oh, jimmy, one more thing. i forgot to mention how funny it would be if everyone at Faux News and all cons who are dragging their feet on univ. health care all of a sudden lost their health benefits! wouldn't that just be so funny! gee, i wonder if some of their views on this topic would change once they're on the losing side of the battle....hmm......THANKS FOR LOOKING OUT FOR US. you're a true "intellectual"

I'm surprised that David and Jim had this conversation about Iran's (inevitable?) acquisition of nukes without discussing Israel's very firm ultimatum that they will never let it happen. I don't accept such an ultimatum as non-negotiable, but I wouldn't dismiss Israeli determination to act unilaterally as a big bluff either. (We apparently have President Bush to thank for restraining the Israelis from attacking Iran under the Olmert government, but keep in mind that the Olmert "moderates" of Kadima were defeated by the more hawkish and more paranoic Netanyahu.) On nukes in general I wouldn't assume Obama's talk about about going to zero nukes is mere rhetoric, as David apparently did, thus suggesting that sooner or later there will be an even more pronounced nuclear arms race in the region. Watch for the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review to see if Obama is serious or same-ole/same-ole. Speaking of Obama as Hawk-in-Chief, a shoutout to Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Saunders for being the only progressives in the Senate with the moral courage to vote against the escalation of the Afghanistan War. In the House, the Democrats who stood against expanding

Quoting Wonderment: ... a shoutout to Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Saunders for being the only progressives in the Senate with the moral courage to vote against the escalation of the Afghanistan War.

Yeah, they have all kinds of "moral courage." Pffft. [Added] See also: "You’re Shooting At the Wrong People."

Obama should say the following: We will deal with any government in Iran to address the issue of nuclear non-proliferation while agreeing that Iran has the right to nuclear energy. The president of Iran has to answer to the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council which has enormous power of veto over Iranian presidential and Iranian congressional decisions. Even though President Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran and even though he has said nasty things about America, we make peace with our enemies not our friends. I am willing to shake his hand at our first meeting, which would be difficult since he would have his hands cut off for STEALING the election!

It was good to hear Jim sounding so reasonable about Iran. (Will he be banished from The Movement?) On his stance on health care, I think his main point is weak: of course "everyone," thinking only of him- or herself, would like more (money spent on) health care. But that doesn't at all square with his harping on another theme, which is that Obama is doomed because of the size of the deficit. I do not think people would opt for a significant increase in health care spending, with other spending being held constant, for "everyone else." I also do not believe they would opt for any significant tradeoffs in what we do spend money on; e.g., the military. Speaking of using the deficit as a political weapon against Obama, I think Jim was unfair in characterizing it simply as (slight paraphrase) "when the history of the Obama Administration is written, it will be all about bailing out the banks." Any reasonable account of his opening months in office will discuss the crisis state of the economy and how nearly unanimous was the opinion that the entire system was teetering on the brink of collapse. You

Shouldn't Twitter and other communications technologies be innaccesible to Iranians in accordance with the US's sanctions policy? By the way, if Iranians get this worked up over an election, imagine how upset they would be if Israel was nuked by Iran in a first strike.

Quoting bjkeefe: [...]

Following up on the public's views on health care, what's sad is that neither Jim nor David touched on the real disparity between inside and outside the Beltway: attitudes on the public option. This post by DougJ at Balloon Juice reminded me of something I keep hearing about. In particular, Bob Cesca has been all over this, and his posts are worth a look -- not just opinionating, but lots of data. Congress is just as much owned by the health care industry as they are by the financial services industry and defense contractors.

Ironically enough, I expect it will be the pirating power of the largest communist state that will give the movie it's largest audience.

Quoting bjkeefe: On the remake of WOLVERINES!!!1!, I want in on the bucket of popcorn bet. My prediction: the wingnutosphere will love it and when it tanks at the box office, they will complain bitterly about liberal Hollywood suppressing it. (cf. "An American Carol.")

I just checked -- the rewrite is by Tony Gilroy! (Michael Clayton, Duplicity, the The Bournes) It'll be awesome and the wingnuts will hate it. Too bad he's not directing it too.

Quoting claymisher: I just checked -- the rewrite is by Tony Gilroy! (Michael Clayton, Duplicity, the The Bournes) It'll be awesome and the wingnuts will hate it. Too bad he's not directing it too.

