An Uninteresting Question: Who Delivered Andy McCarthy?
Great to see that National Review Online has an improved feed that lets one read formatted posts in Google Reader, and that the archives page for The Corner has a really cool feature that lets you read full posts that drop down when you click on the entry. It’s easier than ever to follow the conversation — kudos to whoever made that tech improvement, and may it spread elsewhere in the blogosphere, especially to other group blogs.
One interesting exchange concerns Andy McCarthy’s long piece calling for Barack Obama to release his birth certificate. He writes:
Who cares that Hawaii’s full state records would doubtless confirm what we already know about Obama’s birthplace? They would also reveal interesting facts about Obama’s life: the delivering doctor, how his parents described themselves, which of them provided the pertinent information, etc. Wasn’t the press once in the business of interesting — and even not-so-interesting — news?
This passage undermines Mr. McCarthy’s argument. The identity of the doctor who delivered President Obama is hardly an “interesting fact” about his life. Who delivered George W. Bush? Bill Clinton? Who delivered Jesus Christ? Who delivered your own father and mother? It is notable that there isn’t any birth I can think of where the identity of the delivering doctor is interesting enough to seek it out.
Nor do I find “how his parents described themselves” or “which of them provided the pertinent information” relevant in the least. What percentage of Americans know how their parents described themselves on their birth certificate, or which parent provided the information for it? The irrelevance of this information is amply demonstrated by the fact that there isn’t any other case where anyone cares about it. This is the best Andy McCarthy can do as he argues that this controversy is worthy of our time and attention?
He goes on to write:
There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.
But we should know. The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?
At The Corner, Kevin D. Williams ably critiques the conspiracy mongering and irresponsible speculation in that excerpt. So I’ll focus on showing how absurd Mr. McCarthy’s interest is even given the truth of his speculation. What we’ve got is two possible scenarios. In both, a young Barack Obama lived in Indonesia, attended the same school, lived with the same guardians, and left that country at a young age. The only difference is this: the unlikely scenario is that a Mr. Soetoro formally adopted the young Obama, whereas the likely scenario is that he didn’t. Implicit in Mr. McCarthy’s argument is the weird idea that whether or not a legal adoption took place tells us something relevant about “the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history.” Perhaps I missed the part of Campaign ’08 where candidate Obama ran on having never been adopted? Or I am missing the aspect of his presidency that I’d understand better if only I knew that a man with whom his mother had a romantic relationship did or didn’t briefly become his legal guardian?
Mr. McCarthy asks:
…why would Obama not welcome Hawaii’s release of any record in its possession about the facts and circumstances of his birth? Isn’t that kind of weird? It would, after all, make the whole issue go away and, if there’s nothing there, make those who’ve obsessed over it look like fools.
Apparently he’s missed the fact that so long as the issue persists, those obsessing over it look like fools. Elsewhere Mark Steyn notes that “a true conspiracy theorist would surely believe that Obama deliberately started the birth-certificate business in order to make it easier to dismiss his opponents as deranged.” I don’t believe that Obama started the birth certificate business, but I sure do think he’s strategically pleased by its endurance.
58% of republicans are birfers.
guess where they are all from?
hmm…how about we correlate SAT scores with geo-location by state and party affiliation?
Still think the bourgie conservatives can just “wait for the base to come around?”
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 05:24 PM · #
heres teh visuals
quite striking, wouldn’t you say?
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 05:30 PM · #
What is the precedent for this? Is it uncommon for a state to withhold a birth certificate? Is the paranoia driving the conspiracy or is this an anomaly?
— Okie Poke · Jul 31, 05:39 PM · #
Matoko, you do know that IQ is underdetermined by genetics, yes? And enough with the South-bashing, woman, or I’m going to have to put down this here PBR and come gitchya.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 31, 05:54 PM · #
“And enough with the South-bashing”
You can never bash South enough since South seems to be a bottomless pit of irrationality, stupidity and other human baseness. As today’s Research 2000 polling result shows birthers are predominantly located in the South while other three regions (Norhteast, West and Midwest)almost uniformly dismiss that as nuttery. Bashing of South is well deserved. Consider that NYC has alone produced 28 Noble Prize winners which is more than South’s total contribution in its history. South has always been a drain on rest of the country both intellectually and materially. South would be a thirld world country without Northeast’s intellect or wealth production that goes to support South’s livelihood.
