1 I never thought I'd be defending Obama - especially after my last comment! - but I don't see anything wrong with calling Khamenei the Supreme Leader. That is the common translation of his title, after all. If he had a different title and Obama described him as a "supreme leader", then I would be upset. But only a bit. Supreme Leader sounds evil to me and is a reminder of the sad state of Iran. It's not a term I'd use to indicate respect toward a head of state, though I imagine Obama's speechwriter was simply using the title without a second thought. What should Obama have said? "So-called Supreme Leader - snort"? If Bush-haters could force themselves to say "President Bush", I think opponents of "the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy" can say "Supreme Leader". The rest of that line of Obama's about the SL's alleged understanding is so much worse than a title I would have used anyway.

2 I forgot to add this quote by Andrew McCarthy:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTgxNzYwZDM5NGQ3MzAyZDZmZmZiYWY1NTQ1YTFjMTA=

"But for a few nettlesome differences (like equality for women and hostility to homosexuals), the Islamic political program — especially the totalitarian version regnant in the Islamic Republic of Iran — is something the American Left would be very comfortable with. Obama understands this, and I think it is a better explanation for his solicitude toward Khamenei than any hope of reversing Iran's nuclear ambitions."

I'd like to see him expand on that point, as it's too easy to associate our enemies (the Iranian regime) with whatever angers us (Obama) even if there is no real connection.

1 I can't remember the study - but I saw one that purported that "preventative health care" isn't the public savior it is purported to be.  Not that hygiene should not be followed (and even this is one of degrees - many scientists and medical professionals are of the opinion that the recent rise in things like asthma and peanut allergies are due to us being TOO clean!), but that the constant visits to the doctor for this procedure and that procedure don't really make the difference in our quality or quantity of life that the current conventional wisdom purports. 

There are always outliers, and those are the ones we remember:  Jade Goody and cervical cancer, Farah Fawcett, or personal stories we know.  But much like we only remember those times we washed our car and it rained right after, the majority of the statistics don't bear this out.  Lifestyle choices and genetics play a much bigger role than the amount of times we visit the doctor for "preventative care."  And even "lifestyle choices" don't necessarily follow the conventional wisdom of what is good and what is not. 

My grandparents on my father's side all live to their 90s (and beyond in one case) - eating red meat every single day.  And those people are/were HEALTHY.  Oh, and they drank a lot of alcohol, too.  Not that they were alcoholics, but my grandmother's family were German. 

Perhaps we need to look at health care more like what we look at for car care.  We don't expect insurance to cover tune ups or oil changes.  We expect it for catastrophes. 

Perhaps we need more of that for health care?  Just a thought...
  

2

I think that the problem with the current idea of health care is that it is more illness management than actually making someone healthy. If you have diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, etc, there is a pill to help you manage that, even though steps could be taken to get rid of that (usually weightloss). And the healthcare industry pushes managing the symptoms more than treating the problem. And patients seem to be okay with that.

And yes, we do live longer now, but I wonder if we are actually healthier. I mean, I think all the pills just keep us alive, but I think overall health might have decreased.

I agree with you AFW: we need to look at health insurance as catastrophic health insurance for those unfortunate incidents/ailments (car accident, broken arm, cancer)...not the ones we actually see coming (heart disease from obesity, prenatal care and delivering a baby, etc.) But this is another one of those issues that is argued on the margins (i.e. what about the poor person who can't afford his cancer treatments? uh huh...but what about the millions of others who are sucking down a gallon of soda a day and then get heart disease?)

3 Well, just like tobacco, we can tax soda, and people won't drink it as much!  (Except, they'd have to REALLY tax soda, as the $1.50 coke at McDonalds really only costs them $0.03, the rest is pure profit).  And of course, we still smoke.  The gov't has never shown any correlation between taxing an item and limiting its use, and where would they get the money to pay for the programs their "sin taxes" currently fund, if it really was a deterrent?

Taxing things we like to pay for things we don't is ridiculous.  We'll tax soda because it makes you fat and drives up the cost of health care!  How about this instead:

We didn't feed you butter and sugar for fifty years, don't come crying to us when your ticker goes ker-thunk if you climb more than three stairs!

Of course, I completely threw out you argument on its face when you (or Steyn) opened with "According to UN figures..."  Sorry.  All the UN is is good for is child rape and supporting anyone who is against Israel.  And being honets brokers in the oil-for-food program.  I'll give them that one.

4 Hey, you are hitting pretty close to home here!  I'm 72. I plan on another 20 years, too. I can't say I haven't had some major illnesses because I have, but between the extremely good health care here in America, my genes (they caused some of those illnesses, but helped me through some also) a lot of prayers and help, I can say I am really in good shape. Or as my dad would have said, for the shape I'm in.  I am one of seven siblings, we are all alive and four are in our 70's.  Only one of us has even lost children and he has lost two. One at birth and one of ovarian cancer.

I really don't think what you eat has as much to do with it as some like to think. I think that is a little bit of blaming the victim.  We have a lot of diabetes in our family, both type 1 and type 2. Bad genes. But due to medical miracles like insulin my little brother, he's now 68, who was diagnosed with type one at age 21 is planning on getting into the 70's also.  My granddaughter who was diagnosed at age 12 is now 16 and at age 14 was the youngest diabetic to complete a marathon, a full marathon and has since run two more. She also does cross country.  Illness and disease happens but what you do with you life in spite of these things count. Oh yes, I have a nephew who was diagnosed at age 4, he is mid 40's now a great person and an extremely healthy person, just needs his insulin.  He ate only Oscar Meyer weiners and peanut butter while growing up. We feared the worse for him because of it. His body shows no signs of a lifelong diabetes. Yet that is what he has had as long as he can remember. Nothing to do with his weight or life habits, just genes. 
Some of my siblings have smoked, most have not. The ones that did have had no ill effects from it. Some people smoke and never have any ill effects some have many. I think genetics has a lot to do with that.

I agree that the sodas and chips young children eat can make them way too fat and can cause diabetes. But I wonder if we took away the Mexican immigrants from our databases if we would see that skewed the diabetes statistics because of the strong genetic predisposition. I don't know this, I just wonder. I know that here in S Texas that is a large component of the diabetes population. And they have a very high percentage of leg amputations also. Grim, grim stats.

5 Holy cow Sarah - the quotable things you discover. So true in so many ways.

6 Ruth,

Genetics is a bad word for some. It's like the modern equivalent of fate in the old days. No one wants to be resigned to their fate. Modern people want to think they can be anything they want to be. But they can't. They can, however, be the best they can be - within limits. Genetic limits. The G-word again. Oops.

I too "really don't think what you eat has as much to do with it as some like to think." I eat anything I want at any time with no ill effects. I realize I'm very lucky. My diet might seriously harm someone else with different genes. (Granted, it's a low-meat, no-sweets, no-soda diet, but still ...)

1 Interesting post!  I think that - even more than people are afraid of freedom for themselves, (which is utterly get-what-they-deserve-ing), many desire to take it away from others b/c they disapprove of what those others are doing with it.  "You can't smoke!"  "You can't teach your children!"  "You can't have that [firearm/literature/etc.]!"  "You can't drive that!"  "You can't keep your money if someone else doesn't have as much!"

I am absolutely certain that in this world, *some* government is necessary and desirable to protect our rights.

But when people stop focusing on defending their natural rights and instead work on asserting non-existent ones - always at others' expense - the lazy, the power-hungry, and the thoughtless fall right in line and back the ultimate deception: the idea that the force of government power can, should, and will create their own little version of Utopia.  In reality, creating our own happiness is why we have freedom.

2 Sarah, you've seen me slowly realize that all men (and women) do not desire freedom. Compare my 2003 entries with my 2005 ones. I used to be so naive.

kannie, I was once naive enough to believe anarchism was the answer. I was a teenager then. I took everything for granted. My parents paid for everything. And the government provided so much - arguably too much. No, I wasn't on welfare. But I was benefiting from government roads, government sidewalks, etc. ... and, in a less visible way, from the laws of the government and its enforcers, the police.

Many advocates of bigger government want more concrete benefits (i.e., material handouts) than abstract benefits (i.e., the defense of rights). People can see 'free' goodies but they can't see rights. So what's the big deal about losing what they can't see? Or about living at the expense of others one can't see? To claim that government benefits are 'free' is to be blind to the reality of cost, to be ignorant of freedom, a state in which people are not forced to provide for others. Unfortunately, such blindness is widespread, and some may have no eyes to open.

You wrote,

the lazy, the power-hungry, and the thoughtless fall right in line

What an alliance!

As I see it, the power-hungry lead the line and the others follow. "Be my dependent! Make me dominant!" is the slogan of Great Leaders. But what if we don't want to be dependents? What if we don't want to be dominated? Where can we go? Where's our gulch?

3 Amritas,

But what if we don't want to be dependents? What if we don't want to be dominated? Where can we go? Where's our gulch?

Heh... there are a couple similar theories in circulation. Here's a link to a Russian analyst's idea from a few months ago... wish I had links to similar Cold War-era type stuff!

Should the government continue to deliberately disintegrate (disinte-great?) the founding fabric of our country via socialization and currency destruction, we might get to have a Gulch after all: one little pocket where honest people have banded together and are working (& defending their work) and living in a decent, productive society instead of eating each other.

'Cause I don't WANT to cannibalize my neighbor - or his liberty or property.  I'm just sayin'. ;-)

4 kannie,

I can imagine an anarchist regarding the reduction of government as "disinte-great-ion" - the less integrated, the better from his POV.

I don't think the government sees what they're doing as disintegration - they think they're merely reinterpreting a living document. Everyone 'knows' that if the Founding Parents were alive today, they'd be progressive. It's 'common sense'!

Thanks for the link to the WSJ article on Panarin.  I was predicting a similar breakup of the US almost 20 years ago. But now I think that the real divisions of the US are less regional than urban vs. nonurban. Imagine, say, Chicago as a West Berlin in reverse - a socialist pocket in a capitalist Midwest.

1 This reminds me a little of the situation with the kidnapped Italian journalist in Iraq. I remember reading an article written by an American journalist who was flying in on the same plane as her to Baghdad, and when he mentioned to her that he was going to be embedded with American soldiers, she was pretty uppity about it to him, saying that he was going to be totally biased (as if she weren't in her comment/response), and his reply was basically: well, perhaps, but it sure will be a darn sight safer...and she totally puh-puhed him....acting like she was going to be totally safe. She was woefully under-prepared for the realities.

2 I'm also reminded of the Northrup Grumman employees who were held by the FARC along with a bitchy woman who would rat on them when they had an escape planned and do other things to try and gain the favor of her kidnappers (at the expense of the other hostages).

Which reminds me - I need to read that book (Out of Captivity). 

I'm seeing WAY too many cases of this.  It makes me feel like vomiting.

3

Hmmm…rape and respect…rape AND respect… I have to ponder that one for a bit.

 

 

OK, I’m done. WTF is wrong with this woman?

 

Something makes me doubt that if it was American soldiers who had done this instead she wouldn’t be so understanding or forgiving.  Just a thought.

 

Yup, Islam is a religion of peace… a few rapes, some hangings, stonings, floggings, beheadings, flying planes into buildings…What’s not to love?

4 *Snort* I am totally laughing at Tim's comments about if this had been American soldiers...SO TRUE.

5 When I first heard about this, I wasn't surprised at all. This woman is not the aberration she should be. No, she is one of many in the West who have a double standard when it comes to the Other.

As a member of this alleged Other, I am greatly offended at the notion that we can't help ourselves, that we are chemically driven animals unlike white liberals who think they're the only beings with free will ... the only 'real' people.

So when they say "everybody is angry with Wilders", they really mean themselves, the only ones who matter to them. They look down upon the rest as nonpeople: either exotic animals from abroad or embarrassing domestic throwbacks.

They fear animals and will say anything to avoid being eaten. They share our instinct for survival, but they express it in absurd ways. They have one eye on their lives and another on the 'real' people. What will everybody think? is the question that permeates their brains. Of course, everybody excludes us and the Other. They have to say the small-r right thing if they want to maintain their place among the Western elite. If De Rijke started going Wilders, would she ever be able to work for P Magazine again? The survival instinct intersects with Leftism once more. Say nonsense, stay employed. Truth, morality ... all these things are secondary, maybe even unnecessary to them.

Perhaps these elites are the real 'animals'. They've given up what distinguishes men from beasts. They want life ... preferably a luxurious life ... without the tools needed to sustain life. The ends without the means. The yucky details. Let the throwbacks take care of it. Defend their country, do their plumbing, and all that other ugly stuff.

The elites need us. But do we need them?