Huh. I still can't wrap my mind around a plot of the US being conquered by the Soviet Union ... er, Russia ... in this day and age. Never mind how comical it was in the original -- at least there was still plausible Red Scare hysteria to prey on back then. So what do you think? Will the major idea be reformulated? In a way that will blame America first???1?

Quoting bjkeefe: Huh. I still can't wrap my mind around a plot of the US being conquered by the Soviet Union ... er, Russia ... in this day and age. Never mind how comical it was in the original -- at least there was still plausible Red Scare hysteria to prey on back then.

So what do you think? Will the major idea be reformulated? In a way that will blame America first???1?

I'm sure the baddies will be Chinese. Gilroy is all about misdirection and reversals, so whatever it seems like at the beginning will change by the middle, and change again by the end. I bet by the end the bad guys will rival fertilizer corporations. Aw, he's probably just doing it for the paycheck, but it could be hilarious.

Quoting claymisher: I'm sure the baddies will be Chinese.

Gilroy is all about misdirection and reversals, so whatever it seems like at the beginning will change by the middle, and change again by the end. I bet by the end the bad guys will rival fertilizer corporations.

Aw, he's probably just doing it for the paycheck, but it could be hilarious.

Hmmmm ... sounds reasonable. I won't bet my popcorn against you, that's for sure. [Added] Although I do have to say that making the Chinese the bad guys is going to be awfully iffy. I don't care how far backward they bend, it's gonna provoke cries of racism.

Quoting bjkeefe: Although I do have to say that making the Chinese the bad guys is going to be awfully iffy. I don't care how far backward they bend, it's gonna provoke cries of racism.

Wouldn't that be part of the point? The racism itself will provoke huge boners across the land. Then the cries of racism will provide an opportunity to sneer at "political correctness"--which is like lube. Hmmmm: wasn't it actually the Cubans who parachuted in alongside the Russians in the original? Now that I think about it I can't decide which race would better satisfy the revenge fantasies of Mittel America.

Quoting Ray: Wouldn't that be part of the point?

The racism itself will provoke huge boners across the land. Then the cries of racism will provide an opportunity to sneer at "political correctness"--which is like lube.

Hmmmm: wasn't it actually the Cubans who parachuted in alongside the Russians in the original?

Now that I think about it I can't decide which race would better satisfy the revenge fantasies of Mittel America.

I agree, if it's to be a conservative-agenda movie. But if it's to be a Liberal Hollywood production, it seems iffy.

Quoting bjkeefe: I agree, if it's to be a conservative-agenda movie. But if it's to be a Liberal Hollywood production, it seems iffy.

Let's write our own! To push everybody's buttons you'd have to have China, undocumented Mexicans, and Arabs ... First Mexican housekeepers and landscapers kill all the politicians while Arab terrorists blow up this and that. In the second act we find out that both China and the US has developed effective missile defense (thanks Pinkerton!) so the nuclear exchange is completely neutralized. Then the Chinese invade from cargo ships into Arab-owned American ports. All of our made-in-China electronics go on the fritz. China threatens to occupy America until their demands are met: we pay them back the money we owe them. At the end we learn that the whole thing was run by a cabal of Jewish bankers. Our teen heroes blow up some shit but it never really mattered anyway. Box-office gold, I tells ya.

Quoting claymisher: Let's write our own!

To push everybody's buttons you'd have to have China, undocumented Mexicans, and Arabs ... First Mexican housekeepers and landscapers kill all the politicians while Arab terrorists blow up this and that. In the second act we find out that both China and the US has developed effective missile defense (thanks Pinkerton!) so the nuclear exchange is completely neutralized. Then the Chinese invade from cargo ships into Arab-owned American ports. All of our made-in-China electronics go on the fritz. China threatens to occupy America until their demands are met: we pay them back the money we owe them. At the end we learn that the whole thing was run by a cabal of Jewish bankers. Our teen heros blow up some shit but it never really mattered anyway.

Box-office gold, I tells ya.

I'd pay to see that.

