Out with the old, in with the new.
It is on.
132 thoughts on “44”
Comments are closed.
A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Out with the old, in with the new.
It is on.
Comments are closed.
Narcissism, self-pity and depression are a nasty combination…no economy can protect us from it.
There is a lot of stress out there right now. A man killed his family just yesterday. Of course he has a choice and control but in his mind (in the state that it was) his decision was “correct”. But most of us will not kill our families and then suicide. But vices always do well in an economic downturn – sex, drugs, and gambling. And these are not good choices either – really. We can express ourselves differently and choose differently (obviously millions of people have been doing so for thousands of years) But like you, I’m not sure I understand what compells us to throw our hands up and make choices that seem extreme to the norm.
Is optimism a realistic reaction to difficulty?
Thirty years ago, wasn’t the Japanese economy the envy of the West?
I recall managers praising Japanese corporations and mimicking them in training American workers.
Do individuals have a choice about their behavior during a recession?
This isn’t about SSA, but it is about the same argument: how much control do we have over our lives and how much is determined by factors outside our control?
Old psychological theory of internal vs. external locus of control.
Evan
That’s so sad. A nation’s wealth comes from it’s productive capacity. Most politicians aren’t smart enough to realize this. Rubles, Pesos, Dollars have no intrinsic value. It’s the goods and services the nation produces for itself and other nations that have the value.
—
Japan is a particularly sad case. Their economy has been in the toilet for nearly 20 years because of bad government policy. And now as the world heads into another depression they will fall even further.
Drowssap,
Until now, Japanese workers used to focus on the B option.
Now one big Japanese firm is switching to option D, for more or less economic reasons.
It happens in my country too, so I’m seeing a trend here.
Eddy
I think this is particularly true for older workers. When a guy hits 50 and he’s unemployed he’s got a tough road in front of him. Companies want to hire 20 year olds with 20 years experience for $20,000 per year.
Britain is drowning under a mountain of debt just like the USA. Fortunately for the Limeys their government has found the perfect sollution. Work less!
Britain is facing return of three-day week
—
If you had a friend drowning in debt what would you tell him to do?
A) Use his extra money to pay off debt
B) He should work harder, longer or smarter and find a way to earn more money
C) Earn more money AND pay off debt
D) Work less
—
The British are strongly considering D.
Work less to get out of debt? Only a high government offical could devise a plan so cunning. Bwahahaha!
As I type in the background…on the news…
“More and more we realize how important it is to look your best in this highly competitive job-market.” Unemployed people spending up to $300 for little tucks, removals, injections, make-overs. I recall hearing a similar toned story over the weekend.
Target Headquarters, a few blocks from where I work, laid off 1,000 employees today. Our Ford Plant closing. Best Buy layoffs. I spoke with a ‘dislocated’ friend who sensed his layoff was coming so wasn’t surprised when it did a month ago. It’s time for the 2010 Census to begin. I gave him the local contact info for that. He’s more optimistic than most. But will that simply be a short term fix? It’s good for a year maybe…and then, there you are looking again. Now, you’re behind that pool of thousands of job-seekers. It sucks. It really sucks.
Portion size!!! duh!
But not just the size of the portion. I get by just fine using half the shampoo they recommend; with concentrated fruit juice I’d always add another 1 to 1 1/2 cans of water; concentrated detergents–well, how dirty is this load?. I’ve shaved without shaving cream or after shave for years.
Some mixes. I love Manwich….but I add another half pound of the ground beef. I get the flavor and my Joes ain’t so sloppy. I like that.
Let’s not rule out gluttonous tendencies! True confession time. I’ve been the rounds on pizzas and, for the money, give me a Tombstone sausage (I’ll doctor with onion, green pepper, more cheese)…the 12 incher. It says 3 portions right there above the cooking instructions. It never turns out to be 3 portions for me… Ice cream? That’s another portion size I ignore. Rarely allow myself to have it around. Dark chocolate…
Apropos of brands, materialism and anxiety. There’s one study that links materialism with death anxiety.
I’m not impressed with their methods but they concluded that:
What about “fast” and “easy.”
Is it really faster to drive down to McD’s than to make your own lunch or breakfast?
How much of “fast” and “easy” is converted into dollars spent?
Reminds me of the whole emotional intelligence study of being able to delay gratification as a sign of E.I.
David–
Nothing profound on the mass customization except on how so much of it targets children. “Get ’em while they’re young.” Ronald McDonald, The Hamburgler—what has this got to do with food?
Worse thing there though is that the appeal is all to taste; nutrition, if present, is an accidental by-product.
Been reading a few stories lately about foods or beverages that actually try to appeal to your sense of nutrition when they are actually as bad or worse than the standard fare. But the marketers know those buzz-words that will get you to go for it.
Thanks Eddy,
Any comments about “Mass Customization?”
Presenting a mass produced and mass consumed product as “one of a kind” or “only for a select few.”
Starbucks…
Burger King: Have it your way.
Bottled water.
I like Safeway Cola…
I am a real fan of Costco Jeans and Shirts…I am one swanky dude.
David–
There’s vanity clothing…you inscribe the Tommy Hillfiger logo on a t-shirt and then hike the price to $20 or $30!
Jeans–your good basic jeans (Lee, Levi, Wranglers) all generally retail for around $20 or less but my brothers’ kids all had to have those $40 and $50 designer jeans. Were they better made? Longer lasting? Often, the reverse was true.
There’s trendy clothing. This years color, collar, cuff or hemline…always at a premium price. It seems the more you pay, the sooner it is that the product will look ‘dated’. Might be well made but it’s eye-catching….and next year, the eyes that notice will go ‘oh, that’s so last year!”
There’s over specialization. When I grew up, you wore one pair of Keds for everything. Now you need one pair of high priced sneakers for every activity you engage in…for walking, for running, for basketball, etc. Wonder what irreversible damage you’d do to yourself if you wore the basketball sneaks for running? It’s just too scarey to imagine.
Don’t even get me going on soft drinks. Are Coke and Pepsi really worth 4 times more than Shasta?
Home decor: If your furnishings draw the oooh’s and aah’s of visitors now, give it five years and they’ll be tsk-tsking at your dated look.
LOL. Well there’s a few for starters.
Our Culture creates anxiety and emptiness and uses consumerism to fill it.
The aggressive use of advertising, “free TV” in which each program is designed to create tension and anxiety and relief in 46 minute increments;
The attack in critical thinking which includes traditional values (carving out generations of wisdom in the name of being open minded);
Planned obsolescence (do we really need a new $25K car every 5 years?).
Any other ideas?
Evan and Eddy,
Many Happy Thoughts…eek.
Does the way I live my life as an individual matter? I think so.
Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust can corrupt…
Nearly debt free…but that may not save me.
Evan
I don’t know if they talk about “alternative energy” in your country but Obama claims that he is going to produce millions of “green” jobs producing alt energy in America. The only problem is that once all of the engineering problems are solved they’ll offshore all of the manufacturing to China. America does not produce good jobs anymore. I’m just glad that I own my own small business. Of course once the wealth has finally evaporated from the country I’ll lose all of my customers with it.
Nope. Borrowing can’t help the U.S. economy because massive debt is what CAUSED the problem in the first place. We run a deficit every single year and now we are broke. How would a bigger deficit be better? Unfortunately it’s the only thing the government knows. The more they borrow the poorer we become. America needs to focus on a way to produce more, not spend more. As per usual the government has it backwards. We need real wealth which means real, growing industries. The printing press won’t solve anything.
Drowssap
Wow… Private debt is sky-rocketing in the US. If they’re giving out bailout money to keep credit lines open, they’re basically sustaining the same trend of further growing debt. It’s money thrown out of the window. It’s like thinking that everything will go back to normal only because credit is made available again.
