demockracy's Comments (228)

“That Obama is no progressive, I'll agree. That's why I didn't vote for him in either the primary or general election. He's probably better than McCain, though. (Damned by faint praise?)

Nevertheless, even FDR, that traitor to his class, took a while to get with the program. Let's keep a good thought, shall we?”

“Exactly right. See www.drmcdougall.com, or Dean Ornish's work, or Columbia biochemist Colin Campbell's "The China Study" (a book describing the largest study of the connection between diet and health). Lifestyle influences most of the epidemic diseases in the U.S. today.

Confining the "health care" debate to the kind of SWAT-team acute care in which the U.S. excels is a recipe for failure. Unfortunately public policy has been captured by an oligarchy that insures it will be what it is now -- the worst possible.

For example, 40% of agricultural income is subsidy, but things like high-fructose corn syrup, not healthy vegetables are the primary recipients of subsidy. Michael Pollan's books detail this less-than-optimum influence. Pollan quotes one farmer who says this is the equivalent of "laundering money for Cargill and ADM."”

“I'd buy this criticism if Bush was an initiator of the Surge ... Read Thomas Ricks' book "Gamble" (the sequel to "Fiasco") and you'll see the Bush administration was only peripherally involved in this tactic. The Surge did not begin with Bush or his neo-con chickenhawk strategists, and it was fairly far along when he finally blessed it, thanks to a retired general (Keane) who was not part of any war planning for his administration.

It's not attacking "everything" that happened on Bush's watch to point this out; it's the truth. What Bush and his advisers came up with is described in "Fiasco," and the limited success of the Surge ("Gamble") was not the product of his original war aims or tactics.

The best account of what Bush was up to, IMHO, remains Naomi Klein's "Baghdad, Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Search of Neocon Utopia" (see http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197). She connects torture and an arrogant neo-colonial conquest fairly seamlessly as the overall, original strategy. Gosh, I wonder why the Iraqis don't trust us?”

“This is typical Rethuglican B.S. ("baloney sandwich" ... of course). The truth is that there is absolutely no shortage of money. It's just in the hands of the oligarch. See my post below for the details and footnotes.

Why, if you believe something like this, you'll believe that decreasing the tax rates actually *increases* collections! Hahahaha! What kind of a maroon would believe that?!”

“Kuttner's suggestions are relatively modest. The U.S. experienced its highest level of prosperity when the top tax brackets were 92% and 70% (the '50's and '60's, respectively), and has suffered since Reagan used "Supply Side" (AKA "voodoo") economics to justify lowering those progressive tax brackets.

Clinton balanced the budget after a mere 3% rise in those top brackets -- accompanied by dire prophesies from neo-cons like Newt and Grover Norquist that it would lead to an economic meltdown. (How'd that work out, BTW?)

Reagan's own budget director (David Stockman) publicly confessed that voodoo economics was a hoax -- a "Trojan Horse" to justify lowering those top progressive tax rates. Reagan raised taxes (signing eight tax increase), and between him and Bush 41, the doubly-regressive payroll taxes quadrupled. And the consumer economy evaporated­...

The result? The bottom 90% of real incomes have fallen over the last three decades, while those in the 99.99th percentile have gotten a 497% raise (the real number, see: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html)

I'm surprised this article hasn't got more play in this discussion, either: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979 (Title: "Why the Economy Grows Like Crazy Amid High Taxes")”

“Even if we set aside the 9/11 attack, lets not forget this article, either:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/03/iraq-101-iraq-effect-war-iraq-and-its-impact-war-terrorism-pg-1

Title: "The Iraq Effect: The War Has Increased Terrorism Sevenfold Worldwide ."

Pretty much speaks for itself.”

“Plenty of skeptics..­. Yet it only took a 3% tax hike on the highest brackets to balance the budget for Clinton... Gee! is that ever suggestive.

It was Reagan who lowered the top progressive rates from somewhere near 70% to somewhere near 30%. This was done to satisfy "Supply Side" economics, but Reagan's own budget director, David Stockman, confessed that that theory was just an excuse (a "Trojan horse") to lower the top rates.

Meanwhile Reagan signed eight tax increases, and between him and Bush 41 quadrupled the payroll taxes. The result? In the last 30 years, the bottom 90% of real incomes have been in decline while those at the 99.99th percentile have received (at least) a 497% raise. Read Krugman's column about that here: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html

Big tax hikes on the very wealthy would mean no more $4,000 shower curtains and $10,000 waste baskets, but would revive the economy. See http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979”

“Once again, the specialist weighs in, ignoring the context. This is why calories in high-fructose corn syrup are cheaper than calories in carrots... and gee! I wonder why obesity and type II diabetes are such problems!

