Comment on: "Obamacare: The Rest of the Story" by Bill Keller, NYT Oct 14, 2013

Original editorial at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/keller-obamacare-the-rest-of-the-story.html?comments#permid=10259971:10260033


I am all in favor of ObamaCare, and I hope it "works", whatever that means. However, having lived many years in Germany, insured under their "socialist" public, mandatory health insurance and health care, i am amazed how utterly complicated, bureaucratic, inefficient and just plain bad the US healthcare system, including this patchwork of political compromises, ObamaCare, is. Americans pride themselves as "exceptional", and "consumer oriented/friendly" but in health care and health insurance, one can only call the American approach "exceptionally" bad.

Far from the horror stories, all right-wing propaganda, about long wait times, denied services and poor quality service in "socialized" medicine, we received prompt, high-quality and extremely personalized treatment in Germany. Never were there any long involved "application/vetting" processes to see if the services would be covered.

By contrast, six months into our last stay in Germany we were still fighting with Medicare and a US service provider about getting a routine annual checkup covered, which we chose to do before leaving the US.

In products and services with a strong consumer, competitive aspect, the US still shines. But anything involving primarily a "social service" aspect, where "market forces" are weak to nonexistent, such as medical insurance, medical service, social services in general, the US seems completely incompetent - Social Security and Medicare excepted, but those are from a different era...

Here a more complete (and more competent) critique of ObamaCare from the "German perspective":

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article120872921/Warum-meine-Famil...

Comment on: "The Shadow of the Sequester" by Russ Douthat, NYT, Oct 8, 2013

For original Blog entry, see:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/the-shadow-of-the-sequester/

If that kind of non-action, or legislative incompetence as demonstrated in the 2011 Sequestration is a "model for future compromise", then American democracy is in worse shape than even I have suspected.

Another OECD study was released today, capturing the level of education/skills of the "adult population" (15-65 year olds) in some major industrialized countries, and as with most other OECD statistics, the US ranks in the lower part of the bottom half.

Far from the favorite American mantra of "American exceptionalism", what we need is some serious new policies, programs and legislation to move America back to the forefront of the advanced industrialized world. But Mr. Douthat seems to think that the kind of legislative incompetence and non-action, exemplified by the 2011 Sequester, and by the current idiocy of dogmatic games of chicken is a good example of democratic governance.

Comment on: "Should the President Negotiate?" by Ross Douthat, NYT Oct 8, 2013

For original post, see:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/should-the-president-negotiate/?comments#permid=10204446

Kevin Hassett and Abby McCloskey, in the Wall Street Journal, and by extension, Mr. Douthat, conveniently neglect to be specific on the history of the debt ceiling authorizations, which is typical of the disingenuous use of statistics by politicians.

Let's be clear, one half, 50% of the debt ceiling authorizations were "clean". Most of the others were attached to continuing (budget) resolutions.

"Other times, the limit was paired with reforms, only some of which were related to the budget."

Note the purposely non-specific way this is stated. I am sure that for bone-fide journalists it would be a simple matter to find out exactly how many times debt limit legislation was attached to partisan (Republican) extortion - I suspect most of them were - but of course such specificity would be counterproductive to their (GOP, WSJ) insane position.

Mr. Douthat is obviously a frustrated speech writer, as he continues to use his blogs and columns to write fictitious speeches for presidents. This time, however, I think he has hit the nail on the head.

I would even go further and insist on passage of universal background checks, as well as up-down votes on all pending (judicial) appointments, just to give the GOP a taste of their own tactics...

Comment on: "Egypt Back at Square One" by URSULA LINDSEY, NYT, Oct 4, 2013

For original Blog post, see:
http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/egypt-back-at-square-one/?ref=international

By and large the (news) media got it all wrong when it comes to predicting the success/failure of the "Arab Spring", especially in Egypt. There was an unrealistic euphoria about the young generation, "armed" with social media, to change what is essentially a religion-based and tribal-based society (much like Europe in the Middle Ages) into an advanced, modern democracy "over night". Mr. Friedman is a columnist who was especially vocal in this regard.

As depressing and "defeatist" as it may sound, societies seem to need to go through "modernization" and "liberalization" and "secularization" processes at their own pace. A society, for example, cannot change from a religion-dominated one to a secular, civil society overnight. We, the West", can offer support through education and economic aid, but we certainly cannot speed up the process by intervening on one side or the other, especially militarily.