Nope. Business is not going to be as usual if credit comes to life again: derivative instruments have lost credibility (billions of dollars vanished), assets prices have gone down (it’s buying time for tycoons), debt has grown and has to be managed, jobs have been lost. I think people are downshifting right now, they’re not eager to go back to spending more. This crisis produced psychological changes that made many people risk-avoidant. I personally don’t think that restoring lending will do the trick.
You know, the bailout money that goes into private banks’ accounts is going to lose its trace. They’re not going to do separate accounting for that, therefore they’re not going to be held accountable for how they will spend it. I think they should be given once choice: bankruptcy or temporary state management (then privatisation).
Evan
Obama and the Democrats want to spend massive sums of money. The British are doing the same thing. It’s ridiculous. I can’t believe the Citibank jet story. Can’t these guys fly on regular planes like the rest of us? Are they in a hurry to do more deals so they can lose money even faster? This whole meltdown is just getting started. By the end of the year we will be in a full blown depression. I imagine most of the world is in the same boat.
—
2 graphs from Reuters that explain the entire financial crisis.
US GDP vs financial sector debt
US GDP vs public and private sector debt
The USA and most of the western world is completely broke.
Drowssap,
BTW, British folks have always insisted on having a special status in Europe, including by keeping their own currency, even if they could have joined the Eurozone. Now they are hit hard by currency devaluation. UK has officially entered recession. And they’re looking for culprits. They even made a list:
Alan Greenspan, chairman of US Federal Reserve 1987- 2006
Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England
Bill Clinton, former US president
Gordon Brown, UK prime minister
George W Bush, former US president
Senator Phil Gramm (Texas)
Abby Cohen, Goldman Sachs chief US strategist
Kathleen Corbet, former CEO, Standard & Poor’s
“Hank” Greenberg, AIG insurance group
Andy Hornby, former HBOS boss
Sir Fred Goodwin, former RBS boss
Steve Crawshaw, former B&B boss
Adam Applegarth, former Northern Rock boss
Dick Fuld, Lehman Brothers chief executive
and many many others.
It’s the first list of individual blame-throwing since the crisis began. I don’t agree with blaming the entire American and British public, though. Most of them are paying for others’ decisions right now.
Drowssap,
Obama is going to push for a bigger stimulus, right?
Who’s paying for all this, if the company was just bailed out?
Evan
David Blakeslee
I think the problem the economy has is that large banks and insurance companies know that the government views them as too big to fail. They take all kinds of stupid risks because if everything works out they make a fortune, if it doesn’t the government will always bail them out. We’ve got too much crony capitalism.
Do you really think deregulation is the culprit?
Many economists think so. What happened back in the 1929 was that governments avoided interfering with market forces, which lead to banks going bankrupt (they thought that was a healthy way by which markets regulated themselves). In the wake of the depression, governments imposed regulations and the banking system regained its balance (the glorious 30’s). Then, during the 80’s, came the two major revisions of the post-1929 regulations — Reaganomics and Thatcherism. Now the cycle is closing again towards more state intervention and regulation.
The main problem right now is that there’s a lot of uncertainty, trust is very low and money tend to pool. As your former Fed chief, Greenspan, said: asset prices went down and money became expensive. That was bound to happen: real estate prices have been going up around the world for many years. Greenspan actually raised an alarm in 2006. There was plenty that regulators could have done to avoid bankruptcies and a need for a bailout. Now we’re picking up the pieces of a lack of regulating intervention.
‘when the government starts guaranteeing loans (intrusion in the market), creating unwarranted certainty (removing risk), prices are inflated and everyone gets greedy‘
What’s the alternative? If banks cannot attract money from the market, very few will afford to sustain credit risks, a few big players. Credit will become more expensive and subject to lots of conditions, which can stifle growth. That’s why governments had to step in and inject some money to restore banks’ crediting ability and keep credit cost low. No one knows if this is going to work, because there was never a similar crisis before. (The IMF chief himself admitted that this is a crisis of capitalism, the first global crisis ever. That’s one big difference from 1929 right there.)
I don’t think they’re going to be able to restore trust in derivatives, though. The big days for derivatives are probably over, unless they become highly regulated.
@Evan,
Do you really think deregulation is the culprit?
It seems to me that although deregulation did occur under Reagan and Thatcher, powerful supervision of the economies of both nations still was in force.
You may not remember, but after the small recession of 2001, Bush and congress signed laws require more truth in corporate disclosures and criminal penalties applied to CEO’s…and that is just a recent example.
No, when the government starts guaranteeing loans (intrusion in the market), creating unwarranted certainty (removing risk), prices are inflated and everyone gets greedy…socialism cannot fix what is co-created.
Socialism, in its attempts at fairness and justice, interferes with Cause and Effect….until the Effect is overwhelming and there is no one left to pay the taxes.
@EVAN:
Just bought this book for my son’s birthday:
The Collected What If? Eminent Historians Imagining What Might Have Been (Hardcover)
David Blakeslee
BTW. You mentioned Reagan and Thatcher. They were both influenced by the economist I mentioned (Hayek). Here’s what a UK tabloid wrote yesterday about the economic recession that hit Britain:
So the economic mentality Hayek contributed to by rebutting socialist ideas influenced the two policy makers, Reagan and Thatcher, to take certain measures which lead to market deregulation and market failure. This is the context in which Barack Obama became president, amid fears that his policies might take a turn for the left. That reminds me of a certain statement: a spectre is haunting Europe, the spectre of communism. It’s not just Europe any more and it’s not communism, but it seems that after decades of liberalisation, we are going back to state involvement in the economy. It’s like liberalisation couldn’t kill that ghost of socialism after all.
David Blakeslee,
I’m not an expert in the four modern revolutions, but to my knowledge the background conditions in each country were very different. In America it was about colonists of the British Empire revolting against the crown, which lead to a war of secession between two very distinct territories. That completely set the American Revolution apart from all others. Both the English and Russian revolutions lead to civil war, but very different outcomes due to different social conditions and traditions (monarchy was restored in Great Britain and was thrown out in Russia). In Britain there was and still is a very solid parliamentary tradition, despite there being a monarchy. There’s a long tradition of limiting monarchical power – you can see that very clearly in John Locke’s political philosophy, which also influenced the American Revolution and the Declaration of Independence. In France, the legislative assembly was far weaker and unable to represent the people, whereas the king held most of the power (ironically, it was the same absolute king, Louis XVI, that supported the American Revolution against the British crown…). Very different conditions. Neither the Brits, nor the French had distinct territories to separate the revolutionaries from the regime they were up against. They had to stew in their own juice, so to speak… Limited possibility for change in France, Russia, Britain, because their long history put in place a certain configuration of traditions, institutions and social make-up. That was not the case at all in the US. This is just one aspect that makes the American Revolution unique, but I’m sure historians have already identified many more.
David Blakeslee,
I don’t deny the role Reagan played in ending the Cold War, but the best documented account on the downfall of communism I’ve read pointed to cracks that were already starting to appear in the whole system in Russia. The Soviets became unable to sustain the lifestyle that blue-collar workers became used to (the state gave them many perks, including free holidays, for instance). There was growing dissent among party bureaucrats (aparatchiks) as to how to handle the worsening economic problems. Gorbachev didn’t have much choice but to make the best of the situation and negotiate an end to the Cold War. I recommend a book written by Francoise Thom, if you or your son are interested in the perspective of a scholar specialised in this subject, who actually went to Moskow to dig in the party’s archives to get the best idea on what happened. Her book is called “Les fins du communisme” in French, but maybe you can find a translation.