So no there will be no ceasing of bashing of South. There should be more bashig given South’s incessasnt stupidity and general tendency to degeneracy and fondness for evil (see slavery, Jim Crow).
— gloucester12000 · Jul 31, 06:08 PM · #
For what it’s worth, we actually do know who delivered Obama: Dr. Rodney T. West, at the Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.
One of Obama’s high scool teachers was a friend of Dr. West’s daughter, and was interviewed by the Buffalo News on the occasion of Obama’s inauguration. The story doesn’t have any birther angle; it was a local interest story because the woman had moved to Buffalo.
— alkali · Jul 31, 06:09 PM · #
Okie, I believe the availability of such records varies from state to state, and in what format. As part of my job in California, I at times must obtain death or birth certificates from the county. I can only receive a certain copy type of the form — it lacks the embossed seal and certain other information (i.e. the “long” form is unavailable to me). Additionally, I must have a specific reason for obtaining it (say, the nature of my job). Your average birther couldn’t just walk up to the office of records and request a copy.
My understanding is that Hawaii is now all electronic and only provides one type of copy, which the State Department, the DMV, and most sane individuals accept as proof of citizenship, but which the birthers deem insufficient based on… well, that basis changes from time to time.
Alkali, you are correct, but the birthers — being insane — will note that Dr. West is conveniently dead, and therefore they need the birth certificate. For all that the delivery nurse is alive and well and asking what the hell is wrong with these people.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 31, 06:14 PM · #
South has always been a drain on rest of the country both intellectually and materially.
We drink your milkshake?
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 31, 06:31 PM · #
“We drink your milkshake?”
And yet still manage to remain a shit-hole of ignorance. Only wished South would learn or failing that learn to learn.
— gloucester12000 · Jul 31, 06:33 PM · #
We in the south are working hard on those Noble Prizes. Really.
— Matt Frost · Jul 31, 06:42 PM · #
Oh, KVS, you are an anti-determinist like Dr. Riddick.
We are finding that IQ is largely determined by genetic and memetic inheritance.
But you are right that IQ is not completely genetically determined.
And someday I will prove that by remotely executing Leon Kass with a Sufi mind trick developed by changing brain function and morphology through meditation.
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 06:48 PM · #
“memetic inheritance”
Now there’s a ridiculous term for “nurture.”
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 31, 06:56 PM · #
And someday I will prove that by remotely executing Leon Kass with a Sufi mind trick developed by changing brain function and morphology through meditation.
Now that I would pay to see.
Anywho, it’s Friday 2:57pm down here in the asshole of the universe, so I’m gonna stop pretending to work and instead go out on the boat. Adios.
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Jul 31, 06:58 PM · #
Conor – Please stop discouraging and challenging Andy McCarthy or anyone else at NRO, that includes stopping your crusade against Mark Levin. We need to keep the Palin/Limbaugh/NRO/Fox Right healthy and functional and in control. I speak for all educated, sane Americans.
— Steve C · Jul 31, 07:00 PM · #
Don’t test meh erik.
EVERYONE knows phenotype depends on 4 types of inheritance; genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic.
behavioral and symbolic are both types of memetic inheritance.
Boyd & Richerson, 1998
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 07:06 PM · #
Conor:
I don’t really understand Andy McCarthy’s concern here. The birthers are just going down a useless rabbit hole. And, once again, I don’t understand your concern with Andy McCarthy.
What I do understand is the curiosity about Obama’s past. We have never had a President with so little experience or scrutiny. We are supposed to believe he came out of the most corrupt political machine in the US, while remaining incorruptible. The only things we truly know about his beliefs we know by accident: obscure interviews, various writings, fleeting moments of honesty, Joe the Plumber, etc… He, with his willing accomplices in the press, has completely obscured what he truly believes and wants for this country. And now more and more we are seeing buyer’s remorse from those who voted for him. So the only sympathy I have with McCarthy on this birther issue is that I hope the spotlight shows what a complete and total political machine Obama is, AND that his public words have very little connection with his actions.
