Amazon.com Widgets

« The Story of Suzie | Main | Just Because I Can »

Why?

Nathan says the best parts are from 3:29-7:27)


 

Comments

Great to finally find the video. What a segment. Thanks for posting this so quickly!

The hell with Obama -- I want this guy to be president.

I second that.

Not only is he very eloquent, he has a valid point to make and makes it in a non effensive way.

Even the presenters are getting to see his point of view.

What a frustrating conversation. Scarborough can't name a single concrete thing that the health insurance brings to health care. He just starts mumbling about free enterprise and fundamental ideological differences. On the other hand, it took Weiner until 10 minutes in to finally say that he isn't advocating the "takeover of all healthcare" - he's talking about government eliminating the insurance middleman.

We don't (yet) have serious conversations about how insurance companies would be desirable as middlemen in contracting for police or fire protection. Why the hell do we need insurance companies in health care?

And people wonder why America keeps falling victim to the likes of Enron and Bernie Madoff. PT Barnum was right.

Also, is that blonde woman in the middle alive? I see some movement but that could just be from Scarborough bumping the table.

We don't (yet) have serious conversations about how insurance companies would be desirable as middlemen in contracting for police or fire protection. Why the hell do we need insurance companies in health care?

That's a good way of putting it, Tim. Too bad Obama doesn't say things like that.

I so agree. I serious discussion regarding the role insurance companies play is missing. I think everyone needs to get back to basics before we can trace what went wrong and where.

This is really scary.

In the time of the New Deal and LBJ it was just a question of how to provide services that can't be provided by a private system. There was some opposition, but in the end reason won out and the country got back to making money with other industries. And the world didn't end.

But now, after some thirty or forty years of reaganistic brainwashing, grown-up, sane persons with good education are not able anymore to even c o m p r e h e n d the question: Why do we need private insurers in health care? Talking about medicare being bancrupt, Joe? The health care system is simply not bancrupt because it doesn't have to insure everybody. It "outsources" bancrupcies to the uninsured. Problem solved.

But Scarborough isn't even able to mentally go there. I don't think it's an act, you know. He is just stunned.

And that's scary.

"That's a strange thing to say; most people don't like their insurance company."

Wow, that is a strange thing to say.

this guy weiner is really, really smart and also really, really right. but scarborough had one good point- no matter how smart or right he is, this is the kind of talk that scares the hell out of the teabaggers. obama seems to be trying to steer a middle course (of course). i don't envy him.

Middle course between sane and crazy is still half-crazy. But what's the middle course between sane and über-freaking-nuts?

um, me?

i'm sort of serious about this. i can't help the fact that at least half the world is "uber-freaking nuts", but we can't just kill them. compromise, for humanists anyway, is a necessity.

i can't help the fact that at least half the world is "uber-freaking nuts" ... compromise, for humanists anyway, is a necessity.

Is it really a compromise if only one side does it? The "uber-freaking nuts" side isn't going to compromise, isn't going to have an honest debate, and doesn't believe in "live and let live" never mind any sort of actual freedom. Furthermore, the "nuts" believe in censorship and stifling dissent, and have a dangerous enthusiasm for guns and violence.

And they're performing sick mockeries of the Nuremburg Rally, the clueless victims of a disgusting joke. They are content to wave the face of humanity's deepest shame at the targets of their hate, because they don't look at themselves in the mirror.

I find it ironic that you say "we can't just kill them", as if that commonly comes to mind as a solution to social problems. No, this social problem can only be solved by education, enlightenment. A process that has taken generations and will likely take generations more.

Once both sides are able to have a reasoned debate, only then can we talk about compromises.

ok, i see your point, i think, but is still disagree.

