Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

[Master Shake]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Master Shake has been a Certified Industrial Hygienist (CIH) since 1997 and has worked in the field of safety and environmental health since 1989. In addition to overseeing asbestos abatement projects for his employer, he has also taken graduate level courses in Environmental Toxicology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, as well as taught classes there on Indoor Air Quality.

When Mr. (Ms.?) Mesyn posts that fiberglass and drywall are “just as bad as” asbestos, and then follows up with the comment that just because they don’t cause mesothelioma doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad as asbestos, well, that statement speaks for itself and what it says is: I have no idea what I’m talking about.

Is fiberglass or any inhalable particulate harmless? Of course not. But the degree of harm depends on many things including concentration, duration of exposure, size of the particulate, particle morphology, recovery time (period between non-exposure), as well as factors such as individual susceptibility and whether or not the person smokes or has other medical conditions. Asbestos, especially amosite and crocidolite >>> fiberglass >> drywall (unless we’re talking the Chinese stuff).

As far as being hateful and irrational goes, that’s certainly a case of pot calling kettle coming from you.

[don]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

If not already obvious, 2010 has made clear that the US government does not care a whit for the opinions of citizens. The TSA is unequivocal that it will reach no accommodation with Americans other than the violations of their persons that it imposes by its unaccountable power. As for public opposition to war, the Associated Press reported on December 16 that “Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the U.S. can’t let public opinion sway its commitment to Afghanistan.” Gates stated bluntly what has been known for some time: the idea is passe that government in a democracy serves the will of the people. If this quaint notion is still found in civics books, it will soon be edited out.

In Gag Rule, a masterful account of the suppression of dissent and the stifling of democracy, Lewis H. Lapham writes that candor is a necessary virtue if democracies are to survive their follies and crimes. But where in America today can candor be found? Certainly not in the councils of government. Attorney General John Ashcroft complained of candor-mongers to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Americans who insist on speaking their minds, Ashcroft declared, “scare people with phantoms of lost liberty,” “aid terrorists,” diminish our resolve,” and “give ammunition to America’s enemies.”

As the Department of Justice (sic) sees it, when the ACLU defends habeas corpus it is defending the ability of terrorists to blow up Americans.

Neither is candor a trait in which the American media finds comfort. The neoconservative press functions as propaganda ministry for hegemonic American empire, and the “liberal” New York Times serves the same master. It was the New York Times that gave credence to the Bush regime’s lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and it was the New York Times that guaranteed Bush’s re-election by spiking the story that Bush was committing felonies by spying on Americans without obtaining warrants. Conservatives rant about the “liberal media” as if it were a vast subversive force, but they owe their beloved wars and coverups of the Bush regime to the New York Times.

With truth the declared enemy of the fantasy world in which the government, media, and public reside, the nation has turned on whistleblowers. Bradley Manning, who allegedly provided the media with the video made by US troops of their wanton, fun-filled slaughter of newsmen and civilians, has been abused in solitary confinement for six months. Murdering civilians is a war crime, and as General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the National Press Club on February 17, 2006, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral” and to make such orders known. If Manning is the source of the leak, he has been wrongfully imprisoned for meeting his military responsibility. The media have yet to make the point that the person who reported the crime, not the persons who committed it, is the one who has been imprisoned, and without a trial.

The lawlessness of the US government, which has been creeping up on us for decades, broke into a full gallop in the years of the Bush/Cheney/Obama regimes. Today the government operates above the law, yet maintains that it is a democracy bringing the same to Muslims by force of arms, only briefly being sidetracked by sponsoring a military coup against democracy in Honduras and attempting to overthrow the democratic government in Venezuela.

As 2011 dawns, public discourse in America has the country primed for a fascist dictatorship.The situation will be worse by 2012. The most uncomfortable truth that emerges from the WikiLeaks saga is that American public discourse consists of cries for revenge against those who tell us truths. The vicious mendacity of the US government knows no restraint. Whether or not international law can save Julian Assange from the clutches of the Americans or death by a government black ops unit, both executive and legislative branches are working assiduously to establish the National Security State as the highest value and truth as its greatest enemy.