A minority of educated people in a country can have great influence on the needed secularization and modernization process but it is not a given that this will lead in the "right" direction. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, for example, was a student in California and became so disgusted with what he perceived as the debauchery of "the West" that it lead to the creation of a religious and repressive movement.

Comment on: "Why The Right Fights", by Ross Douthat, NYT, Oct. 2, 2013

For the original Douthat blog post see:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/why-the-right-fights/



From the Frum quote: "...they felt the public’s wary eyes upon them. They didn’t dare, and they realized that they didn’t dare."

Mr. Ross, it might be worth remembering that "..the public’s wary eyes upon them..." is another way of saying that the majority does NOT want to undo to New Deal and the Great Society. Last time I checked, "democracy" still means that the majority opinion rules, albeit with appropriate safeguards for minority rights.

So perhaps what the so-called "real conservatives" fail to understand is "democracy". That failure to understand democracy is certainly evident in their current attempt to literally undo a program ("ObamaCare)" which was legitimately and constitutionally implemented by holding the entire country hostage through a government shutdown and possible government default.

They pretend to "just" want to fix ObamaCare (and fixing it will certainly be required), but their methods of extortion are completely undemocratic and insane.

Comment on: "The Right Gets Its ’60s" by Bill Keller, NYT, Sept 30, 2013

For original editorial, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opinion/keller-the-right-gets-its-60s.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss



With all due respect, the comparison between 60's Vietnam protest and the current hostage drama in Congress (Obamacare is the hostage, or more accurately, Obama himself, who the Right has vowed to derail as a President) is ludicrous. And more importantly for a NYT editorial writer and former editor, how does this piece shed light on or advance the issue in any way?

Currently the GOP has been hijacked my a small group of fanatics. The Vietnam protests were propelled by large popular, especially youth, protests. There was indeed a small group within the Democratic party which aligned itself with the anti-Vietnam protest, but they were always crass outsiders. and never had any power within the Democratic party.

Where is the popular ground-swell against ObamaCare? Yes, there is uncertainty, skepticism and perhaps even some outright opposition in the public (fueld in my view by dismal misinformation), but where are the huge protests, sit-ins, campus takeovers, etc. brought on by the moral outrage against senseless killings and atrocities in Vietnam?

One would expect something a little more insightful from Mr. Keller.

Comment on: "Could a Republican Health Care Reform Ever Happen?" by Ross Douthat, NYT Sept 26, 2013

For original Blog entry, see:
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/could-a-republican-health-care-reform-ever-happen/



ObamaCare, with all its obvious and sometimes severe faults, is nonetheless a vitally important milestone for the US: it begins to close the gaping abyss between the US and the rest of the modern, civilized world in acknowledging the need, both moral and social, for universal healthcare.

We currently have the highest per capita cost for worst return, according to OECD

The faults are multi-faceted - and we are experiencing them (almost) first-hand through helping our single-mother-of-two (one special needs) daughter try to find her way through the complicated, and possibly expensive, mess.

For us the faults are also obvious from having lived and worked in Europe over the years and experienced their health care systems. Most recently a one year stay in Germany during which we were insured under the German "public" option, made it obvious how much better German health care is. It is not cheap - about the same monthly cost as our Medicare plus Supplement here in the US - but it is so much less complicated and unbureaucratic (can you believe it, Germany less bureaucratic than the US!!). None of the scare propaganda about long wait times, denied services and inferior care are true - quite the opposite.

If the US were not so enamored with its own "exceptionalism", it could  distribute all existing universal health care systems around the world on a poster, and then have Congress, blindfolded, play Pin the Tail on the Donkey - and get a superior system. Instead we have Ted Cruz.

Comment on: "The Way We Were", by Thomas Friedman, NYT, Sept 25, 2013

For original editorial, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/opinion/friedman-the-way-we-were.html?ref=international

Mr. Friedman is at it again, trying to coin phrases with supposedly deep truths and high information content - "high-imagination enabling", which have some kernel of truth, but ultimately add nothing to the discussion or the search for answers to America's problems.

There are deep, deep problems with America's social and political development over the past thirty years, as evidenced by America steady decline in the OECD rankings among most, if not all of its social, economic and political indicators. No amount of pontificating about American exceptionalism and high-imaginationa enabling can, or indeed should, obscure the deep structural problems in our political and social institutions.