Once both sides are able to have a reasoned debate, only then can we talk about compromises.

i happen to think just the opposite. compromise is something that only gets brought up 99% of the time when one party is being held down and having their head repeatedly smashed into the sidewalk. at this point the "smasher" is usually unwilling to consider it. compromise should always be considered before it gets to that.

as long as we're both going to follow godwins law, i should point out that the nazis were eminently reasonable. and educated, and cultured, and blah fucking blah. reason, or even reasonableness doesn't make one a decent person. live and let live does, as you said. those nutjobs, like it or not, aren't going to go away and need to be accomodated. someone should explain to them that american healthcare is already a compromise between public and private, and always will be. and furthermore if they love corporations so much, they should be shown how the u.s. gov't is really just a big corporation anyway. i think a lot of them already understand this, but are conveniently ignoring it to push their essentially racist paranoid agenda.

it's confusing because they're so stupid, i know. but since like i said killing them isn't an option, and education as per your suggestion isn't the problem (they have access to education), compromise seems...reasonable.

btw, i thought this:

They are content to wave the face of humanity's deepest shame at the targets of their hate, because they don't look at themselves in the mirror.

was both poetically well-put and true- my favorite combination after "funny and true".

Replying to myself because these columns are getting too narrow.

i should point out that the nazis were eminently reasonable.

Say what?

reason, or even reasonableness doesn't make one a decent person.

If not, then what does? "Morality" as dictated by so-and-so? I mean, manners and customs are one thing (eg. there is nothing objectively wrong with propositioning a stranger for sex, but that doesn't mean you can do it without being a jerk) but that's just the spare change. I think it's pretty universal that mass-murder and making war across an entire continent are not things that "eminently reasonable" people do. Only crazy, stupid fucks.

The Nazis were racist, dogmatic, and irrational. An example of this was their attempts to invalidate Einstein's theories not because the theories were technically incorrect, but because they were "Jewish Science".

So I stand by my assertion that people such as the Nazis can not be reasoned with, never mind compromised with; and this applies to the less conspicuous variants of "uber-freaking nuts" as well.

Keep in mind, I meant "education" in a broad sense; teaching people to apply Reason and Logic to their day-to-day lives, not just when it comes to finding oil (like those young-earth creationist geologists I've heard mentioned) or building weapons (the Nazis were pretty good at this, but that doesn't make them "reasonable!")

i think you were saying that a "live and let live" approach is what makes a decent person, and i agree. but it's pretty easy to show that, depending on circumstance, "live and let live" is not necessarily reasonable. the old saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies. i think you yourself are saying so when drawing the line with the wingnuts and comparing them to nazis.

where to draw the line, as always, is the question, and it can't really be answered with "reason". sometimes you just have to know where you stand.

nazi racism, btw, might have been rooted in primitive emotion but it was certainly rationalized using "science", "reason", "history" and all sorts of things we think of as making sense. but the definition of those things changes with time. the german jews thought it was reasonable that the storm of racism would pass, as it had in the past and they should just wait it out. in some sense they died as a result of their own "reasonableness", as well as the "reasonableness" of the nazis and their "scientifically proven" racism.

frenetic, i'm sure you hate the fucking nazis as much as i do. if i thought your opposition to them was entirely based on reason and logic, i would consider you greatly flawed as an ally in this matter. your hatred, like mine, is viceral. if it were purely logic-based, you could be talked out of it by someone smarter than you, simply put. this is what happened to the german people, and the german jews as well. they were logically convinced that untenable principles were the right way to go.

i think it behooves all of us to admit that our dislike of wingnuts is personal. once we admit that, we can use reason to help draw that line. but never forget that the line is drawn out of much more primitive instincts than reason.

Once again, going to avoid insane levels of post nesting.

but it's pretty easy to show that, depending on circumstance, "live and let live" is not necessarily reasonable. the old saying that "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose" applies.

Your point is not entirely clear to me, but I think you're invoking an edge case here: people who are irrational, but do not want to censor, spy, set up a police state, start wars, or murder. I think its safe to say that in today's current climate such people account for a tiny minority of the crazies, whereas a vast majority are pro-war, anti-gay-marriage, racist, think 30% overhead on healthcare is acceptable while 50 million Americans' lives are at risk, etc.

Practically speaking, this edge case is a non-issue.

nazi racism, btw, might have been rooted in primitive emotion but it was certainly rationalized using "science"...

Just because something is called science doesn't mean it is. Again, just look at the creationists. Frankly I don't care how stupid ideas are "rationalized". They're still stupid, illogical, irrational.

if it were purely logic-based, you could be talked out of it by someone smarter than you, simply put.