I know that Hollywood is all about remaking everything that's ever been done, but isn't the 15-24 demographic the biggest one for these kinds of movies? As a member of that demographic, I have a really hard time believing that anyone my age or younger is at all interested in watching a movie about America imperiled by commies, whether they're Russian or Chinese or whatever. Also, I'm sorry, but it just makes me laugh to think that people in 1984 thought that a Soviet invasion was likely enough that they would find a movie about it compelling. There's certainly a lot of paranoia around to be cashed in on, but this is not a good way of doing it. I mean, a nuclear holocaust movie or an American-teenagers-fighting-for-freedom movie would be fine, but communist villains are so retro. Do they really think that what we need now is to reinterpret the "post-9/11 world" in Cold War style?

Quoting kezboard: I know that Hollywood is all about remaking everything that's ever been done, but isn't the 15-24 demographic the biggest one for these kinds of movies? As a member of that demographic, I have a really hard time believing that anyone my age or younger is at all interested in watching a movie about America imperiled by commies, whether they're Russian or Chinese or whatever. Also, I'm sorry, but it just makes me laugh to think that people in 1984 thought that a Soviet invasion was likely enough that they would find a movie about it compelling.

There's certainly a lot of paranoia around to be cashed in on, but this is not a good way of doing it. I mean, a nuclear holocaust movie or an American-teenagers-fighting-for-freedom movie would be fine, but communist villains are so retro. Do they really think that what we need now is to reinterpret the "post-9/11 world" in Cold War style?

I think the first part of your comment gives a hint about why remakes are made: I'm guessing the pitch is "these kids haven't seen X, so we have a fresh audience!" As to your second thought, Doghouse Riley

Perfectly stated: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/205...9:55&out=10:16 Get on w your bad self, JPink.

...and JPink says okay: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/205...0:16&out=11:14 A statement of remarkable candor, and given that he has to appear on Fox frequently, courage. Kudos to Jim Pinkerton.

Ok, this guy just keeps flooring me with his common sense and rationality. (ed: Then maybe you should stop calling him JPink.) Listen to this all the way to the end: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/205...9:20&out=19:55 Word!

That link didn't start the clip at the right time. Here's where it should start: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/205...8:49&out=19:56

Pinkerton babbles nonsense about healthcare from his lastest science fiction fantasies. Corn tries to talk about the actual issue at hand: health insurance. Pinkerton babbles more nonsense. The commenters go off about a remake of one of the stupidest movies of all time.

I think there should be a rule that a great movie should not be remade. The one that stands out for me is "The Postman Always Rings Twice" with John Garfield and Lana Turner. I didn't see the remake but am sure it wasn't anything like not the original. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I think there should be a rule that a great movie should not be remade. The one that stands out for me is "The Postman Always Rings Twice" with John Garfield and Lana Turner. I didn't see the remake but am sure it wasn't anything like not the original.

John

David's point that the people are different from their dictators is an irrelevent point even if you do not want to bomb Iran for other reasons. If we follow this logic the Taleban could have been allowed to aquire nuclear weapons because the people of Afghanistan are nice people. I think its nice, however, to finally hear a liberal admit that Obama never had any intention of stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons depsite telling the American people the opposite in order to get elected.

Quoting claymisher: I'm sure the baddies will be Chinese.

Gilroy is all about misdirection and reversals, so whatever it seems like at the beginning will change by the middle, and change again by the end. I bet by the end the bad guys will rival fertilizer corporations.

Aw, he's probably just doing it for the paycheck, but it could be hilarious.

Gilroy hasn't sucked yet, as far as I know. Michael Clayton was (IMHO) an awesome flick, and the Bournes, especially the sequels, almost certainly count as having been "done for the paycheck," and they were all ripping yarns. He''l play up the paranoia, and do exactly what you say in terms of the film's moral structure and reversals. At this point I'd watch almost anything he bears responsibility for.

Quoting AemJeff: Gilroy hasn't sucked yet, as far as I know. Michael Clayton was (IMHO) an awesome flick, and the Bournes, especially the sequels, almost certainly count as having been "done for the paycheck," and they were all ripping yarns. He''l play up the paranoia, and do exactly what you say in terms of the film's moral structure and reversals. At this point I'd watch almost anything he bears responsibility for.

Michael Clayton would have to be in my all-time top 20. I'm allergic to mental illness used to spice up stories (eg half the shows on cable) but in this case it really worked. Did you see Duplicity?

Quoting bjkeefe: On the remake of WOLVERINES!!!1! ...

I smell publicity stunt. ;^)

Quoting MikeDrew: ... (ed: Then maybe you should stop calling him JPink.) ...