Beats me. Neither of them owed Eastern Europe an intervention, I’ll make this as clear as possible. My argument was about setting the record straight on the matter of who owes whom. There can be many what ifs, but it doesn’t serve any practical aim to discuss them now, does it? 🙂
Does commenting work?
David Blakeslee —
You can find many excuses for why did the two self-titled defenders of “free enterprise” (Churchill’s words) negotiate Eastern Europe and cut it up like a piece of cake. What remains is that these countries were not given the chance to decide their own future. It doesn’t matter how good or bad did communism or Stalin look to your leaders, but that both the US and Great Britain gave their consent for another country to decide on other countries’ future, when it was not up to any of them. In this light, you can see why Eastern Europe cannot owe you or be thankful for your country’s WW II intervention.
One note – you can try but cannot convince me that decision-makers in your country were not aware of Stalin’s deportations and purges in the forties. They knew what kind of a bird was Stalin, but they were so frightened by Hitler’s rapid advance that they were willing to make brothers with the devil to cross that bridge.
‘Many’ doesn’t equate with those who wielded political and military power. The leaders were no small fry, Roosevelt was a Harvard graduate coming from a wealthy family. Churchill, during the 1945 elections in his country, borrowed anti-socialist ideas from the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek’s book, The Road to Serfdom (just published in 1944). He was so well-informed about the dangers of collectivism that he already was familiar with ideas that were published one year before. I don’t see how anyone could claim that he didn’t know what he was doing by negotiating with Stalin.
More like messing with their future…
Thanks for the thoughtful response…
Communism has impoverished every economy it has taken over.
My son’s a history major at Oregon State University and I passed some of your postings along to him…he really appreciated it.
Thatcher and Reagan were resented by the advocates of Detente for their “cowboy” diplomacy and arms build-up…but it played a role 40 years after the “napkin” agreement in correcting an injustice.
How do you think Churchill and FDR should have negotiated…and backed up a bolder assertion that this war was about individual government’s right to self-determination?
Your allusion to Hyeck in ’44 is noteworthy, but as you may already know, Burke wrote extensively on the dangerous risks of French Revolutionary ideas before they were implemented…France was a mess or decades while those who observed it talked about “the blood of tyrants watering the tree of liberty.” Jefferson later concluded he had been naive and wrong about the French Revolution.
Did you see my earlier post comparing the four opportunities for Revolution in the late 1700’s?
David–
LOL. Thanks for clearing up that you were speaking to Evan rather than me. I began to think I was sleep-blogging.
I can smile now 😉
@Evan,
I was thinking about our discussion and I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding between the two of us.
Somehow my assessment of Western Europe got translated into an assessment of All of Europe…hence your concerns about my assessment.
Here is a chronology of some of the relevant comments:
1. Western Europe’s errors have repeatedly been errors of omission (It is a long list here in the 20th century).
2. Europe still is ruled, in part, by monarchs and for all it’s multiculturalism pressures has never elected a head of state of African American decent. ;).
3. We are ahead of them in nearly every way…we are not Perfect, or All Good; but we are good and better.
4. Western Europe (nor Japan) has not had the realistic expensive burden of having to field a meaningful military for defense purposes for the last 64 years.
5. Evan responding to Carole: Europe, not being a nation, has a lot to overcome in terms of national interests in order to forge any deal.
6. There is no Western Europe without the USA…Twice:
7. There is some reasons to think that Western Europe would not be as peaceful as it is the last 60 years without the US involvement in NATO…There has been so much killing in Western Europe for nearly 2000 years;
I think I worked repeatedly to limit my assertions to Western Europe and I think that important qualifier strengthens the point…somehow my assertions were expanded to all of Europe…not my intent.
Yeah, I got carried away a bit when I saw that you once referred to the entire Europe. I actually mentioned that many people when they talk about Europe they think about Western Europe. I think we cleared this out: you were talking about Western Europe and I was making a point about the other part of the continent, Eastern Europe.
Both NATO and the European Union include right now both parts of the continent. So now, when it comes to issues of economic and security policy in the integrated part of Europe, it’s no longer just about Western Europe, it’s a bigger picture.
@Evan,
Regarding splitting up Eastern Europe and why it happened…
1. Naivete: Prior to WWII both the US and Western Europe were experimenting heavily with enlarging the power and scope of government to control economic policy and social policy. In this regard they were moving closer to Russia. They may have assumed a benevolent force within Russian Communism that would re exert itself…not the extension of totalitarian Stalinism.
2. Russian blood “purchased” Eastern Europe. Stalin drove his troops without guns and without artillery, amassing huge losses to repel the Nazi’s.
3. Fatigue: were we really willing to continue a bloody war to move the Communists east? General Patton sure wanted to continue it…and he was replaced. No Stomach for another war.
4. Marketing, how would we have marketed such an extension of the War to take on a previous Ally (many in France, in England and in the US viewed Communism as the future of government…some in the NY Times and the Economist continued to write pro-Communist articles well into the early Sixties.
5. This does not examine any diplomatic options that were overlooked at the time: Could we have purchased a “buffer” in some way by subsidizing defensive barriers (Like the Maginot Line…not so good)?
The end of the war finished like it began, with superpowers deciding the future of weaker powers.
I have one comment pending moderation in response to your reply.
@Drowssap:
Well put. For my PhD dissertation I researched the history of health insurance as a driver of mental health care and treatment. Calls for nationalized health care go back to early 1900s. Each step of the way, the private sector has stepped up with an effective reply. Each of those remedies has also had problems but they helped fuel innovation in at least some of the sectors of healthcare. Managed care a recent private sector innovation, has been a benefit to mental health care via reducing waste and stimulating innovation in treatment. Lengthy treatment, once thought to be critical to good therapy, is now reserved for the wealthy. And this is a good thing for the most part. One can always find problems and mismanagement in these systems, but to think that government healthcare will erase those goes against everything we know about centralized systems.
Having said all of that, the proposal Obama has offered is only a step toward truly nationalized care ala Britain. Obama’s plan would not have to end up like Britain but could trend more toward the non-profit model of the Swiss and I think Germany. Given the historical trends, I would say some kind of guaranteed health care is in the cards within the next decade (but the people have been saying that since the 20s). My guess is that one of these times, that prediction will come true.
Interesting, I didn’t know this argument had been going on for so long.
—
I don’t mind paying extra to provide a minimum safety net for poor people. The system that scares me is one like Canada where people don’t have the right to purchase private health care. I want the best for my family and I don’t mind paying for it. I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t.
Don’t we already have a minimum safety net in our country?
Of course we do.
Medicare; Chips; and mandatory medical care in emergency rooms.
I think we are trying to expand it…
Emergency room care that gets billed to the individual afterwards and can cause bankruptcy or worse when after care is not provided. Illegal aliens recieving better health care than citizens, etc…. These are not safety nets – they are gluts on the system when we do not provide full care for our citizens.
You are right about that. In my perfect world Ron Paul would be president and I’m against all of this. I guess I’m just trying to decide what I would reluctantly accept. 😎
Drowssap,
I work in the field – I see everyday how our healthcare system is not only doing a disservice to patients, but is actually FAILING! Politicians and healthcare providers around the country acknowledge this! Its not a point of debate anymore, its a fact! All of us, if we haven’t been impacted yet, will be in the very near future. Yours costs are going to rise and rise exponentially.
You are right. The US healthcare system has problems. The only sollution I see is socialization. The government has proven itself to be more efficient than the private sector in almost every other area. Now it’s time for them to take over healthcare.
—
On a related government note Arizona is about to cut Arizona State Universities budget by 40%.
ASU students protest possible budget cuts to higher ed
—
Do you think there will be protests when the government runs national healthcare into the ground and they have to cut that budget by 40%?