I don't have any emotional investment in the fact that 2+2=4. You're saying someone who is smarter than me could talk me into thinking 2+2=5? And on the other hand, I am more likely to be manipulated by skillful emotional appeals than I am by some hypothetical super-genius twisting logic so that something stupid (eg. starting a war) would seem like a good idea. (But wars and violence just serve to raise the stakes until there is mutually assured destruction. When theft became punishable by death in Victorian Britain, murder increased tenfold. 2+2=4.)

you certainly could be talked into starting a war. it would only be necessary to convince you (logically, of course) that the "enemy" was "just like the nazis".

i'm just saying we should be mighty mighty careful where we draw this particular line. if you're saying you would never, ever draw such a line no matter what, i take my hat off to you as a true pacifist. but you dont' sound like one.

i'm sure i don't need to mention (but i will anyway) that your comparison of moral questions to mathematics doesn't work. how's this:

the world population in 1939 minus 60000000 jews equals paradise.

i'm assuming that particular equation doesn't work for you either, so i hope you see my point.

you certainly could be talked into starting a war.

No, I couldn't, not in the sense of being the one commencing the violence.

i'm just saying we should be mighty mighty careful where we draw this particular line. ...

I am a pacifist up to a very obvious, very logical line. One that I found was thrown into stark relief when Ghandi was asked about a non-violent solution to (that perennial example) of the Nazi persecution of Jews. The only suggestion he could come up with was that the Jews should commit mass ritual suicide. So... obviously the area where pacifism is the logical course ends somewhere just behind that point.

Anyways, the basis for the logic is very simple: human life should be preserved, suffering and death avoided. The simplest (but far from the only) explanation for this tenet is that I don't want to suffer or die, so it's not in my interest to be party to starting any negative-sum games that put me at risk of that!

the world population in 1939 minus 60000000 jews equals paradise

I don't follow you at all. Your "equation" isn't math at all, just obvious nonsense. If anything, it seems to disprove your assertion that logic (in the scope I outlined previously) can somehow be subverted to despicable ends. Furthermore, you have not addressed the fact that emotional judgements are even more susceptible to manipulation.

you have not addressed the fact that emotional judgements are even more susceptible to manipulation.

i didn't realize that you had made this point before. i can only say that i strongly disagree. my only "proof" is personal experience, with myself and other humans. logic is too often a tool justify emotionally-based convictions. i think it's called "rhetoric".

i have an idea. i'm dying to see the new tarentino movie "inglourious basterds". it hasn't been released in israel yet. i'm not going to ask my girlfriend to download it for me, as i usually would. i want to see those nazis get scalped on the big screen (or what passes for a big screen these days) and i want to see it with an israeli/jewish audience. how about if you see the movie and when we've both seen it we'll make a thread about it on the 1gm forum and talk about line-drawing.

i think our positions on the use of force vs. ghandiesque pacificim are in accord. but you want to say this is a logical position, and i disagree.

the basis for the logic is very simple: human life should be preserved, suffering and death avoided.

this position, which i fully agree with, is not a logical one. it has nothing to do with logic, unless you want to talk about "karma" and how being nice yourself will make other people treat you nicely. it's not logic- it's a belief.

Surely you aren't trying to postulate some sort of mastermind villain who can put forth a full logical argument for a violent course of action that contains a flaw subtle enough for an educated, attentative person to be fooled, but significant enough to cause a humanitarian catastrophe if that course of action were implemented?

oh, yes. yes i am. the fact that lunatic fringe evangelicals also believe this- they call it the antichrist- doesn't change the fact that such characters and their dupes exist.

not as part of the argument but just for fun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqE8RfWoHZo

oh, yes. yes i am. ... they call it the antichrist

Hmm. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree then.

this position, which i fully agree with, is not a logical one.

Care to show me the error in the logic I used to (logically) justify that position?

they were logically convinced that untenable principles were the right way to go.

From what I've seen of Nuremburg Rallies and all that madness, I didn't see a whole lot of "logic" going on. Just emotional appeals and people getting riled up by the strutting Alpha Males. You're seriously saying these people had the most neurons firing in their frontal lobes? I'd thought it was pretty obvious that the Nazis were all about the limbic system. I mean, they persecuted intellectuals in addition to ethnic minorities. That should tell you something about what they thought about "logic".