— jd · Jul 31, 07:21 PM · #
JD writes: “He, with his willing accomplices in the press, has completely obscured what he truly believes and wants for this country. And now more and more we are seeing buyer’s remorse from those who voted for him. So the only sympathy I have with McCarthy on this birther issue is that I hope the spotlight shows what a complete and total political machine Obama is, AND that his public words have very little connection with his actions.”
Well, Obama says he wants massive health care reform, climate change legislation, bailouts for the automakers, higher taxes on the rich — which part of his agenda is super secret again?
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 31, 07:27 PM · #
How could I test you, Matoko? That would require being able to comprehend more than 50 percent of your grammar and syntax.
— Erik Vanderhoff · Jul 31, 07:36 PM · #
“What I do understand is the curiosity about Obama’s past. We have never had a President with so little experience or scrutiny.”
Oh, for pity’s sake. The experience thing is beyond moot now that Obama is, you know, THE PRESIDENT. As for scrutiny, we certainly know as much about Obama as we knew about George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or anyone else who’s run for President in the past 20 years. I’m not sure if it’s racist or xenophobic, but this preoccupation with “The Secret Origin of Barack Hussein Obama” needs to stop.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 31, 07:39 PM · #
Also, just in case n/e one doubts that I am going to kill Leon Kass with my mind someday….
Morphology of the corpus callosum and meditation.
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 07:39 PM · #
Those folks with buyer’s remorse are saying: “Oh, so NOW he tells me.”
Conor, if you can’t admit that Obama’s current actions do not match the words he used to get elected then you are not honest. I truly believe that many people are surprised at how radical this guy’s agenda has become. I must admit that I am surprised, and I knew about the radical associations. Even now the words he uses to describe his own agenda belie its extreme nature. He is either fooling himself or he is dishonest.
Even the people who still support him are pissed off because he has actually extended and strengthened many of Bush’s anti-terror methods. I bet that burns you up, doesn’t it?
— jd · Jul 31, 07:43 PM · #
Since he can claim experience as President…does that mean he can start taking some responsibility for the mess this country is in?
— jd · Jul 31, 07:50 PM · #
You liberals can’t get through a paragraph without accusing conservatives of being racists.
— jd · Jul 31, 07:52 PM · #
“Since he can claim experience as President…does that mean he can start taking some responsibility for the mess this country is in?”
How much of our current mess is due to 7 months of Barack Obama and how much is due to 8 years of George W. Bush? It’s one thing to criticize someone for not fixing a problem. It’s something else to forget about who created the problem in the first place.
Mike
— MBunge · Jul 31, 08:07 PM · #
Hey Mike, Mike Bunge, that is:
It’s all part and parcel of Obama’s shtick. He blames everyone but himself and he apologizes for things that he has no business apologizing for. It’s so childish for the PRESIDENT to keep blaming his predecessor. But it’s typical of liberals; it’s always someone else’s fault. Except when they’re overseas, then it’s all America’s fault.
— jd · Jul 31, 08:51 PM · #
Hey! I’d like to think that who delivered a particular baby is important (but then again….I’m a medical student). But in terms of relevance to fitness of the baby to serve as president, I must admit that physicians and the locations of their practices are not quite that influential…
— anon · Jul 31, 09:17 PM · #
I’m interested in those useless details but they aren’t a strong support for the case, I agree. I’m sure I’m not the only person who doesn’t think things through thoroughly enough when I write. A look at many books and newspapers is proof of that. Plus, everyone knows Obama won’t produce his birth certificate because he’s the Anti-Christ. Just a (very) little ignunt humor for a Friday afternoon.
— Joules · Jul 31, 10:35 PM · #
jd
one reason that i am NOT a conservative n/e more is that one of my conservative heroes (whose name you would recognize) complained bitterly to me in email that conservatives were too “racewhipped” to attack Obama through his connection to Rev. Wright.
as a party, you are WIDELY regarded as racists. and 58% of your party are birfers.
we already discussed what that means…
via Eric K—
Shorter GOP:
“50 years ago we shouted nigger, 30 years ago we talked about States Rights, now we ask to see the president’s birth certificate.”
and if you don’t lance the boil and get rid of the poison, you are going to be politically extinct racists when the demographic timer on nonhispanic caucs runs out.
