal to surgery being the norm.
And yes, there is a shortage of GPs, but this is true in the US as well. The Report's conclusions that this makes 6 or 7% of Canadians effectively uninsured is just ideological.
Also, the idea that 3 people (out of near 35 million) are unhappy enough with the system to mount court challenges to some (some, mind) of its provisions is hardly surprising. It is not perfect.
Costs are rising, the demographics are challenging, and so on. There are improvements to be made. But all of the major political parties (Conservatives included) know how popular the system is with Canadians. The Fraser Institute takes an extreme position, probably with the hope of advancing the interests of certain insurance and medical industry lobby groups.
Complain about this comment
262. At 03:08am on 12 Nov 2010, Chryses wrote:
"...Your thinking is sufficiently muddled that you support a government so intrusive that it can dictate what apparel its citizens cannot wear."
The Bush regime felt free to dictate that people receiving government aid could not wear condoms. The Catholic Church persuasded the government of Massachusetts to ban meat on Fridays in the public schools, the religious right in the US sees nothing wrong with peering into citizens' bedrooms and to dictating what they can and can not do.
In the US MY* religious doctrine is what God wants and should be enacted into law, YOUR* religious doctrine is beneath notice. *This is from the POV of the conservative religious types, my own POV is:
If you think God [or the Pope] does not want you to eat meat on Friday, then don't eat it; but don't force your choice on others.
If you believe that pork should not be produced, sold, bought or eaten then be a good Jew or Muslim and don't do so; but don't force your choice on others.
If you think spermicide is a sin not a product useful for many people, then don't partake; but don't force your choice on others.
If you think a zygote is a human being, and should not be terminated, you are foolish but should refuse to terminate your own zybotes; but don't force your choice on others.
There is a long list of things that the religious right would like to force onto others, while they rail against anyone forcing other beliefs on them. It is time for mutual respect, toleration and the separation of church and state.
Complain about this comment
280. At 3:04pm on 12 Nov 2010, RHCracker
Your understanding of laws is somewhat limited. A person born to American parents in France is, by American law a US citizen. By French law the child is a French citizen. There were some very strange cases in the 1960s and 1970's relating to this. A young American friend of mine [born in the USA to an American Father and naturalized American mother] was arrested while travelling in France because his Mother, though a naturalized American, was considered French, and he was considered French, and was arrested for evading France's military service.
Which law is right? You probably think the US law is [I do to, for logical reasons] but that would not help if one were arrested in France under French law. The question is not, and should not be, "Is Barack Obama Indonesian by Indonesian law, or Muslim by Muslim law?" The question should be, "Is Barack Obama American by American law, and Christian by American law?"
The answer, AFAIK is that he is a US citizen by American law, and a Christian by choice [since he has the same right that any American has to have, practice and change religions at will.] I have yet so see a valid reason for refusing to accept his mother's US citizenship or his Hawaiian birth certificate.
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#297. At 02:57am on 14 Nov 2010)
“... The Bush regime felt free to dictate that people receiving government aid could not wear condoms ...”
I believe your claim to be false. Please provide some evidence that the Bush administration dictated that people receiving government aid could not wear condoms. I doubt that you will be able to do so.
Complain about this comment
JMM, (#297. At 02:57am on 14 Nov 2010)
"... There is a long list of things that the religious right would like to force onto others, while they rail against anyone forcing other beliefs on them ..."
That is true. Are you suggesting that it IS appropriate for the state to force other beliefs on them? That is a yes or no question.
"... It is time for mutual respect, toleration and the separation of church and state."
That is true. Are you suggesting that a government sufficientl intrusive that it can dictate what apparel its citizens cannot wear is showing mutual respect and toleration? That is a yes or no question.
Complain about this comment
292. At 3:49pm on 13 Nov 2010, RHCracker wrote:
... yet another load:
"For one thing we as Country are unique,and do not want to be like the rest of the western world,and do not want to turn into another Canada where you cant even own a gun for self defence."
__________
Utter nonsense.
Complain about this comment
296. At 5:09pm on 13 Nov 2010, chronophobe wrote:
"Sigh. It's cut and paste from a Fraser Institute report, "Hidden Costs of Single Payer Health Care," available as a PDF. Google it."