Also, "untenable principles"? What made the principles untenable? According to you, not "logic", but that's certainly what is implied, in which case your statement is contradictory.

"Let's kill these ethnic minorities and take over Europe", was followed by nationalistic, tribalistic fearmongering, not any sort of remotely rational argument. Logic wouldn't have gone over very well! But a little martial music, some boldly colored banners, some ranting and raving...? Boom, off to hell we go!

such characters and their dupes exist.

Non-fictional examples? None come to my mind, whereas it seems to me that emotional appeals seem to be the universally-used secret sauce to get a suitable fraction of the population to go along with uber-freaking craziness.

* * *

Or we could agree that our philosophical foundations differ. For example, I do not "hate" the Nazis beyond a cultural enthusiasm for the idea of the righteous smiting evil. No, ultimately I oppose Nazis and their ilk on a more logical basis. Some might consider that "cold", but personally, I believe such thinking gives my opposition to such evils a zenlike purity.

i can see you're trying to force me to lay out the logical basis of the nazis "program for world improvement". i don't want to do this, anymore than i want to dress up as micky mouse to prove to you that he is attractive to children for logical reasons. you can do your own research on these things without me having to step into the shoes of the manipulators.

the idea that your life and comfort, or human life and comfort as a whole is valuable is not a logical position. it's a belief, an assumption. it's encoded in our dna, it has nothing to do with logic. the nazis also believed this, and they used logic and science to "prove" that human life and comfort would be greatly improved if they were put in charge of the "purification" of the human race, even (and especially) if they took this role by force. they also believed in justice, just like you and i do. they used facts, like the unjust treatment of the german people after ww1, to bolster their position.

the nuremburg rallies weren't used to convince, rather to justify and encourage. the convincing took place in german universities after ww1. those universities were, and still are recognized by many thoughtful, educated and intelligent people as the best in the world.

"untenable principles"? What made the principles untenable? According to you, not "logic", but that's certainly what is implied, in which case your statement is contradictory.

good point. maybe we should both look up untenable. i meant unsustainable or unworkable. something easily proved by subsequent events.

Non-fictional examples? None come to my mind

your own gov't, assuming you're either american or european, is even now putting forth the logical argument that dialogue and appeasement is the best approach vis-a-vis iran and the muslim fundamentalists. when and if this policy blows up in our faces (literally and in a big way), would you then admit (assuming you survive) that this was the best approach?

sorry, i meant CLAIM that this was the best approach.

i can see you're trying to force me to lay out the logical basis of the nazis "program for world improvement".

No I'm not, don't be silly. I am well aware of what the claimed logical basis is, and anyone who is not a moron (or a depressed and deluded post-WWI German) can see that it's full of holes. Just because nutty propaganda is written in structured German (or English, etc) does not mean it has a "logical basis". It means someone took the time to make it look as convincing as possible (ie. the goal was to produce propaganda). A contemporary comparison would be the "science" put out by creationists. Most educated people see that as illogical nonsense too, with no "logical basis".

the nuremburg rallies weren't used to convince, rather to justify and encourage. the convincing took place in german universities after ww1.

I see a bit of semantic acrobatics in there, and I don't think you can justify emphasizing the universities as opposed to the far more inclusive (and conspicuous) public displays of nationalism. Furthermore I disagree with your interpretation of the history, and even if the university argument held any water, an argument from authority does not prove that a (Nazi) argument is logically valid.

something easily proved by subsequent events. ... would you then admit (assuming you survive) that this was the best approach?

We're talking about logical arguments based on existing facts, not about assimilating new empirical data. Besides, we've already let the Nazis into this discussion, do you really want to throw Muslim fundamentalists into the mix?

it's a belief, an assumption. it's encoded in our dna, it has nothing to do with logic.

Just like science is a "belief", right? I was waiting for this to fall into a philosophical sinkhole. If you want to turn this into a discussion about what is "real" and what is a "belief", count me out.

Er, the intermediate reasoning in that last point didn't come out, and I suspect you won't make the leap yourself.