Our representative government is the laughingstock of the world. When the highest achievement of our Congress is to endlessly pontificate before empty chambers with the express purpose of achieving nothing, then one has to ask serious questions about whether our political institutions have reached their limits.

When the wealth and power of a tiny 1%, or even more dramatically, 0.1%, keeps increasing and more and more people are driven from the Middle Class into poverty and dependence, then our society is turning back into exactly the one which we originally fought to abolish.

We pride ourselves with having abolished slavery, but what if not a modern form of slavery is it when people have to have two or three "full-time" jobs, and then still need government support to subsist.

Comment on: "Merkel the Great" by Roger Cohen, NYT Sept 23, 2013

For original editorial see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/opinion/global/cohen-merkel-the-great.html?ref=international

Once again, a very balanced and knowledgeable piece about Germany and Angela Merkel. Talking to my 92 year old mother in Germany on Sunday after the elections, she confessed that both of her votes (odd German electoral system) went to the Socialists, as they had for many decades. But at the same time she said that she was not worried about the Socialist defeat, as Angela seemed to have things under control. That, I think, describes the state of mind of the majority of Germans.

I do have two nit-picks:

Mr. Cohen makes the aside - "... (the former [the blazer] often just a touch too tight)…" This is still in this day and age a very sexist comment, which Mr. Cohen probably does not intend, but still comes out almost involuntarily. No commentator would ever think to insert a comment like that about a male politician.

The concluding paragraph about Angela Merkel being "… the leader of the world", after the very even-handed editorial, again brings to the fore the paranoia and stereotype, undeserved today for Germans in general, but especially inappropriate for Angela Merkel, of the "ueber alles in der Welt".

Further up in the editorial Mr. Cohen correctly states "[Merkel] has also walked the very fine line for Germany between demands for leadership and perceptions of ominous dominance." That is the correct image to leave the reader with, not the old stereotype of "world domination".

Comment on: "Good Populism, Bad Populism", by Ross Douthat, NYT, Sept 21, 2013

For original editorial, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/douthat-good-populism-bad-populism.html?comments#permid=10043954

I have long admired the Pauls, father and son, for their stand on the Middle East wars - stop them now, and don't start any new ones.

It is also heartening if a Republican actually, truly comes up with budget proposals which do not eviscerate the middle class and the poor. 

You complain that these Republican proposals did not make the news. But remember that this is the same news cycle during which the Republican House cut the food stamp program by $40 billion, at a time when more and more people depend on this program, through little or no fault of their own, for survival. And, having not learned anything from the previous trip down this road, the Republicans are still trying to defund Obama Care (how many votes have they now had on this? while at the same time leaving urgent matters - like a budget - undone), and again using the debt limit as an artificial wedge in this effort.

You, Mr. Douthat, obviously suffer from desperation and wishful thinking, much like a relative visiting the home of a pathological boarder and, finding a tiny spot in the living room where the floor is actually visible, comes to the conclusion that "thinks are getting better.

Add to all the other deficiencies of Republicans today, as evidenced by what is actually happening in The House, the now obviously incompetent leadership in both the House and the Senate.

Comment on: "Why Greece Is Not Weimar", by Roger Cohen, NYT, Sept. 19,2013

Thank you, Mr. Cohen. After your sometimes somewhat hysterical comments on Germany's role in trying to stem the current economic and fiscal crisis in the Euro zone, this piece offers a very well balanced assessment of the current situation in Greece:

"In fact, of course, Germany has also saved Greece from bankruptcy. It did so for the European Union, which helped usher Germany from its cataclysmic “zero hour” of 1945. Through Europe, Germany came back. Through Europe, Greece has been saved from the fate of Weimar. At a time when pettiness surrounds thinking about the E.U., and the assumption is widespread that the Union’s peacemaking role is over, it is critical to recall that the Union is Europe’s surest safeguard against the Continent’s darkest hours."

Germany's insistence on "reforms" and"restructuring" stems from its own hard-won experience to turn itself from "the sick man of Europe" during the '90's and '00's into the strong economic power of today. It is not some demonic effort to "achieve by economic means what it could not achieve by war".

We have friends and relatives in Greece, middle to upper-middle class, and with a wink, and with seemingly no sense of regret or guilt, they admit in private that they have hardly ever paid any income taxes. Even today there are still reports that most small businesses will do cash-only business, not giving any receipts, to avoid paying any taxes at all.

