BBC Poll: Nobody likes us, everybody hates us, I think we'll go eat worms

Who cares what those damned Earthlings think of our foreign policy! WE run the world, baby!

U.S. image around world sharply worsens-BBC poll

LONDON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The image of the United States has deteriorated around the world in the past year because of issues such as Iraq and prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, according to a poll by the BBC World Service released on Tuesday.

The proportion of people believing the United States has a mainly positive influence in world affairs dropped seven points from a year ago -- to 29 percent from 36, the results from 18 countries that were also polled the previous year showed.

Fifty-two percent thought U.S. influence was mainly negative, up from 47 percent a year ago, the poll found.

The survey, released on the day President George W. Bush gives his State of the Union speech to Congress, found sharp disagreement with U.S. policy on Iraq which is ravaged by violence nearly four years after the U.S.-led invasion.

In all, 26,381 people were questioned in 25 countries. Almost three in four people disapproved of U.S. policy on Iraq, while two-thirds disapproved of U.S. handling of terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba.

"The U.S. administration's recent decision to send more troops to Iraq is at odds with global public opinion ... This policy is likely to further hurt America's image," Doug Miller, president of pollsters GlobeScan, said.

Sixty-five percent disapproved of U.S. policy on last year's war between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas, 60 percent of its handling of Iran's nuclear programme, 56 percent of its stance on global warming and 54 percent of its policy on North Korea's nuclear programme.

More than two-thirds believed the U.S. military presence in the Middle East provoked more conflict than it prevented and only 17 percent thought U.S. troops there were a stabilising force.

The poll found that the American public also seemed to have serious doubts about U.S. foreign policy. Majorities of Americans polled disapproved of how the United States was handling the war in Iraq (57 percent) and global warming (54 percent) while half disapproved of U.S. policy on Guantanamo and Iran.

Fifty-three percent of Americans said the U.S. military presence in the Middle East "provokes more conflict than it prevents", the survey said.

The poll found U.S. policy was regarded poorly in Britain, Bush's closest ally in Iraq. A majority (57 percent) of the British public saw U.S. influence in the world as mainly negative and 81 percent disapproved of U.S. actions in the war in Iraq, the BBC World Service said.

The poll, carried out between Nov. 3 and Jan. 9, covered Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Chile, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, South Korea, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United States.

Denver's "Rugged Individualists" vs. NOLA's Sissy Whiners

The following is an e-mail reply to a conservative colleague on Jan. 24. His name, and his friend's whose e-mail he forwarded, have been deleted. -- J


You've got some real "rugged individualists" for friends! You're right, a snowstorm's damage doesn't compare to Katrina: the raw sewage & environmental hazard, complete loss of people's homes and all utilities, loss of police, surrounding communities preventing refugees from entering their towns at gunpoint, etc., etc. It's hard to "work or die," or rather, just die, when you're neck deep in water, and the only place you an your neighbors can seek refuge is your roof.

Also, I imagine it's difficult to loot in 4 feet of snow when the roads are out.

George Bush didn't go to NOLA either. He did a flyover.

Your buddy has an axe to grind, and he picked a bad example to do it with.

"The world does not owe you a living," but your government does have an obligation to come to your aid during emergencies and "acts of God." Otherwise, what the heck is gov't for? Even diehard conservatives say govt's main job is protecting the people. Why have we spent $400 billion halfway around the world in Iraq, if not to protect Americans back home? (And I'm 110% positive your friend support the Iraq war). So, to turn around and say "screw you, you're on your own" to Americans in distress seems mighty hypocritical, or at least illogical.

I would have no problem if FEMA came to Coloradans' aid, if they needed it. And if they really did need help, I'm sure they'd eventually ask for it. And if they asked and didn't get help, I'm sure they'd criticize the gov't, just as NOLA residents did.

Incidentally, Boston (42 N), Detroit (42 N) New York City (40 N) are all at a higher North latitude than Denver (39 N), so I'm not sure what he means about "90% of the world's social problems evaporating" above 48 degrees North Latitude. Well, I do know: he means once you get into the sparsely populated, mostly white U.S. Northwest, you have fewer social problems.

On 1/24/07 (name and e-mail deleted) wrote:

Obviously the damage wrought by Katrina was worse, but still ...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: (name and e-mail deleted)
Date: Jan 23, 2007 7:08 PM
Subject: Fw: Weather bulletin: Denver
To: Undisclosed-Recipient

---

WEATHER BULLETIN

Up here, in the " Mile-Hi City ", we just recovered from an
Historic event--- may I even say a "Weather Event" of
"Biblical Proportions" --- with an historic blizzard of up
to 44" inches of snow and winds to 90 MPH that broke trees
in half, knocked down utility poles, stranded hundreds of
motorists in lethal snow banks, closed ALL roads, isolated
scores of communities and cut power to 10's of thousands.

And now we have braced and are involved with #2 in less than 2 weeks!

FYI:
George Bush did not come.

FEMA did nothing.