Sarcasm 🙂 ?
Drowssap –
That article is actually incredible considering that the infant mortality rate in the US is higher than several other countries!!!!
due the the heterogeneity of our population and teen pregnancy?
Oh Drowssap – the OLD conservative argument that everyone is coming here for healthcare –
One argument is that the reason SOME people wait longer for care in other countries is that the doctors there actually take the time, MAKE the time to listen to their patients.
Here you go:
“But before leaping to the conclusion that this proves the overall superiority of American health care … you have to consider a slew of caveats. … It’s possible that, even accounting for such [caveats], the United States still has better treatment for breast and prostate cancer. But, even if that were true, it’s hard to read the data as indictment of universal health care when the U.S. survival rate on other ailments isn’t so superior. The Swedes are more likely than Americans to survive a diagnosis of cervical, ovarian, or skin cancer; the French are more likely to survive stomach cancer, Hodgkins disease, and non-Hodgkins lymphoma. Aussies, Brits, and Canadians do better on liver and kidney transplants.
All of this comes with an important cautionary note: Measuring the outcomes of medical care is an imperfect science at best… It’s difficult to make a ironclad case that any one system is better than another. But the fact that countries with universal health care routinely outperform the United States on many fronts–and that, overall, their citizens end up healthier–ought to be enough, at least, to discredit the argument that universal care leads to worse care.
And that, in turn, ought to tip the scales of debate, since not even conservatives dispute the one clear advantage other countries have over us: You don’t see their citizens choosing between prescriptions and groceries, or declaring bankruptcy, because of medical bills. As John Edwards put it when he announced his health care plan, “It doesn’t have to be that way.”…”
A small excerpt from this article:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/health_care_the.html
And let’s end with the FACT that people in many other countries are simply living longer than people in the US! We are doing something VERY wrong
Eek…Please don’t quote John Edwards…creepy in so many ways, including trial lawyer ethics.
I work in the health care field too. Demonizing pharmaceuticals is silly, in the long run many of their costs are defrayed over millions of people and within a small number of years their product goes generic.
Don’t other countries profit from the R and D costs that pharmaceutical companies expend?
I fear the whole demonization process…it leads to reactivity and poor decisions as I first wrote about Obama and Bush.
Canadian healthcare is so awesome that many of it’s citizens feel guilty and to eliminate their guilt they travel to America to get treatment instead. This is particularly true of Canadian moms. They feel so guilty about how good they have it that thousands of them come to America to have their babies each year. This is especially true for moms with high risk pregnancies.
—
Canada’s Expectant Moms Heading to U.S. to Deliver
—
Side note:My mom used to work in a cardiologists office about 3,000 miles from Canada and they were always giving treatment to Canadians. The way the scam works is these people can’t get good or fast treatment so they come to America on “vacation.” When they get here they “experience some symptoms” and then head to a specialist. Because they were on vacation I believe Canada pays for the whole thing. I’m not sure exactly how it works but those are the basics.
Warren,
Not to mention I just learned of two procedures that are right now being pioneered in other countries!
Ooops – sorry Warren – My post should have been addressed to you 😉
@Evan: I was replying to jayhuck but thanks anyway 🙂
David and Eddy,
You can actually create the emoticon with just a colon and a right parentheses 🙂
Carole,
Read some of my other posts – I was mostly joking there!
David,
I work in Healthcare and am ALL too aware of the shortcomings of our system – of the debt people go into in this country because they can’t afford care, or the treatment people don’t get because they can’t afford care. I watch the profit margins of pharmaceutical companies grow and grow and people’s ability to pay for care shrink. Our system is collapsing and trying to idolize it in the face of this is, well, astonishing.
People in other countries are living much longer than we are in the US, despite all our vaunted “success” in healthcare. I know several people who live in England and Canada who are more than happy with their healthcare systems.
Constructing health care for a homogeneous population (Sweden, Norway and others) who have centuries of applying “Lutheran” health values to their population means they have a head start and a simpler task.
Especially since their defense costs are low.
And perhaps (somebody help me out there) because Nationalized Oil funds their government system.
The USA is remarkably heterogeneous…making health care delivery very different here than in Western Europe.
An interesting variable: Immigrants from Mexico deliver children with higher birthrates and lower mortality than the similar immigrants in later generations. What is that about? I think it is about our culture as much as it is about our health care system.
Jayhuck said,
You can’t be serious. The world is a richer place because of the thinking (the “brain ” work, as you call it) of Americans, Jayhuckm the same as it is a richer place due to the thinking of the peoples of other cultures and times. To have said otherwise reveals a shallow knowledge of all that reveals our history. How about pulling out some of our literature and studying it. Jeez!
David,
I learned it recently. It’s a colon, a dash, and the back end of a bracket. I’ll do them separated : – ) . If you do the three characters without any spacing, it turns them into a smile. 🙂 Replacing the colon with a semicolon become a wink. But I don’t think that one turns into the emoticon. (My MSN email program has several dozen emoticons…happy, sad, party, frustrated, sleepy, ……eyes that actually roll, winks that actually wink. So sad these gimmicks weren’t around when I was young enough to play with them.)
@Jayhuck:
In education and technology, you may have something, I don’t know. But in healthcare, our technology and access is envied worldwide. People who are in lines for procedures in Canada come here. I suspect there are far smaller countries who are taxed far more than we are with more seamless systems. However, we have world leaders in transplants, neurological research and much more. I would need to see some evidence for the health care claim.
I spoke recently with an official in an European country (can’t reveal it, confidential meeting) who makes regular trips to the US for healthcare. Why? We have technology and an open market for anyone to access. Are things wrong? Yes. Will we have to pay more to keep up the pace, yes. However, I am very glad I am here.
That technology is no available to all US Citizens. There are still many chop shops and procedures being performed to cut costs but not save lives or enhance the life of an individual. If I were wealthy, my health care would be much better – as well as any mental health care I would need – would be much better. Plain and simple – medical and health care in this country belongs to the rich.
@ Jayhuck,
How do you do that smiley thing?
@ Evan,
Regarding FDR and Churchill…we agree.
@ Evan:
“There is no USA without European Christianism” and “there would be no Europe without Ancient Greek and Roman cultural genes.”
Adding England completes the journey to Real Modesty…I have not trouble with any of that. Deeply thankful.
But I don’t think I was asserting that the USA somehow miraculously invented all these ideas (a straw man, Evan?).
America began with religions rejected by Western Europe, with democratic ideals first championed by Greece, then Rome and then recorded and applied by the Catholic Church….a deep debt is humbly owed to many committed, bright and courageous men.
Are you able to visualize a democratic England and Europe without American hegemony both during and after WWII?
I am not trying to bait you into unpatriotic or unloving words about the USA…I am interested in reasonable pride over good deeds of interventionism, rebuilding Europe and stalling Communist expansion.
I really wonder, how would you visualize European democracy without such extensive interventions?
It is kind of like asking, what would Europe and the enlightenment have looked like if a bunch of Irish monks had not dutifully copied ancient Greek and Roman texts?
To answer the latter question…I think the Dark Ages are prolonged and Fate and the Charismatic Bloody Tyrant rule Europe for an additional several hundred years.
What is your guess about the first question…I am genuinely interested… I am not trying to make you look “bad”…it is not my intent…and you certainly have not looked “bad” so far. I appreciate your frank, bright and courteous comments and perspective.