__________
What Chronophobe didn't mention, perhaps out of politeness, is that the Fraser Institute is not generally considered to be a credible or serious source of public discussion. It provides a refuge of last resort for right wing wackos, and its positions tend to be highly discounted.
Complain about this comment
292. At 3:49pm on 13 Nov 2010, RHCracker wrote:
"Ironically, while Canadian-style healthcare appears to be gaining support in the United States, it is losing support and legitimacy in Canada. In a 2005 case challenging Quebec’s government-run health insurance program, the Supreme Court of Canada declared the single-payer system a violation of a person’s right to preserve his or her own health. Similar cases are now underway in two other Canadian provinces."
__________
This is completely misleading.
There is no credible support for abandonment of either public health care or public single-payer health care in Canada. On the contrary, most (80% +) Canadians regard public health care as a constitutional right - if not something more important than a constitutional right.
Any politician in this country running on a platform of abolishing public health care would fail to get enough votes to cover his or her deposit.
Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply full of horse feathers.
Complain about this comment
301. At 4:01pm on 14 Nov 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
292. At 3:49pm on 13 Nov 2010, RHCracker wrote:
... yet another load:
"For one thing we as Country are unique,and do not want to be like the rest of the western world,and do not want to turn into another Canada where you cant even own a gun for self defence."
__________
Utter nonsense.
..................
This is a fact as proven by the voters,what part are you denying.
We are a unique Country ,We dont want to be like Canada,no matter how much you try to convince yourself or others ,we are still a free nation and do not want to give up our rights to an overbearing government any more than we already have.
.................
So yes it is another load,a load from another nosey foreigner trying to tell the people in the U.S. what we need to do,even if it isnt working in their own nation.
Complain about this comment
298. At 03:11am on 14 Nov 2010, JMM wrote:
280. At 3:04pm on 12 Nov 2010, RHCracker
Your understanding of laws is somewhat limited
......................
So are we to beleive your undetrstanding of law is unlimited?
Complain about this comment
303. At 4:10pm on 14 Nov 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
What Chronophobe didn't mention, perhaps out of politeness, is that the Fraser Institute is not generally considered to be a credible or serious source of public discussion. It provides a refuge of last resort for right wing wackos, and its positions tend to be highly discounted.
.....................
From those of you so far to the left,right wing wacko is a compliment.
If your socialized system works for you in Canada,by all means keep it,
Statistics show it is not as good as our healthcare in America.
Myself I prefer to be able to pull out my hard earned money and pay for the healthcare my family receives,when its needed,and do not expect others to work harder to make sure we get what we need.
Complain about this comment
303. At 4:10pm on 14 Nov 2010, Interestedforeigner wrote:
There is no credible support for abandonment of either public health care or public single-payer health care in Canada. On the contrary, most (80% +) Canadians regard public health care as a constitutional right - if not something more important than a constitutional right.
.....................
Thats exactly how the wellfare recipiants feel here,and they certainly would not vote it out,as they have become dependant on it.
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#303. At 4:10pm on 14 Nov 2010)
“... Canadians regard public health care as a constitutional right - if not something more important than a constitutional right ...”
That is an intriguing claim. Do you have any basis for the conjecture that public health care is “something more important than a constitutional right,” or is this only to be presumed to be true because a whole bunch of people agree with you?
Complain about this comment
Interestedforeigner, (#302. At 4:05pm on 14 Nov 2010)
“... the Fraser Institute is not generally considered to be a credible or serious source of public discussion ...”
From what basis do you make that claim? You may, of course, be quite correct, but I’m sure you can substantiate your claim, can’t you? I mean, it’s not as if you expect everyone to accept your claim just because you said so, are you? Why is the Fraser Institute “not generally considered to be a credible or serious source” for reference? Generally, now, not some one particular incident cherry picked from an orchard of available data. Since you said “generally” I’m confident that you can provide links or other references to multiple occasions when the Fraser Institute was shown to be factually incorrect, thus satisfying your claim that it is “not generally considered to be a credible or serious source of public discussion”.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS