Susan's Place Transgender Resources

In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
Birthers, Town Hall Hecklers and the Return of Right-Wing Rage
   
By Rick Perlstein
Sunday, August 16, 2009
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-srv%2Fimages%2Fhomepage%2Flogos%2Ftwp_logo_300.gif&hash=75a9d8fed5575c513e3086c9b55303bc416ea43c) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401495.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR)

QuoteSo, crazier then, or crazier now? Actually, the similarities across decades are uncanny. When Adlai Stevenson spoke at a 1963 United Nations Day observance in Dallas, the Indignation forces thronged the hall, sweating and furious, shrieking down the speaker for the television cameras. Then, when Stevenson was walked to his limousine, a grimacing and wild-eyed lady thwacked him with a picket sign. Stevenson was baffled. "What's the matter, madam?" he asked. "What can I do for you?" The woman responded with self-righteous fury: "Well, if you don't know I can't help you."

The various elements -- the liberal earnestly confused when rational dialogue won't hold sway; the anti-liberal rage at a world self-evidently out of joint; and, most of all, their mutual incomprehension -- sound as fresh as yesterday's news. (Internment camps for conservatives? That's the latest theory of tea party favorite Michael Savage.)

-----

~~THE STUPID!  IT BURNS!!!!

=k

*^{Rolling On Floor Shrieking My @$$ Off}

What if they get programs mixed and you get cash for clunkers by trading your grand parents in for the new baby costs.

Often I view "Crazy" as a world wide general practice  :laugh:

I know it's not my right to comment, but: (LORD I LOVE THAT LINE IT'S MY CUE >:-))

I was totally amazed watching FOX USA news about seemingly intelligent people complaining that a "free" health service that would assist the underprivliged was a descent into a socialism and communism. No way to that! it's better to let people suffer than to help them. Sick.

Sorry Heatherrose, I'm going to re-state it: Americans are weird!!


Cindy

Quote from: Virginia Marie on August 16, 2009, 08:01:46 PM
Often I view "Crazy" as a world wide general practice  :laugh:

Sometimes I think I'm the only sane person in a sea of crackpots.

Quote from: CindyJames on August 17, 2009, 04:08:40 AM
I know it's not my right to comment, but: (LORD I LOVE THAT LINE IT'S MY CUE >:-))

I was totally amazed watching FOX USA news about seemingly intelligent people complaining that a "free" health service that would assist the underprivliged was a descent into a socialism and communism. No way to that! it's better to let people suffer than to help them. Sick.

Sorry Heatherrose, I'm going to re-state it: Americans are weird!!


Cindy

Yes, but you should be aware that FOX news is infamous for its' right-wing bias.  Still, I'll agree, there are certain factions of Americans, who always seem to make the biggest arses of themselves in the most public ways possible, that make me ashamed to show my passport when I travel outside the country.  Like our last President, for example ...

I don't even think its the majority, but there is a solid 20% that seems to be divorced from reality in many ways, and very vocal about it.

Just to add my 2 cent to this "americans are crazy" lark;
I was in accident and emergency (A&E) recently and this american gentlemen with a broken arm was talking with an elderly man about how Obama's health care was communist and evil and the old man turned around and calmly explained that Irish  healthcare has a free public option and thats what he was availing of. At this point the american man said it wasn't the same at all and started mumbling bout euthanasia when the doctor called him.
When he came back out (without the sling on his arm) the old man joked that public healthcare was so bad  that you come in with a scarf round your arm and all the doctors do is steal your scarf and tell you your ok.
Awful joke but the hypocrite got the point!

Also the town hall shouting seems comical from here :)

Claire xoxo

Well, speaking as a Pride-filled, Flag waiving; Red, white and blue; cut me and I bleed Constitution; died in the wool raised in the Great State of Montana; Oil consuming, steak eating, gun-toting, fan of Mom (Love ya mom), Apple pie and ..( um.. who owns Chevrolet again?).. ahem..  Capitalistic American of the United States variety.. who still gets tears in her eyes when Old Glory rises and at Taps in the cool evening air, whose last vacation included pilgrimage to Mount Rushmore (It's smaller than you would think -- Sturgis is better.), whose ancestors have occupied and loved this soil since the 1400s (Not including my Native American heritage.. which is far older in the land.. but we won't talk about that..) , who had family on both sides of the Civil War, and most wars hence, who by the grace of the Gods she knows is relatively self employed...

Yes, I'd say crazy is pretty much a pre-requisit.

(Running for cover)  ::)

The problem with revolutions is everyone wants to over-turn the table, but afterward they can't agree on what to use the wood for. - Shanawolf

If President Obama and the Democrats let a broken Republican Party rise from the ashes of November's defeat and like a horror film creature, regurgitate into life and whip their asses, I'd say it's the Democrats who have no future as they can not understand the ruthlessness of the GOP. Lyndon Johnson understood the GOP and how to screw them over. What went wrong? Was it losing the unions? The death of Bobby Kennedy that allowed the McGovern wing to turn the Dems into intellectuals who somehow cannot fight to win? Thoughts? Once the Dems could have called in Sam Giancanna. I miss those days. Once we had the steelworkers, the perfessors, and the Rat Pack. Jest like the good old days when the long-haired Pittsburgh Steelers whupped those candy-assed right-wing Dallas Cowboys. Let's do it again. Obama from Chicago needs to channel his inner Mike Ditka and take this thing HOME.

Either these people have lost the ability to govern, or the system as a whole has become to large to govern.  Could be either one.

And LBJ did not have to contend with a 24 hour news cycle with most of the stations in the hands of right wing, republican, corporations.

The Buck stops here. He needs to ignore FOX Noise and the two faced lyin GOP and ram it through complete with a public option. Faux News speaks only for itself. Bush sold almost the entire congress on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Dems need to hammer as hard and stay on message

Bush may have sold that line of crap, but it seems to me that except for Barbra Lee, the Dems bought it lock, stock and barrel - just like they did the Patriot Act.  That entire fiasco (and Afghanistan too) was a joint effort.  Plenty 'O Blame to go around, or as the old song says: Nobodies right when everybody's wrong.

That being said, I wish someone would have bought him a spine for his birthday.  They do seem to be molly-coddling the losers, and its almost pathetic to watch.

And old Lyndon, well Lyndon knew how to play power politics.  And it would be nice to see Obama sit the 'blue dogs' down and tell them, in no uncertain terms that they either vote for this, with a strong public option, and the knowledge that a single payer system is on the horizon - or, as Lyndon would tell them... I'm going to stick every insane asylum, every sexual predator treatment center, and every toxic waste dump right in the middle of your damn district, and then watch the fun as you run for re-election without as much as a penny of support from us.

You know, a few gun-tottin' nut cases, (often with misspelled signs) get all this coverage, but back when SF had very large anti-war protests they were written off as a political throwback.  So, how are those wars doing?  They are doing - and you can go back and check it out - EXACTLY as well as the protesters feared. We are stuck in a quagmire, no way out, no path to victory and a huge fricking bill that could easily pay several times over for all the health care that is being discussed.


I was watching Dick Cheney (yes, I have a very strong stomach) and he was carping that all the decisions of the Obama Administrations are 'political.'  Really, how does he not burst into flames when he says that?

Neither party is willing to stop feeding from the corporate trough. Things will not change until we have leaders that want justice and are willing to admit what the problems are.

I'm not sure exactly what the hell is going on myself. Why is it that so many people who are otherwise rational have become beligerent, hostile and downright stuipid?

These are not all neocons or right-wing extremists...or any of the usual suspects. Many of them just don't trust government to get anything right. This is change they don't want.

My letter carrier can't seem to get my check in the right box, but they damn sure track me down if some bill collector needs to find me.

From my perspective, people are pissed off that the government is bailing out all the rich folks while the rest of us are losing our jobs, homes, health care, retirement savings...everything. The banks and corporations are getting bailed out and we are getting stuck with the bills.

That is pissing people off, it's enough to make anyone stupid with rage.

Yet another deluded writer trying to pass off the unmitigated BS that anger/rage/craziness are the sole province of the right.

Pretty much standard issue boilerplate nonsense. Probably out of "left Wing columns for Dummies"

Are Birthers crazy? Oh hell yeah.

pretty much just like the "Bush stole the Election" crowd nine years ago....and plenty of other examples on both ends of the spectrum.

Terry Schivo people...."blood for Oil"....Mena Airport....Bork's America....

Lots of crazies.

Not all on the right.

anyone who wants to rant about, for instance, Michael Savage (whom I LOATH for the record) best spare a moment's thought for Keith Olberman....anyone who wants to mock Ann coulter ought turn a jaded eye on Bill mahr....so forth and so on.

but they don't.

For far too many people the crazies are all on the other side.

That, of course, and people like me who are crazy enough to contradict the popular meme.

---

Post Merge: September 19, 2009, 03:03:57 PM

---

Quote from: xsocialworker on September 03, 2009, 11:53:23 PM
The Buck stops here. He needs to ignore FOX Noise and the two faced lyin GOP and ram it through complete with a public option. Faux News speaks only for itself.

Funny that more people watch Fox than watch ALL the other cable news outlets COMBINED, eh?

That's an impressive accomplishment for an outlet no one at all agrees with.

To be sure, it doesn't prove they are right - but it sure proves they resonate with a heck of a lot of people besides just themselves.

---

Post Merge: September 19, 2009, 04:19:20 PM

---

Quote from: CindyJames on August 17, 2009, 04:08:40 AM
I know it's not my right to comment, but: (LORD I LOVE THAT LINE IT'S MY CUE >:-))

I was totally amazed watching FOX USA news about seemingly intelligent people complaining that a "free" health service that would assist the underprivliged was a descent into a socialism and communism. No way to that! it's better to let people suffer than to help them. Sick.

Sorry Heatherrose, I'm going to re-state it: Americans are weird!!


Cindy

Cindy, hun, I say what I say as one of those poor uninsured folks.

Good intentions don't pay the bills.

Currently we have the wonderfully well-intentioned medicare system which provides generally well recieved services to our elderly (who have paid into the Ponzi scheme all their lives)

Seems like an obvious good deal to pay for the health care of elderly folks, right?

Except that Medicare is going broke - again. After having been "rescued" at the cost of billions some 3 or 4 times before. Current estimates project that by 2030 medicare will consume 1 out of every 4 dollars in federal revenues. By 2050 one out of every two (and Social Security will get the other one, by the way).

either that or the average taxpayer will pay 2/3 of his income to the federal government....just to maintain the current government, not counting adding the new plan

(and that's not counting massive spending currently going to Medicaid  - for those really poor people we are worried about - which also can't keep it's financial head above water and which is wrecking the state budgets of many states because the state has to contribute funds in order to "draw down" federal dollars)

And how does Medicare achieve the cost/benefit ratio they have now? By squeezing providers with artifically low price points and restrictions on potential cost-saving innovations.

Those artificially low prices don't mean providers take a loss, they simply increase the cost to all other patients, which increases the cost of insurance, which feeds the cycle of growing health care costs.

Add to that the fact that foreign governments cap the cost of drugs, which means that Americans pay more than there share in terms of development costs and it goes up again.

in fact, almost every factor which increases health care costs in this country is a direct or indirect result of government action.

The point is - it's all well and good to want to "take care of the poor" but the money has to be there. And it's not. It's not there to pay for the obligations we already have, let alone create new ones (and I was saying this while Bush was riding the Drug-Plan pony a few years ago too).

The only way to make sure everyone has coverage is to bring back the FREE MARKET.

I believe, STRONGLY, that the government should insure those who can't afford coverage get care. but that has to come within the context of not screwing up the market so that everyone's costs are as low as practical.

The canard that right wingers are cold-hearted bastards who don't give a damn about the poor is just one more example of what's wrong with the public discourse in this country (and possibly elsewhere) - we can't seem to be content to say "I disagree with your ideas" - everything is reduced to "the other side is teh EEEEEEvil!"

(witness the context of pretty much ANY comment ever made about Dick Cheney)

Those who oppose this plan are not black-hearted monsters who don't care about the poor. Despite the caricature that is often drawn.

Haha! You go Laura! Don't take no BS from nobody. EVAR!!! They just keep trying to eat it themselves and think you ought to be obliged to live off it as well.

QuoteThe only way to make sure everyone has coverage is to bring back the FREE MARKET.

Duh!, the free market depends on you buying the insurance or care not the government.

Yes it's easy looking across the pond and being critical, I'm not apologising because I think these sort of debates are very helpful in understanding each other as humans.

The health system in most place is out of wack. In South Australia it is estomated that the entire state budget will be needed to support the health system by 2020, not that far away :P

How have we all got in this mess? the baby boomer generation is having the major impact here, with a low birth rate so society is getting older and fewer people to support us oldies. Where have all our taxes gone? The bottomless pit known as general revenue.

I (obviously) comment on the USA system and of course I'm largely ignorant of the background; but I don't let facts get in the way of a good discussion :laugh:.

It seems that the USA economy is just about a basket case, trillions in debt and what can be done? There seems to be an attitude that no matter what, we (the country) can afford it, notably the massive amounts of money to fund the military involved in unpopular wars/police actions, together with funding new toys for the military boys.
Something by the way, that I and many people who are protected by the USA umbrella are very thankful for. But again that's not going to stop the discussion :laugh:

There appears no lessons learned on Wall Street; greed is good, but getting away with it is better.
I was at a loss reading Obam's speech and the reaction of the Wall St community, these people appear to have pocketed millions of your money in so called rescue packages, certainly rescued some very fat cats.

The unequality between rich and poor, or even "middle class" appears incredible. Ok you can defend it by saying that the USA is the land of opportunity and everyone has the chance to get to the top. Fat chance, If anyone still believes that I think they are away with the fairies.

Drug money capping. This is an interesting one. You are being ripped off. The companies appear to have a legitimate argument in saying that they need to recoup investment money in developing new drugs, fine. Lies. They recoup heaps more than they expend, remembering also that nowadays "they" don't develop the product. "They" often buy it from start up companies, which BTW is why start up companies exist; in the hope of being bought out.

Lets look at one new(ish) drug, Rituxan or Rituximab, MabThera in Europe. Marketed by(decided not to say) Its a immunotherapy drug which is very effective in treating B cell malignancies particularly NHL. It costs (indirectly)to me, about $50,000 to put a patient on it, the company recieve about $4-5 billion per annum for this drug. It's now capped in Australia so we can in fact use it. I think the company have recovered their development costs by now.  Interestingly however, is how some of the money has been used. The companies involved have actively followed any product that is similar; bought out the rights and buried them. Nothing like competition to keep prices down.

I suppose as ever I have drifted off the point. My fundamental belief is that WE (humans) have an obligation to care for fellow humans who are less fortunate as ourselves. Even if ourselves are not all that fortunate. It is incredibly easy not to like the unfortunate, those who never had a chance, and those that did; but blew it. The addicted, the mentally ill, those living in the bottom of a meth bottle. The dirty drunk who just foul mouths and pisses itself.

Hitler had a solution to the problem. I disagree with it. But I have no answers, only questions.

Cindy

Thank you, Cindy. You don't need to be a U.S. citizen to see what is going on and to comment here (thank god). Those oceans separating us have become oh so small lately. Some of us here in America want to linger with the delusion that we are isolated in our half of the globe we have controlled for so long now. It's a fantasy that only helps those who profit from it.

Our former president Clinton tried to tell us we won't always be the most powerful nation on earth and we had better start getting used to that idea and doing something in our own self-interest by working for interdependency. But oh no, something in someone's holy book said that is the signal of Armageddon and...blah blah blah.

We had a president who was the former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces way back in the 1950s who warned us of the dangers of the "millitary industrial complex". This guy was the biggest Hawk ever, he knew how to fight and win wars. Yet when he became the political leader of our country he realized just what the hell was going on, and that it was unsustainable.

We have these bastards that get us into wars we can't win and go on about "freedom" and "democracy" and we all know what they are really after is to enrich themselves.

Now we had to bail their asses out with all their "free market" bull->-bleeped-<- and the people who work for a living have lost it all; our homes, our jobs and our life savings.

And it's not just us, it's the whole world. Those worthless securities our ever-so-bright MBAs on Wall Street sold everyone a bunch of worthless paper. They are criminals who need to be in prison.

Laura you said 1 in 4 dollars would be spent on midicare by 2030. Compare that to the huge, and unsustainable, spending on th U.S military fighting 2 arguably unnecesary wars. (an argument can be made for the initial invasion of Afghanistan, but the planning was non-existant therefore leading to a lengthy, costly and inneficiant occupation with no feasable plan of exit. Iraq was,pardon my french, a ->-bleeped-<- storm from the begining). 25% of annual government money being spent on healthcare is not a revolutionary high for developed nations. And surely you agree that spending vast amounts of money to protect the vulnerable is better than spending even greater amounts to kill them.

Claire xoxo

QuoteNow we had to bail their asses out with all their "free market" bull->-bleeped-<- and the people who work for a living have lost it all; our homes, our jobs and our life savings.

Big government and big business are partners in crime. The free market helps both get bigger. It is only when we limit the size of both will we have the freedom to take care of our selves. We have to make a distinction on who we buy from not government. The control of the market is in your pocket.

Quote from: lisagurl on September 19, 2009, 07:51:45 PM
Duh!, the free market depends on you buying the insurance or care not the government.

Exactly true.

---

Post Merge: September 20, 2009, 01:39:50 PM

---

Quote from: Cindy
we (the country) can afford it, notably the massive amounts of money to fund the military involved in unpopular wars/police actions, together with funding new toys for the military boys.

You hear that said a lot but in truth, even with 3 or 4 (depending on how you count them) different wars to pay for, in the last 40 years we have spent VASTLY more money on social spending than on Defense.

Also, another huge slice has gone to what is essentially "international welfare" spent on the well being of people in other countries (non-militarily)

QuoteI was at a loss reading Obam's speech and the reaction of the Wall St community, these people appear to have pocketed millions of your money in so called rescue packages, certainly rescued some very fat cats.

This is true. the argument for the bailouts was that it's the fat cats who employ the masses and keep the economic wheels turning, which is true in the abstract but I'm not sure I buy the "too big to let fail" argument. It might be that a shorter, much deeper, recession (deeper because of the bigger failures) would be healthier than a protracted, less deep one. Economist disagree with each other of course.

Quote
The unequality between rich and poor, or even "middle class" appears incredible. Ok you can defend it by saying that the USA is the land of opportunity and everyone has the chance to get to the top. Fat chance, If anyone still believes that I think they are away with the fairies.

I would not argue "anyone can" (I don't think I can for instance) but I think a vastly greater percentage have a shot here than in most other countries, probably somewhat greater than in ANY other country.

The thing is, I think the "incredible inequality" is a missing of the point. The standard of living in the US for people who are in the middle 3 quintiles is, from what I've read, FAR above the great majority, if not all, of the worlds population (I suspect Australia, Canada, and probably Japan are right there close and some of Western Europe not far behind).
Dwelling on the fact that there's an incredible difference in income between a family who makes $40K a year and the people who are the "fat cats" you mentioned creates the FALSE illusion that the family who makes $40 K is poor and neglected and struggling and being ground under the heel of the fat cats.

Now it's true that a (relatively small) portion of Americans have very low incomes - I'm one of them. but the gap between me and the "comfortably middle class" isn't nearly as big as the gap between the upper middle class and the truly wealthy.

and the wealthy - even those with an income of $150K a year or more - is a VERY small percentage of the too. So, speaking as one of the very poor, I'm not in the least worried about the gap between the guy in the middle and the guy at the top, I'm worried about the gap between the guy in the middle and the guy at the bottom and THAT gap isn't THAT big.

See the charts here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

I will let you interpret the charts for yourself but what I'm pointing to is that the median is - IIRC - right around $42K and if you consider that and then look at the income distribution:

21.66% make under $20K
41.39% make between 20 and 60K
21.02% make between 60 and 100K

All those income levels are relatively tightly grouped when compared to what the "fat cats" make.

another 13.06% make between 100 and 200K (fewer than make under 20K) and that leaves only only 2.87% making over 200K annually.

The fact that a few of them (considerably less than 2.87% of the whole) amass HUGE incomes might be troubling on some ethical point of view - the same way one would be troubled that a guy can make over $20 million a year for throwing a ball well - but it really is nothing but an emotional reaction.

The gap between the family who's living, buy any standards, a perfectly comfortable middle class life and the family who can't keep their lights turned on is a relatively modest 20-30K....and invoking the difference between the middle class family and the mega-wealthy (hundreds of thousands of dollars) is a distraction at best, if not, for some people, an outright attempt at deception.

Quote
The companies appear to have a legitimate argument in saying that they need to recoup investment money in developing new drugs, fine. Lies. They recoup heaps more than they expend, remembering also that nowadays "they" don't develop the product. "They" often buy it from start up companies

I'll defer this point to you since all my info is second hand. I've heard the argument you make made by reasonable people and I've heard the opposing argument made by reasonable people. i have not the expertise to defend one over the other in a debate such as this but I would suggest that I'd be content with a drug cost cap on a trial basis - say 10 years - and see which argument proved to be true. In fact, there are all sorts of targeted reforms that are worthy of action without running such a huge risk of violating the Law od Unintended Consiquences.

Quote
My fundamental belief is that WE (humans) have an obligation to care for fellow humans who are less fortunate as ourselves. Even if ourselves are not all that fortunate. It is incredibly easy not to like the unfortunate, those who never had a chance, and those that did; but blew it. The addicted, the mentally ill, those living in the bottom of a meth bottle. The dirty drunk who just foul mouths and pisses itself.

This is something that's easy to agree with. The problem, as you mention, is in the execution. The nature of social aid and human proclivities tend to interact in unpredictable ways. In the U.S. we have spent trillions on social aid since the 60's...I recall an article 10 years or so ago that claimed that if the government had simply cut a check for $20K annually to everyone below the poverty line they would have spent less money than they have...and for our efforts we got - more people in poverty.

I don't think anyone, no matter how far to the right (save perhaps the hardest-core libertarian) is opposed to helping the less fortunate, some just argue that the help that's being rendered isn't really effective and maybe it's time to reevaluate the assumptions instead of just spending even more.

Like you, I don't propose to have solutions. But at some point it seems logical to ask "what happens when we run out of money?"

---

Post Merge: September 20, 2009, 02:56:34 PM

---

Quote from: PhoebeNow we had to bail their asses out with all their "free market" bull->-bleeped-<- and the people who work for a living have lost it all; our homes, our jobs and our life savings.

You REALLY think the cost of the military/war/defense is what caused this?

I don't know how I could reply to that without coming across as rude.

Quote from: Claire
Laura you said 1 in 4 dollars would be spent on midicare by 2030. Compare that to the huge, and unsustainable, spending on th U.S military fighting 2 arguably unnecesary wars.

Ummm....actually I was wrong - it's almost 1 in 4 NOW

Check this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png

That's FY2008
23% = Medicare and Medicaid
21% = Social Security
21% = Defense/War

and that's BEFORE the Baby Boomers start retiring. AND before we add a massive new cost burden for the proposed health Care "reforms"

Quote
And surely you agree that spending vast amounts of money to protect the vulnerable is better than spending even greater amounts to kill them.

My argument is not about comparative worth, it's about what happens when the money runs out.

The FY2008 spending budgeted specifically for the war was something like 30% of that military slice. Or roughly 7% of the overall budget.

for a direct comparison:

Medicare/Medicaid + Social Security = 44%
Wars = 7%

And, again, that's BEFORE the Baby Boom Bubble moves through the system and BEFORE we commit to even more health care obligations.

I move the previous question - where's the money going to come from? shall we shut down the entire military right now in order to "protect the vulnerable"? Even if one did that, it would only provide a decade or two of relief at most before we went broke anyway.

And that's not even mentioning the fact that what we are NOW spending is deficit spending which by definition is unsustainable.

(and there's a whole other issue of where the interest on the national debt is going but let's not complicate things)

Where's the money going to come from?

QuoteWhere's the money going to come from?

You do understand money it self is not worth anything. It is your faith in our government that gives it value. There is not a pot of gold anywhere to back up the money. I would suggest you do something that is of value for other people then you will never go hungry. Life is not about money it is about friendship, community and family.

I think Lisa made my point better than I did, stop worrying about the money and help your fellow humans as much as possible.

But on the money front you should probably be more concerned with other countries demanding repayment in their own currencies over dollars (e.g. Japan are pushing for repayment in Yen) due to the U.S.A deliberately devalueing the Dollar in order to reduce the debt they have to service. Also the risk that international oil trading may be done in Euro if the dollar is devalued too much, and your collosal budget and trade deficits. America is broke and still spending, don't worry where the money is coming from or where it is going just hope it all works out cause at this point it's out of your hands regardless of any healthcare plans.

Claire xoxo

Quote from: Claire on September 20, 2009, 06:50:55 PM
I think Lisa made my point better than I did, stop worrying about the money and help your fellow humans as much as possible.

On an interpersonal level, I fully agree.

Quote
But on the money front you should probably be more concerned with other countries demanding repayment in their own currencies over dollars (e.g. Japan are pushing for repayment in Yen) due to the U.S.A deliberately devalueing the Dollar in order to reduce the debt they have to service.

That's one on a LONG list of ticking time bombs for the U.S. economy which each in turn weakens the ability of the government to meet the needs it has abrogated to itself.

Quote
Also the risk that international oil trading may be done in Euro if the dollar is devalued too much, and your collosal budget and trade deficits. America is broke and still spending, don't worry where the money is coming from or where it is going just hope it all works out cause at this point it's out of your hands regardless of any healthcare plans.

Well, this much is certainly true and - truth be told, I'm politically pretty much of a cynic. I'm pretty confident we're going off the cliff regardless, I think things have gone far too far in the wrong direction to be stopped. So I'm just enjoying the view on the trip.

The only reason I let myself get drawn into these discussions is because I have  such a frustration with poorly made arguments. I do not mind AT ALL when someone says from the right or the left towards the opposite: "I respect your views and I can see your point but I disagree"

But FAR more often the other side is mean/nasty/evil/crazy/hateful/idiotic/whatever. The more I personally don't care which side wins, the more I notice just how often the two ends of the debate demonize their opposition rather than reason with them.

Even that wouldn't be SO bad if the ones doing it didn't imagine themselves to be such reasonable folks.

Cindy Gulps; I hope I'm one of the reasonable ones Laura :(. I like the discussion and my apologies if my USA facts are inaccurate but I'm sitting in the arsehole of the world ( a quote from a former prime minister of Australia, Paul Keating; while he was Treasurer I believe)
I have to admit that I and many others are very alarmed at the USA deficit. Who now owns the USA? If China pulls the plug what happens. Remember that the US basically pulled the financial plug on the USSR and things changed very quickly.

I'm still at a loss to understand the reported inequality of the USA health system and, as you have demonstrated, the enormous amount of money going in to it. Why the imbalance? We hear reports of people turned away from hospitals because they cannot pay; is this true? Or am I again mislead?
We hear reports of large numbers of people, mainly black (is that OK? moderator please censor if inappropriate) people who are so far below the poverty line that they may as well be in 3rd world countries, yet live in one of the richest in the world (maybe). Why?

I will admit with deep shame that Australia has treated its Aboriginal people in such a way that poverty would be riches. Another story another debate.

I was very suprised on what "middle class" (hate the term) Americans earn. OK a lot of what we mean about income is really standard of living: you can earn $1mill an hour in Zimbabwe and it won't buy a coffee. I would like to finish with a very 'stupid' comment; I've visited USA several times, my wife is an American. As many know my bgd, suffice to say I love her and I respect and love the USA. However, most of the information that people recieve (OS) about America is from the TV. Crap sitcoms, violent cop dramas etc, they really don't do you justice. Could be a starting point in the new world order. Show the USA how she is, might make a mighty change to how the USA is seen in Middle East and Eastern countries in particular.

Sorry hope I haven't offended more that half the world

Cindy

I'm not offended. The USA health system stinks in it's unfairness. I know life is unfair and all that stuff, but this unfairness can be fixed. As to a previous poster, Republicans are greedy, heartless, and selfish,

"

QuoteThe USA health system stinks in it's unfairness. I know life is unfair and all that stuff, but this unfairness can be fixed. As to a previous poster, Republicans are greedy, heartless, and selfish,

There is a much bigger problem. Both parties are for big business.  Global Corporations have much greater power than any one country. They manipulate governments. The corporation's goal is to make money. We are citizens first not consumers. The earth is over populated and only natures laws of survival of the fittest will prevail. Health care is important, but there simply is not enough resources to provide everyone with the best care. Keep that in mind when you figure out a way to provide it. Who is going to be at the bottom of the ladder?

Cindy, as an educated - and a British/Colonial based education system at that, I'm sure you're familiar with old Winston's quote about the Soviet Union, that Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.  I think he was sayin' it was real hard to understand Russia, and very, very hard to understand the Russian mindset toward Russia.

But that's three things, and three things never sort out easy, never pile up evenly, never are in rhythm together - so that is confusing.  The US is a lot easier to understand because I think there are only two.  But, and the mystery of Russia comes as these three things interact and act as catalyst to each other, the two in the US are merely in opposition to each other and I think people are confused by that.  Seeing it from the outside, where it all look a piece - like its just Americans as one big old aggregate unit and miss that huge, expansive and powerful divide that exists, and always has existed.  It's because in most things - the manner of living, the outward trappings, the fashion - the groups are exactly the same, and no group stands out against the other. They both cross the great divide all the time and live in each others worlds and pay some lip service to the 'other' as at least being 'ok' if 'ok' really means 'not too bad but misguided.'

These two viewpoints, these two intellectual outlooks, have been with us since the beginning of the Euro's in the States, and even in that basic deal there is a disagreement.

In the one minute university you'd tell me that "Australia was populated by Irish convects of the British Criminal system (that thought that being Irish in and of itself was pretty much a crime) who were 'transported' to some god forsaken shore tossed off the boat and left to sink or swim, live or die, on their own."

In the one minute university there are two different birth of America stories, one for each side, and each told sort of alongside the other with much more stress placed on one than the other. 

In one version, America is founded by the Crown of England, following the well defined tenants of merchantialism and colonialism, to make money.  Lots of it.  Mostly for 'the crown, i.e. the state of England' but still huge amounts ended up going to some pretty special people along the way.  One of those special people who might make some coin of the rhelm, otherwise known as gold, could be you if you struck out to Virginia or some such.

The other version of this story has some beleaguered refugees hauling themselves over so they can remake civilization in a manner more pleasing to God, that this New World, was to be where God uplifted mankind, and where man would build a New Jerusalem in the wilderness.  Hence, calling the places things like "Salem" and "New Salem" as a short version of Jerusalem.  These divinely guided and personally motivated by God himself to purify the church (hence the name Puritans) came over and by the grace of God and of Providence (A major town in Rhode Island) began to build "A Shining City on a Hill"

Now, that's a hell of a difference there between person A - "Hi, I'm here to make money." and person B - "Hi, I'm here to please God by doing his will."

To the degree that most of the god types were Protestant, and they having invented something called 'the Protestant work ethic' which stressed among other things, making lots of money, the two groups generally got along.

Each created a separate world really, a type of Christianity on one hand not seen elsewhere in the world, the other, a secular - if by secular you mean science+technology - society and culture that was also very unique.  However, the very world ushered in by science+technology, and accompanying values like 'material progress' would radically shake the foundations of the strong, hard-core believers.  As fate would have it - not really, because birds of a feather and all... some areas of the country because gradually more liberal (and with that, more urban/suburban, more educated, more pro-science) while others drifted to a more conservative (rural, poorer, more poorly educated) bent.  Some areas of the country became very prosperous, but rural America suffered as urban America improved.   

And, due to a political quirk, the more rural and conservative places, hold a large sway over national politics, and have for a long time now left a hard-core conservative and rural political grouping has fought tooth and nail to avoid anything that might even hint at progress in charge of the system, if not outright, then in a blocking move that has blocked just about everything.

It's a house divided, and the debate has been held off on for a long time, but I think it's coming round.  And I know why the debate has been postponed, its because both sides made huge pacts with the devil along the way to get some kind of acceptance/privilege and neither side really wants to give them up.  But we can't continue along these lines much longer.

I mean anyone who has looked at the budget of the US knows that a lot more than some 20%, a lot closer to more than half, if you include the cost of current wars ($200 Billion this year alone on the 'war on terror'), which are not included, they are covered through the back door of a supplemental appropriations, and the cost of paying off past wars, also not in that figure but close to 20% all in and of itself - along with the energy/nuclear programs that are not part of the DoD budget, but are close to 90% DoD related in both theory and practice.  Only about 30% of the national budget goes to 'human resources' - you know, people - social services, medicad, AFDC, WIC, Food Stamps, All Education, Labor, environmental programs, medical research, NIH, the National Labs, and the rest of that stupid human stuff.

Most budget analysis also posts about 5% for physical stuff (federal buildings, parks) and about 11% to run the government itself, which is pretty cost efficient.

And in the end I think that Lisa is right, and because the corporations have so much power that they will get what they want, which is national health care.  Its an unfair cost of doing business in the US that you have to do the employee health care deal, when in France, Germany, Canada, the government does it all for you.

Quote from: CindyJames on September 21, 2009, 04:33:18 AM
Cindy Gulps; I hope I'm one of the reasonable ones Laura :(.

Oh absolutely!

Quote
I have to admit that I and many others are very alarmed at the USA deficit. Who now owns the USA? If China pulls the plug what happens. Remember that the US basically pulled the financial plug on the USSR and things changed very quickly.

It's a great concern but the thing is, in China's own interest, they need our markets so they have an incentive to be nice unless they intend war.

Quote
I'm still at a loss to understand the reported inequality of the USA health system

Never underestimate the agenda of he who does the reporting. It's not just in the content of the given story, it's in which stories they choose to cover and which they choose to ignore.

Quote
and, as you have demonstrated, the enormous amount of money going in to it. Why the imbalance? We hear reports of people turned away from hospitals because they cannot pay; is this true? Or am I again mislead?

Such cases are exceedingly rare, as a percentage of the whole, and almost always something with a considerably larger context. Walk into ANY emergency room in America and you'll see a big poster under glass somewhere that informs you that it is illegal for the hospital to turn you away because you are unable to pay.

That's not to say there are not anecdotal stories which are used to inflame passions, there are. But in fairness, there are a great many stories reported here in the alternative media about the difficulties with health care in abroad (particularly in the UK and Canada) including waiting months for a routine procedure (sometimes even death in the interim) and extended waits in the emergency room (one report I saw reported as much as a 23 hour wait at one hospital) and shortages of professionals and beds (reports of patients housed in hallways because of no beds being available for instance).

So even to the extent that one gives credence to "horror stories" - they cut both ways.

Quote
We hear reports of large numbers of people, mainly black (is that OK? moderator please censor if inappropriate) people who are so far below the poverty line that they may as well be in 3rd world countries, yet live in one of the richest in the world (maybe). Why?

Well, let me give you the example I know best - my personal experience.

Since 1999, I have made over 10K in income in one year exactly ONE time. No, that's not right - twice. I made just over $30 K teaching in one year and that was split over two calendar years (2006 and 2007). My total income (as I project it now) from the end of 1999 to the end of 2009 will be about $65K

Not counting incidental "off the record" income.

In that period of time we have never-
>Been hungry
>Been homeless
>needed serious medical care we couldn't afford (their have been some preferred prescription drugs we had some trouble with but between samples and low income assistance programs that has been the exception)
>Been without transportation
>been unable to afford basic necessities or utilities.
>we own all the usual basic level accouterments including pre-paid cell phones, DVD players, two TVs, video games, and etc.

In short, in comparison to most of the worlds population we are wealthy.

That's not to say there have not been moments of crisis - there have. And may be again. that's not to say we have not been very fortunate. If the motor on my car locked up today, I'd be on foot. But it's not a bad standard of living for an average income over a decade of under $7K a year.

(and yes, that's with considerable public assistance including rent support, medicaid on the kids, and food stamps)

Going beyond that, my wife is from a family that by any measure would be referred to as "plain white trash". Up until the age of 14, the house she lived in was so bad that you could stand inside the house and spit on the ground below it. (I've seen pictures) She was one of 10 kids in that family. When they got a better place it was because the local baptist church built them one and gave it to them.

No one in her family has become well off. i doubt any of them have ever reached $30K in income in a year and most of them are below the poverty line.

As of this writing, all of them, and their kids and grand kids, are fed, clothed, housed, and outfitted with goodies and so forth in FAR better shape than she was at 14. And most of them are not receiving any sort of public assistance (one or two are getting stamps and one is applying for disability)

They are - we are - collectively - lower income than 90% of the country. and we are far FAR FAR better off than all but the most well off of those residents of third world countries.

In most any case, when you see a person who's living in third world conditions they are either a victim of some other circumstance (drug addiction, for instance) which undermines their ability or incentive to raise their situation, or are a victim of their culture (with all due respect to racial sensitivity, the resistance to "acting white" among some inner city blacks perpetuate lack of success).

such cases are - again as a precentage of the whole - vanishingly small, albeit I don't think it's humanly possible to create a society in which NO ONE is in such circumstances. the vagaries of human nature will always lead to examples.

---

Post Merge: September 21, 2009, 03:12:34 PM

---

Quote from: xsocialworker on September 21, 2009, 07:10:35 AM
I'm not offended. The USA health system stinks in it's unfairness. I know life is unfair and all that stuff, but this unfairness can be fixed. As to a previous poster, Republicans are greedy, heartless, and selfish,

As long as these sorts of attitude prevail, our country will never ever achieve the goals we all share for it.

and yes, there are many on the right who have an equally unhelpful view of Democrats/liberals.

Opinions like that are part of the problem, not part of the answer.

With all due respect.

It's only part of the problem if it's untrue.  If it is true, then the real problems lay not with those who seek change, but with with those attitudes, notions and desires of greed, heartlessness, and selfishness.  And perhaps those people are neither right nor left, not out for one side or the other, but just out for themselves and simply are playing one side against the other.

Quote from: tekla on September 21, 2009, 09:56:02 PM
It's only part of the problem if it's untrue.

It is untrue - as are the things that some on the right try to characterize liberals and Democrats with - as a general principle.

ARE there greedy, mean and selfish Republicans? Sure. There are greedy mean and selfish Democrats too. There are bad examples of all sorts of human failings in all political ideologies.

That being the case doesn't mean that those terms can be applied to ALL or even MOST of the people who hold any given ideology.


Blanket stereotypes and condemnations NEVER serve any useful rational purpose.

Not when they are directed against "our side" and not when they are directed against "the other side"

What an interesting discussion. I have learned lots of new information.

Tekla quotes Winston, a master speaker.

I love good speech. After reading some of the comments I was reminded of "What is an American" by your war time (WWII) (I think) Secretary for the Interior?  Harold Ickes.

A quote:
I say that it is time for the great American people to raise its voice and cry out in mighty triumph what it is to be an American. And why it is that only Americans, with the aid of our brave allies - yes, let's call them "allies" - the British, can and will build the only future worth having. I mean a future, not of concentration camps, not of physical torture and mental straitjackets, not of sawdust bread or of sawdust Caesars - I mean a future when free men will live free lives in dignity and in security.

This tide of the future, the democratic future, is ours. It is ours if we show ourselves worthy of our culture and of our heritage.

But make no mistake about it; the tide of the democratic future is not like the ocean tide - regular, relentless, and inevitable. Nothing in human affairs is mechanical or inevitable. Nor are Americans mechanical. They are very human indeed.

What constitutes an American? Not colour nor race nor religion. Not the pedigree of his family nor the place of his birth. Not the coincidence of his citizenship. Not his social status nor his bank account. Not his trade nor his profession. An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity of man. An American is one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbour. An American is one who will sacrifice property, ease and security in order that he and his children may retain the rights of free men. An American is one in whose heart is engraved the immortal second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.


The whole speech is fanatastic, and has never been listened to by any members of the Bush Dynasty.

One of the most amazing things I have found from this post is how little we know of each other. I realise Tekla's point that the USA was settled by two diametrically opposed groups, which I think was further mixed by the intake of refugees  particularly in the 1900-1950s. I hadn't realised the deep divide still existed. Who and what are Democrats and Republicans? I thought they were just two political parties. In Australia we have Liberal and Labour, Liberal tend to be more buisness orientated while Labour were traditionally for the "workers". The lines are now so confused that Labour is as Liberal as the Liberals are, so we have fringe parties developing like the Greens, Democrats (nothing like you D's) and any number of Independents.

We also tend to swap who we vote for ay any given election, yes there are diehards but there are enormous numbers of undecided voters. Voting is compulsory, you get  a fine if you don't vote. You can spoil your vote or not enter a vote but you have to turn up to a voting station.

We are covered for medical care through our taxes but encouraged to have private cover as well. Our health system is in crisis, same old story, needs more money, no matter how much money is spent. I have had too many episodes of being in EDs with my wife's accident. The longest was 18 hours before getting a bed, and they knew we were coming :'( it was a transfer between hospitals.) And yes I know all about beds in the corridors, and ambulances driving from hospital to hospital trying to unload patients.

I suppose where I am coming from is we really don't get the truth about what's happening. We think we do.
But is it that bad? I had a collaboration with some colleagues in China at a major hospital, they had trained with me and returned home. When we were discussing the possibility of obtaining samples I was told there was no problems as they didn't have to worry about ethics committees. I decided I wasn't all that interested in the project after all.

So maybe we aren't all that badly off. :embarrassed:

Cindy

Well its important to remember that both the political parties, in fact the entire political system pretty much is the construction of person A, the "Hi, I'm here to make money" guy.  It was built to serve them, it was built by them, and it largely revolves around them.  For the most part person B, the one who was all like "Hi, I'm here to please God by doing his will" was far outside the realm of politics for most of the nation's history.  There was a constructive tension between the two.

So the two groups within the political deal - liberals and conservatives - were both the making money guys.  Nether was a party of the 'poor' - the Democrats were aligned with farmers and labor unions, but farmers and labor unions are just all about making money, they don't have the huge sweeping social reform programs that unions or farmers organizations outside of the USA do.  But they do tend to seek a production based solution.

The Republicans, the party of finance and business seeks - not surprisingly, not production based solutions but more management/administration based solutions that would favor finance (and despite all the 'free market' crap, America's financial markets have been in bed with the government since the 1840s, there has NEVER been a Free Market in the US) based solutions.

To the degree they could, they tried very hard to do commerce, and not to do much of anything that had much to do with social policy until post WWII.  The business of government in the US was business - broadly expressed as 'commerce' and the government worked to make commerce happen.

That's because due to some historical quirks and a civil war deal, the two parties after the war - the Dem's and the Pubs, both had liberal and conservative elements in them.  The parties were in many ways regional, not ideological constructs.  So the Pubs had both the followers of a sacred, ordered society, bound by tradition, that protects both rich and poor, the East Coast Republicans, they of Harvard, Yale and the Yacht Club, as well as the more Western/West Coast notion of the "Libertarian, robber baron, capitalist, cowboy America."  In the same way the Democrats had all the big city immigrant machine politicians of the Northeast, as well as the Solid South, perhaps the most conservative and least challenged group of them all.

It wasn't until Sixties that the real religious types felt like they were being oppressed by social and cultural changes that they didn't like (no matter that most of those changes did not come from the government) and started to look at politics as a way of dealing with that, and the Republicans, fast losing their second group of Western libertarians and having them replaced by the formerly democratic, but can't much cotton that race mixing stuff so now turned Republicans that began courting that vote.  And, the exodus of the South from the Democrats left the Democratic Party much, much more liberal than it had been before.

Quote from: CindyJames
What constitutes an American? Not colour nor race nor religion. Not the pedigree of his family nor the place of his birth. Not the coincidence of his citizenship. Not his social status nor his bank account. Not his trade nor his profession. An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity of man. An American is one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbour. An American is one who will sacrifice property, ease and security in order that he and his children may retain the rights of free men. An American is one in whose heart is engraved the immortal second sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

The whole speech is fanatastic, and has never been listened to by any members of the Bush Dynasty.

You know, there's a truckload of stuff I didn't like about W (and even more about his daddy) and the last thing i want to do is carry a brief for those guys....and it's certainly true one can dispute the rational i'm about to refer to BUT:

One of the MAJOR defense of the unpoipular (on the left) war in Iraq was that Bush's argument that the iraqi people were just as entitled to freedom as Americans and it was America's responsibility to spread freedom wherever she could.

For all intents and purposes his argument was exactly the same as Ickies' in that speech.

Quote
Who and what are Democrats and Republicans? I thought they were just two political parties.

They are really. To understand the dynamic that divides then you really have to ask "what is conservative and liberal?" in the modern American sense. Neither word carries the same connotation it carried in the 19th century (in fact, some make a sound argument that the 19th century liberal is pretty much the same as the 21st century conservative.

And then within each group there are subtler divisions. Old school Conservatives lean heavily towards a mix of libertarian-ish thinking on personal liberties and a belief in as unrestrained a free market as is possible given the human tendency towards corruption (that's what I am, by the way)
there's also a school of thought called "neo-conservatism" which is in ascendancy in the Republican party which is a more "aggressive" twist on conservatism (more prone to flexing international muscles, more active in pushing moralistic policies at home)

All that said, conservatism isn't JUST "let's be slow to change" anymore. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, basically a thought system that begins with the individual - a bottom-up philosophy. Yes, they will grudgingly concede there are some things you need  a government to do, mostly to curb the natural excesses of the individual, but that - as Reagan famously said (quoting someone else i believe) "That government is best which governs least"

Liberalism - broadly speaking - takes the opposite tack. There are real human needs that must be addressed and it's the responsibility of government to "fix" everything. Whatever might be lost in terms of personal liberties is more than made up for by the resulting equality and fairness.

there are of course minor counter examples (the liberal would argue, for instance, that restrictions on abortion are impositions on personal liberty) but in a general sense, this is the divide in America - and be sure I do not intend to minimize either instinct here, I think the liberal instinct that everyone be taken care of and treated fairly is just as noble as the conservative instinct for personal liberty. The trick is how you balance those two noble instincts to get the best outcome.

The stereotype is that conservatives are business oriented and the liberal is labor oriented but that's not really anything but a platitude. One might note that prominent Democrats enjoy HUGE support from HUGE corporations (GE for instance is welded to the hip of Obama). Part of that arises from the fact that Unions proport to speak for all labor and they are married to the Democrat party but there is way more non-union labor in America and a lot of union members are not Democrats.

All that said, what the two major parties have descended to is essentially knee jerk "Teh other side is teh EEEVil!" thought processes most of the time. Far too often the choice of what governmental action to take has as much to do with electability and casting the opposition in a bad light than about what's actually good for the country or consistent with your professed political philosophy.

But that too, I assume, is pretty much part and parcel of politics. I just have a lower tolerance for it than I used to.

The problems you, and our Canadian and European friends, will always have in processing American politics are 2.

first, the "left" in the U.S. is only slightly left-of-center on the world scale. If you put the whole political world on a (very simplistic) 1-10 scale, with 10 being most right wing and 1 being most left wing - our MUST left wing mainstream politician is probably a 3.5-4.5

Likewise, your most right wing mainstream politician (in the Western world - not speaking of some Muslim totalitarian here) is maybe a 6 on our scale. So when you hear "left and right" about y\our guys it doesn't translate too well.

The second thing is much more confusing - and something I expect a few folks here will come along and argue strenuously against but it's nevertheless true. Of the major news outlets - the major networks, cable networks, major newspapers, and newsmagazines, almost all of them are staffed by VERY left wing people.

(for instance, in 1994 - before Fox got going good - their was a survey of American newsrooms and 91% of news professionals had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. He didn't get 91% of the vote in our most liberal state, for comparison. Other surveys show that some 60+% identify themselves as liberal which is more than double the percentage in the general population)

The exceptions are Fox News, the Washington Times, the editorial page of the WSJ and some right wing news mags like the National Review.

The result of this is that almost all of the news people outside our shores receive is created, produced, and reported by very left of center people (often further left than the left wing politicians) and so you get news that is VERY friendly to the American left and VERY hostile to the American right. They claim, falsely, that their views do not affect their reporting but such a thing is impossible. A person cannot help but speak favorably of that which seems logical and reasonable to them and speak derisively of that which seems irrational to them.

And it's not just in the content of what they say, but in what they choose to cover and what they chose to ignore.

If you notice anything said about the media in left-leaning communities like this one, it's the mocking derision directed at Fox news. Why? Because the mindset of all other broadcast media is so far to the left that Fox looks freakishly knuckle-dragging right wing. they ARE right of center but they are a lot closer to the center than, for instance, MSNBC is. The ironic thing is, the same people who SWEAR Fox News is a right wing Republican house organ are the same people who insist to the last breath that every other news outlet is completely unbiased and that no reporter in America would ever slant their stories to the left.

Ah....but I digress heavily. The point in bringing that up is to say that, though you say you have spent a good bit of time here, for the average non-American who hasn't - that person has almost no chance of getting a real objective view of what's going on here politically. Truth be told, we have a huge number of people who've lived here all their lives who have no real clue.

Anyway, I must agree with your assessment of this conversation. It's so refreshing to really talk to someone without exchanging hostilities.


(by the way, I like the compulsory voting on the surface but I have to ask - how would we ever insure every vote is an INFORMED vote? What troubles me more than non-voters is the voter who votes though he can't even name his own senators let alone know what he stands for)

---

Post Merge: September 22, 2009, 01:50:57 PM

---

tekla's historical review of "how we got here" is well done and I agree in large part. There might be some points I'd amend a bit (for instance, saying we never had free markets is true, but the degree to which they are more free or less free is still a relevant thing to conservatives) but in the main, it's a good review.

The one place perhaps that wasn't covered as well is that in the early 20th century, the nation was much more "progressive/liberal"  in the halls of power than it was after WW@ up until the shift in the 60's.

Teddy Roosevelt is considered a hero by many Republicans (McCain for instance) but he was a pretty progressive guy - even though he was mildly right of center among his contemporaries. Outside of the nonsensical Prohibition movement (which was largely a grassroots thing) most of the major political ideals in the first few decades were solidly left wing - and this is the cauldron in which FDR's views were shaped. Both Wilson and FDR were WAY over to the left compared to most of the politicians that came after them (JFK for instance was not nearly as liberal as FDR was)
We are only now seeing an American government that's as far to the left as what we had in the 1930's.

Still, on the whole that was a solid analysis.

Laura, as a not so unbiased outside observer I have to say that you were right when you said the American left wing is the equivelent of European centre-right, If any politician in western Europe tried to put an end to social healthcare they would be run out of office. However the right in the U.S may be more religious than elsewhere but not more extreme, for example the BNP in the U.K are very apperently racist and make no apologies for it, The spectrum, at least in Europe, is much broader.

My problem with Fox news is not only their views but the innability of the presenters, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly being the only 2 I know of, to present logical well thought out arguments and make counter arguments to points that they don't support without resorting to strongarm tactics such as shouting an opponent down or contradicting themselves. By that token though all American news seems to be presented in a very sensasionalist way, with the point being to shock, appal and entertain rather than to inform. I can stand an intelligent discourse with someone I dissagree with as long as it is reasonable and respectfull, American telivision doesn't do either whether it's left or right of the political divide.

As a side note Fox news is not right wing because Rupert Murdoch says it should be. He is a very clever business man and Fox news is just money to him, he saw that the U.S t.v. media was overwhelmingly left wing and decided to tap into the right wing viewers who want to see right wing news. People don't watch Fox because it's so much better than any other news station (I don't know if it's substance is any more or less than other networks) they watch because it tells them what they want to hear.

Claire xoxo

Quote from: Claire on September 22, 2009, 06:41:39 PM
Laura, as a not so unbiased outside observer I have to say that you were right when you said the American left wing is the equivelent of European centre-right, If any politician in western Europe tried to put an end to social healthcare they would be run out of office. However the right in the U.S may be more religious than elsewhere but not more extreme, for example the BNP in the U.K are very apperently racist and make no apologies for it, The spectrum, at least in Europe, is much broader.

I hadn't remembered that but that does line up with what I've been told by other Europeans. i stand corrected on that.

Quote
My problem with Fox news is not only their views but the innability of the presenters, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Rielly being the only 2 I know of, to present logical well thought out arguments and make counter arguments to points that they don't support without resorting to strongarm tactics such as shouting an opponent down or contradicting themselves.

a few brief thoughts -
*you see VERY little in the way of logical thought out positions on either side in the american broadcast media. Part of that is the restrictions of the format and part of it is....a point I'll address below.
*O'Reilly and Hannity are the two that shout down their opposition (even though O'Reilly isn't precisely a right winger) and I dislike that style very much too. Beck is a drama queen BUT if you watch, when he's doing an interview he is much more calm and thoughtful...his shouting comes mostly when he's monologueing.
*Self contradiction is bad, but also goes across the spectrum. It's a weakness of extemporaneous speaking.  I've also seen Beck consciously reverse a previously held opinion and say he was doing so and why. One of the problems of the supposed "Watchdogs" is that they can pull out Clip A and Clip B and show you a contradiction but you as a viewer have no way of knowing that in between the two the speaker explained that his view had changed.

Quote
By that token though all American news seems to be presented in a very sensasionalist way, with the point being to shock, appal and entertain rather than to inform. I can stand an intelligent discourse with someone I dissagree with as long as it is reasonable and respectfull, American telivision doesn't do either whether it's left or right of the political divide.

Bernard Goldberg wrote a great book a few years ago about media bias and in one chapter he pointed out that American news fundamentally changed for the worse on the day 60 Minutes first turned a profit. Before that execs had treated news as "special" - a cost they simply had to bear. but when they saw a news program could make money then slowly the line between news and entertainment has been almost completely erased.

such profit motive thinking leads to entertainment value being placed above content.

Which goes back to the previous point about "logical arguments" - neither side does that because THAT is BORING to the McViewer, and thus not profitable. You get a bit of that on PBS, albeit thoughtful conservatives are not welcome on PBS since William Buckley left the scene, but PBS doesn't have to make a profit. but elsewhere? not a chance - it's not going to get the ratings.

Quote
As a side note Fox news is not right wing because Rupert Murdoch says it should be. He is a very clever business man and Fox news is just money to him, he saw that the U.S t.v. media was overwhelmingly left wing and decided to tap into the right wing viewers who want to see right wing news. People don't watch Fox because it's so much better than any other news station (I don't know if it's substance is any more or less than other networks) they watch because it tells them what they want to hear.

Claire xoxo

Absolutely! All one has to do is see what kind of programing shows up on Fox's entertainment channels to know it has nothing to do with conservatism, it's money.

But the thing is - WHY is conservative-leaning news vastly more profitable (Fox outdraws all other cable news providers combined)? Because what you see on fox is what most Americans think.

You said "they are telling them what they want to hear" and I agree - and that is a direct and huge piece of evidence about where the bulk of Americans are, politically. And always were. Before the alternative media came along most Americans never realized they were being spoonfed a left wing slant on every story, they just assumed the news could be trusted. Now they know better.

and their viewing choices reflect that.


the recent elections would seem to argue to the contrary but the recent elections have far more to do with the Republicans squandering their base than it does with a leftward shift in the population.

And the irony is, the success of Fox and other alternative medias (talk radio and etc) gives the impression that those people are more to the right than they really are because the "mainstream media" is anything but - it's SO far to the left people can't stomach it and they end up with Fox. if there was an ACTUAL balanced outlet, IT would be #1. But Murdoch has no financial motivation to move to the center and the others are so blinded by their ideology they can't.

Dear All,

I think the bit the Bush Dynasty missed was :

I say that it is time for the great American people to raise its voice and cry out in mighty triumph what it is to be an American. And why it is that only Americans, with the aid of our brave allies - yes, let's call them "allies" - the British, can and will build the only future worth having. I mean a future, not of concentration camps, not of physical torture and mental straitjackets, not of sawdust bread or of sawdust Caesars - I mean a future when free men will live free lives in dignity and in security.


I deliberatley watched the O'Reilly program and than Hannity last night on FOX, we get the USA version for some cruel reason. I hadn't watched them before. I was stunned. I only lasted about 15 minutes before my stomach gave out. This wasn't right wing bias, this was propaganda (misusing the word I know). How could anyone watch these jackasses? I thought Australian news programs were poor but my lord at least they report facts and discuss them without bias, or little enough so you can make your own opinion.  Are your newspapers that bad as well? If the public are watching such programs and believe them to inform them, well you have a problem.

Compulsory voting. The arguments still rage about it, yes there is a concern that the uninformed will cast a donkey vote. But, by some strange twist of fate, the majority of people want to be informed, because they have to vote. OK there are outliers and last minute political twists can spin the bottle. But it works, and we get a representative government. And the poiticians are all accountable. In the last election the liberals led by Prime Minister John Howard had a sizable majority. It was completely wiped out. This was rare as the incumbents have a powerful advantage in money and advertising, essentially they can pork barrel. But he had taken Australia to war in Iraqi, and many Australians did not agree; he had brought in unpopular work practice laws that very much favoured the employers. He lost his own seat (rare for a prime minister, most have very safe seats, as he did). And to a great extent it was due to compulsory voting. I think it should be mandatory in a democratic system.

Thanks for the explanation of the political system by Tekla and Laura, very interesting. I think I know see why farmers in Australia and in Europe are so anti-American farming practice/business. Then again Australians loath the EU subsidy schemes as well. Some of the government subsidy schemes make Microsoft look like a charity organisation.

Unions in the UK and in Australia are very powerful and are major political forces. They seem to be shady; almost but not quite illegal in the USA. Don't know why.

Do you BTW have parties other than the main two? Such as Greens etc as seen in Europe and Australia? They don't get any press here.  I'm a bit suprised there hasn't been a more radical shift in power bases with the new generations. In most democratic countries there has been a shift by the younger people away from the traditional mainstream parties.

Thanks to everyone for this discussion, very enjoyable to talk to interesting people with different views and willing to state them in an intelligent and articulate manner.

Hugs
Cindy

QuoteI deliberatley watched the O'Reilly program and than Hannity last night on FOX, we get the USA version for some cruel reason. I hadn't watched them before. I was stunned. I only lasted about 15 minutes before my stomach gave out. This wasn't right wing bias, this was propaganda (misusing the word I know). How could anyone watch these jackasses? I thought Australian news programs were poor but my lord at least they report facts and discuss them without bias, or little enough so you can make your own opinion.  Are your newspapers that bad as well? If the public are watching such programs and believe them to inform them, well you have a problem.

Oh Cindy, dear!

Those shows are NOT "news programs" they are OPINION shows. so is Beck. so are Olberman and maddow and others on MSNBC and so is Lou Dobbs on CNN.

"Special Report" is mostly news (the last segment is a discussion pannel) and Shepherd Smith (who I don't much enjoy watching) is supposed to be straight news.

But O'Reilly and Hannity get paid specifically to have an opinion (and don't think I'm defending Hannity - he grates on me a great deal)

Quote
Do you BTW have parties other than the main two? Such as Greens etc as seen in Europe and Australia? They don't get any press here.  I'm a bit suprised there hasn't been a more radical shift in power bases with the new generations. In most democratic countries there has been a shift by the younger people away from the traditional mainstream parties.

OPh we have a Green Party, and a Libertarian Party, and a Constitution Party (libertarian in the main but with a moralistic view on social issues) and a Socialist party and some other lesser ones.

but none of them have ANY prayer of winning a national election. there are two (I think) Socialists in Congress and occasionally an Independent manages to get elected to a statewide office but that's always a freakish occurrence.

the two major parties have firmly gamed the system to make the logistics of a third party succeeding pretty much impossible. I can't explain (and don't even fully understand) all the mechanics of it but it has to do with the basic mechanics and procedures of holding elections and so forth.

It's a very stacked deck.

Ha

I find that even more incredible, you pay people to have opinions! Which appear to be at the best poor and biased, and people watch them!! I presume they have the same opinions! Nothing like a healthy debate :laugh: :laugh:

I suspected there was a deal between the major parties to ensure a minor couldn't get through. I think it's called western democracy, if it happens in the middle east etc it's called corruption.
We can and have had a new political party burst on the scene and take effective power. They usually fade but they are a good emetic in a democratic system.

So I don't have to watch Hannity again to get a deep understanding of the American psyche? Joking :laugh:. Surely such programs are only watched by the 'believers'. Frightening that that concept seems :'(.

BTW Rupert and family started in Adelaide with the Adelaide Advertiser, still going strong and still left wing. Rupert has never been a person to mistake profit and fact. He became a USA citizen faster than most women can give birth. Wonder how?

Hugs
Cindy

Laura, I think alot of the viewing figures Fox posts are so large due to a lack of competition.  They hold a virtual monopoly in right leaning news and "opinion" shows whereas msnbc and cnn and others are competing between each other for the left leaning viewer. The more accurate portrayal of America's political leaning as a whole would be the viewing figures of ALL left wing news shows versus those of ALL right leaning ones shown at the same time of day (E.G. 6PM news on all stations.) This monopoly was after all what drew Murdoch to establish the station.

Cindy why do you get American versions of News Corporation run stations in Australia? that just seems odd, do you get Australian versions as well?

Unfortunately for the U.S. the 2 party system is so engrained that a more open political landscape will not be tolerated by those who benefit from the current set up, the politicians. That means that politics in the U.S. is vey polarised with each side taking drasticly different stances on most issues and then accusing the other side of being evil and "un-American". In Ireland by contrast there are many political parties with varying stances on most issues so there are degrees of left and right, most of the major parties are in fact too similar with the largest 2 being indistinguishable except for their dislike of the other one.

Claire xoxo

Americans have been brainwashed by BIG. We do not need big business or big government.

Check out this Atlantic article about how to reform health care. Get ride of "big".

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care)

Quote from: CindyJames on September 23, 2009, 04:45:45 AM
Ha

I find that even more incredible, you pay people to have opinions! Which appear to be at the best poor and biased, and people watch them!!

Well yeah. Opinions are by definition biased. I'm biased, you are, everyone is. And thus our opinions are loaded with our bias.

Nothing wrong with that - it's the human condition.

And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there). He just can't be as open about it. Often, he denies he has one but that's silly - everyone has an opinion and their opinion MUST affect what they speak of and what they say about it. No matter how professional they try to be.

The difference in O'Reilly (for instance) and the "jouranlist" is that you know where O'Reilly is coming from up front, and you can appy the proper filters. With the "mainstream" anchorman, he's lying to you, unintentionally perhaps, that you are getting the news "straight" and for the unsophisticated viewer, that opens the door for ACTUAL manipulation of the public opinion.

Quote
I presume they have the same opinions! Nothing like a healthy debate :laugh: :laugh:

You might be surprised how many people watch those shows (or listen to the same people on the radio) who don't hold those views at all or entirely. O'Reilly will read his mail at the end of the show and very often he will read a letter on a given story from a left winger accusing him of being obviously a right wing knuckle-dragger on the subject and then a letter from a right winger accusing him of being a flaming liberal on the exact same story.

that means both were watching.

Also, these shows tend to have guests from both sides of the aisle explaining their take on the story at hand. Admittedly Hannity shouts down the lefties on his show (one reason I can't stand him) but not so much O'Reilly. When you see O'Reilly yelling at a guest, it's usually not because s/he's a liberal per se.....he is very respectful of many liberals, but more because the particular story has inflamed his passions. For instance, there was a judge in Vermont that was letting child abusers off with a slap on the wrist and he got very incensed about that.

Beck, despite being a drama queen, usually is VERY calm with his guests. It's when he's monolgueing that he goes a bit loopy.

So no, it's not really 100% undiluted right wing views.

I'd go so far as to say - and we don't get the channel here so I'm not certain of this - that you get far more liberal guests showing up on Fox shows than you do conservative guest on MSNBC.

That said, as I said before  - no, you can't really call what happens on these shows "healthy debate" - healthy debate doesn't get ratings. However, for the overall "marketplace of ideas" it IS helpful to have outlets like Fox and talk radio and so forth. Before 1988, the marketplace if ideas was 90% dominated by liberals....even if liberals were almost always right that's not a healthy debate. Now, in the overall national conversation, there's a lot more balance (which, of course, deeply troubles the folks who once had the market all to themselves and that's why you see so very much inflamed rhetoric about how "dangerous" right wing media is)

Quote from: Claire
Laura, I think alot of the viewing figures Fox posts are so large due to a lack of competition.  They hold a virtual monopoly in right leaning news and "opinion" shows whereas msnbc and cnn and others are competing between each other for the left leaning viewer. The more accurate portrayal of America's political leaning as a whole would be the viewing figures of ALL left wing news shows versus those of ALL right leaning ones shown at the same time of day (E.G. 6PM news on all stations.) This monopoly was after all what drew Murdoch to establish the station.

Indeed. If you'll look back I made that same point a few posts upthread.

I don't have the hard numbers in front of me but what you basically have is about 50-55% of the viewers watching Fox (presumably right or right leaning people) and about 45-50% watching all other outlets. but lets also keep in mind that for a LOT of self-professed "moderates" (those who deny being either liberal or conservative) CNN enjoys the reputation of being the moderate, middle of the road, outlet. So that 45-50% is both the liberals and the moderates.

Also supporting this is that whenever Galloup or someone does a survey, you consistently get about twice as many people claiming to be conservative as liberal and if you combine the "mostly" respondents you still get about twice as many.

I've often thought you were all nuts...however it's a kind of nuts I recognise.
I read a lot of 18th century writing and diaries and histories, listened to the songs and that, really soaked myself in it and there is so much about Britain in the long eighteenth century that is like america, it's uncanny.

I reckon that because your constitution set in stone so many of those 18th century values and such, you are stuck in a timewarp when it comes to attitudes and such that belongs wholly to that time. It's like the donkey on the long rope that is tethered and goes round and round the pole until it strangles itself. Not having a constitution, we don't have a rope and so were like the donkey that wandered off to graze, letting us be crazy in a completely different way.

And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there).

Actually in Ireland (RTE) and Britain (BBC) the news reporters must be unbiased and give only facts, any opinions given are those that other people have expressed and are quoted. Howver these people can let their bias influence what they do not say about a story to a certain extent, so you can tell a reporters bias more by what s/he doesn't report than what s/he does. However the facts presented are simply cold hard facts.

Quote from: Claire on September 23, 2009, 04:16:08 PM
And, by the way, the "straight news" reported has a bias too (both here and there).

Actually in Ireland (RTE) and Britain (BBC) the news reporters must be unbiased and give only facts, any opinions given are those that other people have expressed and are quoted. Howver these people can let their bias influence what they do not say about a story to a certain extent, so you can tell a reporters bias more by what s/he doesn't report than what s/he does. However the facts presented are simply cold hard facts.

Well, that's primarily what I mean by bias.

The editorial choices of what to report and what to ignore is a HUGE factor.

That said, even the "cold and hard facts" are subject to the person's internal point of view.

For instance, to take one of our more contraversial issues - abortion.

did you know that it is an editorial policy in all the mainstream newsrooms that the person who favors little or no regulation on abortion is to be referred to as "pro-choice" but the person who favors more restrictions on abortion are referred to as "anti-abortion."

To a person who holds the former point of view, that's a perfectly reasonable, fair and unbiased thing to do.

but "pro" and "anti" are loaded terms which in there very use convey a bias.

Why doesn't the mainstream press use the term "pro-life"? Or "Pro-abortion"? They have explanations to be sure, but the point here is that to a pro-choice person the use of "anti" is not a reflection of bias....even though objectively it is.

Likewise, your newsreader who presents "objective facts" still may very well be couching those facts in terms that a left-of-center person sees no bias in, even though it's there.

Obviously, not having seen those reporters I cannot testify that it happens, but I'm of the school of thought that NO person can be completely unbiased about anything he or she has a view on.

Even if they are striving mightily to be unbiased...we are all blind to the subtle ways our bias manifests.

Quote"pro-choice"

Ever since Hitler discovered propaganda political consultants how been aware of have to use language. It was pro-abortion or anti-abortion to start before the consultants came in. Then it went to pro-abortion and pro-life. To pro-choice to pro-life. It is all in the political semantics designed by our professional lobbyists. That is where the money goes in the political industry. A close relation to marketing firms.

I find the term pro-life to be in most cases wildly innacurate due to the fact that most (not all, MOST) pro-lifers in America back the death penalty to the hilt yet say you must always support the right to life??? Doesn't make sense, and you can't argue that those people on death row had a life and squandered it because to support the death penalty is to support the taking of a life and that cannot be PRO-life by defenition. The term pro-choice is by and large more accurate because abortion at the end of the day is an individuals choice. But Lisa is right that these words are all spin and little substance, it's better to be pro-life than anti-abortion even if they are the same thing because anti is a negative word and no one wants to appear negative.

Claire xoxo

Quote
back the death penalty to the hilt yet say you must always support the right to life??? Doesn't make sense

not to speak directly in defense of capital punishment but are you saying there is no logical distinction between a person duely convicted of a crime and one who isn't?

Most especially one who hasn't even made any volitional act to be guilty of even so much as a lie?

I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

To say "it makes no sense" is an overstatement.

QuoteThe term pro-choice is by and large more accurate because abortion at the end of the day is an individuals choice.

That would be more true if "pro-choice" groups didn't move heaven and earth to fight against informed consent requirements so that women can make an informed choice.

Most pro-choice activists (though not that many among the average citizen who calls themselves pro choice) are only pro-choice so long as you choose abortion.

Understandable given the massive profit motive they have.

Quote
But Lisa is right that these words are all spin and little substance

which is exactly what I was saying in the first place - we are al agreed.

So if it's true that left or right we agree such terms are spin and not "facts....then why is it that news organizations who claim to be unbiased and only concerned with facts use those terms (pro-choice and anti-abortion) as a matter of set in stone POLICY whenever they report on the subject?

Simple - because their bias informs their choice of words.

I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

Gee, I thought the rule was: Thou shalt not kill.  That's it.  No conditions.  No astricks indicating a list of people who if you killed them might not be missed all that much, or a hidden list of bonus points you get for smiting people that god's already got it out for.

And such a position - that of intellectual and moral consistency - is taken by the Roman Catholic Church under what is called 'The Web of Life Doctrine", which holds that because god's word on the subject is short, sweet, and to the point - Thou shalt not kill - you don't kill.  How hard is that?  No abortion, no capitol punishment, no war.

Seems to me if its wrong, its wrong.  So don't do it.

Quote from: tekla on September 24, 2009, 08:43:45 PM
I understand the argument that to be pro-life ought to mean defending ALL life BUT intellectual honesty also demands being able to understand how a person could make a distinction between an infant and convicted killer.

Gee, I thought the rule was: Thou shalt not kill.  That's it.  No conditions.

didn't realize you were a "King james Only" type.

Most of us aren't. And every well supported translation realizes that the hebrew actually says "You shall do no murder"

Quote
No astricks indicating a list of people who if you killed them might not be missed all that much, or a hidden list of bonus points you get for smiting people that god's already got it out for.

If that were true, then why is it the SAME Pentateuch which includes (supposedly) "thou shalt not kill) provides a LONG list of offenses for which God ordains the punishment as - death?

Why do the same people get instructed over and over again to attack a city and "kill every living creature"?

Either God is schitzo, in which case what he said on the subject is irrelevant, or "thou shalt not kill" isn't an accurate translation.

The actual fact of the matter is that the Believers who are "pro life" while supporting CP are fully aware that God himself endorsed and utilized Capital Punishment for crimes among his people. Proof positive that putting a person to death for a capital crime is not at odds with God's will.

And lest you think that's an exclusively Old Testament notion, Paul wrote that the government "does not bear the sword in vain"

Quote
And such a position - that of intellectual and moral consistency - is taken by the Roman Catholic Church under what is called 'The Web of Life Doctrine", which holds that because god's word on the subject is short, sweet, and to the point - Thou shalt not kill - you don't kill.  How hard is that?  No abortion, no capitol punishment, no war.

Seems to me if its wrong, its wrong.  So don't do it.

Right, because the Catholic church - which holds to a number of doctrines that are extra-biblical and unsupported by Scripture - is the last word on what god had to say.

Not for some of us.

 I'll leave the pro and anti abortionists alone. Semantics will never decide the issue. I firmly believe that it's a women's right to chose. I'm more perplexed by the death penalty. In emotional circumstances I support it, but in my belief in myself and humanity I cannot. I cannot get my brain around the aspect of punishment, corrective action and support for the society that capital punishment delivers. I think in a previous post, Laura, you had some statistics that the death penalty had a positive impact in reducing violent crime. On the other hand I have heard as much information in that it has no effect. I think the majority of the populace support it as 'the ultimate' punishment. I don't agree with that opinion BTW. I would much rather be dead than gaoled for life with no possibility of parole.  I am a little amazed that the USA and China are the two major countries that support capital punishment. I don't think any European country does. I know some Asian countries including Vietnam, Thailand and Singapore have the capital punishment for drug dealing. I'm not sure for other crimes.

But justice systems overall seem to be very imbalanced. In Australia the Aboriginal community is by far the biggest group in gaol, while in society they are around 20% of the population. The poor get gaol, the rich get richer, yet again.

There is a debate at the moment in Australia about paedophiles. Some very wicked men have recently been released after serving their sentence. No one wants them in their community, they have recieved no treatment for their 'condition' thay are just dumped. Should I feel sorry for this trash? No. But I do.  I loath them but I care. Why can't we treat criminals? There are ways, if not we can find them. We pour money into researching disease. We are (almost) civilized enougth to regard meantle illness as an illness that can be treated. Why can't we treat criminality? Ok as a whole it's a pretty big mouthful to chew on.  But some of it must be worthwhile, it costs us an enormous amount of money to keep people in gaol.

I don't know; it's friday night. I've just been told I have to buy a new wheelchair for my wife $4000. The poiticians have just voted themselves a pay rise. The people on the poverty level had their pay increase declined. There are people on the world stage that are just nuts. The King of kings!! :laugh: The Iranian chappy whose name I cannot remember. I share genes with these people. I'm sad.

Sorry people I hope some of my post is worth discussion

Cindy

QuoteI think in a previous post, Laura, you had some statistics that the death penalty had a positive impact in reducing violent crime.

Wasn't me. I've never discussed CP on this board at all outside the diversion in this thread.

and I do not have strong enough feelings for or against it to take a side in that debate.

The only time I comment on it is when someone mangles the argument like tekla did misusing Scripture that I believe she doesn't even believe in anyway.

Sorry Laura.

No offense meant. I was told that once you reached 50 two things went. The second was memory, I cannot recall the first one :laugh:

Cindy

I was not saying there is no distinction between a murderer and a foetus but the TERM pro-life by definition means in favor of preserving life which one cannot be if one supports the death penalty, (the taking of a life as punishment for transgression of the law) I said this in order to make my point that the terms pro-life and pro-choice were merely a twist of language used to make peoples opposing views seem more pleasant to neutral viewers not to start a debate on the death penalty itself ( though a thread on that is not a bad idea, if there isn't one already) or scripture (which I have no time for personally).

I believe this topic began as a somewhat humourous one about how America is NUTS lol ;D so in that case: Crazy Yanks :laugh: ;)

It's very simple:

Faux News is nothing but right-wing propaganda.

Republicans are out of touch with reality on every issue of importance.

That is it.

QuoteFaux News is nothing but right-wing propaganda.

No more than the other left wing propaganda media. Facts without a spin are hard to come by.

MSNBC IS NOT PROPAGANDA AND THEY DO NOT ENGAGE IN SPREADING LIES. THEIR ATTACKS ON FOX PERFORMERS AND PEOPLE LIKE REP. BACHMANN ARE NOT DISTORTIONS OF ANYTHING. I WOULD ALSO RANK JON STEWART AND COLBERT AS BETTER NEWSPEOPLE THAN ANYBODY ON FOX.

The facts of the news has nothing to do with the voice of the person spoon feeding you. I for one do not watch TV. I read various publications to get a rounded view. Remember most have a motive to make money for their service. Each tries to gain more viewers at the expense of making the information entertaining. Facts are not entertaining just dry.

I like Hardball, Countdown, and Rachel Maddow because I just like to watch people who agree with me.

Quote from: xsocialworker on September 26, 2009, 01:40:07 PM
I like Hardball, Countdown, and Rachel Maddow because I just like to watch people who agree with me.

Ding! Ding! ding!

We have a winner.

THIS is why the partisan ship will never change - because THIS is what 90% of the people want. To have their pre-existing views reinforced.

You are right. I am extremely partisan and have been since Joe McCarthy went out in a cloud of slime.

I too tend to read, rather than listen to the news, and I try never to watch it.  I read from all sorts of perspectives, and have an open tab so I can check what the writer is saying.

And I for one lament the decline of the old conservative media that was thoughtful, sane and sentient.   People like William F. Buckley who could debate in a public format without becoming a clown car like Beck, Rush et. all.  They took policy seriously, and as a result were pretty much disowned by the current crop of entertainers who found the easiest audience to cater and pander to - and proceeded to do just that.

That there are higher ratings for some conservative sites and news programs tends to obscure the fact that there are far fewer of them.  Where 'liberal' news has a lot of choices, 'conservative' news has but one.  In a one to one head on fight the conservatives would post much lower percentage numbers.

And you do not need to believe to read correctly.  What seems simple, is often given that invisible asterisk so that people can feed their own values into it.  So it ought to read to most people "Thou shalt not kill, except..."

And I use King James because its the most widespread and familiar text, the standard source, however had I used some more obscure translation, I'm sure that would have been wrong too.

The bible supports slavery too.  Also the use of concubines.  And giving your young daughters away to angry mobs to ravage.  Not exactly a book of virtues.

But the real issue is how much of America is truly crazy, and its a rather high number, I'd put it at about 20% of the people who 'understand wrong' or who just don't see the forest for the trees.

Not that that I need to say it again, But CRAZY is a world wide practice  :P

This is planet earth, If your not nuts when you get here, you'll be nuts when you leave  :laugh:

Yes, but there is a special kind of crazy in America with those who find the pace and style of change too much to keep up with.  Or those who feel that the changes have passed them by, rendering them pretty much obsolete.

Particularly in hard times.

I've often thought of it as a chemistry metaphor.  Petroleum molecules are very long chain molecules, and are very hard to crack open.  But it can be done.  It's done by turning up both the heat and the pressure.  And as times get hard, as the pace of change speeds up, as that temperature heats up, as the pressure mounts, then good people begin to crack.

Its got to be very hard to firmly believe in something that each and every day seems a little less true.