If Wall Street is this anxious, we all better cover our asses.

There's no limit to the absurd things in this world.

Animals cannot sin. Well, some stalk and kill humans, but not for the most part. And when they do, humans respond with devestating retaliation to their entire kin.

It makes sense that humans often show more compassion for their pets than for humans belonging to a different tribe / race / religion, probably in part because the animals are totally domesticated.

Unlike humans, of course, which are incredibly dangerous to each other.

I think it only makes sense given Israel's mandatory military service, but I think the compassion some feel for animals above people is not right.

I seem to remember listening to Rush Limbaugh go on and on about how sad he was when his cat died.

http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/thanksgiving-my-family-always-tense-because-i-read-6993?utm_content=Main&utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing#1,

2017 is helping create some kickass hilarious articles, though.

You listen to Rush Limbaugh?

Somebody posted it.

Oh hey.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Calm_and_Carry_On

Anyone ever notice how popular this poster is? It should be telling that a poster, literally made to encourage people in the event England lost the war, i.e. the Nazis invaded. And for some reason, it resonates really hard with people in this modern geohell.

https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Duterte-Admits-Fascism-Vows-Defeat-of-Communist-Terrorists-and-Crackdown-on-Left-20171121-0038.html

"Duterte Admits 'Fascism,' Ends Peace Talks With Communists and Vows Crackdown on Left"

Huh, Duterte's a POS. Let's see:

Trump praised Duterte for doing an “unbelievable job”

“We’ve had a great relationship,” Trump told reporters, sitting with Duterte at the start of the bilateral meeting. “This has been very successful.” He praised Duterte’s handling of the summit and said, “I’ve really enjoyed being here.”

Duterte at one point called reporters “spies,” prompting Trump to chuckle. “You are,” Duterte repeated.

Hmmm

"I will follow America, since they say that I am an American boy," Duterte said. "OK, granted, I will admit that I am a fascist. I will categorize you already as a terrorist."

Hmmmmmmmmm

yall remember that time trump tweeted that everybody should have term limits in government

yall remember that other time trump enjoyed when said that everybody should have term limits.. but president trump?

https://twitter.com/DavidWright_CNN/status/933361277593968640/photo/1

Real life is too good for parody. The real thing is itself all you need.

Seriously, let this sink in. Trump is so goddamn ****ing dumb and incoherent that the former COO* of Goldman Sachs and Trump's own advisor felt he was wasting his time talking to him and basically hung up the call.

This world is ****ing incredible.

The Emperor Has No ****ing Clothes and this time it's real life.

I dunno, I feel that disingenuously blowing people off happens all the time in business and politics.

I think there was a little more going on in that conversation than that.

"We're not going to have a real conversation here, can you just tell the president he's brilliant and say we're losing the connection and hang up -- seriously?"

Doesn't sound like just blowing off a casual call.

Two men in business suits who want things from one another and engage in mutual pretense of respect but despise each other behind the mask?

Color me surprised.

Despise implies a degree of respect, what I hear in that phrase is "God will this dip**** ever shut up?"

I will concede there is something of a facade going on here if Trump literally does not care that Gary blew him off.

OTOH, Tom Carper's story probably isn't even true.



http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/22/politics/tom-carper-gary-cohn-phone-call

Hm. Maybe I'm not understanding the way you're interpreting the conversation? I'm not clear why Trump caring is relevant.

The opinion of the WH press secretary means **** all, but the differing opinion seems to tamp down the story a bit.

What about the other guy.

What about him? Seems like an honest account.

The other guy (Coons) said that Carper's suggestion wasn't taken literally, and that the media is overblowing it.

Yeah, I hadn't seen that. I was eating up Culper's story and I guess that's not how it went down.

Although I'm sure Gary Cohn wanted to on the inside.

Yeah, probably. I don't think Trump has had many consensual conversations.

What other way could one respond to the allegation of racism?

Before family wakes up, I'll post my one serious post for the day:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/11/socialists-are-winning-the-battle-of-ideas

The left is experiencing a strong surge in America. I really feel whatever hope America has lies in this struggle.

Great article:



Wookie? Are you paying attention?

Here's my serious post of the day: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.823984?v=EB8BD4C7B6A633596EC4F3B7CF376AAD

That was a great article.

But the thing he misses is that reactionary hatred is an alternative idea by itself, that it can form the backbone of policies, and that it is supported by the rich and temporarily embarrassed rich alike. That idea is fascism. The right cannot be expected to defend the indefensible.

Oh, and just to make this clear to anybody who isn’t paying close attention: the Democrats are a right wing party.

It's probably in my personal interest to have a single payer healthcare system, but I think leftists are underestimating how many on the center-left (never mind financial elite east coast Republicans and other conservatives) would have legitimate reasons not to want it (namely, many will have less annual income after they have to pay more in taxes and whatever other healthcare they opt in for than they currently do). It may take demographic change (i.e., boomers may have to start dying) before the US actually gets single payer healthcare. Reading about Bernie's proposal for Medicare for all makes me think much of the appeal will dissipate (among certain segments of society, but not all) once the policy details become more concrete and widely known.

Also, I personally have had bad experiences with the Canadian healthcare system, specifically because of rationing, so I find it discouraging that Bernie and other Democrats are considering using the Canadian healthcare system as a model. As a political move, it may increase the appeal of the bill to some who hold Europe in contempt, but don't harbour as many negative feelings about Canada. (It may make single payer healthcare more appealing to some, given that many culture warriors associate socialism with Europe and anti-American exceptionalism. Using Canada as a model avoids that.) But Bernie also seems to be drawn to the strictness of Canadian healthcare rationing for ideological reasons (I.e., it's egalitarian that people wait for treatment no matter how much wealth they have, and can't pay more for faster care, hence taking advantages from the rich -- sticking it to them). That'd be a polarizing policy choice, and many would object if they had any idea how much rationing sucks in Canada.

On the other hand, I'm totally sympathetic to idea of creating a sense of collective responsibility for each other with robust and generous public social services.

Some rationing seems hardly worse than American healthcare.

Private healthcare is an enormous implicit tax on all Americans and American businesses. Most holistic studies I’ve seen say that Americans will have more discretionary income after single payer, because even though taxes will rise, they won’t need to pay insurance premiums (i.e. studies that aren’t handwavy right wing think tank studies that include a trickle down fudge factor).

Generally speaking, the only center-left people who will see their incomes decline are those who work for insurance companies.

This generation of Americans is weirdly change averse. One of the more prominent objections to Puerto Rico statehood, for example, is the fact that the flag will look different than they’re used to. So I think it stands to reason that a demographic change will need to happen, just not for the reason you’ve suggested here.

Canada’s healthcare “rationing” (actually triage) is certainly offensive to some entitled rich people, and many provinces have waged class wars over ending single payer because of that. However, your post makes it sound like single payer is the reason for these problems. That isn’t at all true.

Canada’s healthcare problems come from three basic sources:

Whenever there is a conservative provincial government, they stack the healthcare board with rightist ideologues who intentionally degrade services in the province in order to promote private or two tier healthcare. This happened in Alberta when the conservatives consolidated the regional health boards into Alberta Health Services. Among other things, AHS concentrated certain specialists into specific hospitals. This meant, for example, you couldn’t get treatment from a cardiologist at just any hospital, but only at one hospital in the region. Some doctors reported having to take a taxi across town with medical equipment in order to treat a patient who couldn’t be transported. This sort of manipulation is pandemic throughout the system.

The second problem is the CMPA. Canada has a medical malpractice insurance/law firm monopoly. This corporation has enormous power, and lobbied successfully for government subsidies for malpractice insurance - a service which, practically speaking, only they provide. The CMPA is a malicious corporation with billions of dollars in their legal fund, staff doctors to share shockingly flexible expert testimonies, and a demonstrated willingness to aggressively defend any Canadian doctor against any complaint or even non-medical criminal accusation. The CMPA makes it impossible to dismiss incompetent or lazy doctors, contributing to both Canada’s healthcare quality problem as well as its quantity problem.

The third problem is the United States of America. They steal our doctors. On purpose. The US can’t educate doctors fast enough to satisfy their own demand. So what do they do? Well, if you’re a Canadian educated doctor, you are something called “dual board certified”. That means a Canadian medical degree is sufficient to practice medicine in the United States. Another thing they have are special visa categories that allow Canadian doctors and RNs (fairly specifically) to live and work in the United States permanently. Combine that with very high doctor pay in the US, mostly due to their own shortage, and moving to the US on a Canadian education is basically a no-brainer.

None of these problems have anything at all to do with single payer healthcare. The only problem that wouldn’t exist under private healthcare is deliberate political sabotage, but it would be replaced with, you know, capitalism, which does things even worse and not even always on purpose.

It's not also a result of a scarcity of medical resources more broadly? Canada's GDP per capital spent on healthcare is much lower than the US', IIRC. Is that not also a reason why wait times can be so long for specialized procedures (lack of resources) in Canada? But perhaps the problem wouldn't be as severe in the US, simply because we may be willing to spend more on healthcare per person than Canada is?

No, you cannot compare per capita healthcare expenditure this way. It’s true that the US does spend much more money on healthcare than Canada, but that’s because individual procedures cost much more to provide in the US, not because there is higher per capita service consumption or more services offered. It just costs more. The leading theories concern the interplay between private insurance and providers; regulatory burden that is mostly only required because of profit motives; profit extraction; and cost disease. It is probably due to a confluence of factors. It’s not because Americans take better care of themselves, though.

Canadian healthcare triage is necessary because some people require more urgent care than others. It would be nice if nobody had to wait, but practically speaking it’s preferable that someone without an urgent need should make room for those who do.

This isn’t even a problem unique to Canada, but Americans are conditioned not to see it. The US has waitlists too: the rich get treatment first, and the poor get treatment never. It’s a situation that you can only call better if you are rich.