America’s future is the world of Winston Smith.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12282010.html

[DSpencer]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Why would such a system be amoral to you? How does it harm you?

Because I believe in property rights. If a homeless person asks for your wallet/purse, keys, and atm number, do you give it to them? Is there a difference between what belongs to you and what belongs to them? If Barack Obama or John Boehner tells you to give them these things, does it change who it belongs to?

It harms me, quite obviously, by taking what is mine against my will so that someone else can benefit from it.

Just because I don't live a life of poverty and/or donate all my money to charity doesn't invalidate my point, because you know, we're not talking about the United States of Mesyn191 now are we? We're talking about what the US could and should do.

Where do your morals originate? What kind of moral system would say that your country should help people, but you as an individual have no responsibility to do so. It's preposterous. This is saying that 0+0=2. That you and I individually have no obligation to help, but as a group we do.

Ask yourself:
If you could do more to help those in need, why don't you? Is it because you can't live up to your own morals? If so, why should you expect others to live up to them? Or is it because if you really think about, deep down inside, you don't actually believe that it's amoral to have cable TV/a big house/nice clothes or whatever your personal luxury is while somebody eats out of the trash or a child dies of hunger in Ethiopia?

Any of the Scandinavian countries and some of the western European countries like France. You can google the crime rates easily enough, other more detailed info. is harder to find though.

Really? Well you better head over to Wikipedia for some edits because according to some idiot editor, 6.1% of the population in France is below the poverty line and they've even got a picture of a homeless man!

Guy is damn near the same as Bush for all practical intents and purposes

In an attempt to be less disagreeable. I fully agree with this.

[c1ue]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Leaving aside the ideological issues, I will repeat what others have said - including EJ:

Universal health care is not a right, but it is a clear factor in unleashing the potential of an entire populace.

Much as free public education has its down sides, nonetheless the overall benefit to society is without question. A better educated populace is more able to identify and leverage those members who can then use their capabilities to the betterment of all - including themselves.

Equally so some minimum safety net of health care would enable the populace to better able to plan its future and to withstand unanticipated shocks.

The unfortunately reality is that most of those who oppose such a plan primarily do so because they feel there would be a loss of benefits and/or increase in costs.

And this is all true - at least during any individual's given period of productive labor.

But the true benefits of a 'public option' are in the times when there isn't productive labor - for many reasons including laziness but also including sector employment collapse; for those times when labor is impossible - too young or too old; for those times when partial employment is simply insufficient to pay private health care - almost all minimum wage jobs.

What then is the true systemic cost a failure to provide a 'public option' - even to a 25 year old engineer - over his full lifetime?

While the American Dream dictates we all retire rich, this simply isn't reality.

[DSpencer]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Regarding what c1ue said:

It seems like today we have a mixed system that gives us few of the benefits of either public or private health care.

This makes for a very difficult debate when the options are listed as:

1. Maintain current system complete with corporate bought legislation, mix of private public system, inefficiencies of government run programs, insane tax laws, etc.
2. Universal Health Care

Or I suppose 3. which is Obamacare: continue catering to special interests, add ridiculous complexity to an already confusing system, create illogical scenarios of insuring those who are already sick, and accomplish little to nothing meaningfully positive on the whole.

Any other ideas are apparently off limits.

Are there any other countries that give employers tax breaks for insurance but not individuals? Are there any other countries where health insurance companies have such extensive judicial protection? According to wikipedia:
"Although the United States is only 5% of the world's population, it accounts for 36% of worldwide research and development of pharmaceutical drugs." Does the rest of the world benefit from drugs from research paid for by our high prices? Is this true of other forms of research as well? If the whole world has Universal Health Care will there be a reduction in new technologies?

[shiny!]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Yes, Germany and the EU spend less per capita on health care than we do, and we should seriously try to learn from them. For us to change would require our corrupt leaders to disentangle themselves from the purse strings of Big Pharma, and frankly I'm not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But how much of their GDP do the Germans and the EU nations spend on defense? What percentage of their tax revenues do they spend on defense? Defense of themselves PLUS defense of other countries?