Eagerly waiting…and wishing Blessings
David, I already said that: No. Western Europe owes you, we don’t. Your president did his job for your country, but don’t ask some Europeans to be thankful for the awful job they – Roosevelt and Churchill – did with Eastern Europe. We are part of Europe and we are your allies right now. Just admit it that part of the mess in Eastern Europe was because Russians were given free hand by the two democratic powers that claimed to defend the free world. If that’s what you meant when you said that you agree on the job that the two leaders did, then we agree. I’m not blaming Americans, Roosevelt was heavily criticised for that deal by many Americans. But I won’t let this one pass, because I know it’s true and it was a shame.
Thanks for the blessings. It was a great debate.
@ Eddy,
You may be done…but I am thrilled to discuss this with someone outside the US and someone in Eastern Europe…
“Your president did his job for your country, but don’t ask some Europeans to be thankful for the awful job they – Roosevelt and Churchill – did with Eastern Europe. We are part of Europe and we are your allies right now. Just admit it that part of the mess in Eastern Europe was because Russians were given free hand by the two democratic powers that claimed to defend the free world.”
I wrote a comment below that shows the overwhelming majority of my comments were addressed to What Western Europe would be like without a variety of US interventions.
I was not intending to justify actions with Eastern Europe….can you see that now?
Oops…Not Eddy, Evan
When it comes to Healthcare, Education, and Technology – David – most of the time, we are NOT smarter than others. You’re excuse for this is that others have not invested so much time and energy into their militaries, and I agree with this to some extent.
We are FLAWED, we DO get things wrong, We need the rest of the WORLD and we are often in need of a good dose of modesty!
Are we still great? yes! 🙂
@ Jayhuck,
“That’s where some modesty should come into play – we haven’t always been CORRECT!”
Agreed…we are not Perfect, or all Good; we are Better and good.
@ Jayhuck:
“I am more than willing to agree that we are the brawn and the rest of the world is the brain.”
I take exception with this split…some days we are smarter than others, our power is currently unrivaled.
But we are not Pax Romanis.
David,
That’s where some modesty should come into play – we haven’t always been CORRECT!
@Evan,
I understand some of your qualifiers to my statements, but I wonder; have we ultimately agreed?
“The context of development was different for both of them and that explains why Europe was left behind in some areas and continues to ruminate its history, while the US started a new history in a new land.”
“American History” is not History…but neither is “European History” History….
Do you think that democracy in Western Europe would be in existence if FDR had been an isolationist or worse, if Truman had not backed NATO and the airlift?
We can quibble about large statements, but facts are what they are…and they seem to point to an America, generous, sacrificial, flawed and correct.
Perhaps you can describe a democratic world in Western Europe without the US…I would be interested to hear it.
Likewise.
I already said it:
Now it’s my turn to ask:
Why was Roosevelt so anxious to draw Stalin on his side in the alliance of the three powers if he was concerned with democracy in Europe? Did he not care that Stalin was everything that democracy was not? Why did he let Eastern Europe fall prey to Russia if he was concerned about democracy in Europe? Why do only half of the job (Western Europe) if you’re in for such big deeds – ie salvation of the free world…? Because he only had the interest for Hitler to be defeated and secure a buffer zone between Russia and the free world. And some countries had to pay the price of that liberty of others. It was not a question of saving democracy abroad, it was politics, mostly domestic.
Thanks for the links and references, guys. I know both those writers, and I’ll give a listen.
Thanks to you too, Evan. I certainly agree with Eddy. It’s nice to have someone who can help widen our lens.
And David… I do know what you mean by it sometimes being “painful at the dinner table.” My stomach didn’t appreciate it , although looking back at it, I am glad I got to hear opposing viewpoints from two people whom I loved and respected.
Wow – that filter is something else – I’ll just re-write my post while waiting for the other one to be approved 🙂
David,
But we did NOT stop that German dictator by ourselves! I am more than willing to agree that we are the brawn and the rest of the world is the brain.
I am very proud to be an American – most of the time – but you are right that a dose of modest would do us a world of good. Regardless of how good we are – and I believe we are – we still NEED the rest of the world. George Bush was not modest in many of his dealings with other countries – Obama will be!
I am not sure how modesty would protect me from terrorists.
I prefer safety. Disagree with how he and his admin sought that end, but I believe 9-11 gave him his mandate — and he pursued it with zeal.
Furthermore, he built bridges in Africa with an unprecedented campaign against AIDS.
I feel confident that history will be much kinder to Bush than the current events reporting has been.
Warren,
What I said about required modesty where it’s due only addressed broad statements like ‘X is nothing without Y.’ It was nothing about the war on terrorism. That is another topic.
David,
But we did NOT stop Hitler by ourselves! I am more than willing to agree that we are the brawn and the rest of the world is the brain 😉
@Eddy
Thanks, I’ll continue to do that. I usually criticise people who are smart, because it’s a pity when they make broad statements about topics like this one.
Also at NPR:
FDR’s Antidote to Great Depression, Totalitarianism
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=87877864&m=87877831
Found it!
Jonathan Alter, author of The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope, senior editor and columnist for Newsweek
Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, senior fellow in economic history at the Council of Foreign Relations
You can listen to the interview here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99668033
Is it Franklin and Winston – an intimate portrait of a friendship by Jon Meacham? He is a gifted author and this is a great book.
@Carole
I listened to the debate today on NPR by those who felt FDR extended the depression and those who thought he shorted it…
Two books…can’t remember the titles, but one author was a prominent writer for Newsweek and the other for Bloomberg.
My Dad was mad at Truman for losing China and mad a Roosevelt for all sorts of things…it was painful at my dinner table at times; that is why it is fun to actually dialogue. Dad had friends who were brutalized by the Nazi’s and the communists…he studied opera in Italy during the rise of Mussolini…said it was a scary time.
Europe abandoned its democratic ideals for the idea of a Superace and Nationalism…Japan, in a combination of empire building and emperor worship did the same.
My parents sponsored Vietnam refugees and were thrilled when the Iron Curtain fell…thrilled….stunned. My dad was quite frightened for years reading about the consequences of various Totalitarian regimes and their effect on dissenters in the 20th century.
Evan wrote, referring to FDR,
This brings back memories of my mother and father yelling at one another over the dinner table whenever Roosevelt was mentioned: she was an FDR lover (considering her first husband, she and two kids were kept afloat by WPA jobs that is understandable) while he was an FDR detractor ( “That expletive deleted gave away half of Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin! Now look at the world!”) I sat mute, watching as if it were a game of tennis.
So, it’s just a reminder, Eddie, that in my father’s house, you’d have thought we did hail from the other side of the Iron Curtain in some ways at least. My guess is children in other homes heard the same thing.
On a related note, with these massive bailouts, I notice there is renewed historical interest and discussion in whether it was the New Deal that did bring us out of the Depression or if instead, it prolonged it and that only the build up to war was what got us out of it. I know how both my mother and father would argue that one too–I heard that discussion a lot too!
I don’t have a problem with Delano Roosevelt, I don’t know his entire history. From what he wrote to Churchill, he was a very educated guy. But he didn’t play a positive role in the Yalta deal, he was rather uninvolved in defending a certain part of Europe. Churchill did a mess. Both underestimated Stalin.
@Evan,
Keep talking…I am learning.
“I think there is room for more modesty on the subject. USA’s roots hail from Europe and there are many blood ties in this respect (people, beliefs, historical models).”
Without a doubt…Western Europe is our mother and father but we are our own son…I think fully individuated; and perhaps some in Europe regret that and some in American pine for the comfort of a mother and a father.
Regarding modesty…I would like to extend my argument a bit before retreating to modesty.
The American Revolution was One revolution. It had built in flexibility to adapt and didn’t need to be redone, partially done or aborted. Prominence in religious thought, but tolerance for non-believers. Inalienable rights endowed by their Creator…
Russia aborted its revolutionary spirit at that time.
England only partially revolutionized (still with monarchy 2+centuries later).
France had to go through repetitive, bloody revolutions and bloody wars and still ended up with a Dictator (due to an overt attack on established Religion and the elevation of “Reason” as an idol).
We can talk about German and Italian fragmentation; Spanish Fascism…
After all of this we end up admiring Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Luxemburg and Canada.
I am all for modesty, but not false modesty.
I think a fair reading of history is that America got more right than any other fledgling democracy at the time and it has had the courage to support other democracies and tolerate self-examination to to broaden the application of human rights it first championed only to adult, mostly white males.
Pretty cool to be an American…we are not Perfect, or All Good; but we are Good and Better :).
Understanding the gift and sacrifice and intelligent thought that went into creating this nation helps guide our thoughtful debate at this website…whether we agree or not!
Again, pretty damn cool.
No problem, I know America is everything that Europe never managed to be because of too much history behind. I have a problem with broad statements like “There is no Western Europe without the USA.”
Well here’s mine: “There is no USA without European Christianism” and “there would be no Europe without Ancient Greek and Roman cultural genes.” (BTW, where did you get that architecture on the Capitol building, from Indonesia?…)
Meh… It’s OK, American pride is a feeling. I’m going to stop arguing about it. Your nation was born optimistic. The more I would criticise you, the more I’d look bad.
So I’m proud to be European, because this is where the modern world started. You’re lucky I’m not British, because too many things started there.
Evan–
Once again I realize how much I appreciate your unique contribution to this blogspace. Thanks for exposing us to history without the “American History” classroom bias.
Drowssap said,
I’m not a devoted fan (too much hyperbole and personal attacks for ratings just like the lefty crowd over at MSNBC …although at least Rush has ideas on his side), but I did catch part of him today, and the rant about what 50 years of waiting for government “to deliver” a whole segment of people from degradation and ruin has wrought in that community was absolutely eloquent because of its content and the sincere passion with with it was delivered. If only this message had a different messenger –a statesman who wasn’t afraid of ideas coupled with a media who’d report that message fairly. Guess they saw how Cosby was treated. We have to stop ignoring the elephants in the room.
@ Evan,
Thanks…this is very helpful.
It is my understanding that both Churchill and Roosevelt (compromised medically) greatly misunderstood Stalin..they naively assumed his socialist impulses would override his dictatorial ones (he installed mini-Stalins to run his client states)….a terribly destructive miscalculation.
A good lesson in reconsidering someone’s offer when it is too readily accepted.
I think our troops have stayed in Europe longer than two years.
Regarding the Velvet Revolution…the power of Faith in pursuit of human rights is impressive in Western Civilization.
Both Roosevelt and Churchill were enthusiastic to cooperate with Stalin to defeat Hitler, and this might explain why they were so willing to trust him. Roosevelt was ill and unable to travel as much as the Brit, so he let Churchill do most of the talks with the Russians. Churchill was mainly interested in Greece and in supporting Poland to avoid falling prey to the Russians. Roosevelt was not very interested in supporting any other country in the region besides Poland, because during his administration there were five million Poles living in the US. Actually, the US president was willing to concede a lot in the Eastern European region to Stalin to secure Russians’ support for defeating Japan. That was his main preoccupation. Stalin was given free hand to have his way with most of the states in the Eastern Europe and Balkans region.
So the role that Great Britain and the US played in Europe at that time was not entirely salutary. The spheres of influence have been divided for a long time for the sake of short-term interests and most countries in the region were occupied by communist regimes that kept them under red rule for over 40 years. Western Europe has been luckier, as always, because they were further situated from Russia and could benefit from the US and British plans for liberation and later, reconstruction. In this respect, you are right, post-war Western Europe owes a lot to the US and Great Britain, but that’s a bit far from saying that W Europe would be nothing without the USA. Both of them acted on a panic that Hitler would get his hands on Europe and that Nazi rule and Communist rule would spread further. The lesser evil was to attract Stalin in an alliance against Hitler and then divide the spoils. Victory speeches are always about values, negotiations are about meat.
I think there is room for more modesty on the subject. USA’s roots hail from Europe and there are many blood ties in this respect (people, beliefs, historical models). The context of development was different for both of them and that explains why Europe was left behind in some areas and continues to ruminate its history, while the US started a new history in a new land.
In Germany, right?
Well, people living in the communist bloc didn’t have much free space for expression, so many turned their hopes to faith and culture. Some regimes, however, destroyed churches for fear they would become too influential. The party was jealous that most people didn’t trust communism enough to join their ranks.
In the Western part of Europe, I wrote this before on this blog, I think what created the sense of self-worth that lead to the definition of human rights came from Europe’s Christian background. That’s why it didn’t appear first in other parts of the world.
I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh streaming online and they just ran Obama’s anti-lobying news conference. I’ll give Obama credit where credit is due. Evidently government workers can’t leave government and then lobby his administration for as long as he is president. Gold star for that.
@Evan,
Wow…thanks for your thoughtful input.
The Velvet revolution…would it have happened without the US and the Catholic Church?
Regarding the economic crisis…something to consider:
It’s benefit is in weakening, significantly, the enemies of Western Democracies: Russia, Venezuala and other Oil producing nations will have much less money to spend on exporting destablizing influences.
Also, China’s economic contraction is likely to activate a growing middle class to push for more freedom…
Hmmm…after the Iron curtain fell; I was hopelessly optimistic….but not in a person; but a plan.
The fall of the Iron Curtain, which was a bigger process than the Velvet Revolution, was necessary because Europe had been divided on a napkin by Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin and Franklin D Roosevelt at the Yalta conference in 1945. This is how it was settled before the conference (October 9, 1944), according to Churchill’s own memories:
then Churchill and Roosevelt met and decided:
_________
Probably not, in the case of Poland, (the former) Czechoslovakia and Hungary — all majoritarian Roman Catholic countries. But you would have to provide evidence that it was so for the former Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria. Poland and the other Roman Catholic areas have been very lucky to have a Polish pope that defied the communist regimes in those countries, contributing to their later downfall. I don’t know of any direct US intervention in the process, though, besides the Bush-Gorbachev meeting in 1989 at the Malta summit. It is possible that they reversed the bad decisions taken at the Yalta summit behind closed doors, because that’s where they declared the end of the Cold War.
After all the Obama hype dies down I think people need to realize one thing.
—
Point
No politician on earth can stop the impending collapse of the US banking system. Stock up on dried goods folks.
—
Counterpoint
Nobody can stop the collapse but at least Obama can deliver nice speeches to make us feel better.
—
Counter-Counterpoint
He’d better be able to give nice speeches because once he nationalizes our economy the depression will last 5 times as long.
@Jayhuck,
This is getting fun…
What we are perceived as, at what is we are, those are two different things.
To borrow from our SSA discussions, there is a wide chasm between the perception of SSA (from the outside in), the experience of SSA (from the inside) and the action of SSA (from the inside out).
“Vigilante” implies an individual acting with his own conscience as the ultimate guide to applying justice. That “perception” is much too simplistic and cannot fit the facts of our actions, at least in the last 40 years….that is a long time in any democracy’s life.
There is no Western Europe without the USA…Twice:
First by stopping Hitler.
Second by stopping Stalin.
Do you think HItler would have championed human rights of any kind or gay rights in particular?
We could ask the same question about Stalin, Mao and others.
It seems really silly to me to elevate the Europeans and the Canadians; they are noble democracies, but they are not our mentors…their people still burn synogogues and murder gay film makers; some of their governments make cynical diplomatic and commercial agreements with people in Syria, Libia, and Iran.
They are loathe to use the word “genocide” in Darfur, because they are bound by the UN to intervene if the murdering there is so described (a sin of omission).
There is some reasons to think that Western Europe would not be as peaceful as it is the last 60 years without the US involvement in NATO…There has been so much killing in Western Europe for nearly 2000 years;
Do we really believe that they were all capable of self-government without a US military influence protecting their better impulses?
Japan too.
Cue: “I am proud to be an American, where at least I know I am free….”
:0).
Europe, not being a nation, has a lot to overcome in terms of national interests in order to forge any deal. A majority of European states are members of the European Union and of NATO, but there are a number of them which are not. There are 50 sovereign states here: 27 are integrated in the EU and 24 are NATO members. Usually, when people talk about Europe they think about this part of Europe, Western Europe, the developed part of the second smallest continent. Even so, the integrated part of Europe is not yet one political entity. The best definition of the EU I’ve come across lately is:
This is why the European Union was created: to keep Germany under the control of other big neighbours and to keep potential enemies busy checking each other by focusing on other common goals, like economic integration. It’s been successful in economic terms (the EU has the biggest GDP in the world), but realistically “Europe” will never be a political and military superpower as long as it doesn’t speak with one voice. And we’ve got 23 official languages just in the EU…
Many Americans think that Europe can’t cover its back properly in terms of security, but Europe is not a nation like the American nation. And Europe has always been geographically close to friendly neighbours like Russia (not an economic power, but a military superpower). We never had two oceans between us and our enemies and we had to deal with it. But that doesn’t matter as much today, when terrorism can strike at the heart of a nation.
If you mean by that the heritage of the World War II, you’re right, the US has borne most of the effort to defend and promote democracy throughout the world. But some of the recent massive costs, like Iraq, have been incurred without obvious benefits and a lot of obvious damage. Right now Iraq could look up to Russia in terms of democracy, because the political culture necessary to build it is the result of a very long process of sedimentation that is favoured by some cultural values which are missing in Iraq. I know that because I live in an Eastern European state and I witnessed the labour pains a nation goes through to build a democratic system after tens of years of totalitarian rule. There’s no guarantee that it will work, actually. Iraq will most likely remain a democracy in name only, plagued by internal strife among religious factions and tribes. Its neighbours are not going to do a lot of cheerleading for that…
Secondly, it’s no secret that the economic crisis that started in the US provoked global costs. Russia has already lost more than one trillion of dollars in market shares since the crisis started. Many other countries around the world have and many jobs have been lost. Madoff alone, the former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, and his financial Ponzi schemes have produced billions of dollars of losses in many banks around the world (and one suicide in France). Of course, this problem is primarily specific to the financial system and its global greed and lack of regulation, but the role that US politics have played in it cannot be denied.
These two themes — the war and the economic crisis — have been major contributors to Obama’s election. Many have projected their hopes (including people from outside the US) that your president will restore things in US domestic affairs and reshape foreign policy so that America may continue to play the progressive role that you mentioned and that cannot be denied either. There’s no telling if he succeeds, because so far he only excelled in public speeches.
If he doesn’t, global politics might come under the influence of other rising economic powers, like China and India, or military ones, like Russia. After the economic crisis started in the US, there were voices that greeted the beginning of the end for capitalism and US global influence. I’m not saying that this is likely to happen, but we’ll be hearing more of this kind of jeers from Russia and China if the present crisis is not solved.
As carole said:
—
The USA is going to take a lot of heat for the current crisis but it’s not entirely our fault. The problem is simple. Banks around the world loaned out $1000 to buy $500 worth of stuff. Today people and businesses are going bankrupt and the banks are getting back assets worth far less than the original loans. The entire western world’s banking system is trillions of dollars underwater. Just about every bank will go bankrupt this year.
—
But I have to admit the banks in the USA were amazingly stupid. This got started back in the 1980s and the house of cards finally imploded.
I agree. It’s not a nation’s fault that some big decision-makers in the US and other developed countries (UK, Switzerland, etc) closed their eyes to what was going on in financial institutions. But it was not a deed of nature coming from the sky either.
History is best looked at with a wide lens.
And America has a very expensive habit of shooting itself in its foot 🙂
Bush 1 knew when he spoke of a “new world order” that as the old Soviet Union fell and its satellites along with it, nations that didn’t have to worry anymore about the Big Bear next-door would suddenly turn on their long-time protector.
Nations are like kids on a playground in elementary school. When the teacher finally caught the big bad bully in the act and sent him to the principal’s office where he could do no harm, the majority of kids, self-interested and weak, no longer had to look to the few kids who kept the bully at bay. All of a sudden they felt mighty big, oh yeah…until the next bad bully came around and…he always did.
Europe has a very expensive habit of not protecting itself or that which it values.
Carole,
You hit the nail on the head and this is exactly why this pope and the previous pope have warned us about moral relativism and what follows it being a dictatorship. Of course there are many in the sandbox today that feel there is nothing wrong with a dictatorship as long as it is on their side. Some may find things are not quite as they would like if it ever comes to this.
Sometimes David – to me and I think to much of the rest of the world, our “benevolent democracy” is seen as a vigilante – and sometimes, that doesn’t seem like such an inappropriate description .
Benevolent Democracy in some ways I agree, but we have blood on our hands David – saying anything else is to be blithely ignorant of our own mistakes – which have been many – and that includes Iraq! 🙂
Qualifier: “…in nearly every way.”
Pick and choose what you want…Western Europe (nor Japan) has not had the realistic expensive burden of having to field a meaningful military for defense purposes for the last 64 years.
Without that responsibility, they can fund all sorts of things!
And it is easier to talk peace when you know any failures in peace will be the burden of a generous, benevolent democracy, like USA.
I am hopeful. Not expecting any miracles (lol), but this is a good start.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/obama-guantanamo-preparin_n_157202.html
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/01/dont_ask_dont_tell.html
I have to differ with you there – when it comes to Technology, Japan is head and shoulders above us. When it comes to healthcare and longevity, many countries surpass us. When it comes to education – well, do I need to say more – LOL 🙂
Simply because we elected an African American president does not make us the most progressive or even tolerant nation in the world – I think we have to take a back seat to many! Many countries have moved beyond us when it comes to accepting gay people and giving them the same rights as others.
Yep…
We are not Europeans! We ARE the Americans! We will be known and recognized again for our good will and strength.
@ Jayhuck,
True that…however: Europe’s error’s in the 20th Century are particularly troubling…and many of them are errors of inaction.
Many of Europe’s democracies are younger than ours…so I don’t think age is the issue.
Darfur may be a good example of sins of ommission (as was Kosavo). Is it genecide?
Europe still is ruled, in part, by monarchs and for all it’s multiculturalism pressures has never elected a head of state of African American decent. ;).
We are ahead of them in nearly every way…we are not Perfect, or All Good; but we are good and better.
That may be true Dave, but we are, by contrast, still a very YOUNG country. Europe is far older than we are – they’ve had more time to make mistakes – and while I do love this country, there are other great countries on this planet 🙂
And some cynical humor:
“Hopey Changemas! ”
OK…I am done and I wish Obama, the Congress and America the very best.
Let’s find out.
from the comments section of the above cited article:
“Total pessimism is as stupid as unfettered optimism. “
Consider this @ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
“Yet Western – and British – commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America’s answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.”
and…
“Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.”
Narcissistic Devaluing and Dependent Adoration disserve us at a time that requires our adult minds to make critical and wise decisions.
LOL. The drama, whatever there was, was intrinsic to the situation. What I found most refreshing about this inauguration was that it didn’t play to emotional hot-buttons. Obama knows how to deliver a speech that will get the crowd chanting at the end of every sentence or phrase but he chose to get ‘meaty’ instead. My respect for him, my hope in him has grown even today.