That is not sustainable. The "austerity" being experienced in Greece now is not due to explicit, malvolent "austerity" policies, but attempts to make Greece sustainable. Euro 250 Billion in aid is quite a bit to ease the pain of that austerity!

Comment on: "Fawzia’s Choice", by Nicholas Kristof, NYT, Sept 19, 2013

For original editorial, see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/19/opinion/kristof-fawzias-choice.html?ref=global

Congratulations Mr. Kristof, you seem to have come back to your senses:
"We may not be able to solve Syria’s problems. I’m not even certain that we can mitigate them. But we can try, and a starting point would be a big push for humanitarian access."

However, I'm shocked that as a "journalist" you are still engaging in "war-mongering". You cite completely unverified reports of atrocities by one side as a way to further your arguments that the US should, for example, launch "...military strike to destroy some of Assad’s murderous air force." I am pretty sure these atrocities are happening, but not only by Assad's side. Even the NYT has reported on atrocities by the "rebels", whoever they are.

I don't know how intelligent people like you can keep clamoring for military action, when we have ample evidence to show that even ten years of war, with ample "boots on the ground", cannot stop the senseless killings in the Middle East - and don't tell me about Kosovo; that's a completely different situation!

Many of our "experts" talk about the "Free Syrian Army" as if this were some well defined, well organized group that, but for a few arms from the US, could bring peace and stability to Syria. That is such a dumb proposition, it leaves one speechless!

We have to face the fact that the sectarian and religious slaughter now going on in the Middle East is like a virus before antibiotics - we can ease some of the symptoms (give aid to the refugees), but it has to run its course.

Comment on: "The Man With Pink Hair" by Thomas Friedman, NYT, Sept. 18,2013

For the full Friedman editorial, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html?comments#permid=102


Overall, for the first time in some time, I agree with the general thrust of Mr. Friedman's column: bombing Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons, when acknowledging that this would to little to nothing to stop such use of chemical weapons, was ridiculous, and the push to attack was by the top elite (beholden to the Military/Industrial Complex), and vehemently opposed by the majority of "us".

However, even here Mr. Friedman cannot keep himself from including the typical myopic, that is to say American-centric view of the world, when one would expect a much broader perspective from a "journalist".

"I guess worrying about Syria is the tax you pay for being an American or an American president — and coming from the world’s strongest power that still believes, blessedly in my view, that it has to protect the global commons."

PLEASE!! If one is truly a "journalist", and not what seems like a small-town high school teacher, one would know that America for the most part does NOT enter into military engagements for altruistic reasons, "protect[ing] the global commons", but to, often ruthlessly, further its mostly commercial interests, i.e. on behalf of the 1% Oligarchy.

During the Cold War these impulses were tempered by the real fear of nuclear armageddon. Now that America is the single overwhelming military power, America has increasingly operated under the "might makes right" doctrine, with terrible results, for itself, and the world at large, Kosovo being an exception.

Comment on: "Readers Answer Me Answering Them" Blog post by Nicholas D. Kristof, NYT Sept. 17, 2013

For original blog post see:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/readers-answer-me-answering-them/

Your arguments, as I understand them, still come down to "humanitarian" or "moral" imperatives to "intervene" in Syria because they allegedly used chemical weapons, which are "outlawed" by an international treaty, to which Syria is not a signatory.

The US is not a signatory (did not ratify) to the Kyoto Protocol and is still polluting the atmosphere at record levels. Does that give other countries the right to bomb US power plants?

Just for reference, the deaths caused by these chemical attacks are estimated to be about 2% of all casualties of the current civil war. Also, by the governments own account, the proposed strikes would NOT eliminate the chemical weapons, but would indeed have (unknown numbers) of "collateral casualties".

International law: seizing a slave ship for humanitarian reasons is a long way from dropping bombs! An equivalence in your "genocide" arguments would be to arbitrarily pick the "bad guy" and then bomb the heck out of them, rather than sending in a UN force to separate the warring parties.

Your cost estimates are way off. You make the typical cynical error of lowballing the numbers so as to fit your argument. Whatever the cost of air strikes, in humanitarian and ethical terms, that money would be much, much better spent helping with the refugee crisis to minimize the social and economic disruptions in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.

Your credibility continues to decline as you tenaciously hold on to your ridiculous arguments.