I remember reading about the outcries from German towns when we wanted to close some of our military bases there. They complained bitterly that if we closed our bases we would hurt their economies!

The U.S. wastes billions policing of the world, drawing the derision of nations who are happy to spend their tax revenues on health care and cradle-to-grave welfare, while we bankrupt ourselves and put our young people on the line to defend them. We are constantly being told to stop meddling in other countries' affairs but whenever there is a crisis we're told that we aren't doing enough to help. At least, that's the way it looks from my perspective.

We are in countries that don't want us, and I can't say I blame them. I wouldn't want to live in an occupied country either. We should get out of those countries now. (I don't think the monied interests in Military Industrial Complex want that, though.)

IMO we should pull our military out of every country in the world immediately. Put our troops to work protecting our own borders and ports instead, and use the money we save for the people in our own country. Pay down our debt or lower our taxes, or both. Let all the socialist utopias, the Saudis, Israel and everybody else foot the entire bill for their own defense and then see how far their money goes.

While we're at it, France could start by paying us back for our help in WWII. In gold.

This is an emotional rant. If anyone wants to point out any factual errors I've made, I sincerely and humbly welcome the correction.

[mesyn191]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

When Mr. (Ms.?) Mesyn posts that fiberglass and drywall are “just as bad as” asbestos, and then follows up with the comment that just because they don’t cause mesothelioma doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad as asbestos, well, that statement speaks for itself and what it says is: I have no idea what I’m talking about.

You need to improve your reading comprehension and read a bit more. Cancer is just as bad as mesothelioma, its gonna kill you.

[mesyn191]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Because I believe in property rights.

OK but how would a program that everyone would pay into and benefit from violate your property rights? Do you also think taxes violate your property rights? Who is gonna pay for the police, roads, and schools do you think?

Where do your morals originate? What kind of moral system would say that your country should help people, but you as an individual have no responsibility to do so.

How does not donating all I own mean I think I have no individual responsibility?

If you could do more to help those in need, why don't you?

Because I'm not a country with the resources to do that and because we still aren't talking about me personally but about what the whole country should do? Keep it on topic instead of using logical fallacies.

Really? Well you better head over to Wikipedia for some edits because according to some idiot editor, 6.1% of the population in France is below the poverty line and they've even got a picture of a homeless man!

Not to be pedantic I did say "virtually". Their "poor" are generally better off than ours since they have access to medical care and better social services.

In an attempt to be less disagreeable. I fully agree with this.

Yea sometimes I forget to tone it down during the quote wars, sorry if I come off sounding like a dick at times.

[zmas28]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

sorry if I come off sounding like a dick at times.

I feel you have the lowest dick index in this thread.
No implications for the other posters

[touchring]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

It is for this reason that you should support Wikileaks. Wikileaks uncovers conspiracies and reduce the chance or need for war.

Yes, Germany and the EU spend less per capita on health care than we do, and we should seriously try to learn from them. For us to change would require our corrupt leaders to disentangle themselves from the purse strings of Big Pharma, and frankly I'm not holding my breath for that to ever happen.

But how much of their GDP do the Germans and the EU nations spend on defense? What percentage of their tax revenues do they spend on defense? Defense of themselves PLUS defense of other countries?

I remember reading about the outcries from German towns when we wanted to close some of our military bases there. They complained bitterly that if we closed our bases we would hurt their economies!

[bagginz]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

While we're at it, France could start by paying us back for our help in WWII. In gold.

Ah, you Americans have such short memories

The French Contribution to the American War of Independence


"The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces.

France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase. French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British. "

"From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy.

A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.
At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army.

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory."


I'd say you were about even by now. The Normandy invasion was the returning of a favour.

[jpatter666]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

Ah, you Americans have such short memories

The French Contribution to the American War of Independence

"The French extended considerable financial support to the Congressional forces.

France also supplied vital military arms and supplies, and loaned money to pay for their purchase. French military aid was also a decisive factor in the American victory. French land and sea forces fought on the side of the American colonists against the British. "

"From the perspective of the American Revolution, however, the high point of French support is the landing of five battalions of French infantry and artillery in Rhode Island in 1780. In 1781, these French troops under the command of Count Rochambeau marched south to Virginia where they joined Continental forces under Washington and Lafayette. Cornwallis, encamped on the Yorktown peninsula, hoped to be rescued by the British navy.

A French fleet under the command of Admiral DeGrasse intercepted and, after a fierce battle lasting several days, defeated the British fleet and forced it to withdraw. This left the French navy to land heavy siege cannon and other supplies and trapped Cornwallis on the Yorktown peninsula.
At that point, the defeat of Cornwallis was essentially a matter of time. On September 14, 1781, the French and Continental armies completed their 700 mile march and soon thereafter laid siege to the British positions. After a number of weeks and several brief but intense engagements, Cornwallis, besieged on the peninsula by the large and well-equipped French-American army, and stricken by dysentery, determined to surrender his army.

George Woodbridge summed up the Yorktown campaign in the following words: "The strategy of the campaign was Rochambeau’s; the French fleet was there as a result of his arrangements; the tactics of the battle were his; the American army was present because he had lent money to Washington; in total naval and military participants the French outnumbered the Americans between three and four to one. Yorktown was Rochambeau’s victory."


I'd say you were about even by now. The Normandy invasion was the returning of a favour.

Tsk, tsk! "Lafayette, we are here!" was WWI!

Normandy put the balance back on the US side. ;-)

Actually, I'm reading _Lords of Finance_ about the banking crisis before (and during) the Great Depression and reparations and war loan repayments were a major factor in it all.

[Master Shake]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

You need to improve your reading comprehension and read a bit more. Cancer is just as bad as mesothelioma, its gonna kill you.

One, mesothelioma is a form of cancer (of the pleural cavity) and asbestos also causes lung cancer. It is a known human carcinogen. Neither fiberglass, nor drywall is considered a known human carcinogen.

From OSHA:

There is insufficient evidence that synthetic mineral fibers cause respiratory disease in humans. Results from animal experiments have led to conservative classifications of certain synthetic mineral fibers as possible human carcinogens. Specifically, insulation glass wool, continuous glass filament, rock (stone) wool, and slag wool are not classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans.

[c1ue]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

It is for this reason that you should support Wikileaks. Wikileaks uncovers conspiracies and reduce the chance or need for war.

Huh? Where did you get this meme from?

What conspiracy has Wikileaks uncovered thus far?

Not a single thing I've seen is something unexpected or already known.

Assange himself out and out states that he edits the material before release, and the inclusion of MSM entities like the New York Times, the Economist, and what not are even worse signs of Wikileaks 'independence'

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Why The Germans Think Americans Are Insane

OK but how would a program that everyone would pay into and benefit from violate your property rights? Do you also think taxes violate your property rights? Who is gonna pay for the police, roads, and schools do you think?

Are you high, or stupid? You can't compare welfare benefits-- i.e., wealth transfers-- to public services like roads and police. The difference should be obvious.

How does not donating all I own mean I think I have no individual responsibility?

Who said you had to donate "all I own"? Just donate whatever you think is right. But don't use the power of the state to FORCE me to donate ANYTHING. What the hell is wrong with you? Why can't f*cking liberals understand this simple concept???

Because I'm not a country with the resources to do that and because we still aren't talking about me personally but about what the whole country should do? Keep it on topic instead of using logical fallacies.

WHAT THE F*CK. Who, exactly, is "the whole country"? The country is made up of INDIVIDUALS. If you, as an individual, feel like you need to do something, THEN DO IT. BUT DO NOT MAKE ME DO SOMETHING THAT I MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO DO.

Not to be pedantic I did say "virtually". Their "poor" are generally better off than ours since they have access to medical care and better social services.

Really? How, exactly, are you so sure about this?