(LOL. And every kid taking basic English anywhere has umpteen examples of the ‘power of three’ in a public talk.)
I wasn’t impressed by Rich Warren’s prayer. I admit I didn’t watch in the past, but did Billy go on that long? And the poem chick. Blah! Otherwise, quite a party!
I have travelled abroad during the last 8 years to 5 different countries (Mexico, Italy, France, Spain and England).
Always proud to be an American…not so much because of Bush; but because of everything else (best freakin’ country on earth).
Nothing to hide our faces about…our errors are errors of commission; Western Europe’s errors have repeatedly been errors of omission (It is a long list here in the 20th century). I am happy to meet anyone from any country and do not associate the individual with National policies.
Yeah, I agree, the Bush bashing got way out of hand. I never voted for Bush and found his cultural background to be questionable as well as his ability to run a business. Many of the buisnesses he ran went south. And thus far – so has america. Just a poor leader and poor business acumen. I could really careless about his religion, beliefs on marriage etc.. dog or family. He really did not keep a good eye on things. Trillions of dollars in debt. Suppose he’s going back to his oil businesses now that he has contacts in Iraq? You know they will not being looking towards green renewable energy sources for a couple of more decades at least. Yep, I’m very interested in his business dealings from here on out and what social causes he chooses to throw his money at.
What bothered me was the still-in-evidence lack of graciousness exhibited by the haters in the audience. They sang, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, hey, hey, hey, goodbye…” as Bush was introduced at the inauguration. How awful that the one they’d come to see who said he wanted to unite has a loyal throng who doesn’t believe in his message of unity.
They marred the occasion for me. It doesn’t matter who is doing the hating, hate is hate. It is always destructive. Unfortunately, there will be those willing to retaliate with hate.
After the Bush-Gore election mess (I voted for Gore just to make my bias at the time known) there were many who decided the election had been stolen, and truth be told, when the Supreme Court stepped in, I wasn’t happy although I really had no other solution.
However, in the following 6 months, after the the liberal Miami newspaper and then another had completed their recounts, I kept abreast of the re-tallying they had done, and the evidence was that Bush really had won Florida. However, it was never in the hearts of the haters to pull for our nation as long as it was under Bush.
When the terrorists struck on 9/11, two of my very liberal friends and colleagues began a discussion that Bush was nowhere to be found–that he was a coward fleeing the scene. That’s how silly they had grown. Of course, our Secret Service and our national security heads had spirited him to an unknown site, but somehow these eggheads didn’t let such a wise decision stop them from taunting and complaining. When supposedly educated people behave like this, one sees the results of hate.
As to the speech itself, I thought it a bit disappointing, a bit uneven, and maybe even not as respectful of the man sitting behind him as I thought it could have been. Who among us after 9/11 really thought we’d not be hit again? He could have tipped his hat to that.
Strong rhetorical flourishes beautifully delivered were followed by the prosaic, which was fine, but they didn’t co-exist in a well unified piece. Were I asked to summarize his major two points or themes, I’d have to pause and think to find them. I suppose the momentousness and historical significance of the occasion spoke much more loudly than his words.
I am reminded that throughout our history opposing camps have always fought it out, that hate has always been on the fringes of dissent. However, what is frightening is that today we all have megaphones and a shouted message of “Fire” where there is none, is much more dangerous today than in days past. And we all know, for they were in evidence today, that there are those who love to be seen and heard and to spew hate.
I am no longer the liberal I was when I voted for Al Gore. I did not vote for Barrack Obama, a real turn for me, one who walked precincts in ’88 for Dukakis. I was hoping that the first minority or woman to be elected President would be a conservative, but it was not to be.
I will keep reminding myself of my friends, who made up their minds the day George Bush was elected, that they would hate him and hound him. I will not do that to my President, Barrack Obama, for to do so weakens this country and demeans all of us. I will dissent when I think it appropriate, but hope to never succumb to what I have seen over the last 8 years.
Nonetheless, our descriptions of others whether we call them a hero or a villain, one thing is for sure, most of america is in need of change. Black people and all people of color will now have a greater voice. Women will have greater respect. Gays will have more respect (as I hope ex gays will be soon to follow), and the harm done by those in the name of God will begin to turn around.
I did not vote for Obama, but it sure is nice to have a man who can orate without slouching and mispronouncing so many words. As a frontman for our nation, his image works better in the global arena. He does represent a hodge podge pooling of our culture. And the media helped shape and “couture” his public image. No doubt about the media being biased – all the way, hands down.
I doubt he will be blameless as the next 100 days follow. There will be a honeymoon period and then the battering from the public will begin again. At least I don’t have to lie and tell people I’m Canadian when travelling. Most of the world hates americans because of Bush’s policies, actions, etc…
But today, I am proud to be an American. We all know what that change is … we are tired of the “good old white boys”. No one said that exactly,but it has been implied strongly enough. Get into the street and start talking to others who are not of that group and they will all nod their head, “Yes!” I think many americans want real represenatation in Washington. Not figureheads and boys who grew up on Daddy’s dollar but real hard working men and women from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives. A real american representation of the people not just the white and elite.
Unfortunately, any politician worth his salt, knows the power of the media–it’ll make ya or break ya.
Nothing is more illustrative of this than the media’s inattention to the cities and rural areas of Iraq once the violence died down, the lack of reporting of the bond that was growing stronger between the people of neighborhoods and the troops. Good citizens can debate the Iraq War and the Bush administration, but we should never tolerate a media that is not thorough and balanced in its reporting.
Americans love to be loved–it is a strength and a weakness. When we don’t see ourselves being loved, we turn on him or her whom we feel has caused the shunning. Unfortunately, our enemies learned from our behavior surrounding Viet Nam that this need to be loved might border at times on the pathological, and they know that time is on their side.
I think the nation is split on this–there are Americans who believe that good things take time; there are those who cannot stand the wait.
I am pretty concerned…
Along a theme I have mentioned from time to time: devaluing and demeaning as a means of social interaction is really fruitless at best and destructive at worst.
Bush has his problems, but he is no where near the characature described by the left.
The logical reaction to such a characature is to idolize a “blank screen,” like Obama.
Both the description of Bush and the current idolization of Obama are characatures…too simplistic to be real.
Many caracatures of Christians and gays and SSA and so on ad infinitum, are too simplistic to be real.
We torment ourselves with the characatures we create of our enemies and then feel falsely relieved by the assent of our “heros.”
Time will tell who Obama is, when his decisions become facts to analyze.
Evan said,
You bet. The forerunners and masters of it all were the people who crafted Ronald Reagan’s appearances. They understood the power of symbols and a the traditional need for Americans to believe their ideals are special. It’s when we forget that it is our ideals, not we ourselves, who are special, that we sometimes get into trouble.
President Obama and his people learned well from the Reaganites the power of style and image.
To his credit, Reagan had two basic ideas, knew what he wanted to do to accomplish them, and it was the power of those ideas that drove him, something I didn’t appreciate at that time.
On Obama people have pinned the hope of “change” but throughout the election cycle, those ideas of change have remained vague; thus, upon him people in both this country and in other parts of the world have projected their own ideas of the kind of change he represents.
He is now my President , and I stand by the ready with my good will, and hope he is guided by sound and wise principles. It’s like a marriage, the period right after an inauguration –the honeymoon is exhilarating, but after that…we’ll see! LOL.
:-)…
And drama…
There was a lot of Hollywood in Washington today.
Thankfully this is done. Bush has run every business venture he has gotten his hands onto into the ground. We have a lot of rebuilding to do.
I listened to his speech on the radio. It seemed like the crowd was really quiet. I expected it to feel more like his campaign rallies.