The big problem this article ignores is city design. The U.S. continues to build its cities so old folks like those described here are isolated, and, because they can't drive, are socially "disabled.­" That's suburban sprawl....

It is a comprehensive loss, too. Because driving is, by design, the only connection between things, the U.S. continues to be entangled in overseas resource wars. Peak U.S. oil production was in 1971, when we imported 30% of domestic consumption. Now we import 70% of our oil.

Imagine what it would be like to build neighborhoods where shopping, work and living spaces were within a walk of one another! Imagine what it would be like to build roads that invited pedestrians rather than excluding them. (True fact: In the Sacramento region the estimate of the cost to simply connect all the disconnected sidewalks: $50 million)..­.. Imagine the possibility of working transit, rather than the third-rate orphan step-child subsidized systems that roll around a bunch of empty buses because riders simply can't walk to the stops!

Imagine the absurdity that is suburban sprawl, and the actual, if not moral, bankruptcy it induces as the population ages.”

“As a person close to someone diagnosed with osteoporosis, I've done a little research. IMHO, the definitive word is in "The China Study" by Colin Campbell -- the Columbia biochemist who discovered aflatoxin, and was commissioned to produce the largest study of the correlation between diet and health ever done (commissioned by Chou En Lai as he was dying of cancer, as it happens).

Campbell notes that animal protein, in particular dairy, is behind many modern, Western diseases. Given agribusiness's massive marketing campaign to the contrary, that sounds backwards, since dairy has lots of calcium, but the net calcium absorbed is really what matters. Dairy acidifies the blood, which leaches calcium from the bones as the body tries to buffer the lower blood pH. All these "medications" (really scams run by big PhRMA) are futile if you don't change your diet.

So get soy milk (or rice milk).

See http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_osteoporosis.html for more.”

“Given that our current regulators are captives of the institutions they regulate, the whole question of regulation is problematic.

The other problem is the amount of attention given to misdirection. For the last three decades the U.S. economy has experienced real productivity gains, which would mean real incomes should increase. What happened, however, since we have been in the thrall of Reaganomics, is that the bottom 90% of real incomes declined, those at the 90th percentile received roughly a 1% per year raise, and those at the 99.99th percentile had a 497% raise (the real numbers per Paul Krugman here: http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html)

But the line we hear 24/7 from the right wing noise machine is that we need even less regulation, and even lower taxes on the wealthy. The gay, married Hispanic terrorists are the real problem...”

“Once again, Jeff, you throw out the baby with the bath water. What you'd accomplish is a tremendous empowerment of the lobbyists. They would, in effect, be the institutional memory for our government. Do you think they'd be unbiased in its use for public service?

And if you think government does nothing, or nothing well, I suggest you start driving 20MPH on those government -built freeways, because government couldn't build a safe road, and wear a hard hat when you go in buildings that the building inspectors have passed, and whatever you do, boil that government-treated water before you drink it.

Better than anti-government rhetoric would be public financing of campaigns, the end to corporate personhood (even if they kill someone now, we can't terminate a corporatio­n)... that and good candidates.”

“Dear Yolanda: Term limits should be more correctly termed "Lobbyist empowerment provisions," because in amputating the institutional memory lobbyists are the only ones who win. Check out the State government in California if you don't believe me. There's an exercise in institutional incompetence in the service of the oligarchs if ever there was one.

As for punishing legislators by paying them less -- once again a perfect way to insure only the wealthy will run. It's pretty much that way now.

How about some things that would actually work? For example, public financing of elections.”

“This kind of anti-government sentiment is justified in right-wing bizarro world, but not on planet earth. Medicare, and for that matter any of the dozens of other single-payer systems worldwide are hardly nightmares. They typically are about half as expensive and produce far better results than what we had.

When the lament that corporations have far too much power is overlooked in favor of "government produces only nightmares" (even overlooking that the nightmares are produced by our "public servants" in the service of their corporate masters)..­. well, let's just say that's incorrect.”

“Sorry, "every other network" ... and for that matter most of the print media are owned by a handful of corporations. Mussolini didn't call his form of government "corporatism" for nothing. The pounding of the war drums is so loud in these "liberal" networks and papers because GE, among others, gets a tremendous boost to its bottom line when war continues. They might have to produce something useful rather than something that exploded, otherwise.

Probably most useful in assessing the right/left balance in media, however, is the absence of a Labor page in most newspapers. They've all got a "Business" section, though. If they're so "liberal" where is the labor reporting? Or the reporting about all the stuff you'll hear about only on www.democracynow.org, (or www.chomsky.info).

The lie that the media is liberal is exactly like the rest of the Faux News talking points -- largely fabricated.”

“Uncontroversially, the U.S. spends twice as much as single-payer plans in other countries (and gets outcomes that rank 37th in the WHO survey comparing health care internationally). I'm not saying Medicare can't blow it, but the facts seem to favor single-payer over for-profit insurers.