— matoko_chan · Jul 31, 10:35 PM · #
JD writes: “Obama’s current actions do not match the words he used to get elected then you are not honest. I truly believe that many people are surprised at how radical this guy’s agenda has become.”
What are you talking about in particular? I can’t say I am very surprised by anything Obama has done thus far.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Jul 31, 10:43 PM · #
Sudoku_chum
Please allow me to explain:
Shut_up.
— jd · Jul 31, 11:07 PM · #
Jd, you’re not making any sense.
Except for the things that aren’t his fault; all that is his fault, somehow.
“Always someone else’s fault”, incidentally, is a pretty good description of how conservatives have reacted to every crisis of the past 8 years.
— Chet · Jul 31, 11:37 PM · #
Conor:
First, since you are someone “who’s paying attention” and since you claim to be a conservative, I’m not surprised that you’re not surprised. You have made it your business to find out who he was and what he believed. You knew that he had said things about the Warren Court not going far enough—during the Civil Rights era—to change or transform the Constitution in favor of redistribution of wealth. You knew about his radical associations, the Rev. Wright and William Ayers. You knew that he finally spoke truth to the powerless when he told Joe the Plumber that we needed to redistribute wealth.
Second,can you actually say you are not surprised at the trillions of dollars he has spent (all the while saying he was going to be transparent and fiscally responsible)? Can you say you are not surprised at the scope of his agenda, ie, taking over banks, taking over GM, Chrysler, cap and trade, trying to take over 1/6 of the US economy via health care? All of this in 6 months?
All the while he denies that this huge power grab is socialism, or single payer, or anything like the Brits have or the Canucks. While at the same time admitting that he doesn’t really know the particular details of the health care legislation, like whether or not people would be able to keep their private insurance.
None of this surprised you? Because I’m having a hard time getting my mind around what he’s trying to do.
— jd · Jul 31, 11:38 PM · #
“I can’t say I am very surprised by anything Obama has done thus far.”
I knew Obama was progressive — he laid out his plan to transform American and build a New Foundation. What’s surprising is all the smoke surrounding the corporate interests which stand to benefit, and have benefited, such as Goldman Sachs, from most of his schemes — it sure looks like the same old government/corporation enmeshment — and the lack of transparency he promised. I didn’t, and still don’t, like his progressivism, but I thought he would at least be authentic and truthful. His dishonesty surprises me. I took him for an honest, idealistic person, in spite of the talk about his Chicago political background. He’s a smart man, so I can’t believe his resistance to the reality of the cost of healthcare reform is based in ignorance and not in mendacity — he’s revealing himself to be a political animal who can’t be trusted, and I believe this disappoints both left, right and the radical center.
— mike farmer · Aug 1, 12:03 AM · #
As long as we’re talking about Obama outrages, this is one that absolutely infuriates me. He wanted Congress to come back to him with $100 million in cuts to that $787 billion in stimulus. Is there anyone alive who can explain the colossal stupidity of that directive?
— jd · Aug 1, 12:21 AM · #
“this disappoints both left, right and the radical center.”
Uh, leave out “both”.
— mike farmer · Aug 1, 12:54 AM · #
Matoko-
“We are finding that IQ is largely determined by genetic and memetic inheritance.”
I don’t know about the memetic part, but the extent of the genetic contirbuition is very much up in the air.
— cw · Aug 1, 04:27 AM · #
It always makes me sad when partisan trolls on the right (jd) or left (matoko_chan, gloucester1200) try to hijack the debate in the TAS comments section by taunting people.
Matoko_chan, what’s the deal with all those juvenile provocations that are also off-topic? Why are you schooling people on “genetic, epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic inheritance” when the discussion was supposed to be about McCarthy’s piece and the “birthers”? What’s with the childish anti-South comments (that goes for gloucester1200, too)? Clearly, any intellectually honest person would admit that describing everyone in the South as a bunch of backward retards HAS to be an indefensible generalization. So, seriously, why even bother to make such claims unless your only goal is to pdrag people into pointless debates with you?