I dunno. I grant that this formation is sometimes intended as ridicule -- "K-Lo" certainly comes to mind -- but it seems to me that it usually indicates that the referent deserves a mark of distinction. Sometimes this can seem forced, I grant, as when fans refer to the bland news reader as "BriWi" or the even more colorless governor as "TPaw." And of course, it is always horrible when one tries to apply the name to oneself. (cf. Mr. Spears.)

Quoting ogieogie: Pinkerton babbles nonsense about healthcare from his lastest science fiction fantasies.

Corn tries to talk about the actual issue at hand: health insurance.

Pinkerton babbles more nonsense.

The commenters go off about a remake of one of the stupidest movies of all time.

You could take that as a good measure of how useful we thought the health care/health insurance discussion was, couldn't you? Or maybe you were.

Quoting bkjazfan: I think there should be a rule that a great movie should not be remade. The one that stands out for me is "The Postman Always Rings Twice" with John Garfield and Lana Turner. I didn't see the remake but am sure it wasn't anything like not the original.

John

Ahhhh, you liberals and your liberal fascism. One wonders where the application of your rule would end. Carried just one step further, we would never have had "West Side Story" because some crankypants like you would have been harping about "Romeo and Juliet." But seriously ... I know what you mean, at least about personal favorites. I think everyone involved with the remake of "Planet of the Apes" should be locked in a room for a year with a big screen TV, a DVD player, and the 2007 version of "Hairspray" on infinite replay.

Quoting claymisher: Michael Clayton would have to be in my all-time top 20. I'm allergic to mental illness used to spice up stories (eg half the shows on cable) but in this case it really worked.

Did you see Duplicity?

I haven't gotten out to see Duplicity. I'll probably get the Blu-Ray when it becomes available. I tend to agree with you about the use of of "crazy" characters, but Tom Wilkinson's monologue in the beginning of "Clayton" was what drew me in, and I think his entire performance was brilliant.

Quoting AemJeff: I haven't gotten out to see Duplicity. I'll probably get the Blu-Ray when it becomes available. I tend to agree with you about the use of of "crazy" characters, but Tom Wilkinson's monologue in the beginning of "Clayton" was what drew me in, and I think his entire performance was brilliant.

I've been close to people with really serious mental illness (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the two combined) and based on my limited experience the Wilkinson character felt real to me. He came off as somebody with a disease rather than the disease itself. Usually stories use crazy characters to jazz up a dull plot or introduce lame-ass psychedelic sequences. Duplicity isn't great like Michael Clayton, but it's still pretty good, and it has some really insanely funny moments and a couple unforgettable speeches. I saw it the theater and was laughing all the time but nobody else was. If you haven't looked at the cast yet do yourself a favor and don't. I was pleasantly surprised.

Pinkerton is putting up a straw man regarding the idea that Americans are willing to spend more GDP on health care. The truth is we're in terrible shape:
1. We are willing to spend more on everything and so run up debt. Ask people to balance costs and things look different.
2. 20% of Americans are uninsured. These people don't see the US system of health care as the greatest in the world.
3. The number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is... you guest it, health care costs not covered by insurance. Have you asked these people about how great the US system is?
4. "pre-existing condition"

it really not just the uninsured. I have insurance - with a 50% copay (and i work in government where the benefits are supposed to make-up for the low pay!). i know people that are uninsured that pay less to see a doctor than i do with my insurance. plus, of the times I've needed medication - its always been cheaper to pay for the drug up-front than use the drug benefit of my insurance. between me and my employer we pay ~850.00 dollars per month for the coverage. yes, its better than nothing and i'm really glad to have the insurance in case of something catastrophic happening, or if i develop any chronic conditions, but damn!! it sure isn't what i had hoped for and it gets worse every year.

Pinkerton's argument only works if he lumps health care costs in with health INSURANCE costs. They're not the same thing at all. Most people are happy to see more money spent on their health care. They're NOT happy to see more money spent on insurance. I'd be more critical of him for not acknowledging this basic point if the dems weren't also ignoring it.

[quote=mobilator;117076]20% of Americans are uninsured. These people don't see the US system of health care as the greatest in the world.
QUOTE] Last I heard it was about 45 million which is 15%. 33% of the 45 million are already covered by government programs they choose not to enroll in.
http://www.bcbs.com/news/bcbsa/bcbsa...sis-shows.html
There are also about 9 million illegal imigrants included in the 45 million. So the actual number of Americans uninsured (or not already eligible for government healthcare) is about 21 million or less than 10%. Not that I am saying we shouldn't so something for those 21 million. It just doesn't help to exagerate the problem.