As for government deficits, generally, despite the whining about how we're "running out of money" it only took a 3% rise in the topmost progressive income tax bracket for the Clinton administration to put the federal budget in surplus.

Gosh, could all this "controversy" simply be a way for our wealthy oligarchs to remain attached to their ill-gotten gains?... I wonder...”

“Nah, the listed order is of "return on investment­." When you invest trillions and get only the promise of more security threats in the future as the major payoff, then that's not as tangible as the return on the minimal investment of the arms suppliers, for example.”

“Paul Farmer calls U.S. foreign policy "Yelling at the poor."”

“Sorry, the U.S. invaded after turning down an offer from the then-ruling Taliban to turn over Ben Laden for trial in a neutral third country, not because they "refused to stop" Al Quaeda. The same astonishingly arrogant administration (Bush 43) turned down Iran's offer to negotiate about nukes, stop funding Hezbollah, and continue providing cooperation in tracking down Al Quaeda.

Most of the "safe harbor" planning for 9/11 occurred in Germany, yet strangely we hear little request to invade Germany...­.

Let's keep our eye on the pipeline..­.er, I mean "ball," of course.”

“Sorry... "two spheres of gold the size of the earth" is what the original comment should say.”

“If innovation can wake us up from delusional thinking and an epidemic of mental illness, then I'll vote for that too. Unfortunately, I don't believe Apple has done anything to make us more sane.

Things like delaying gratification, accepting responsibility, dedication to truth, and balancing are what is needed. These are so far from innovative that they are a summary of ancient wisdom.

They amount to conscious suffering, an acceptance of the difficulty of life.

Read a little Jung about the "shadow" and get back to me (here: http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/jung/shadow.htm)”

“One commenter writes: "So our salvation depends on higher taxes and larger government. That's gonna be a tuff sell for me, as I'm a private citizen and not a member of government.

...the generally infallible government [sometimes acts] outside the interests of its citizens."

That someone could even think such a thing is problematic. First of all, the eras of higher taxes actually were the most prosperous. See Larry Beinhart's article "Why the Economy Grows Like Crazy Amid High Taxes" (here: http://www.alternet.org/workplace/106979/)

So yes, *much* higher taxes (mostly on the rich) made for a better economy. Even if people don't pay the 92% (or 70%) top brackets, they spend their money on improving productivity rather than on CEO compensation and $4,000 shower curtains.

So the principle of government that performs public service is not such an abstraction that it never has happened. If that were true you would have to boil that government-treated water you've been drinking.

On the other hand, the idea that government is "infallible," is, as Mr. Shear amply documents, absurd. That criticism does not mean we must throw the baby out with the bath water, though.”

“See www.democracynow.org for the real story (as usual). This Olympic bid is a terrific way to saddle a poor community with a) police brutality, b) gentrification and relocation of the poor, c) enormous debt (Greece is just now repaying its debt). The Olympics historically does all three. It *never* pays its own way.

In Beijing, people were imprisoned for circulating petitions that said "Don't evict us from our house for the Olympics." Atlanta apparently built a new jail for their Olympics.

This is *just* an opportunity for yet another over-budget spectacle whose funding comes at the expense of those least able to afford it.

You can bet Chicago will tell its schools and public health officials that there's not enough money to grant their requests, but *presto!* there's lots of moolah to build synchronized swimming pools and gymnastics stadiums that will be useless after the Olympics is over.

You could entitle this story "Why was George W. Bush elected?" and it wouldn't be that far off. Style triumphs over substance again.”

“Don't forget: "Not W"”

“The trouble with the U.S. is almost entirely unrelated to "innovation" (something shunned as vulgar by mature cultures). For just one example, the ipod has robbed more people of musicality than it has contributed (How many of us can actually *make* music, not just turn on a device? And no, I don't mean play "Guitar Hero")

The trouble with the U.S. is that it's delusional. How else could W even come close to being elected?

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, large portions of our population currently believe that private concerns are *always* much more a) productive and b) honest than public ones. How else could the current health care "debate" occur?

Representative government, not private concerns, is what breeds corruption -- never mind that public ones must disclose what goes on in their meetings, make their accounting available for public scrutiny etc. Large portions of our population believe taxes are theft, not the price we pay for civilization.

A significant portion of the trouble with the U.S. is that it believes some magical "innovation" will overturn the laws of thermodynamics, too.”

“Cap & Trade will destroy jobs? Why won't it create innovation jobs as we manage higher energy prices?

BTW, how are the estimated hundreds of billions in subsidies for the petroleum industry helpful (World Resources Institute, wri.org estimated $300 billion annually goes to subsidize petroleum use -- and this was in in 1989)”