Comment on: "Gunman and 11 Victims Killed in Shooting at D.C. Navy Yard", NYT, Sept. 16,2013

For original article see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/us/shooting-reported-at-washington-navy-yard.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us&target=comments

This is another terrible episode in the continuing American obsession with guns.

What this also shows (as if this kind of evidence were necessary to any thinking person), how absolutely ridiculous, even brainlessly stupid, the NRA proposal is for armed guards or armed teachers in schools to "protect" children.

Here we have a "highly secure" Naval Facility in proximity to Congress and the White House (how many "good guys", I wonder, armed to the teeth, are in that area), and yet it was not possible to prevent and armed crazy person getting in and killing at least 12 (as of now) people.

Comment on: "The Syrian Pact" NYT Editorial, Sep. 16, 2013

For original editorial, see
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?ref=global

This is one of these rare but fortunate happenstances in international politics, where a supposed gaffe by Sec. Kerry set in motion negotiations to REALLY prevent further use of chemical weapons (which a US military strike would NOT have done). This "gaffe" gave Russia/Putin an opportunity to become involved, and invested in the process, which in turn allows the UN to become active.

Overall this piece is a perfect summary both of the benefits and opportunities, but also the difficulties of this effort.

It is, however, disturbing that even this very enlightened editorial does not seem to get beyond the myopic, which is to say US-centric, view of international affairs.

"Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."

Mr. Putin's position is labeled as "cynical", but unemotional reflection should show that is is no more cynical than the US position. We just heard that the CIA is delivering weapons to "the rebels", and the US was perfectly happy bombing Syria, i.e. killing people, while admitting that this would not stop future use of chemical weapons. We, the US have been content to stand by and see the killings with conventional weapons, all the while looking for an acceptable reason to supply more support, including weapons deliveries to the rebels. Why is that any less "cynical" than Putin's actions?

Comment on: U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms (NYT, Sept. 14, 2013)

See following for NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?ref=global-home


What was originally portrayed as a "gaffe" by Sec. Kerry may well turn into a hallmark of successful international action against a "rogue state".

Even the most fierce proponents of military strikes against Syria conceded that such strikes would do little or nothing to actually get rid of Syria's chemical weapons or prevent them from using them again in the future (even taking as a "fact" that the government is responsible for all the use of chemical weapons).

Now with Russia, and very likely the UN, fully engaged in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, the likelihood of actually preventing further use is much higher. To be sure, the implementation of the agreement poses immense problems, but we now have Russia, Syria's most ardent supporter, engaged in this task together with the rest of the world community, and failure to accomplish the stated goal will be just as much an embarrassment to Russia.

I was, and am, totally opposed to unilateral military strikes against Syria - the notion that we would be engaging in "humanitarian" action against the atrocity of killing people with chemical weapons by killing people with conventional weapons always seemed someway delusional to me.

I do admit, however, that the seeming success of what I would like to call the "Kerry initiative" seems to have been made possible, at least partly, by the real threat of US military strikes. But given the abject failure of US military intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, I would still be opposed to unilateral (or some phony "coalition of the willing") military strikes against Syria.

Comment on "When Complexity Is Free" By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN - The Putin NYT Editorial generally.

See the original editorial at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/opinion/sunday/friedman-when-complexity-is-free.html?comments#permid=1

I am not a fan of Putin, by a long shot. His editorial in the NYT was certainly full of self-serving platitudes, especially when read in the context of the Russian reality today.

However, the source aside, there are a lot of "kernels of truth" in what Putin (or more probably, a very talented writer, or writers, on his staff) had to say.

Just to pick one, the comments on American exceptionalism, seem to have rubbed the majority of Americans the wrong way - again, ignore the source, and just concentrate on the statements as such.

"American exceptionalism" is a "myth" cherished by Americans as part of their self image. It was, to a large extent, true in generations past. It is part and parcel of what attracted me to immigrate to America in 1963.
However, taking a hard and unemotional look at America today, that "exceptionalism" is a thing of the past. Just looking at most of the OECD statistics on quality of life, education, upward mobility, health care, etc., it is inescapable that America lags most other "developed" countries in most, if not all, of these comparative statistics.

There are still some very "exceptional" characteristics which define America - the "can do" attitude, and general "openness" being two which jump to my mind. However, as the Putin editorial says, there is something very dangerous and self-deceptive on beating ones chest with "American exceptionalism", because it prevents one from recognizing the deficiencies we do have, and then solving them.