JD, if you think what Obama is doing is by any means surprising, you really haven’t paid attention for about last 18 months or so. Also, your comments are typical of what Hofstadter has dubbed “the paranoid style” and your own taunting of matoko_chan – referring to her as “Sudoku chum”, because God knows all those “Orientals” can be reduced to a few easily recognizable cultural artifacts (btw, why not Jackie_Chan, or martial-arts_chan, har har) – does indeed smack of racism and xenophobia.
I mean, the reason why TAS is my favorite political blog (even though as a lefty-liberal I have substantial political disagreements with most of the people who blog here) is because TAS folks always seem ready to concede to a well-made point by the other side.
There are tons of websites out there where people just keep on rehashing tired old talking points (be they from the left or right) and preaching to the choir. In contrast, people here seem genuinely interested in having an honest debate over challenging topics where there are no easy answers.
And what is especially great, the same could be said for the comments section and that is so preciously rare these days.
So, please, if you cannot or are not willing to contribute thoughtfully to debates here, do not leave comments. Thanks.
— Marko · Aug 1, 06:33 AM · #
I have been clear in why I think what Obama is doing is surprising. But apparently I have not expressed it in a way that gets at his extremism. If he were to propose taking over the United States and turning it into a socialist, Marxist utopia, he could not proceed any differently. The words he uses to describe what he’s doing do not in any way reflect the radical changes he has accomplished and/or attempted. I knew about his past, but I am still flabbergasted at what he is attempting to do. He is trying to unmake what has made this country the most singular country in the history of the world. Fortunately for us, this the US economy is strong and huge and vibrant and he cannot do what he wants immediately.
Unless he gets control of health care. But you’re not surprised.
As to the rest of your comments; you would be the third person in this comment thread to suggest that I am racist and xenophobic. If we differ with you on issues, we are not just wrong, we are paranoid racists. You write all this flowery language about “contributing thoughtfully” after throwing out the racism charge. Well, sir, you and your fellow liberals who cannot get through a comment without calling someone racist are assholes.
My son is Mexican.
— jd · Aug 1, 01:57 PM · #
Dear jd’s son,
I don’t know if you are Mexican or if you even exist, for that matter, but if you do, I have some advice. Anything’s possible, so your dad may be right. If so, the U.S. is one piece of health care legislation away from being a “Marxist utopia.” Now, Utopia may sound nice, but it’s not. It unmakes exceptional nations.
You need to convince your father and everyone like him to leave the country as soon as possible. Wait seven years, and it may be too late. By then, our borders could be locked down, closed for business and patrolled by dogs.
Where will you go? Good question. England and Norway are definitely out. By your dad’s interpretation, these countries are thoroughly Socialist. Their citizens obviously squirm in the government yoke, but they dare not speak up.
Perhaps Serbia fits your style. It has adopted a flat tax, it boasts a history of persecuted Christians, and it’s tucked in middle eastern Europe, eastern Europe flyover country, the “real” eastern Europe. Pack your bags and punch that passport while you still can.
— turnbuckle · Aug 1, 02:52 PM · #
JD,
Though I didn’t expect the financial crisis during Campaign 2008, I am not surprised that the man elected responded by throwing lots of federal money at the problem — I think McCain or Obama would’ve reacted that way. Neither man believes much in prudential restraint when it comes to “national greatness” legislation. They generally pursue different things of that kind, but the bailout? It is exactly the kind of situation where a president feels he cannot do nothing, and that is probably a pretty good political assessment of the incentive structure, though the results can be a disaster for the country.
And aside from the unexpected financial crisis, Obama is focused on health care and climate change, just as he said he would be. I disagree with his approaches on both issues, but they were hardly hidden in some shady past and sprung on us because we’ve never been told who Barack Obama is.
You write: “If [Obama] were to propose taking over the United States and turning it into a socialist, Marxist utopia, he could not proceed any differently.”
That is just silly.
— Conor Friedersdorf · Aug 1, 02:59 PM · #
No, he’s not, and you’re a troll.
Mexican isn’t a race, and this is just the old “some of my best friends are black” attempt to deflect charges of racism.
— Chet · Aug 1, 03:52 PM · #
Chet, ‘mexican’ doesn’t have to be a race. To support or defeat charges of racism and xenophobia, ‘mexican’ just has to be a member of a different race than the accused. So you lose points on that.
You’re not very good at this, are you? :(
— Kristoffer V. Sargent · Aug 1, 04:31 PM · #
Marko, you mistake me.
I am not a lefty troll, i am a gloat troll.
I once thought Reihan walked on water.
My objective here is partly punishment and partly making sure they don’t scam n/e one else like they scammed meh.
But you are correct, I should just do the maths.
It should be simple to add bars to the Kos birfer bar chart that represent SAT/ACT scores by region.
Good idea!
— matoko_chan · Aug 1, 04:38 PM · #
Here’s a little pre-data.
1200 and counting.
Bourgie McCArthy, as interpreted by AllahP— birtherism is about Obama’s honesty, not where he was born.
Cliff’s notes for 3700 word McCarthy: yes he’s a lying nigger and he’s going to take all your stuff and give to other niggers. and plus you birfers aren’t insane [even though you really are.]
— matoko_chan · Aug 1, 04:51 PM · #
JD,
No one is calling you a racist, we are saying the birthers are motivated by racism. Unless you are a birther that doesn’t apply to you.
As for the rest of your nonsense, anyone who considers Obama’s policies to be socialism is clearly so ignorant about what actual socialism is that they have disqualified themselves from a serious discussion, go troll somewhere else.
— eric k · Aug 1, 05:28 PM · #
Simply knowing, or being related to, someone of a different race or nationality doesn’t make you not a racist. “Some of my best friends are black” is not evidence against racism, it’s a pretty transparent dodge.
— Chet · Aug 1, 08:19 PM · #
“Also, your comments are typical of what Hofstadter has dubbed “the paranoid style” and your own taunting of matoko_chan – referring to her as “Sudoku chum”, because God knows all those “Orientals” can be reduced to a few easily recognizable cultural artifacts (btw, why not Jackie_Chan, or martial-arts_chan, har har) – does indeed smack of racism and xenophobia.”
Marko,
Motoko_chan’s signature is continual recitation of the thesis statement that Republicans are people of subnormal intelligence. References to Sarah Palin and inclusion of the word ‘memetic’ are usual but not invariable. Misspellings and curios of phraseology are also her signature, perhaps the product of one to many bong hits. That he sticks a stiletto into her is unsurprising.— Art Deco · Aug 1, 08:24 PM · #
“As for the rest of your nonsense, anyone who considers Obama’s policies to be socialism is clearly so ignorant about what actual socialism is that they have disqualified themselves from a serious discussion, go troll somewhere else.”
Political terminology is conventional; the point is, in a word, to convey a more elaborate understanding. The use of the term ‘socialist’ has not, for about 90 years now, been limited to command economies. Nationalization of industry and extensive socialization of consumption and risk ARE properly described as ‘socialist’, they are just not, as jd suggests, inspired by Marxist conceptions of social relations.
— Art Deco · Aug 1, 08:37 PM · #
Art Deco,
Even by your definition there is nothing radical about Obama’s policies, he simply takes us closer to where we were in the 50s and 60s.
— eric k · Aug 1, 08:41 PM · #
Eric k,
State owned enterprises ca. 1960 were limited to the postal service, most water works, and some gas and electric delivery. Leaving aside custodial care (the asylum population was enormous), public provision of medical care was limited to veterans and public health service hospitals, supplemented by municipal hospitals in a selection of loci (e.g. Boston). If I am not mistaken, the public sector accounted (in 1940) for 19% of medical service provision by value, which at that time accounted for 4.5% of domestic product. Likely higher in 1960, but you are still looking at something well below the 44% share the public sector has today in the provision of medical care and skilled nursing. Medical insurance at that time was, if not a novelty, something that had been common in the populace at large for only about fifteen years or so; you had indemnity plans and (IIRC) you paid the doctor and then applied for re-imbursement from your insurer. As for the remainder of the welfare state, federal disability benefits were a novelty, having commenced only in 1957. THe demographic structure of the population was such that the burden of Social Security taxes was smaller and people also tended to retire later. You were in 1960 in the midst of the urban renewal craze and appended construction of public housing; ‘general relief’ payments, a program which has largely disappeared in this country, were still commonly offered; relief payments for single women with dependent children were not term-limited. These aspects of the welfare state have contracted in the intervening years. The commonality of union cards among private sector employees is much lower. The ratio of public expenditure to domestic product was about the same as it was prior to the chaos of the last year or so, but more oriented toward the military.
— Art Deco · Aug 2, 12:36 AM · #
the thesis statement that Republicans are people of subnormal intelligence
lies.
not subnormal, subaverage.
the left side of the bellcurve.
supporting data.
— matoko_chan · Aug 2, 01:07 AM · #
Your ‘supporting data’ is a poll of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Notable feature of their sample: 15% work for commercial employers (v. about 80% of the general population).
— Art Deco · Aug 2, 03:09 AM · #
Conor wrote:
Yes, you’ve said that before. And you keep repeating it. But where is my point wrong?
You are either pushing for more government control and less freedom or you’re not. It’s obvious to me which side Obama is on. How can you be so blind?
But if it makes you feel better just keep saying: “It can’t happen here.”
— jd · Aug 2, 03:12 AM · #
Art Deco, the reason this is a problem…. is that only 6% of scientists are republicans.
65% of people with post grad degrees are self declared democrats…and the slope is positive, meaning more every year.
who are the professors in colleges?
teaching research scientists and people with post-grad degrees.
so where do young college educated conservatives come from?
ans: they don’t.
oh course you doubt the polling…..conservatives always doubt the polling when it reveals something they don’t like…..but the polls were right on the election.
and you lost big.
— matoko_chan · Aug 2, 05:14 AM · #
Um, jd, your point is wrong because you refuse to admit the possibility of some ground between “what we have now” and “a socialist, Marxist utopia.”
Yes, Obama is arguing for more government control of health care. It does not logically follow that Obama wants to burn the Constitution and lead a Marxist revolution. That assertion requires facts not in evidence.
Furthermore, the existence of universal health care in nations such as Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Japan – absolutely none of which could be said to even remotely resemble a “socialist, Marxist utopia” – refutes your argument.
— Travis Mason-Bushman · Aug 2, 05:21 AM · #
The point about trying to call it socialist/Marxist is simply to call attention to the disastrous consequences of Obama’s policies. Call it what you want. It’s all about “command and control.” If we turn over our health care to the feds, this country as we know it will be forever changed. You are ignorant if you cannot see that. As to Australia, Germany, United Kingdom and Japan: I believe your argument then is: “It’s not so bad in those places.” Very convincing.
— jd · Aug 2, 12:39 PM · #
If you do not mind some friendly criticism, jd, references to ‘Marxism’ in an American political context are just non-sequitur. Thomas Sowell has spoken of the ‘vision of the anointed’ and Thomas Szasz of the ‘therapeutic state’, which do capture what is troublesome about prevailing notions of political economy and social policy in the Democratic Party.
— Art Deco · Aug 2, 05:19 PM · #
jd said “It’s so childish for the PRESIDENT to keep blaming his predecessor. But it’s typical of liberals; it’s always someone else’s fault. Except when they’re overseas, then it’s all America’s fault.”
1. What exactly is wrong with blaming your predecessor if that predecessor was actually at fault?
2. When is the last time ANY conservative did anything but blame everyone else for things going wrong?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 2, 06:46 PM · #
jd said “The point about trying to call it socialist/Marxist is simply to call attention to the disastrous consequences of Obama’s policies.”
As opposed to the disaterous consequences of George W. Bush’s policies?
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 2, 06:53 PM · #
“When is the last time ANY conservative did anything but blame everyone else for things going wrong?”
Mike, we have an adult citizen population of about 210 million of whom about a quarter follow public affairs to some degree. Roughly a third of these might qualify as ‘conservative’ according to some roughly conventional taxonomy. That would be about 17,000,000 people.
(While we are at it, Mr. Obama’s predecessor did not sabotage attempts to reform accounting practices and risk assessment at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Barney Frank did that), is not responsible (after 20 January) for the refusal to countenance debt-for-equity swaps to recapitalize Citigroup et al., is not responsible for subordinating public policy to the interests of either the United Auto Workers, or the various public employee unions, or PIMCO, or Goldman, Sachs; is not responsible for crafting the stimulus legislation so as to be ineffectual during the most salient time frame, and is not responsible for putting a creature like Rahm Emmanuel in a position of influence).
— Art Deco · Aug 2, 07:26 PM · #
McCarthy argued that Obama ought to release his full birth record, not that it was deeply urgent or a matter of national security. Friedersdorf is busy proving that it isn’t urgent or deeply important; Talking past the issue.
Again, McCarthy was showing the benefits of transparency, Friedersdorf is showing us we’d survive without it.
Also, I think that the birther issue is revenge against Bush Derangement Syndrome, or maybe an imitation of it.
— Fred2 · Aug 2, 08:57 PM · #
“Mike, we have an adult citizen population of about 210 million of whom about a quarter follow public affairs to some degree. Roughly a third of these might qualify as ‘conservative’ according to some roughly conventional taxonomy. That would be about 17,000,000 people.”
Please leave the sophistry at home, Art. I think it’s pretty clear that when the phrase “ANY conservative” is used in this context it is not meant to literally apply to each conservative-leaning person in the U.S., but is instead a bit of hyperbole used to emphasize how ridiculous it is for conservatives to criticize Obama for blaming things on the Bush II administration when the right wing engages in even worse blame shifting. That’s something you demonstrate quite clearly in listing things wihich George W. Bush is supposedly not responsible for, as though ANY of those things are equal counterweights to completely destroying the federal budget discipline it took 20 years and multiple administrations to achive, a war in Iraq that wasted thousand of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars as well as little things like spying on Americans without warrants and torturing prisoners.
Mike
— MBunge · Aug 2, 10:58 PM · #
Take a pill, Mike. If you are looking at two different social groups, you’re likely to find some systemic differences. The content analysis you would have to do to ascertain one group or another is more possessed of certain mundane character flaws would be quite a challenge and it is best not to invest too much spleen in such propositions.
The current administration ‘owns’ a great share of our economic predicament. Not to excuse bad policy choices of the previous administration, but things being the way they are, for the administration to make all that much of them would be bad form. We will have ample time for post-mortems, of both administrations, of course.
I cannot say I hold much by your comparative judgments and priorities, but that’s the way it goes in these discussions.
— Art Deco · Aug 3, 12:21 AM · #
Look Conor……its this simple.
Birtherism isn’t about where Obama was born.
Birtherism is just a way of shouting nigger without using the n-word.
That is why you can show the base all the proof in the world….and they won’t ever accept it.
They will say its faked, or bought out.
Unless you can convince the base Obama isn’t a nigger, its simply a waste of spacetime.
Might as well do what Schwenkler advocates, and wait for the base to “come around”.
— matoko_chan · Aug 3, 06:32 PM · #
Go to your room.
— Art Deco · Aug 3, 09:10 PM · #
A good example of the kind of “secrecy” that Obama used during the campaign is going on right now. There is controversy because another video of him speaking truth to the powerless has turned up: Drudge has a video showing Obama wholeheartedly endorsing a single-payer system. But now he denies it, and he sends out his minions to deny it. That is the kind of secrecy I’m talking about. His past record bears no resemblance to the things he says today. So yes, there is something kind of “super secret” about the guy: he is a true believer in hiding.
I would add one thing, regarding the silliness of accusing Obama of being a socialist. This is what Khrushchev said: (echoing Lenin and Stalin and many others)
We’ve been following that path for many years and getting more and more socialism. It will take much to bring down this gigantic and resilient capitalist system, but nationalization of health care would be the biggest step, by far, in the wrong direction.
— jd · Aug 4, 09:24 PM · #
We always knew he wanted single-payer. We also know that single-payer is untenable in the current congress. Not exactly a “secret.”
— Chet · Aug 5, 02:19 AM · #