There are also about 9 million illegal imigrants included in the 45 million.

"Illegal" is a perjorative. But why shouldn't undocumented working families be included? They pay taxes, contribute to society and work side-by-side with covered individuals. Undocumented workers are (and have been for many decades) an important and enduring part of the economy. They are not going anywhere. Wishing them away will not change the healthcare challenges for the US uninsured and underinsured.

Quoting Wonderment: "Undocumented" is a perjorative ...

to those that are still not here because they chose to obey the laws and got in line, have spent innumerable hours and considerable sums trying to get here legally. Unlike the illegal aliens that choose to ignore the laws and then cry and whine about being discriminated against when they are about to be deported. I guess what is or is not a pejorative depends somewhat on ones perspective?

Quoting Wonderment: "Illegal" is a perjorative. But why shouldn't undocumented working families be included? They pay taxes, contribute to society and work side-by-side with covered individuals. Undocumented workers are (and have been for many decades) an important and enduring part of the economy. They are not going anywhere. Wishing them away will not change the healthcare challenges for the US uninsured and underinsured.

They pay sales taxes, but not income or payroll taxes. That and poor legal protections are why employers like undocumented workers so much. (It was big business as much as anything that shut down immigration reform. They like the status quo.) That's why everybody needs to be covered, so there's no extra incentive to hire undocumented workers.

[quote=gwlaw99;117105]

Quoting mobilator: 20% of Americans are uninsured. These people don't see the US system of health care as the greatest in the world.
QUOTE]

Last I heard it was about 45 million which is 15%.

33% of the 45 million are already covered by government programs they choose not to enroll in.
http://www.bcbs.com/news/bcbsa/bcbsa...sis-shows.html
There are also about 9 million illegal imigrants included in the 45 million.

So the actual number of Americans uninsured (or not already eligible for government healthcare) is about 21 million or less than 10%. Not that I am saying we shouldn't so something for those 21 million. It just doesn't help to exagerate the problem.

Do you have another source for that? Trusting BC/BS on health insurance policy is like trusting Philip Morris on lung cancer.

They pay sales taxes, but not income or payroll taxes.

Only if they are paid cash off the books. But your typical undocumented worker is getting payroll deductions just like everyone else. You don't need a real SS number to pay real taxes with real money. Also those who own their own homes, of course, are paying property taxes.

Pinkerton is mostly right on spending more money to fight disease, but I
was surprised he wasn't aware of the January 60 Minutes segment which showed two harvard researchers explain a drug they already have in trials
seems to cure and prevent diabetes. It is depressing how little political pundits or those in think tanks understand
what is happening with medical technology. But at least Pinkerton is well ahead of Corn on this.

I didn't understand anything Pinkerton said about health care. Apparently what Americans really want is to pay more for health care, we ought to export our health care system to the rest of the world, and half the people in the country without health care are undocumented immigrants. Okay.

Two comments about stuff Jim brought up. What is stopping American Healthcare corporations from setting up "McDs" all over the world? Healthcare is not only a product that people would want to buy when they have more money but it is needed by everyone. The lack of healthcare could affect spread of diseases (a person without insurance may be reluctant to seek treatment for a communicable disease and thus spreading it further) and can decide what job a person in the middle class may decide to take (which limits the spirit of entrepreneurship).

Quoting kezboard: I didn't understand anything Pinkerton said about health care. Apparently what Americans really want is to pay more for health care, we ought to export our health care system to the rest of the world, and half the people in the country without health care are undocumented immigrants. Okay.

That's pretty much what I was coming here to post. I really like this pairing, I usually enjoy Jim, even though I rarely agree with him (his politics based on sf scenarios is generally amusing). However, in this dialogue I simply did not understand him. Jim agrees with David that Americans hate their health insurance and don't want to spend anymore on their health insurance. But he seems to argue that there is some significant portion of Americans who want to spend more on health insurance. But not through raising taxes. So what does he think we should do and what have been the barriers to doing it (since it seems to involve McHospital franchises). I don't get it? The number of Americans who want to spend more on health care out of pocket is way lower than he seems to be assuming, unless there's