Anyways, you almost said it yourself, "it's encoded in our dna". DNA is a molecule that self-replicates, part of the natural functioning of matter on a planet such as Earth, so human survival is... okay, do I really need to connect all the dots here? I'm talking about the Anthropic Principle. And if you want to argue against it (or against its applicability to the argument at issue), you can go down that particular rabbit-hole without me, because that's heading into dancing angels territory.

x is bad for humans. we are humans. therefore x is bad for us.

the problem is always in the premise, not the logic itself. the premise can be worked into an instinctual/emotional bogeyman, as you say. but the logic remains inviolate.

whether or not x is actually bad for humans, or whether or not you are actually human may be arguable. science and religion have both been very useful in settling such arguments to the satisfaction of large groups of bloodthirsty cretin who are convinced, logically and scientifically, that they are human.

so i maintain: the wingnuts are after money, not blood. by my definition this makes them "human, all too human" and therefore there is no shame in compromising with them.

whether or not x is actually bad for humans, or whether or not you are actually human may be arguable.

...what? Next you'll be arguing that black is white, and get us all killed at the next zebra crossing. And we've gotten so far off the original point: that you think Nazi policies - or other such ideological nonsense - are logically correct and consistent, and I think otherwise...

For me, this discussion has run its course. Thanks for the chat.

you have more patience than most. it is i who should thank you, good sir/madam/intersexual. a worthy and unflappable opponent is hard to find for one as contentious as i. cheerio.

I don't have any emotional investment in the fact that 2+2=4.

maybe so, maybe not. do you have any emotional investment in the idea that 2 parallel lines will never meet? if so, i hope you never meet a euclidian.

Is the woman just there for decoration??

The two points that I kept wishing he would make are the comparison of (increased) govt intervention in health care to say, the "socialist", "can't opt out" public education system we've embraced for over a century.

Second, Scarborough's repeated pike against medicare "bankruptcy" was never rebutted with the fact that it is simply inadequately funded by our (morally) bankrupt legislators.

I think someone needs to really make clear that not everything that is public is socialist.

Socialized highways or police and fire protection. The socialized military? The idea is only applied by old school folks that seem to think they are losing power. It seems to be more a fear that their resources are going to other people. People that they don't like.

Roads are capitalist because they drive on them and public transit is socialist because those other people ride on it.

The word itself has no real meaning other than name calling.

Did anyone find this interview disturbing? Aside from Joe Scarborough's ignorance of the issue, the assumption that inform the interview seems to be that the job of a news anchor is to report on "ideological differences," for which the facts are irrelevant, as Scarborough all but says. This is not unique to this clip or program, but as a dominate trend in U.S. news media, it comes through with stunning and piercing clarity in this exchange. The current health care system is not a "free market" because insurers have a monopoly in most states; moreover, it is not the aim of 'free markets' to guarantee profit, as Scarborough confusedly implies, but to encourage competition. What the Democrats need to get good at emphasizing is that nothing is more anti-capitalist than the present system, because it guarantees profit through monopoly, and it is this state of affairs that the insurance industry understandably wants to preserve.

Another disturbing, if unremarkable aspect of the interview is that Scarborough is voicing what are plainly his own views, all the while hiding under the skirt of "what others might say".

A number of surprises in the interview. How effortless a reasoned discussion can be on healthcare when so many of those selling it can't seem to put a sentence together defending it. How totally incapable of responding to any of the defenses a republican is when confronted.

It's not surprising that Joe sees his job, not as articulating or defending his own views but just criticizing the views of his guests.

It was a pleasant surprise to see a news show where a real discussion of current events was found to be interesting and worthy of more time. I believe he was kept on as a guest in the next hour "morning meeting", which is where i saw him later that morning.

Scarborough proves again that he is an empty vessel. I can’t believe anyone would willingly watch his program.

Here an answer to two questions: Nothing!

The questions:

What does Scarborough know about this subject?

And:

What do the insurance companies bring to the deal?

Spain provides health care for all of their citizens. They also have private insurers for a few folks who can afford it and seek added care. Not a lot of people opt for this and if they do they are still covered under the national system. From what I have seen and heard most people here are very satisfied with their health care. Their system costs much less than our plan.

We aren't considering any good options in our healthcare debate. Good options are socialism. We don't deserve that.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives