Regarding the efficacy of the war on terror in reducing the threat of terror ... this is obviously a very political issue because the entire credibility of the Republican Party is tied up in painting their anti-terrorism policy as successful; arguably because they are very very short of successful policy areas.  (Refer Rudi Giuliani in the past week! http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/9/823441/-The-facts-about-terrorism-during-the-past-9-years)  As a result there are as always voices who wish to paint the Republican story.  That said, the very emptiness of the term “war on terror” makes it hard to define success or failure.  It is often pointed out that declaring war on a tactic is stupid and meaningless.

But thanks for the links:

*  CNN on the relatively higher turnout at the elections in Iraq.  Good news ... but whether this is related to terrorism is moot.  I like the other headline on the page “Official: U.S. will not renew its contract with Blackwater.”  Ah well, CNN credulously reporting as directed again!

*  The Council on Foreign Relations paper says of al Qaeda that “group’s core “is less capable and effective than it was a year ago.” But a number of affiliated groups have gained prominence in recent years, complicating the task of containing the organization.” and that “al-Qaeda transformed from what was once a hierarchical organization with a large operating budget into an ideological movement. Whereas al-Qaeda once trained its own operatives and deployed them to carry out attacks, it is just as likely to inspire individuals or small groups to carry out attacks, often with no operational support from the larger organization.”  I would suggest that this makes al Qaeda much harder to contain (especially with military operations) and a far greater threat in the future.  There don’t have to be many terrorists to inflict serious damage.  That is their whole strategy.  Inspiring terrorist activity rather than directing it suits al Qaeda very well and is integral to their broad strategy.

*  YaLIBNAN makes the point that the election of Obama has made the U.S. far less unpopular than it was with Bush as the figurehead.  True and not just in the Muslim world.  The article was written in the immediate aftermath of the inauguration.  The continued adherence to key Bush/Cheney policies has sent these figures steadily in the other direction again.

*  The Ruder Finn press release!  Ah yes, Ruder Finn - a PR / lobbyist firm releases a paper which takes the data from three studies by “major terrorism research institutions”  “...and offers a different interpretation” from the findings of these three studies!!  This, my friend, is what is called “spin”.  Their argument is basically that the numbers are skewed by inclusion of deaths in Iraq (which they define as a war not a series of terrorist actions).  This would seem at odds with the idea that Iraq is “the central front in the war on terror” wouldn’t it ... but I would never say “you can’t have it both ways” in a thread which was, after all, about Fox News!!

There are many more like the Ruder Finn release and the CNN articles.  The whole idea of a PR campaign like this is to seed the media with a particular point of view.  Compliant media outlets pick up these releases as “news” and report it.  Then there are reports of “growing consensus” and so forth.

Regarding American allies ... I ask again - how many of them have been committing war crimes at the rate the U.S. has been committing them in the war on terror?  There have been some complicit acts (hosting American “black sites” or allowing rendition flights to fly over for instance).  I deplore these as I deplore the kidnapping, torture, etc. in the first place.

DBM,

Human nature, which you and I cannot change, demands that only a handful of nations will be “the most powerful” on earth.  Currently it’s the United States that is considered to be “The Super power”. 

All of human nature and human history tells us one thing. This one thing you will never be able to deny.  Being on top means others will attack in order to bring you down.

So you choose.  Which nation or population would you have as the most powerful?

DBM, January 13 at 9:34 am

I’m saying none of it is O.K. with me! I’m saying this is a real war.  I’m saying I desire for my country and allies to win this global war - as apposed to loosing a war in which both sides are trying to break things and kill people. 

I’m saying Nasrallah and his ilk has declared war on all Arab nations that profess moderation and reject his brand of Islam.  I’m saying al Qaeda types are killing people in China, Chechnya, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Denmark, India, Sudan, Bosnia and Japan and you seem completely unaware of it.

I’m saying that in every post you are always writing about the United States when there is, in fact, a global war being fought as we speak.  I’m also saying now that you have a habit of belittling our allies with your perception that everything is controlled by the United States. <—excuse me but, the arrogance in that is the single most stated complaint others on the globe have in regards to Americans.

I’m saying that in Iraq al Qaeda was soundly rejected by the Iraqi population and resoundingly defeated on the battle field.  I’m saying that poll after poll, study after study, has found that Afghani’s have resoundingly rejected “the foreigners”.  And those “foreigners” they talk of are al Qaeda members.

I’m saying that numerous studies in Kuwait, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran, the UAE, and even the West Bank have shown that Islamist fanatics are less and less popular month by month and year by year.

I’m saying you’re not truly paying attention to the globe and have a laser-like focus on the United States.

I’m saying that in every post on this subject you have not given free nations a single benefit of doubt but have bent over backward to rationalize and romanticize various enemies of your nation.

I’m saying that the United States has many faults but is not, as you believe, the cause of the worlds ills.

Ok then ... let’s say you’re right.  But are you saying:

1.  That invasion, bombing, murder, kidnapping, indefinite detention, mass property destruction, surveillance and so forth is Ok because it is working and someone else started it.

2.  You’re morally Ok with doing all that because it’s not you doing it and it’s not your country doing it, it’s lots of countries doing it including the bad guys.

DBM,

Your perception on al Qaeda’s popularity is simply incorrect.  It’s what you desire.  not what is real.

Peace, high turnout reported at Iraq polls
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.election/
 
al-Qaeda Council on Foreign Relations-al-Qaeda’s popularity dropped from 33 percent to 18 percent.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9126

Terrorism Fatalities Decline as Muslim Support for al-Qaeda Terror Network Plummets
http://www.humansecuritybrief.info/HSB07_Press_Release.pdf

Obama’s popularity in the Muslim world rattled Al-Qaeda
http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2009/01/obamas_populari.php

There is much more if you wish it.

Ok then ... I’d have to adjust those to points to:

1.  You’re saying that invasion, bombing, murder, kidnapping, indefinite detention, mass property destruction, surveillance and so forth is Ok because it is working and someone else started it.

2.  You’re morally Ok with doing all that because it’s not you doing it and it’s not your country doing it, it’s lots of countries doing it including the bad guys.

———————————
A couple of responses among many possible tacks.  I’ll let this pipe-dream that terrorism is decreasing and people in the Muslim world are lining up against it go without further comment! )

Regarding point 1:

Now, I’m sorry you feel victimised that the U.S. is being accused of these things.  However, we can only have so much influence in the world and the country you vote in is the U.S.  It is U.S. armies (with very very small token international presence as window dressing) that are occupying these countries and flying the bombers or assassination drones.  Over 100 countries sounds good but I have no idea what makes you think 100 countries are engaged in activity like point 1 alongside the U.S. in the war on terror.  Palau would be the staunches of your allies in this endeavour ... but they have limited resources and may be under just a tad of pressure to maintain their support. 

The U.S. is the only country with 1000 bases on foreign soil.  The major terrorist attacks of the last 8 years have been pointedly directed at allies of the U.S. (Spain, Australia - in Bali and the UK) because of their support of the U.S.  The Muslim terrorists have stated what their two targets are:  Israel and the U.S.  Whether you like it or not, this is all about the U.S. ... other countries have their own intelligence services, border protection and criminal justice systems which are operating against the same threat.  The Brits were furious that the U.S. pulled the trigger on the “shampoo bomb” conspiracy while they were still building their criminal case through active investigations.  They don’t have a Guantanamo where they send people who they don’t like and cannot be convicted.

The proportion of foreign military engagement in the war on terror is trivial because no-one else sees it as productive ... and if you don’t think that is true, ask yourself how much difference it would make to Iraqis, Pakistanis and Afghanis if any country other than the U.S. pullled out completely.  I think you know the answer is none whatsoever.  Whereas, can you imagine any of these other 100 (!?!!?) countries staying in there without the U.S.

You may think that other countries are involved to a greater degree than that and, as you say that none of it is O.K. with you, I expect you want them to cease and desist their activities.  The country you can worry about is the one you vote in.  The reason the rest of world worries about the same country (considered in polls—yes polls!—to be the greatest threat to world peace ... more than al Qaeda) is because of those 1000 military bases and the immense military budget.

Regarding point 2:

The U.S. war on terror has been likened to driving a car into a wall at high speed in order to cruch a cockroach.  Anyone who complains that it was a stupid thing to do because it destroyed the car and the wall is accused of loving cockroaches.  The reaction has been disproportionate and unnecessarily destructive.  It has destroyed the lives of millions and enraged millions more.  If you reckon that the crimes a a few dozen people justify destroying a nation then how should others react when U.S. corporations (and large political donors) commit criminal acts in their countries?  Would that justify attacks on the U.S.?  Imprisonment of American citizens unrelated to the company?  Torture?

DBM, January 12 at 7:49 pm

I’m saying that none of this is O.K. with me. 

There is a real global war being fought.  There truly are groups, some at the helm of other nations about the globe, trying to break things as much as possible and kill human beings in mass numbers for the sake of killing.  All in a means to an end.  I’m saying it’s not the Western world killing for the sake of it.  Wars is a horrible phenomena.

Acknowledging the participation of over 100 other sovereign nations, who also feel under assault, is merely acknowledging current events.  We can’t pretend these other nations do not exist.  It’s impossible to talk of global events of war by always talking about the United States.

There are over 100 nations in this war against a common enemy and you seem not to like that.  You appear to desire the U.S. as the globe’s enemy.  It’s how you almost always describe current events.  We simply will never agree on that.

As an aside:  On every occasion we have discussed threats or enemies, perceived or otherwise, you have turned the focus onto the United States as the culprit in one fashion or another.  On every global subject we’ve discussed you have found a way to write about the United States while almost never mentioning the actions of others.  Friend or foe.  I don’t know how to do that.

Well, there are so many “facts” and broad interpretations in your last couple of updates that don’t hold water that I would have to unpick the BS from the half-truths to the wild logical leaps.  I’ll pick out a few gems when I’ve got a chance ... but let me get the top line points straight:

1.  You’re saying that invasion, bombing, murder, kidnapping, indefinite detention, mass property destruction, surveillance and so forth is Ok because it is working (in your bizarre interpretation of events).

2.  You’re morally Ok with doing all that because it’s not you doing it and it’s not your country doing it, it’s lots of countries doing it.

Still waiting on the Little One to display how “EVERY POLL” illiterates “OVERWHELMING” support of an “PROGRESSIVE” American Agenda.

That smell in the air is Manchild talking out of his overly emotional azz again….LOL

DBM,

You sincerely believe “al Qaeda types” are gaining in strength.  While I too have seen this talked about repeatedly amongst the media I see no evidence of that.  In fact if you do a search, using any search matrix of your choice, you’ll find al Qaeda types are loosing support and popularity all over the globe.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, the West Bank, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Indonesia and the Philippines.  In each of these nations, and more, bin Laden is rapidly loosing support.  Hundreds of millions of Muslims are steadfastly against radical Islamic fighters/believers.

Al Qaeda types are not getting stronger.  They are getting progressively weaker.  <—Check my facts.  This is of the utmost importance in understanding how incorrect your perceptions are.

-

After 2003, and after pressure from the United States, the world witnessed the Egyptian government open its election process a bit more.  The Saudi government has allowed wider and more open regional committee elections.  Kuwait, Qatar, and the UEA have opened their election processes to woman for the first time.  More woman hold positions in the Afghan government than any time in her history.  Some of these things are truly amazing events but almost completely ignored.

In August 2001 there were nine nations openly supportive of Islamist radicals.  Today there are only two.  Most of the remaining seven are openly, publicly, speaking out against Jihadists and actively fighting these self-styled enemies of the West.

-

You Write: “The very randomness with which the U.S. has blindly struck out in response to 9/11 is working against you.”

First - Why do you focus so intently and myopically on the United States when there are roughly 100 nations in this battle?  Are you unaware of Britain, Austria, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, the UAE, Kuwait, France, Poland, Germany, Russia, China, Yugoslavia the Philippines and others?  You are not thinking globally.  You’re putting a tremendous amount of focus on the actions of a single nation. 

There are roughly 360 million people in the United States while there’s roughly 6 billion other people in the world!  To even suggest that the events of 9/11 effected only the U.S. is grossly misinterpreting global events.  Why are you not listening to and watching the actions of Kings and Presidents around the world? - Again, there are over 100 nations fighting the same enemies, my friend.

Second - Can you give me anything to study which supports your view that these nations have “blindly struck out in response to 9/11”?  I see nothing of the kind, however, I am more than willing to look at anything you may have to offer.

I sincerely believe you have not taken the time to study our enemies or think globally and strategically.  You focus to intently on the U.S. it’s impossible to give full weight to the global context.

Go Right’s critique forces me to think it through.

I think I know what he will pick up on here ... we’ll see!

DBM, January 12 at 1:08 am

One of the best assessments I have yet read.

My questions to you then, regarding your support of the war on terror, are:

1.  Do you think it is working?

2.  Do you think it is right?

You have responded with a classic set of “Right Wing Authoritarian” arguments.  Namely, someone other than us is better informed, smarter, more able and will protect us if we just allow them to do what “Presidents and Kings” will do.  So, despite being moral in ourselves, we must allow immoral acts because these exalted people have our best interests at heart.

My position is more libertarian on this one, rather than liberal.  I’m also philosophically opposed to expecting a different result to more of the same stimuli.  I don’t see it working.  I have no historical precedent to suggest that it would but many which suggest that it won’t.  I am morally opposed to inflicting suffering for no reason.  Therefore, I am opposed to more of the same.  That Obama has not made any changes after coming to office I don’t see as a function of his exposure to the realities of his new position as much as either an inability to effect change in the unwieldy beast which is the government of a large country ... or a failure of character as he placates the powerful.

But who is your enemy?  Bin Laden is a Saudi.  Zawahiri is Egyptian.  Nasrallah is Lebanese.  People from dozens of countries have been imprisoned, many tortured.  Your military has attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.  Why not Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon?  Why not Switzerland, Chile and Mongolia?

By striking out wildly you are falling right into the hands of the people you are opposing.  You say “These men teach that it’s our laws that make us weak and beatable.”  I think more importantly they believe that the United States can be manipulated into setting up certain Muslim leaders, the key figurehead being Bin Laden, as the rallying points for disaffected Muslims.  To quote Saad Al-Fariq (from a passage in Ron Suskind’s “The Way of the World”) about Zawahiri’s advice to Bin Laden: 

The goal behind 9/11 was “always to create deep polarisation between America and the Muslim World” ... “Iraq was the greatest gift.  If proved to the world that it was, in fact, always America’s mission to get Muslims, especially when your stated reasons proved to be hollow.”

... and here’s the important bit.  The planned next step:

A WMD attack that will turn America inward, on itself, such that it withdraws from the world stage.  That was the goal from the start.  To unite Muslims and “collapse the world order” by making the world’s greatest superpower pre-occupied with self-protection and internal strife.  [This analysis is] based on the premises that “the lobbies are so powerful in America that they create a kind of intellectual and political authorisation—just like McCarthyism” [thereby restricting American freedoms].  After the next attack, al Qaeda hopes there will be an uprising [within America] by downtrodden people against the powerful.

... now I happen to think they’re smoking something.  The American leadership and al Qaeda (as described there) are so alike and so crazy they could be the same people!  Why would al Qaeda possibly expect that Americans would turn on each other following an attack instead of uniting and facing up to their attackers??  It is an idea which doesn’t make sense and isn’t support by history.  But before you wonder at their lack of insight consider how Americans expect the ever growing list of countries which have been attacked in the war on terror to learn that America is too powerful to beat and toe the line?  They are reacting just as Americans would by gathering around their leaders (e.g. Bin Laden) and fighting back.

But, for all the hatred engendered in so many places, their countries and armies are not strong enough to fight the U.S.  So what the U.S. is faced with is terrorists.  Terrorist who, on the morning of 9/12 had very limited support but whose support base has been growing ever since.

My argument is both utilitarian and moral:

1.  Attacking countries with your armies, imprisoning the innocent, stooping to torture and all other things I describe in that bit of satire are counter-productive strategies.  They have demonstrably grown the number of terrorist incidents and the pool from which potential terrorists can be recruited.  There is no neck of land where these terrorist can be holed up and massacred (Sri Lankan style) because they are dispersed across the world.  The very randomness with which the U.S. has blindly struck out in response to 9/11 is working against you.

2.  Subjecting millions of people to suffering for reasons they are not even tangentially related to is immoral.  In many cases, the victims are not only innocent of terrorism, they are not even of the same nationality or country of residence as the terrorists you are fighting.  Why, indeed, not attack Detroit and Portland because of 9/11 if you are going to victimise people randomly? 

My suggestion is that you treat these crimes as crimes rather than elevate the perpetrators to mythical levels.  I believe that will be more effective and have far less collateral damage.

DBM, - “You accused me previously of assuming that you are beneath my righteous intellect ... I don’t think I have.  I still don’t.”

I understand you don’t realize how you do this and I largely take no offense.  You’re repeated writings of the “FOX News lies”, and my dis-ingenuousness, plays a small part. 

What is so clearly a different point of view you interpret as dishonesty.  Well, it’s not.  And by making other points of view into something ominous we divide a nation in two.—The election of George W. Bush, from the day the Supreme Court gave it’s opinion, was made into something sinister, ugly and evil by the Leftist mind.  And it never abated.  Not even after being re-elected by an even larger margin.  The “Left”, and it’s willing 80% democratic media, were deranged with it.  All context, the world of Kings and Presidents, has been lost in the process.  To most on the Left EVERYTHING was about hatred of Bush and the evil “Neo-Cons”.  A phantom no less.

Your writings are rife with the sense that only a liberal can be honest, compassionate, and learned.  Without putting too fine a point on it, well, it’s an arrogance that is, at times, taxing on a conversation. 

—

In your last couple of posts you describe domestic American crimes that must be answered -after- an offense.  American jurisprudence.  I am describing a world at war in over 60 nations. 

War is about an enemy attempting to kill people and break things.  Make it into something else and all real global context is lost.  In all of human history this has not been a situation in which tossing one nations laws onto the front lines won a battle, or more importantly, won a war.  War has remained unchanged for thousands of years.  Only some people’s perceptions have changed.

The common contemporary liberal view is largely to deny that this war exists.  And, if it does exist, it’s George Bush’s fault.  Or if not Bush’s fault, it’s somehow the “Western” FREE world that’s at fault.  And if not the Western world it must be something the United States did.  Anything but point toward an actual enemy of the United States or the free world.

There are open societies and closed.  Open societies tend not to war against another.  Closed societies, by there very nature, need to be aggressive in order to subjugate more humans and resources.

The United States, with all her faults, is one of the most open.  Some of the most free human beings on the planet.  It is the very nature of our power and strength.  And I would have it no other way if the choices were between Japan, Germany, France or Britain.  Russia, China or a global Sharia caliphate (contemporary wars and battles).  - President Obama, after becoming president, after being fully briefed, now talks about a nation at war.  He has completely changed his views on rendition, indefinite detention, the Patriot Act, domestic signal surveillance and military tribunals.  Everything at the basis of the Left’s evil Bush/Frankencheney “Neo-Con” theory! 

-

Have you ever read the teachings of Zawahiri, Nasrallah and bin Laden?  These men and others are at war with you.  Have you ever taken the time to study these men as you have the evil Neo-Cons?  This war has nothing, whatsoever, to do with anything you or the Western world has done to these men.  These men teach that you will either submit to the will of Allah or die.

—

Context.  These men above mean to kill people and break things to reach their stated goals. These men teach that it’s our laws that make us weak and beatable.  Our adherence to life itself.

You desire to apply “American law” to the globe.  And you desire to do it after an enemy strikes.  You’re not thinking as the President of the United States.

You accused me previously of assuming that you are beneath my righteous intellect ... I don’t think I have.  I still don’t.

So don’t you think you can see “what this has to do with a world at war”?  Really? 

I’ll explain a little but I do feel condescending in doing so and I apologise in advance.  I suspect you are being disingenuous rather than not getting the point.

You’re suggesting preventive action against lethal threats.  I’m suggesting that all lethal threats be treated the same, then, whether domestic or foreign.  To do otherwise would be to claim that Americans can commit crimes against Americans but others cannot.  The actions I’m proposing are all tried and true approaches that have been used in the “War on Terror” to date.  A “war” which you are saying you support. 

If you are not in favour of this approach to anti-abortionists, and of course I expect you are not, I’m interested to hear what reasons you might have for being against it that do not apply in your “world at war” paradigm.

—- I’ll be doing rehab for most of this year, thanks ... I did a pretty good job on the knee.—-

DBM - “Let me know if you see any problems with the plan ... we can elaborate on details later.”

-

I guess I’m unsure as to what any of that has to do with a world at war.

It seems you’re of a mind not to tackle real global issues.  I can’t blame you one bit.  Kings and Presidents are almost daily forced to deal with issues most of us have never even conceived of.

-

Are you still doing phys. rehab?

Part I

There is so much in what you have said that could be unpacked that it will take a number of updates ... I’ll come back to the part about why the “enemy combatants” were picked up (you could pre-empt that by looking at the Seton Hall document I linked or any other documentation relating to real detainees as individuals or statistics rather than a dreamt up concept like “the worst of the worst”).

But let’s start with this idea of yours about how it’s a good idea to prevent terrorism by rounding up people you know for a fact intend to kill.  There was a terrorist act in Kansas last year.  The terrorist was connected to organisations with a history of violence, property damage and even murder on a number of occasions.  So how should we deal with this ... using your approach.  You know the scenario, a lone gunman stalked into a church, walked up to one of the ushers that his organisation had a serious gripe with and shot him in the head.  He was a militant anti-abortionist who had been involved in lower level property damage, protest, harassment and stalking of doctors and women seeking abortions.  The organisations he was affiliated with were very well funded but secretive when it comes to the semi-legal and outright criminal activities (many of which are intended to terrorise people into adopting their position on abortion).

So, first thing, the perpetrator should be interrogated about who he meets with, works with, who might have known what he was going to do, who had engaged in lower level criminal activity with in the past and how his extended family was involved in the same movements.  Then all these people should also be arrested and put in prison, interrogated and their contacts arrested as well.  Then the funders of the anti-abortion organisations that they are involved with should be retrospectively termed terrorist organisations and all donors put on a list of dangerous individuals.  Large donors should be arrested, survellance done on all of them and their aquaintances added to the list.

Fortunately, this preventive effort might be in time rather than waiting for another 9/11.  I’ve never looked this up before but a quick Google turns up 8 murders,  17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, and 3 kidnappings committed against abortion providers over 20 years.  This is in addition to a concerted campaign of vandalism, arson, and bombings of abortion clinics.  Most importantly, it is clear that the intent has been to intimidate and terrorise.  It is only a matter of time before things escalate unless these preventative measures are taken.

Part II

I’m sure you agree that this is a most sensible course of action.  Anti-terrorism must be blind to fine distinctions like nationality, race and whether you believe that the terrorists may have a point or not.  Terror is terror and must be prevented before it happens.  Domestic terrorism is especially troubling as border protection does not prevent anything.  Most importantly, because most of the thousands of people that will the picked up in this process have not yet commited crimes, they must be kept away from the justice system, lawyers and any avenues of challenge for their detention.  Many can be released, but if some need to be kept out of circulation indefinitely it may be necessary to remove them off-shore (not to mention any that need enhanced interrogation).  Remember, it’s safety for the rest of us that is paramount.

It may be hard to find all these people.  What would be good would be a bounty system like the one used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Those bounties were about $5,000 but in the American economy an equivalent amount would be $100,000 or so.  Anyone who can turn over an anti-abortion terrorist should get the $100,000 and then no further questions asked (after all if you get the wrong person, you can keep them just to be sure).

Now, after the anti-abortionists, I suggest you start on White Supremecists.  Not to be racist you should go for minority activists as well.  Given the events of the last couple of years, I’d suggest the banksters and all their associates could use a bit of preventive detention as well ... let’s not forget the Europeans (especially the French of course), they’re sure to be trouble at some point in the future if we don’t act now.

Let me know if you see any problems with the plan ... we can elaborate on details later.

DBM,

I mean no disrespect of any kind when I say you have completely missed the reality of why GITMO and other places exist.  GITMO exists almost entirely for the reasons I have outlined.  This is not a television scenario.

The recently released Yemeni detainees actually committed no crimes (thus the reason they were released to authorities in Yeman).  They, for various reasons - whether picked up on the battlefield, or because they were found in the same room with KSM, or were overheard during surveillance or wiretaps - were picked up and detained due to the threat they reportedly posed to the United States and others.  Again, and this IS the problem, they committed no known crimes, however, there was good reasons to believe they were dangerous.

Reportedly three of those detainees released during the Bush Administration are now, according to the Obama Administration, in leadership rolls within Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

I must ask the same question one more time.  What will you, as president, do to get these men off the streets in order to prevent them from killing hundreds or even thousands of human beings?

Put it this way if you like.  Through court sanctioned wiretaps and other corroborating intelligence you, as President, have been made aware that 30 men are planning to blow themselves up in 30 malls across the country.  You don’t know which malls and you don’t know when these acts of war will occur.  None of them have, as yet, committed any crimes.  Do you wait until they murder thousands and potentially bring the global economy to it’s knees or, do you detain them or have them killed?  If you detain them where will you put them?  If you kill them how will you do it?

Put another way:  If all the dots were connected concerning the panty-bomber, and your intelligence apparatus had picked him up in his home Yemen, but as far as you can tell he had not yet committed any crimes, what would you do with him?  Release him to plan another attack?  Or would you find a way to hold him to protect hundreds of lives?  In the context of war you know, FOR A FACT, that he intends to kill hundreds of people and make a global political statement.

I feel the need to repeat myself for effect.  You know these men are dangerous and you know they will be killing people you are sworn to protect.  They have committed NO CRIMES that you know of.  Your dilemma is obvious and is it EXACTLY what the President of the United States faces as we speak!

-

P.S.  Surveillance is not like you see on television.  Subjects under surveillance are lost ALL THE TIME!  You’ll have to trust me on this subject.  It’s my life’s work of 25 years. 

I can’t tell you how many times I have watched very bad individuals go free whom I convinced, beyond any doubt, of their guilt.  Some have been released due to legal procedural machinations.  Others were just so damned good at what they do I simply cannot “prove” their guilt.  BUT, when you’re the President of the United States, it’s an entirely different ball game when hundreds, or even thousands of lives hang in the balance.

THIS IS NOT A MOVIE OR TELEVISION SCRIPT!  As difficult as these issues are try and answer my questions.

How many different times do you want it answered the same way?

Firstly it is a bullshit Jack Bower scenario of which there have been exactly zero in real life.  It is a standard moral dilemma question but is totally artificial.

Secondly, the answer is still to treat it as a crime.  If it hasn’t been committed then I do nothing to this guy.  If I KNOW he is going to do something it MUST be because of some sort of surveillance or investigation which presumably would be ongoing.  What else did you have in mind? ESP? Racial profiling?

Thirdly, you ask “Will you detain him?  Will you kill him?  Where will you detain him?  How will you kill him?” ... of course not because I can only KNOW he is going to do something if I’m watching him prepare to do it.

Finally, name me one time when this situation has happened in real life rather than on “24” ...

As with whatever you intend to propose as a superior alternative: Some people will get away.  Some crimes will be committed.  The current approach is to throw the net wide, arrest a lot of people (most of whom are innocent) and try to sort out the ones who need to be detained.  It seems that some people get away anyway.  Some crimes are committed.  And thousands and thousands of people are radicalised leading a much larger problem and many many more crimes than would have been committed otherwise (either under the guise of war or terrorism).

I’m sorry but no matter how many times you ask me to answer the same question, you’re going to get the same answer.  If you want it again, just assume I’ll say “refer previous updates”.

You seem quite excited by the idea that you’re going to be able to come up with some answer which will justify Cheney’s “Dark Side” response to terrorism with Guantanamo Bay as the case in point.

DBM,

Before I answer your question I’m trying to get you to answer my real world question. It’s not merely a hypothetical question.  These real issues are going on all the time.

The panty-bomber is known to you but has not yet committed his attack of war.  You cannot rely in surveillance all the time (an issue I know well).  There are times when you know you must get that man off the streets before he kills. 

You have no criminal case against him.  He has committed no crime that you are aware of.  You cannot hold him for the courts to decide -there’s been no crime.

What will you do?  Will you detain him?  Will you kill him?  Where will you detain him?  How will you kill him?

-Remember - you KNOW the man is soon to try to kill hundreds of people, however, he has committed NO CRIME.

-

If you look again I did not change the subject.  The current subject was my question.  Which you have yet to tackle.

Ok I’ll play your hypthetical (which I thought was pretty clear from what I did write in the general).

President DBM knows the panty-bomber is going to commit his crime.  We have him picked up at the airport where he is boarding his flight, find the explosives, have him prosecuted or extradited (probably just prosecuted where he is in most cases) and he goes to prison there.  That’s an easy one.

Let’s make it harder, we know he is going to commit his crime but we don’t know enough to be sure of picking him up at the airport.  Presumably we know this because of some sort of investigation or intelligence work.  Now, I’m not that interested in panty-bomber.  He is just a foot-soldier.  I say continue the investigation until it leads somewhere useful.  Also an easy one. 

So what would be a difficult case.  Let’s say a crime is committed and we have intelligence as to who committed the crime ... but it is not “actionable intelligence” (i.e. not solid enough to be used in court).  I would say then that the THINK we know something but we don’t really know it.  I would suggest that it be treated as a very serious criminal investigation.  If the person is a flight risk then we arrest them and let a court decide if bail is an option during the investigation.  i.e. we treat it like any other criminal investigation ...

Some people will get away.  Some crimes will be committed.  The current approach is to throw the net wide, arrest a lot of people (most of whom are innocent) and try to sort out the ones who need to be detained.  It seems that some people get away anyway.  Some crimes are committed.  And thousands and thousands of people are radicalised leading a much larger problem and many many more crimes than would have been committed otherwise (either under the guise of war or terrorism).

There is no perfect solution but indefinite detention without evidence, torture, loosely targeted assassinations and war is probably further from being an adequate solution than looking the other way and pretending that nothing is happening.  It is totally counter-productive.  What amazes me, is that you take umbrage and accuse me of a view “that seems to suggest others must be stupid” but you do not denounce actions which, if they were done to you, would result in exactly what they are resulting in when done to others.  The victims are enraged, incensed, they seek retribution rather than just accepting the damage and submitting.  Should these people be expected to welcome these outrages because they understand that it might save 300 lives in another country if the right person just happens to be picked up in the net?

Now, rather than change the subject, how do you respond to the specific issues I raised?  Do you really support what is being done at Guantanamo, Bagram etc.?  If so, what on earth do you believe is being done there?

... and would you support it being done to you and people like you?

DBM,

First, Forget Cheney.  This is you and I communicating.
Second, you keep changing the subject or context when you have a difficult time answering a direct question.

-

So you were sworn in Jan. 09 as President.  Taking into consideration all of what you last wrote how do you answer the following questions?

If you had in your possession enough information on the panty-bomber before he boarded his flight to Detroit, and you are convinced that he intends to blow up 300 people, would you detain him knowing full well that he had yet to commit a crime anywhere in the world?

You have no criminal case or charges to bring against him.  What will you do?  If you choose to detain him where would you hold him?

Part I

I’m afraid here we are going to diverge hugely ...

You start with the accusation of failure to understand conservative positions (“What is it about the Liberal view that commonly seems to suggest that others must be stupid?”) and then proceed to totally support what I’ve said.  In particular, I said that some of the 70% supporting the idea of keeping “GITMO” as it is must be “scared ... or misinformed”.  For you, who appear to be quite moral and thoughtful to advocate this position for the Cheney talking point reasons you give, you must be a bit of both.  I’m sorry to toss in an additional accusation but you also exhibit a serious dose of “American Exceptionalism”.

You know that you would not put up with the very treatment you advocate if it was inflicted on Americans.  Two American journalists were imprisoned by the Koreans for a couple of months (I think it was) and the U.S. was up in arms.  Sami El Haj, a Yemeni journalist/cameraman, was imprisoned and abused by the U.S. for 7 years before being released because there was nothing to hold him for ... he was just a journalist. Go watch “Taxi to the Dark Side” to see the story of the Afghani taxi driver beaten to death at Bagram.

More importantly, go look at the Seton Hall report on Guantanamo detainees.  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659 ... this is a precis but I strongly suggest you find a full copy of the original.  The information in this report is base on the U.S. military’s own records and it makes no allowance for fabrication of these to avoid culpability for false imprisonment.  Nonetheless, the majority (yes majority) of those who have been through Guantanamo are guilty of nothing.  As you’re reading it, consider how you’d feel about it if these people were Americans being held by Iran or the old Soviet Union.

To justify this, you have to start with the assumption that one American life is worth an infinite number of non-American lives.  I don’t know your position but there are many who say that’s Ok because other countries should take care of their own (convenient if you are the most powerful country) or “they’re out to get us” anyway ... or “they hate our freedom”.  The bottom line is that Western justice has been based on the idea that it is better for the state to let the guilty go free than for to punish an innocent man.  To relax this precept is a slippery slope.  (refer loss of Habeus Corpus for a start)

However, accept American Exceptionalism if you will (i.e. the rules don’t have to apply to you when you are dealing with non-Americans) and look at the utility of what you suggest.  The logic still doesn’t hold up.  You say you would have trouble as the President with what to do about people you have which you KNOW are going to commit murderous crimes but which you cannot PROVE enough about to detain.  If you can’t prove it, you don’t know it.  Simple logic.  The idea that you would preventatively detain people on that basis is disgraceful.

That you care so deeply about Jose Padilla simply because he has U.S. Citizenship is concerning.  What about Maher Arar?  Is Canadian close enough?  How can you justify kidnap, torture, imprisonment for years, bombing, murder even invasion of countries on the basis that the victims will probably, in the future, do something bad just because those victims are not American citizens?

Part II

Now, just because I’ve written a screed about how Americans shouldn’t behave like this, let’s be clear you’re not the only ones.  Let’s say you live in a country in which you have reason to believe that a foreign power will attack you, strangle you to death with sanctions, kidnap and imprison you or your countrymen without proven cause, torture and so forth.  Well, if you’re using the same logic you propose then you can assume that citizens of any country friendly with that country can be victimised in the same ways if you have any suspicion that they might do something to you.  You can similarly ignore “collateral damage” death and injury to their countrymen if you find it too difficult to single out the specific threats (use drones, missiles or something really imprecise like a hijacked airliner).

I’m sure you get my point ... this thinking smells of cowardice, xenophobia and prejudice.  It is not uncommon but everywhere it has been practiced it has led to escalations of violence and hardship.

DBM,

As president, and you had enough information on the panty-bomber before he boarded his flight to Detroit, would you detain him knowing full well that he had yet to commit a crime anywhere in the world?

You have no criminal case or charges to bring against him.  What will you do?  If you detain him where would you hold him?

DBM - “1.  The poll question was loaded or poorly worded or incorrectly interpreted, or - 2.  70% of Americans are so scared or so immoral or so misinformed that they support kidnap, torture and indefinite detention without trial (even of demonstrably innocent people!).”

I ask with all sincerity in an attempt to understand.  What is it about the Liberal view that commonly seems to suggest that others must be stupid?

-

I think when you see the trials of enemy combatants played out in civil courts and in the media you will better understand the usefulness of GITMO, Jordan, Begram AB and Poland.

As President of the United States you’re faced with the reality that some men will be dangerous.  You will know it like the sun comes up in the East.  But, at the same time, you cannot “prove” it.  Even if you could declassify enough information it would still not rise to the level of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Releasing these men will mean certain death for some other or others.  Likely a friend or one of your own.  What will you do?

Might there be a reason why Senator and candidate Obama was against renditions and holding people indefinably only to change his views after being fully briefed as president?

At the same time I am DEEPLY concerned about Jose Padilla and, I hope, only a few others.  Padilla is an American citizen.  I will vigorously fight for his cause.  I will not for Khalid Mohammad and many others -only to the extent of the death penalty.  I am against capital punishment in the civil court system.

-

As president your intelligence and security apparatus foiled a plot to send 30 men into 30 malls in the U.S. the day after Thanksgiving to blow themselves up.  If successful the global economic ramifications would have been staggering.  It was only 30 like minded men.

The panty-bomber reminds us that it takes only one to kill hundreds.  Only one to reach a global audience.

One more thing about polls (which I have said before) is well highlighted by something you said earlier:

“Over 70% of all Americans want GITMO to remain as is. - as do the “Top Five” in the U.N. Security Council.”

To “remain as it is”??  Well, good for them!  ... or not so much.  In fact, what this says to me is that either

1.  The poll question was loaded or poorly worded or incorrectly interpreted, or

2.  70% of Americans are so scared or so immoral or so misinformed that they support kidnap, torture and indefinite detention without trial (even of demonstrably innocent people!).

If I was the last person on earth who did NOT think this then I am happy to consider myself right and the rest to be wrong!

Regarding emergency care, I am not just saying that medical services are bought in emergencies, I am saying that they are not commodities and that in the evaluation of them, the consumer is at a decided information and expertise disadvantage.  This is exacerbated by emergency situations but is true in most cases anyway.  This is one reason why a free market for medical services is inherently flawed and is the reason why other industrialised nations have not opted for an unregulated systems (or worse - regulated to the advantage of providers).

In the U.S. you have a second more critical obstacle to establishing a market system in place of the current cartels which warp the insurance market, the pharmaceutical market and the medical service provision market.  That is that the corporations entrenched in the cartels are very powerful lobbying bodies and have no intention of giving up their gravy train.  They have molded the current legislation to their purposes largely (in my opinion) because that legislation is close enough to the current system.  A more drastic change would have made it much harder to maintain their market advantages.

Therein lies the main difference in our analyses.  I would trust the government to run a medical industry more than I would trust them to be able to establish a fair and free market for a medical industry.  You obviously believe the opposite to be true.  So, same objectives ... different solution.

BTW - I did some work for Cochlear (the company) a couple of years ago.  An amazing place to be producing devices which can have such a positive impact on people’s lives.  Many of their staff have been there for decades in part to the sense of positive contribution.  At least one emigrated and sought a job there due to the positive impact an implant had on his son’s life.  Good luck, I hope it goes well!

Hi there,

I agree that polls are important and I do look at them with interest.  My point is that the results are manipulated through interpretation and ommission ... by all commentators.  Here, for instance, is a quote which someone else posted on TD in the last few hours.  I suspect you’ll disagree!
————-
You seem to get your political impressions from the TV set.  TV takes the poltiical opinions of a minority of about 25% and blasts them everywhere to create the fake impression that they are a political force.

From the Progressive Review: http://prorev.com/obamabehind.htm

“A year ago, Sarah van Gelder of Yes Magazine gave us a clue as to what an independent progressive movement might look like - based on polls - of “an agenda that the majority of Americans support, whether they vote red, blue, green or something else.”

  * 67% favor public works projects to create jobs.
  * 55% favor expanding unemployment benefits.
  * 76% support tax cuts for lower- and middle-income people.
  * 80% support increasing the federal minimum wage.
  * 59% favor guaranteeing two weeks or more of paid vacation.
  * 75% want to limit rate increases on adjustable-rate mortgages.
  * 58% believe a court warrant should be required to listen to the telephone calls of people in the U.S.
  * 59% would like the next president to do more to protect civil liberties.
  * 79% favor mandatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions.
  * 90% favor higher auto fuel efficiency standards.
  * 75% favor clean electricity, even with higher rates.
  * 72% support more funding for mass transit.
  * 64% believe the government should provide national health insurance coverage for all Americans, even if it would raise taxes.
  * 55% favor one health insurance program covering all Americans, administered by the government, and paid for by taxpayers.
  * 81% oppose torture and support following the Geneva Conventions.
  * 76% say the U.S. should not play the role of global police.
  * 79% say the U.N. should be strengthened.
  * 63% want U.S. forces home from Iraq within a year.
  * 47% favor using diplomacy with Iran. 7% favor military action.
  * 67% believe we should use diplomatic and economic means to fight terrorism, rather than the military.
  * 86% say big companies have too much power in politics
  * 65% believe attacking social problems is a better cure for crime than more law enforcement.
  * 87% support rehabilitation rather than a punishment-only system.
  * 81% say job training is very important for reintegrating people leaving prison.
  * 79% say drug treatment is very important.
  * 56% believe NAFTA should be renegotiated.
  * 64% believe that on the whole, immigration is good for the country. ”

Sen. Ben Nelson, in an interview with a home town newspaper, today said that the current health-care proposal in Washington is a mistake.  Reportedly he said the money would have been better spent on the economy. - That’s how popular the current health-care legislation is in his state.

80% of Americans feel good about the care they receive.

DBM,

You keep couching many of your arguments in terms of how a significant amount of health-care comes in the form of emergency situations -thus adding urgency to your cause.  But the premise is simply incorrect.  Emergency care, even when considering the millions who use “emergency” rooms” as primary care, is but a small fraction of overall health-care costs.  In this case you’re ignoring real potential catastrophic results in your plan for an argument that doesn’t appear to exist.

-

I say reform the insurance industry, uphold with great vigilance the laws already on the books concerning free market practices, allow anyone to purchase insurance from ANY company, no matter which state that company does business, and reform Pharma just as vigorously. - True and meaningful reform!

Let everyone pay their doctors and hospitals themselves and seek assistance whenever needed.  Those who can afford it will and, those who cannot would get assistance.  Whala!

Do it more like that and costs will, necessarily, fall and services will, necessarily, rise.  Whala!

-

Thank God for the V.A.  My Father (71) has been deaf for over 22 years (every county agency in his district was mandated to install TDD phones due to my Fathers, often singular, advocacy in his tiny part of the world. 

In two days he’ll receive a Cochlear implant at a V.A. facility - paid for by the V.A..  I can’t tell you how exited and hopeful we all are.  I love the V.A. and the people. They’re all outstanding!  But here’s the thing.  That same operation costs 30% less in the private world.  The implant itself -it comes in it’s own sterile and comprehensive kit, costs 40% more if billed through the V.A. and/or Medicare.  I don’t know how Medicaid is billed.

Sen. Ben Nelson, in an interview with a home town newspaper, today said that the current health-care proposal in Washington is a mistake.  Reportedly he said the money would have been better spent on the economy. - That’s how popular the current health-care legislation is in his state.

80% of Americans feel good about the care they receive.

DBM,

You keep couching many of your arguments in terms of how a significant amount of health-care comes in the form of emergency situations -thus adding urgency to your cause.  But the premise is simply incorrect.  Emergency care, even when considering the millions who use “emergency” rooms” as primary care, is but a small fraction of overall health-care costs.  In this case you’re ignoring real potential catastrophic results in your plan for an argument that doesn’t appear to exist.

-

I say reform the insurance industry, uphold with great vigilance the laws already on the books concerning free market practices, allow anyone to purchase insurance from ANY company, no matter which state that company does business, and reform Pharma just as vigorously. - That would be true and meaningful reform!

Let everyone pay their doctors and hospitals themselves and seek assistance whenever needed.  Those who can afford it will and, those who cannot would get assistance.  Whala!

Do it more like that and costs will, necessarily, fall and services will, necessarily, rise.  Whala!

-

Thank God for the V.A.  My Father (71) has been deaf for over 22 years (every county agency in his district was mandated to install TDD phones due to my Fathers, often singular, advocacy in his tiny part of the world. 

In two days he’ll receive a Cochlear implant at a V.A. facility - paid for by the V.A..  I can’t tell you how exited and hopeful we all are.  I love the V.A. and the people. They’re all outstanding!  But here’s the thing.  That same operation costs 30% less in the private world.  The implant itself -it comes in it’s own sterile and comprehensive kit, costs 40% more if billed through the V.A. and/or Medicare.  I don’t know how Medicaid is billed.

DBM, - I chuckled heartily over your last post.  Thanks

Just for grins….

Are you aware that Rassmussen was the first to report when Obama began edging out Clinton in the primaries -when most everyone else was reporting differently?  And that Rassmussen called the 2008 election results to within a tenth of a point?

I’m not big on daily polls, really.  But polling can display trends that Washington and State Houses track closely. - Over 70% of all Americans want GITMO to remain as is. - as do the “Top Five” in the U.N. Security Council.

I find it interesting that MSNBC, CNN, ABC and NBC ( I don’t know about CBS) are all, of late, on board with giving voice to some who wish to discredit Rassmussen.

Conservative media?  Not a chance.  I still believe that those who think the media is largely conservative are sincerely peeved that the bulk of the “news” is not the overt advocates they desire.  Clearly, however, when 80% of journalists and editors are self described “voting democrats” human nature tells us we’re all fed a steady diet of issues important to democrats.

-

Still waiting for the Little One to re-appear with all those many and varied polls he wrote of showing us “overwhelming” support of an “progressive agenda”.

As I wrote; he will fail miserably.  They don’t exist!  America is Right of Center.  Has been for almost 30 years now.  And, on this Web site, most of the opinions are supported by roughly 10% of the Progresso World.

I got 78.4% from the same place that most statistics come from ...

I got 78.4% from the same place that most statistics come from ...

DBM, - “Oh ... and you should know that 78.4% of all polls prove absolutely nothing.”

-

You’re saying there’s nearly an 80% chance that Richard Cheney has an approval rating around the world of 78.4%?  Interesting…LOL

Eighteen months ago one could not find a democrat or progressive who would denounce polling data concerning the Bush administration.

Do I assume correctly you’ve checked the polling data yourself and found the same as I found and didn’t much enjoy what you see?

-

My friend. While polling data doesn’t mean everything I think we both understand it’s far from meaningless.

Where or how did you arrive at the 78.4 number?

Yes, I gathered you weren’t talking about free-market health systems.  That’s why I asked about that in particular.  Going back to the first few pages of a year 1 Economics book you would find some basic assumptions about markets which are key to all the more complex models which come later.  To roughly paraphrase and cherry pick a few, the buyers need to have a choice of suppliers and accurate information about product and pricing in order to make “rational” buying decisions.  Goods need to be roughly interchangeable or “commoditised” to allow substitution on the basis of price.

The problem is that these factors do not apply to most major healthcare expenditures.  Sure I want Tylenol to compete with Bayer aspirin and the Chemist’s no-name brand.  But when the big expenditures come around they tend to be emergencies.  They tend to be things which I do not understand as well as the medical professionals I deal with ... but in the emergency I don’t have a lot of time to educate myself.  Even health insurance is carefully crafted by marketers and actuaries to make it hard to compare with alternatives. 

I think we would both agree that HMO’s which restrict purchases to “on-plan” providers (doctors, hospitals, pharmacies) are a warping of the market.  The excuse for doing this is that the HMO can “negotiate better prices” through their size leverage.  That goes completely against your “true-market” ideal.  If that’s a good idea then why on earth go only part of the way?  A single payer system has ultimate buyer leverage. 

The key fact here is that buying surgery is vastly different from buying carrots.

Regarding the VA ... it is one of the most hypocritical positions of all time that the U.S. government drums up patriotic fervor and idolises the military like Nazi Germany (complete with ubiquitous flag waving, bands, propaganda movies and lauding of “our troops”) while at the same time under-funding the medical treatment of the casualties suffered in wars of choice (fought for political and economic gain).  How much would the VA benefit from the savings of 10 less F-22’s?  It’s sickening.

DBM,

If you get a chance try your best to catch last evenings 60 Minutes program concerning the V.A. and the poor care, the denials of services and tremendously overworked, very well meaning, V.A. personnel.

More later, however, when I wrote “100 examples of free market service” I wasn’t referring to Health services.

If you cut the military budget to zero you will have other problems ... I am not saying the military does not have its place.

What I am saying is that your current commitment to growth in military spending is greater than the $68 Trillion you keep quoting.  It is arguably money much better spent on healthcare directly rather than destroying things in other countries and creating future healthcare commitments through casualties.

You say it is funded differently like this closes off the discussion.  U.S. governments have seen fit to raid Social Security funds for current expenditure for many years (I’m not sure about Medicare funds) ... surely it can work the other way and general “discretionary” funds like the military can be spent on social services?

“I can lend hundreds of examples of how a true market system brings down prices, adds services and mitigates fraud.”

Really?  Show me one “true market system” for healthcare which his working.  I’m not being cute here ... I am genuinely unaware of a market driven healthcare system.

Our “two tier” system is a highly regulated market system not a “true market system”.  The “mandated insurance” systems are also very highly regulated market systems not “true market systems”.

Is there one out there that is not dominated by cartels?  If gradations of market-driven are better then why are the same drugs cheaper under Canada’s single payer system than in the U.S.??

http://truecostblog.com/2009/08/09/countries-with-universal-healthcare-by-date/

32 examples of systems which are in better shape than the United States.

I have personal experience of one single payer system (and another through family) and two “two tier” systems including currently.  I have never lived under an “insurance mandate” system.

The only problem with the “two tier” systems is the constant lobbying and clamouring by the insurance companies to get an American style lock on the industry.  The voters will have none of it.

DBM, - “I think that a publically funded solution is more practical”

-

But can you lend an example of a viable working model? 

I can lend hundreds of examples of how a true market system brings down prices, adds services and mitigates fraud.

Cost is the point.  Not our good intentions.  $68 trillion WILL break the world and cause unimaginable sufferings if not addressed now.  As in yesterday.  - The machinations of Medicare have nothing, whatsoever, to do with military spending. 

We could cut the military down to zero and we would still have the current Medicare catastrophe looming in our near future.

-

Were you aware that Glenn Beck predicted the financial meltdown and it’s precise causes a full eighteen months prior to it happening? 

Were you aware that the Bush administration -four times- attempted to get the congress to act on the looming catastrophe in Fannie and Freddie?

Are you aware today that five U.S. Presidents have now warned us that Medicare and Social Security are heading for disaster?

These things are not in the abstract, my friend.

Oh ... and you should know that 78.4% of all polls prove absolutely nothing. 

Ok then ... we are agreed about the current form of the U.S. healthcare system.  You call it HMO and Medicare price/service controls.  I call it a combination of cartel / monopolistic behaviour coupled with “lobbying” power (which is based on political funding).

The difference between our positions is in our prescriptions for a solution.  I am not against a market-based solution but I see the lobbying power of the incumbent forces as too difficult to overcome.  The current “overhaul” - the bill being fashioned in the Congress - is an illustration of the challenge ... what’s coming out looks like a gift to the health insurance corporations and not much more.  As I understand the reasons you’ve given for adherence to a market-driven solution are a that competition is the most effective way to control costs and that public health systems don’t work.

I think that we will just have to accept that our reasoning will not converge because we believe two different facts to be true:

*  You think a market-driven solution is practical.  I think that the cartels are too politically powerful and will poison any attempts to weaken their very profitable position.

*  I think that a publically funded solution is more practical but you believe that all such systems have been failures which the U.S. should not emulate.

We may have to agree to disagree at this point.

DBM,

You believe the health-care system in the United States, as a whole, is market based.  I believe this is demonstrably false. The system is largely based on HMO and Medicare price/service controls.  It’s many things but, free market it’s not.

DBM - “My point is that polls are valuable, yes, but so easily skewed and misinterpreted that they must always be taken skeptically.  Also, “Opinion Polls” are not a measure of what is correct they are, more than anything, a measure of the effectiveness of molding public opinion.”

-

I couldn’t agree more.  That’s precisely why I included the RCP averages which aggregates data from over a dozen reputable polling firms of all flavors - along with the Gallup data.

Taken daily polls are a mere glimpse at a fickle population.  Taken over time, as trends emerge, polling data can become more telling.

The idea that all polls display an overwhelming trend toward progressivism in the U.S. is simply false.  That small and fairly insignificant point was an idle exercise in pettiness. 

Manchild is the only person on TruthDig in which I address as I do.  This is a vile narcissistic individual full of small-minded bigotry and a propensity for violence toward the weak.  I have seen it a thousand times.  It’s safe to say I despise the type.

-

I would never argue in favor of the current system of health-care in the United States.  At the same time anything fashioned after the Medicare or Medicaid systems is unsustainable.

BTW - and please don’t take this as an invitation to discuss polls, I really don’t see the value in it - the following description of the Rasmussen polls is indicative:

“The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they’re pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around—because they’re based on robocalls—gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends. But the qualitative questions, in terms of their phrasing and so forth, are frequently skewed to give answers friendly toward GOP or conservative viewpoints. All of which is to say that his numbers are valuable. But they need to be read with that bias in mind.”

My point is that polls are valuable, yes, but so easily skewed and misinterpreted that they must always be taken skeptically.  Also, “Opinion Polls” are not a measure of what is correct they are, more than anything, a measure of the effectiveness of molding public opinion.

Hmmm ... a couple of days away and look at the exchange I’ve missed!  This all appears to be a an argument over pointless statistics.  I’ll state again, if someone is the last person on earth to be right, they are still right and everyone else is wrong.  Instead of arguing over whose loaded poll questions can be misinterpreted to support whose positions, how about debating what is best?

I thought we had reached a point of understanding there Go Right.  You excoriated me for denouncing arguments and positions which were not really yours and I took this to heart.  I then restated what I was saying while in agreement that the current state of U.S. Healthcare is NOT what you are arguing in favour of.  The confusion from my point of view is that it sounds to me like you are asking for more of the same.  However, this is what I said:

In response to your question about what military spending has to do with the conversation at all ...
“However you want to replace the current system, take half a trillion dollars out of military spending by getting the U.S. military out of places it is doing no good and it would certainly help (the remaining half a trillion dollars is still far far more than any other country on earth has ever spent on their military).  You can spend that money providing healthcare or you can spend that money subsidising individuals to buy healthcare but it surely makes the equations work out better.”

In agreeing that I believe we have been talking at cross purposes by misconstruing each others’ positions ...
“I personally think there are more problems than the amount of money in the healthcare system though.  I think, like the banks, if you put more money into the current system it will be soaked immediately into corporate executive bonuses and largesse.  I think it will be spent on lobbying to further rig the system against the consumer which would make change ever harder to achieve.  What I don’t expect is that it will work out better for consumers unless someone either regulates the provision of healthcare or regulates the “market” to introduce genuine competition.  I think the latter is a tougher ask because of the lobbying power of the existing cartels.  You obviously think it is the better option because you assume that publically funded healthcare cannot work and does not work anywhere.  You are wrong.  You have been lied to based on corporate PR freely available through the media and from the lips of politicians.  I have lived in many publically funded healthcare systems and none of them are in as poor a state as the U.S. system.  Not even close.”

So, the question becomes: 

The current healthcare system in the U.S. is ineffective, corrupt and increasingly draining the economy to an alarming degree.  Rather than head over this cliff of personal bankruptcies and frightening government debt, is the best course of action to establish a market which actually works or to establish a health system which is not primarily market based?

Manchild - “Can anyone else find a single shred of documentation for his statistics contained within his posts?”

-

You’ve heard of or come across Gallup, Rassmussen and RCP, yes?  The reputable poll aggregates I CLEARLY CITE IN MY POSTS…..LOL

You go to those sites, you type in a phrase or word and, wallah you’ve actually done some real research of your own.

You don’t have to wait for Olbermann to tell you what to think and feel, Little one. Hell you could simply copy and paste from my posts and find THE EXACT SAME RESULTS

-

You obviously need some hand holding. Here’s a nice little hint for you.  Go to any search engine of your choice and type in “Olbermann ratings”.  Or, conversely, type in “O’Reily ratings”.  <—This is not difficult stuff, little one. LMAO…..

I find it very interesting to see how overwhelmingly in love with himself is GRYM. I hope he will be very happy with himself.

Can anyone else find a single shred of documentation for his statistics contained within his posts?

Can anyone else understand why this execrable piece of work thinks he can defend possibly the single worst President in American history? Or thinks that I care that he insults Obama’s actions, hell so do I.

You are a very sad little fellow basically, and your efforts prove volumes about how sad you are and very,very little about American political realiti=y.

It just came to me, Little one.  It’s not so much that President Bush was OVERWHELMINGLY more popular one year into office than the current “progressive” President Obama that bothers you most.  It’s the fact that O’Reilly trounces your hero.  The one whom you wait to see in order to know how to think and feel about an issue -the bigoted and unhinged far Left Loon Olbermann- that makes your anus pucker and blood boil.  <—I admit to being petty. I do love it. LMAO….... 

Conservative FOX:  O’Reilly 8P Ratings 1072 -Rising
Progressive MSNBC: Olbermann 8P Ratings 406 -Falling

Look it up yourself, Little one.  O’Reilly RERUNS fair better than Olbermann’s live program…..LMAO

Manchild,

Did you happen to notice how you failed, miserably, to dispute even a single item I posted.

Obviously I documented my sources.  Obviously you can easily check my documented sources.  Obviously you gave your undocumented opinion and am obviously and desperately, yet again, attempting to change the subject away from your talking out of your azz…LMAO

You have an interesting pathology. Obviously you enjoy being thoroughly trounced by reality (spanked in your case) LOL.

Waiting for you to display how “every poll” illustrates “overwhelming support” for a “progressive agenda”.

Waiting for you to display even a single poll illustrating “overwhelming support” for a “progressive agenda”.

-

I knew you’d loose your mind while seeing the evil Bush with a 80-90% popularity level after one of the worst catastrophes to hit the United States… LOL…..

Go Right Young Man, January 2 at 12:06 am #

Typical post from our resident far right wing wacko. Undocumented statistics per usual ( of course we all believe this poster to be truthful, do we not?).

Further, the popularity of Bush is cited, sans the noting that this was due to the events of 9/11 rather than the policies and direction of that administration. Further, pre 9/11, Bushs’ numbers were far below those post 9/11. Of course they once again plummeted as his administration wound its convoluted and anti constitutional course..

A conscience, GYRM, is not something one can purchase, sad for you.

Fascinating when looking past Olbermann, Air America, The Times or the three broadcast networks.

In 2005 60% of Americans believed global warming was a “serious or major problem”.  Today, four years later -three years after a “progressive” majority in the Congress- it’s now at 50%.  A meager 24% believe global warming is mad made. 

Not what I would call a “progressive” revolution.

My goodness won’t Manchild loose his mind seeing this from Gallup?

December 27, 2002
President George W. Bush leads Gallup’s annual survey of the “most admired man” for the second year in a row.

Bush Approval Showing Only Slight Decline Six Months After Record High
March 21, 2002
Six months after his record-high 90% job approval rating, 80% of Americans approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president.

-

“Progressive Agenda”?

Rassmussen

Health Care Vote Puts Senator Ben Nelson 30 Points Down in Reelection Bid

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 54% favor a smaller government.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters say tax cuts are a better way than more government spending to create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21% say additional stimulus spending is a more effective tool.

Here is one extremely telling poll.  “Progressives” do not think kindly on American society as a whole, however, when polled Americans in general say America is: Fair and Decent 74% - Unfair and Discriminatory 11% <—TruthDig regulars.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters believe it would be better for our allies to follow America’s lead more often.

Just eight percent (8%) now say it would be better for the United States to do what our allies want more often.

-

“Progressive” environmental agenda.

Public skepticism about the officially promoted cause of global warming has reached an all-time high among Americans.

A new national survey finds that 50% of likely voters now believe that global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends. - Just 34% say climate change is due primarily to human activity.

-

I have yet to find a single poll in which the majority of Americans support the domestic agenda of either the President or the Democratically controlled Congress.  Not even one!

I may have missed an issue I haven’t thought of.  But feel free to share your evidence that “EVERY POLL” shows overwhelming support for progressive agendas”.

—I can’t put into words just how much I appreciate your posts, Ditto-Head.  More and more I lean toward the idea that RNC Chairman Steele sent you here.  You’re great for the conservative movement!

“every poll shows overwhelming support for progressive agendas”

-

Delusional LOL…..

Every poll, eh?  OK I’ll bite, little boy.  Show us every poll indicating this overwhelming support for a “progressive” agenda.  Do that or go take a nap and dream you have a clue.  LMAO.

-

RCP Poll averages.

29% say U.S. heading in right direction
22% say 2009 was a good year.
53% see cost as biggest health care problem… they strongly oppose congressional plan
21% see lack of universal coverage as biggest health care problem.
81% say passage of health care plan will lead to higher middle class taxes… 68% say it will increase deficit.
Economic challenges: 58% fear government will do too much..
36% say US and allies winning War on Terror… down from 55% on Inauguration Day
Obama: Strongly Approve 25% Strongly Disapprove 41%..
Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 43% Democrats 38%..
58% Favor Waterboarding of Plane Terrorist
72% Favor keeping Guantanamo open
79% say another terrorist attack likely within year
22% of small business owners say conditions for their business getting better,

Progressive Senate agenda: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid continues to lag behind all potential Republican challengers in next year’s U.S. Senate race in Nevada.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of Nevada voters have a very unfavorable opinion of Reid. Just 21% offer a very favorable opinion of the senator.
49% of Reid’s constituents strongly oppose his proposed health-care plan while only 23% strongly favor it.

Nancy Pelosi: Democrats in California overall -34% approval—her lowest since May 2008
The month Pelosi was most popular was March 2007, just after becoming speaker.

Congressional Job Approval: 27.4 Approve 65.8 Disapprove

OVERWHELMINGLY people are tuning out to Olbermann, Maddow and Air America while Beck beats each of the above in his 5P time slot against their prime 8-10P time slots.  Beck has the fastest growing cable news program in cable history.

O’Rielly: 1000 consecutive weeks as #1 in his time slot.

Conservative FOX:  O’Reilly 8P Ratings 1072 -Rising
Progressive MSNBC: Olbermann 8P Ratings 406 -Falling

-

You’re delusional, little one.  LMAO…..

he progressive set hate it when I point this out.  But the fact is the views shared on this Web site reflect roughly 10% of America.

I always find it fascinating to see that those who post here appear to believe that it’s the 90% -“the great unwashed”- whom are stupid and uneducated

I doubt these figures when every poll shows overwhelming support for progressive agendas, but arguing with this one is futile. That Faux Snooze may be winning the ratings battle can be attributed to several causes. That making up percentages like that 90-10 thingie can be directly attributed to ideology trumping honesty.

Huffington Post

Overwhelmingly Americans reject liberal leaning propagandized “news”.

Fox News Channel may drive blood pressures to record highs among liberals but the right-wing cable channel just finished its best ratings year ever and easily tops CNN and MSNBC with viewers.

The only cable channels that do better than Fox News are entertainment ones. MSNBC and CNN aren’t even in the top 10.

In fact, ratings are falling for more liberal-oriented MSNBC and CNN. Even the darlings of the “progressive” community—Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow—face erosion of viewers while their favorite targets—Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck—watch their numbers steadily rise.

-

The progressive set hate it when I point this out.  But the fact is the views shared on this Web site reflect roughly 10% of America. 

I always find it fascinating to see that those who post here appear to believe that it’s the 90% -“the great unwashed”- whom are stupid and uneducated.

However you want to replace the current system, take half a trillion dollars out of military spending by getting the U.S. military out of places it is doing no good and it would certainly help (the remaining half a trillion dollars is still far far more than any other country on earth has ever spent on their military).  You can spend that money providing healthcare or you can spend that money subsidising individuals to buy healthcare but it surely makes the equations work out better.

I personally think there are more problems than the amount of money in the healthcare system though.  I think, like the banks, if you put more money into the current system it will be soaked immediately into corporate executive bonuses and largesse.  I think it will be spent on lobbying to further rig the system against the consumer which would make change ever harder to achieve.  What I don’t expect is that it will work out better for consumers unless someone either regulates the provision of healthcare or regulates the “market” to introduce genuine competition.  I think the latter is a tougher ask because of the lobbying power of the existing cartels.  You obviously think it is the better option because you assume that publically funded healthcare cannot work and does not work anywhere.  You are wrong.  You have been lied to based on corporate PR freely available through the media and from the lips of politicians.  I have lived in many publically funded healthcare systems and none of them are in as poor a state as the U.S. system.  Not even close.

DBM,

The Republican Governor and the Democratic Senator in California, both whom support “Universal Health Care” have recently warned:

a. “our medicaid program is already at the breaking point, and if Federal Health Care reform is passed without addressing the underlying faults in the system, Health care reform will fail”.  - Gov. Schwarzenegger
b. Medicaid expansion “might even take down the state”. -Sen. Dianne Feinstein

This is what’s been reported all over the nation for many, many, years.  Each report gets a single day of play, a total of maybe 25 seconds in real time evening news, and quickly forgotten.

In the system you advocate each of the fifty states are mandated to cover costs that are putting them in crisis mode today.  If the State levies more taxes their economies and jobs will suffer.  This is real life stuff.  Not a grand idea in our best of intentions.

Are Gov. Schwarzenegger and Sen. Feinstein simple slaves to corporate America and lying in their recent statements?  Or might we have the very problem several presidents have warned us of for decades?  Including the current occupant of the Oval.

DBM,

I wanted this in a separate, stand-lone, post.

The current U.S. health-care system is not mine.  Not even a little bit.  There is no clear minded way to hang this system on me or anything I’ve advocated.

You are debating a phantom you’ve created.  Why?

DBM,

I never suggested U.S. military spending is OK with me. Nonetheless that issue has nothing, whatsoever, to do with health-care.  What’s the point?

I have constantly advocated subsidies for all in need of it.

a. I have dozens of examples of non-medical high and low tech services I can directly engage in just fine myself.
b. Most people know full well how to talk to their doctor(s).
c. A small percentage of overall health-care occur in emergency situations.  Even then the system goes into effect with or without the participation of the injured or sick.  Nobody in America is denied emergency care.

Can you give me a single example of a system you advocate that does it well?  Again, the best model we have of an American government administered health-care system is the VA.  Is this your model?  If so let us both please look at it closely.

How will we address the current shortfall in Medicare?  How will we avoid that catastrophe and grow the system at the same time?  When will it be time to address some real issues against your grand plans?

“Your system” because the problem with the American system is the power of corporate cartels and monopolies along with their political clout which allows them to rig the system even further in their own favour.  I realise you’re saying market competition is best but that is the result of a corporate dominated government establishing the rules of the market (see subsidies, agri-business and the demise of the family farm).  I think the point we disagree on here is whether you trust your government to allow true market competition or if you acknowledge the historical precidents of our adult lives and expect more of the same.

The second issue about healthcare which makes it a special case is that the consumer of healthcare needs protection because they do not and should not have the expertise of the producers of healthcare and they are, by definition, often buying in an emergency situation.  If you’d asked me in November if I had $5,000 to spend on a car I would have said “no” ... but after a traumatic injury I spent $5,000 in a week on healthcare.  Fortunately I live in a place where I don’t have to wonder if some insurance clerk in a call-centre is going to decide I whether my surgeon chose the same treatment the insurance company would be willing to pay for.  I didn’t have to get to a hospital which was “on plan” or whatever the term is for in the cartel…

And AGAIN ... how can this be such a big problem but military spending is A-OK!!!

DBM, - “The last thing any of them (Canada, France, etc.) would want is an insurance bureaucrat between them and their healthcare.”

I made no such claim.  In fact I specifically argue against exactly that. 

-

“if your system is so great why…..”

My system?  How did you turn what the U.S. has today into being “my system”? How did you do this after I made it so very clear that I disagree whole-heartily with the current system.  Truly, as in the example above, I could not have been more clear.

You are debating a phantom you’ve created.  As our discourse continues you ever more fail to see me and the things I opine.  You see FOX News or Limbaugh or some other evil entity you and others have created.  It’s just such an odd phenomena.  It gets in the way of a healthy conversation.  As I’ve recently written.  It’s be becoming tedious.

It also begs the question.  Are you doing to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush what you do to me consistently?  Are you taking their warnings and putting them into a context only you have created?  It seems as though you are.

-

I can offer no specific quotes or data on how each of the countries I’ve mentioned are attempting to inject more market forces into their respective health-care systems.  I’ve simply been paying close attention.

I offer this example, however, you’ll need to follow through yourself.  If you watch C-Span (Questions to the Prime Minister) you’ll find that both the Labor and Tory parties are in agreement on this issue. They do differ on how to go about achieving these goals, however, they are in agreement on the goal of injecting more marker forces in order to drive costs lower.

-

Universal health-care for all sounds great.  It sound fantastic.  Now can you simply show me a workable model of it?  Because as sure as you’re breathing European nations everywhere face the very same looming catastrophe the U.S. faces.  You continue to ignore the problems in lieu of a grand idea. 

How will we solve the problem of tens of trillions of unfunded liabilities already created by the system you advocate?  You keep changing the subject yet return to advocate for the mess we find ourselves in.  Why?

LOL….I say this with humor.  Ignore the catastrophe behind the curtain.  Government controlled health-care is the way to go.  Now tap our heels together three times and make it so.

-

DBM,

At some point we need to face, head on, what’s real.  Real is the $68 Trillion looming catastrophe you continue to ignore and talk around.  This is not an elephant in the room.  It’s a planet of six billion people who will be effected.

You took a economics class.  You know if the U.S. fails the world fails with it.  Let us address the problem in the system you advocate before you clamor for it’s expansion?  It would be the smartest thing to do, yes?

I’d be interested what makes you think “France, Canada, Denmark, Britain and Germany are all, simultaneously, attempting to inject more market forces into their respective health-care systems” ... what is your source?  The Heritage Foundation or something?  These systems are always being tweaked but, to take Britain as an example, outsourcing the National Health Service would be political suicide.  Same for Canada and same for France.  The last thing any of them would want is an insurance bureaucrat between them and their healthcare.  Canadians especially are quite aware of the disaster south of the border and wouldn’t move one step towards it.  I was talking to friends yesterday who had just returned from a trip including a U.S. skiing holiday ... they mentioned that they had been particularly careful about travel insurance because the risk of injury or sickness in the U.S. scares them.  It was with some relief that they moved on to the other parts of their trip in more civilised countries (from that perspective).

Lastly, if your system is so great why do you have a larger looming health bill, purely from serving senior citizens, than anyone else does providing health care to all ages?  I’d suggest you need to look at the next step in the train, the pharmaceuticals and Health Management conglomerates to see that they are over-charging U.S. citizens like crazy for the same things that are provided in the rest of the world for less.  You have a series of cartels and semi-monopolies in this sector who are spending like crazy to convince people that their being “socialised” would be even worse somehow despite the experience of the rest of the world.

Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are possibly the four most corporate focused presidents in history.  Hoover and others have presided over speculative bubbles but these four have moved power so far from the individual to the corporation that they have largely undermined “democracy” in any real sense.  Reagan started the trickle-down fiasco, Clinton removed the regulatory framework put in place after the last Great Depression (possibly causing the next one) and wasn’t Bush jr the bright spark who suggested that Social Security should be replaced with equity investment??  Of course they see these programmes as things that should be privatised.  They represent a huge pile of taxpayer money that the corporations would love a crack at.

The recent banking bail-outs should be a great example.  The idea is that if the corporations are given the money directly then everything will work out better for the general population.  So, if all the money being spent through Medicare is instead paid to the existing Insurance cartel, the Pharmaceutical cartel and the HMO semi-monopolies then they’ll avoid a future government debt.  What they don’t say is that they’ll directly impoverish the healthcare consumers without passing the money through their government in taxes.

DBM,

I understand that you believe you’ve addressed the unfunded liabilities on Medicare but you’ve not.  All you’ve done is simply mask it away.  And I get no sense from you that you fully appreciate the seriousness if this looming global problem. 

When France, Canada, Denmark, Britain and Germany are all, simultaneously, attempting to inject more market forces into their respective health-care systems, in order to bring down run-away costs, it seems short-sighted not to pay attention. 

When the system you seek to expand is facing a $68 Trillion deficit crises it’s time to recognize how that system is, not only not feasible, it’s fiscal suicide.

-

The system we have in the U.S. today is not based on the free market.  It should be.  It’s the surest way to rapidly bring down costs and raise quality.  Only when the individual is fully able to scrutinize their billable costs will the market respond.  True competition for health-care consumers is also the surest way to mitigate fraud and waste.

There is a reason Medicare faces unfunded liabilities to the sum of tens of $trillions. If I’ve heard you correctly your answer is to simply take monies from another source(s) and feed this insanely broken system.

-

Let me try this another way.  Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have all repeatedly warned of the pending catastrophe’s in Medicare and Social Security.  In your opinion when would it be a good thing to pay attention?  After expanding the system you seek?  Or might it be better to pay more attention to those details before we expand that system?

Let me try this another way and hope I’m not repeating myself.

In my city there was one privately owned company offering MRI’s five years ago.  The cost was $475.00 per.  Today there are three privately owned companies offering the same service, however, through competition for the consumer, the cost today has fallen to $175.00.  Not only did the cost fall dramatically but, now two of those companies offer “open MRI’s” for those who are uncomfortable with the “closed” machines. -Value added service.

Costs go down and services expand. 

Let me try this another way still.

You write of the wonderful care you and yours have received in other countries.  But you still have not addressed the bottom line.  Those nations are quickly going broke.  They too face the same type of catastrophe the U.S. faces (there’s a reason Germany has a top income tax rate of 70%).  Health-care is not free.  But when you make it appear free or nearly free NOBODY CONTROLS the costs and quality like you and I normally would.  Nobody demands full accountability like you and I do every day in every other service we require.  HMO’s and Medicare have largely taken that ability away.

Let me try this yet another way.  Walk into your local V.A. and tell me what you find.  In the vast majority of cases you’ll see wonderful people working in the worst health-care facilities in the nation.  You will see, literally, dingy walls, bare bulbs in the hallways and third rate IT technology.  You’ll find a crumbling infrastructure.  The V.A., a much needed service, is the truest form of government operated health-care you’ll find in the U.S..  It’s an awful system all over the nation.  And it’s EXTREMELY expensive in its current form.  Our veterans deserve a great deal better.

—

One of the most affluent nations on earth can well afford to subsidize health-care for all who are in need of it.  But never take the health-care decision away from the consumer and never, ever, make it appear as though it’s free.

Universal health-care for all sounds great.  It sounds fantastic.  Show us a workable model of it and we’ll evaluate it. But understanding that $68 trillion is not simply a big number, that it is, in the truest sense of the word, a catastrophe in the making is the absolutely essential. It’s a catastrophe with global implications.

By the way ... I don’t expect you to come around to my view of the world in a blinding flash of inspiration any more than I am likely to come around to yours.  What interests me is how you interpret what, to me, appear to be factual refutations of your positions.  I have tried to respond similarly to your questions about things which support your positions. 

So when you ask about the $68T (or $38T or $85T - they’re all inconceivable), I answered:  It is a big scary number and needs resolution but further privitisation seems nuts to me since your corporate delivered healthcare system sucks.  I know there is a big scare campaign trying to paint every other industrialised western nation as stupid, short-sighted and headed for disaster ... strangely none of them are having any success promoting the American healthcare experience to their voters as a solution.

You talked about supply-side economics, I answered:  When I was at university studying economics, supply-side was the theory of the day.  It would have gone the way of many other theories which didn’t work in practice except that the implementation of it was good for business and so there has been a consistent twisting of the facts to the contrary.

I’ve asked you about the fact that Obama has been characterised as both a socialist and a fascist; as both a muslim and a militant black church demagogue; as anti-defence and foolhardy in making Afghanistan “Obama’s War”.  You’ve responded.

I’ve asked you how you can complain about the proposed legislation funding abortion with tax dollars when the proposed legislation doesn’t fund any healthcare at all.  VA Health, Medicare and Medicaid exist currently and are not being expanded.  What is left of the legislation is a rehash of rules and regulations around the purchase and administration of corporate health insurance ... and what’s more it appears that it is slanted towards corporate interests.  I am fascinated by your statement “But keep the decisions and control in the hands of the insured” and look forward to you explaining it ... but I don’t expect you to think otherwise.

You asked why Fox News and the Washington Times were the only ones who reported on the clean non-violent nature of the 9-12 protesters and I responded by saying that Fox News was the originator and sponsor of the 9-12 gatherings so that was hardly a co-incidence.  Your response was something to do with a “vast right-wing conspiracy” ... that was Hillary Clinton’s phrase from about 15 years ago.  I didn’t use it nor infer it, but it is still a talking point for people wishing to set up liberal cartoon characters and shoot them down.  Therefore I chose to ignore it as a reflex response from someone who didn’t have time to think.  I know you can think because you’ve had thoughtful responses before.

I then provided a quite specific argument that there is a critical inconsistency in the “politically feasible” treatment of military spending (which cannot be known, examined or questioned) as opposed to proposed funding for healthcare (which may or may not cost money depending on the way it’s implemented, the individual’s current arrangements and the way the transition away from the current broken system is managed).  You responded that I was painting a conservative cartoon character to shoot down.

I don’t care a bit whether the government is conservative or liberal.  If they won’t consider the efficacy of military spending nor the efficacy of employer based insurance cartel funded healthcare then they are not doing their job.  I don’t expect them to because their real job is to keep the political funding dollars flowing not to do their nominal job of representing the interests of the American people.  As I see it, your legistature has some well-meaning people in it but they are soundly out-voted by corporate hacks.  The Executive has been progressively more and more beholden to the corporate funders for the last 30 years.  As a result, the judiciary has been progressively replaced with corporate hacks as well.  The massive disappointment with Obama has been because, although he was clearly well funded by corporate backers, the back-story promoted during his rise to power gave a glimmer of hope that he would stick it to his funders once in power on behalf of the people.  Instead he appears to be sticking it to his constituents on behalf of his funders.

Now, I don’t mean to imply that you are beneath my intellect.  What I see is that a well-funded PR machine has been at work for both of our adult lives.  Many many people have been taken in by it and that is a very hard thing to admit ... it goes against human nature entirely.  I don’t claim by this that I am totally well-informed and omnipotently understanding, but I know lies and mistruths when I see them and I like to think them through.  It is in this latter activity that I like to enlist people like you.  Your perspectives are very interesting when we are discussing issues and not charicatures.

I wondered when DBM’s steady diet of facts and refutations of the distortions and contradictions that are all GRYM seems to have would cause him to crack. It appears that time draws nearer.

Yeah, yeah GRYM, I know..yada yada yada, manchild, blah blah blah….

DBM,

I’ll have to repeat myself.  You’re not listening.  You’re simply taking on some odd notion of a conservative cartoon character point of view and applying it as if that character were a real, living and breathing, human being.

It’s clear to me now that it’s not FOX News that’s misrepresenting the real world.  It’s you who are doing the very thing you complain about.

-

You’re slow but sure demeanor, as if I am beneath your righteous intellect, is becoming tedious.

I responded to the $68 Trillion number at some length on 27 November and a couple of posts thereafter.  I found even higher scary numbers out there and you can pick whatever figure you like, it is certainly a problem.  However, it is a problem with viable solutions ... unless the current problems with governance in the U.S. continue unchanged until too late.

The reason I bring up military spending as part of that response is that I don’t believe in the War Fairy!  Whatever “funding machination” you think it comes from military spending, like Medicare, comes from taxes of one sort or another ... or has to be borrowed.  You may think that avoiding medical bankrupcty and getting healthcare before emergency status is less important than funding troops where they are not wanted and fighting foreign wars with vague connections to U.S. national interests (at best) but you cannot consider one expenditure sacrosanct (and assign bottomless funding) while calling the other “bankruptcy waiting to happen”; well not rationally anyway.

The reason it would be a good idea to expand Medicare to all is that the increase in taxes would be less than the amount every taxpayer saved by cutting out the medical insurance industry.  So there’s a way to avoid that bankruptcy.  You could, I suppose, get other countries to fight their own wars and garrison their own countries ... that would be a flat out saving that woudl probably fund the medical needs of the country in total without tax increase!

As for “keep[ing] the decisions and control in the hands of the insured” (or I would rather say the “medical consumer” as I think you’d be better off without the insurers), saying that indicates that you believe this bunk about socialised medicine and how the government would be “between you and your doctor”.  Having lived in a number of countries where healthcare is provided by the government with different mechanisms, let me tell you that I have, in every case, has a choice of any doctor, of any medical institution and had choices about how much I wished to spend for services beyond the norm.  That’s a lot better than dealing with an HMO.  I have never “had a claim rejected” (there is no such concept) or had to consider whether my child was sick enough to warrant a doctor’s visit.

Right now, the current state of U.S. healthcare and the “politically feasible” options (i.e. those that serve political funders’ interests) quite clearly keep the decisions and control in the hands of the insurers ... not the insured.

DBM,

It’s sincerely unfortunate but I’m loosing faith in your abilities to follow others points of view and keeping with the intended context.  You’ve misinterpreted the things I write on several occasions (more times than not). 

I did not write that I don’t watch, or haven’t watched, FOX News.  I have seen it enough to realize that almost all that you claim are lies and misinterpretations of current events is, very simply and unequivically, a different point of view.

-

What does military spending have to do with the $68 Trillion in unfunded liabilities in Medicare expenditures?  Those are two separate funding machinations meant for completely different social reasons.  You’re simply masking the subject in order to avoid the $68 Trillion in Medicare liabilities.

I have not seen a single proposal, Democrat or Republican, which address’ this pending and immanent catastrophe.  The so-called “public option” simply adds to the existing debt bomb waiting to go off.

-

True reform would regulate the insurance industry while at the same time lean much more heavily on the individual, not the government, controlling costs.

Help all who need assistance to purchase health insurance.  But keep the decisions and control in the hands of the insured.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124268737705832167.html

Try to follow this logic: Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an “unfunded liability” of nearly $38 trillion—which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years.

You DON’T watch Fox?  Then what are we talking about?  If you do you will see that they misrepresent the facts and lie just as I’m saying ... It’s hard work watching though as it is apparently geared at a grade-school intelligence level.

$68 Trillion is nowhere near the projected expenditure on the military over the period you are talking about.  If both are supposed to keep you alive, why is one unquestioned and the other in need of reform?

“Is Fox still characterising the Health Reform Bill as an undeserved bail-out for the poor and middle class or something?”

Not only do I not watch much FOX News but, your post is the first time I’ve seen anyone characterize health-care reform in that manner (I believe you’re making demons out of conservatives and mischaracterizing the conservative position) .

“It seems rather that some Health Insurance corporations have been delivered millions of customers (by force of law rather than the free market) but have managed to lobby out any meaningful restrictions or regulations that could have come with it.”— “The bill has moved from potentially helping the nation escape a twisted non-market driven rape by the Health Insurance / Pharma cartels to cementing that cartel in power for another decade or two.”

I agree

“No public option = no taxpayer funded healthcare”

I don’t believe it’s that simply.  And you’re leaving out Medicaid?

Are you aware that Medicare, which is being held up as the model to be emulated, holds unfunded liabilities of $68 Trillion?  That’s bankruptcy waiting to happen.  Real and useful reform is desperately needed.

Yep ... no public funding.  Re-read my post from December 21 at 10:35 am ...

Is Fox still characterising the Health Reform Bill as an undeserved bail-out for the poor and middle class or something? 

It seems rather that some Health Insurance corporations have been delivered millions of customers (by force of law rather than the free market) but have managed to lobby out any meaningful restrictions or regulations that could have come with it. 

The bill has moved from potentially helping the nation escape a twisted non-market driven rape by the Health Insurance / Pharma cartels to cementing that cartel in power for another decade or two.

With the twin drains on the economy of war and a broken health market, I fear that the U.S. is in for a very hard economic fall.

No public option = no taxpayer funded healthcare

That is, with the exception of the existing Medicare for the aged.

DBM, - “You still haven’t explained how public funding for abortions was removed from a bill which has no public funding for anything.”

I think you misunderstand.  Or perhaps I misunderstood.

The issue, I thought, is not whether or not there are current provisions for federally funded abortion but, rather, added provisions in legislation yet signed into law.  <—At least that’s the way it’s been reported by Neo-Cons Olbermann and Maddow.

Have I misunderstood what you believed you saw Beck speaking of?  I was under the impression that you were upset regarding Beck speaking in terms of pending legislation.

-

I’m unclear on what you meant when you wrote: “removed from a bill which has no public funding for anything.”

No public funding for anything?

Let’s not play the man (or woman) rather than the ball.

I didn’t hear what Olbermann or Maddow said.  I don’t care what “democratic legislatures” had to say.

You still haven’t explained how public funding for abortions was removed from a bill which has no public funding for anything.

DBM,

There is much we agree on but a vast right wing conspiracy involving thousands of men and woman in all the media and the National Park Service and, I must have simply misquoted both Olbermann and Maddow?

My BS detector has been activated by your entire last post. 

Go Right Young Man, December 21 at 9:52 am #

Manchild,

We can always count on you to miss the point….LOL
*************************

Really, I see it plain enough, right there atop your head. You seem inured to the way DBM makes you out the fool, repeatedly. Your lies are exposed yet you soldier on, your reputation is shattered yet you post as if anyone will believe anything you say is true.

You think your sophomoric attempts at insult affect me, sheesh they wouldn’t work on a middle school kid. Just as your crap becomes more and more transparent and your rant more and more embarrassing for you.

I wonder why DBM continues to respond to you, other than it seem so easy for him to make you out the foolish little radical you are. Do you wonder why very ,very few even bother to respond? No , of course you dont, your massive ego fails to allow you to see the truth, that you arent worth spit.

BTW - on a different topic.  Obviously you already read Truthdig sometimes but if you want to know why people loved Obama the candidate but aren’t so thrilled today have a look at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_candidate_vs_president_canard_20091217/?ln

This was fairly predictable.  If any news outlet had been doing a reasonable job of tracking campaign contributions they would have seen that Obama and most of the Congress owe their corporate backers and cannot follow through on promises.

Hey I’m quite aware that most of the media thrive on 1 or 2 dimensional cardboard cut-outs of public figures.  They like to report on “horse races”, character flaws, impressive personal characteristics and appearences.  Anything to avoid analysis of the facts which can them into trouble if they point the wrong way for their corporate owners or if they get caught out and their analysis is shown to be wrong later.  We needn’t argue over the bulk of the corporate media because I think we both agree that they are patchy at best as news sources and terrible when it comes to what passes for “analysis”.

Our difference is over whether Fox is the same as the rest or worse.  You ask why Fox and the Washington Times were the only outlets to report that the 9/12’ers et al are such great people compared to the dirty violent unionist lefties who have been involved in protests they didn’t organise.  Well that pretty much answers itself.  They organised it, their corporate backers are funding it and they are totally in favour of it.  I doubt that anyone else reported the disparity because it is probably not true ... did I mention that Fox lies regularly?

Finally, though, I am afraid that you are exhibiting some of the most important signs of the stereotypical Fox viewer.  That is to say that cognitive dissonance appears to be no problem.  Let’s follow this logic:

*  I say that Glenn Beck is complaining about tax dollars “paying for people to put a spike through the head of an 8 1/2 month fetus”.  Which is a lie.
*  You say that “abortion has been stripped from” the health bill so Glenn was telling the truth.
*  I point out that there IS NO PUBLICALLY FUNDED HEALTH CARE IN THE BILL except Medicare (sorry for caps) ... so no tax dollars paying for anything.
*  You mis-quote two of the main targets of the conservative echo machine (i.e. some of the people most often mis-quoted in the right wing media) as saying that “abortion has been stripped from” the bill.

How do you manage to keep the two ideas in your head that tax dollars have been stripped away from abortion while at the same time no tax dollars are going to be paying for anyone’s health care until retirement?  This doesn’t ring alarm bells for you about your sources? 

When I hear the NY Times, or CNN or anyone say something which just doesn’t make sense my BS detector goes off ... and believe me it happens.  When you NY Times ran the opinions of 9 “experts” on what went wrong in the Iraq War, they blew it ... the position-supporting crap they ended up printing made no sense.  When I’m watching Fox I find it hard to quiet the BS detector at all from the infomercials they run as “Special Reports” to the earnest discussions based on factually incorrect starting positions to the childish denigration of anyone they disagree with.

DBM,

I neglected to include how Glenn Beck was labeled a fear-monger and crazy loon by the corporate conservative media when he predicted the collapse of the economy.

I am stunned that you missed the desirous treatment from the media Mr. Obama received during the campaign for almost two years.  And this is what you believe to be corporate conservative news media?  No way.

DBM, - “I’d be fascinated to know “reportedly” by who?  Can you recall or has it been reverbrating through the right wing echo chamber all over?”

LOL…..Yes I do recall.  The “newly conservative” Olbermann and Maddow both reported on how some (D)emocratic Senators and Congressman are upset reagrding abortion funding being stripped from the so-called “Reid health-care Bill”.

You may recall I didn’t see the Beck piece that first upset you.  All I can attest to is how Beck has spoken of the Progressive’s desire to have abortion included in health-care legislation.  I know Beck has always been against federal funding for abortion while the nation is so evenly divided on the issue.

It does appear now that Beck was right and not the liar you believed.

-

Here is a tidbit you may have missed in the conservative corporate media.  Glenn Beck predicted the economic crash we’ve all witnessed in the last 18 months.  He predicted it over two years ago.  Not only did Beck predict it but, he correctly predicted it’s causes.

DBM,

Irving Kristol was describing himself as a new conservative on several issues.  Most of the people on the list you present are not, in any stretch of the imagination, newly conservative.

That’s been my point all along.  You and others use the term in describing someone who is really really right wing conservative AND a demon.  This has been so misused and watered down that the term now covers anyone who happens to sound even a little bit conservative.

Neo-Nazi is a term used for contemporary “new” Nazis in Germany.  Not the Nazis of the 40’s.

You use the term incorrectly and you demonize all who you describe as new-conservative.  You’ve created a mythical cartoon character.

DBM,

During the summer 09 town hall meetings Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews and Charlie Gibson all ran a story, with an accompanying video, of a man, from the waist down, carrying a hip holster.  They used this video as evidence of “white bigotry” and potential violence.  The image seemed horrific when narrated by all of the above.  But, as it turned out, there was a reason why those news organs cropped the video in order to mask who the man was.  HE WAS BLACK!

No.  No mainstream news organ incites hatred and violence.  Not possible.

Also during the summer protests not a single incident of violence was seen coming from the protesters.  The actual violence came from a group of men in red SEIU T-shirts against a man attending a town hall meeting.  He was hospitalized.

In another incident, again by men protesting against some town hall attendees, a group of white men attacked a black man who had his finger bitten off.

So I ask you.  How many times, in how many news reports, did you hear about the “potential” for violence from the “hate-filled” “white” “bigoted” “tea-baggers”?  Dozens? I know I did.  Yet no violence from the conservative side occurred. 

The U.S. Park Service reported on how stunned they were that the mall where the 9/12 protests took place was so orderly and clean when the protesters departed.  Contrast that with the anti-war protests during the Bush years.  The mall was completely trashed and property damage was estimated in the millions of dollars. - Is it at least interesting that nobody but the Washington Times and FOX news carried the observations from the U.S. park Service?

I know I saw Nancy Pelosi feigning tears over the mean words and negative signs being carried by the 9/12 and town hall protesters.  Ms. Pelosi’s tearful press conference was carried by every major news network in the U.S..  But most failed to report that no violence occurred and no arrests were made ALL SUMMER LONG.

Conservative media?  No way!  Absolutely not.

What are neo-cons?  Is this going to be like when the mafia tried to spread the idea that they didn’t exist?

Irving Kristol, was considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.’”  Kristol’s son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century.

So “who are these new conservative demons you write of?” ... amongst the main cuprits are the signatories to the major PNAC manifesto:

Elliott Abrams
Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett
John Ellis “Jeb” Bush
Richard B. Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter
Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby
Norman Podhoretz
J. Danforth Quayle
Peter W. Rodman
Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld
Vin Weber
George Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz

There are probably some in that list who are embarrased to be associated with this rogues gallery now ... there are many deserving of prison time.

Ah Go Right ... think carefully before you believe what you read or hear.  You say that “Reportedly some democratic legislatures are upset that certain language was taken out of proposed legislation which would cover abortions.”  I’d be fascinated to know “reportedly” by who?  Can you recall or has it been reverbrating through the right wing echo chamber all over?  Also, did you leave that small “d” on purpose?

Firstly, the amendment I think is in question is this (from the NY Times):

“Mr. Reid’s amendment includes major restrictions on abortion that were intended to win support for the bill from Mr. Nelson. Under Mr. Reid’s proposal, health insurance plans are not required or forbidden to cover abortion services, but there is a major exemption that would give states power to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.”

But now, think about it ... this is referring to new restrictions which will now be allowed on existing PRIVATE health plans.  Remember that Beck’s complaint was “why should my tax dollars be used to murder babies?”.  Funding for abortions was already omitted from “the public option” (the taxpayer funds) in an effort to get it included.

Now the public option has been completely removed (after being totally watered down to nothing) leaving only Medicare for the aged funded by taxpayers.  In don’t think abortion is an issue in that demographic.  What is left appears to be 50,000,000 new customers delivered to the health insurance industry with almost no strings attached ... sounds a bit like another Wall Street bailout except that these companies were far from broke.  They’ve been making out like bandits and now their lobbyists have delivered a “bail-out” style windfall anyway.

Top work ... democracy at its finest. 

I wish you could see where the half-truths and lies your sources focus on serve to distract and misdirect while the organisations you support steal your lunch.  Fox is the unvarnished corporate megaphone.  They spew outrageous stuff which fills debates as others have to debunk the obviously false while the real issues get “under the radar”.  But far from being the “only news outlet which propagates a conservative outlook” they are merely the most brazen of those who lie on behalf of the already rich and powerful.  Most of the rest of the media leans towards corporate views as well which is why Fox isn’t just laughed off and ignored.

Manchild,

We can always count on you to miss the point….LOL

I love that you’re still around and posting.  You make “progressives” seem bigoted and intolerant.  I know it’s not always the case but, you sure do help the conservative cause…..I LOVE IT! LMAO

I recall Keith Olbermann talking on air on how Dick Cheney needed to be tortured.  But it’s FOX News which incites violence?

I zoom in in this as a typical example of this poster’s problem with accuracy and truth. Those who watch Olbermann know that his screed was in no way an advocacy for torturing Cheney, only a sarcastic and enlightening glimpse into the worms in Cheney’s head.

DBM,

Yes I meant the 9/12 protests.  Where hundreds of thousands of protesters turned out and not a single incident of violence.

Come on now.  It’s not possible to blame FOX news for the death of Dr. Tiller.  Come now.

You honestly don’t see what you’re doing, do you?  It’s you who is manufacturing demons by your simple use of the term “Neo-Con”.  What is a “new-conservative” and who are these “new conservative” demons you write of?

DBM,

Want to see fear-mongering, inciting violence and demonizing?  Choose any link on this page.

Want to see a “news outlet” blame an American President for everything wrong in government?  Choose any link on this page.

Want to see half-truths and propaganda? Choose any link on this page.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22899338/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/

Fox didn’t demonise Dr Tiller?  ... and murdering him in his church wasn’t violent?

How may Mexican labourers have been murdered?

How many people with Arab backgrounds have been falsely accused and imprisoned or killed?

I think you’re being quite careful which anecdotes to store away.

And this doesn’t even touch on the “violence” of economic deprivation which was caused many many deaths.  Deaths directly attributable to the neo-con economic policies which have encouraged financial speculation instead of real production.

AND ... if non-Americans count for anything the warmongering of Fox news (and a lot of the massively right wing U.S. media) has destroyed the lives of millions unnecessarily.

I’m not sure which “9/11” protests you’re referring to ... did you mean “9/12”?  Anyway I’m glad if they were free of arrests and violence.

Thanks for asking about the healing ... it will be a long slow process getting tendon to grow into bone.

DBM,

Did you happen to notice the abortion issue being part of the discussion on health-care legislation this past week? Reportedly some democratic legislatures are upset that certain language was taken out of proposed legislation which would cover abortions.

I mention this because you were upset about Glenn Beck talking about abortion being included in proposed legislation.  You called Beck a liar.  You used Beck as an example of the many FOX News lies. It seems now he was talking about an issue the Left leaning media would not.

Interesting, yes?

-

I recall Keith Olbermann talking on air on how Dick Cheney needed to be tortured.  But it’s FOX News which incites violence?

I still say FOX stands apart for you for a single reason. FOX is the only news outlet which propagates a conservative outlook.  And I repeat myself; what you refer to as lies are actually different points of view.

DBM,

You claim FOX News incites violence.  Yet during the so-called 9/11 protests not a single incident of violence nor a single arrest was made.  Contrast that with the World Bank protests attended by “leftists”.  Property destruction and 83 arrests.

Last summer’s town hall meetings found the same.  The only violence came from leftists directed toward protesters.

Excuse me but it’s ludicrous to speak of demonetization as you do.  First of all is this not exactly what you’re doing?  Making FOX News into a conglomeration of demons?  Secondly, that’s exactly what we see when the left speaks of the evil “Neo-Cons” and accused the Bush administration of almost every crime known to humans.

Come now.  You’re allowing your emotions to get the better of you.  Watch MSNBC for a single day.  You’ll see exactly what you complain about in FOX.

How’s the healing going?

Upon reflection, the 3rd line of Ingraham’s stupid parody was to do with gun-owners!

... and on a completely different topic:
I was bemused by the Nobel Peace Prize going to Obama.  But just recently Time gave it’s “Man of the Year” to ... BEN BERNANKE ??!?!?!?!??! 

I realise they’re presumably trying to sell magazines through shock value but ... well, why not give him the NFL MVP award?  He’s more deserving of that.

I hate to continue to quote Jon Stewart because he is adamant that his show is not real news ... but I just watched a show earlier this evening in which Fox’s Laura Ingraham paraphrased the famous poem:

“First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

In Ingraham’s version it was

“First they came for the rich, and I did not speak out—because I was not rich;
Then they came for the land owners, and I did not speak out—because I did not own land;
..........;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

I can’t remember what she did with the 3rd line ...

Now really, Healthcare reform is the Holocaust?  “They” are coming to kill the rich and the land owners???  Don’t you think the constant references to Nazism and genocide by the Fox inspired Tea Baggers are rhetorical lies??  Some other schmuck at this rally opined that it was a terrible thing “that the pen is mightier than the sword” presumably because this written healthcare bill is a bad thing.  These lies and distortions are dangerous.  There are idiots out there who will take them to heart and resort to violence.  They’re not turning up to public events armed to defend themselves, they’re threatening violence if they don’t get “their” way. 

It’s not democracy ... and it’s not based on a true interpretation of what is going on.  It is based on the kind of lies that Fox makes a business of spewing.

I’m not a huge fan of any American news outlets.  The “main stream media”, including the cable channels, seem pretty much in lock-step promoting a pro-corporate anti-populist point of view.  Where Fox differs is with Demonisation and barely cloaked calls for violence.

I wouldn’t care if 99% of the American population got their main news from Fox ... I’d still feel sorry for them that they were being so duped.

DBM,

I actually agree with you on how it’s frightening that so many people get their news and views from FOX news.  But we part ways when you opine that FOX is the lying network.  What you call lies are actually, and simply, a different point of view.

It’s dangerous to condemn so many simply because they disagree with you.  That’s how wars begin.

To be fair (and honest again) ... Go Right is not an “opponent”.  Like most, we seek roughly the same things.  What seems to come out of these discussions is that we trust (and mistrust) different people.  Hence we have fundamental differences about what is really happening in the world.