No one howled for the government.

No one blamed the government.

No one even uttered an expletive on TV.

Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton did not visit.

Our Mayor did not blame Bush or anyone else.

Our Governor did not blame Bush or anyone else, either.

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX or NBC did not visit - or report on this
category 5 snowstorm. Nobody demanded $2,000 debit cards.

No one asked for a FEMA Trailer House.

No one looted.

Nobody - I mean Nobody - demanded the government do something.

Nobody expected the government to do anything, either.

No Larry King, No Bill O'Rielly, No Oprah, No Chris Mathews
and No Geraldo Rivera.

No Shaun Penn, No Barbara Striesand, No Hollywood types to
be found.

Nope, we just melted the snow for water.

Sent out caravans of SUV's to pluck people out of snow
engulfed cars.

The truck drivers pulled people out of snow banks and didn't
ask for a penny.

Local restaurants made food and the police and fire
departments delivered it to the snowbound families.

Families took in the stranded people - total strangers.

We fired up wood stoves, broke out coal oil lanterns or
Coleman lanterns.

We put on extra layers of clothes because up here it is
"Work or Die".

We did not wait for some affirmative action government to
get us out of a mess created by being immobilized by a
welfare program that trades votes for 'sittin at home' checks.

Even though a Category "5" blizzard of this scale has never
fallen this early, we know it can happen and how to deal
with it ourselves.

"In my many travels, I have noticed that once one gets
north of about 48 degrees North Latitude, 90% of the
world's social problems evaporate."

It does seem that way, at least to me.

I hope this gets passed on.

Maybe SOME people will get the message. The world does Not
owe you a living.

Essay: 'Fairness Doctrine' Still A Dumb Idea

Why not take over the AV club or the KKK while we're at it?

I'm not going to pretend I know all the ins and outs of the proposed "Fairness Doctrine" that is now being revived by Congressional Democrats. I don't have to. It's dumb legislation aimed primarily (or even entirely, I don't know) at talk radio.

To paraphrase one proponent of the Fairness Doctrine, "Because the government issues these limited [radio airwave] licenses to operate, they already have authority to say who gets a license and who doesn't." In other words, the radio airwaves are not exactly a free speech zone, since Big Gubument is already regulating them, so let's regulate them to death.

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. Clearly, the sole reason for government regulation is the limited number of radio frequencies available for use. As long as what those private broadcasters air does not violate basic free speech and obscenity laws, the left-right content is irrelevant.

As we all know (sigh), talk radio is dominated by conservatives from FOX and ClearChannel. Liberals see some big corporate conspiracy here. Well, they're partly right. It has been conservatives' intent to take over talk radio completely, drowning out liberal and moderate voices. But conservatives did it in the open, by playing hardball, buying up the big stations and local affliliates, and attracting the most advertising revenue. That's capitalism. That's our country, for better or worse.

So, to subvert the 1st Amendment by making private broadcasting companies air views (and commentators) that they don't want to is fascist. It's wrong. It's dumb. And worst of all, it's unnecessary.

I won't be the first person to point out that there is not some magical left-wing antidote to every poisonous right-wing lie or inaccuracy. In fact, there may be a multiplicity of views which all tend to contradict talk radio's monolithic angry-white-guy stance on the issues.

But that doesn't really matter either. The very attempt to balance talk radio's successful populist conservative formula with a dash of liberalism here, a pinch of libertarianism there, is a fool's alchemy. Not only is it impossible to "balance" the opinions expressed; but more importantly: WHO CARES?

Just who listens to talk radio anyway, raise your hand? If you're a cab driver, traveling salesman, or similar, put your hand down. OK, who's left? Retirees? Shut-ins? Lonely, squirrely employees who pester their colleagues for the right to listen to Rush "at a reasonable volume" from 12-3 p.m. everyday?

I mean, who has the time to devote 3-9 hours a day to Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, Savage, and (fill in your local right-wing nut's Name here)? I used to listen to Liddy and Limbaugh -- when I was a teenage dumbass with a lot of time on my hands. But now, even if I wanted to, I couldn't do it. Because I HAVE A JOB.

Unless somebody can answer me the aforementioned question, I must conclude that the only people listening to talk radio are: angry cab drivers; itinerant salesmen; immobile retirees and invalids; assembly line/back office workers; the self-loathing unemployed; and very confused teenagers (like my former self).

Not exactly an all-star team of ass-kicking capitalist movers & shakers for whom you'd tear up the Bill of Rights (via the Fairness Doctrine) to persuade with your nuanced and learned views, eh?

Look, let these losers have talk radio. It's theirs anyway, face it. The near bankruptcy of liberal Air America has proven that. Big deal. Liberal and moderate voices dominate the blogosphere and almost every other media outlet -- not because they conspired to do so, but because such people are generally more creative, dynamic, artistic, and engaging than rigid conservative ideologues who instinctively distrust creativity and somebody having a good time.

AM talk radio is the ghetto of major media. It's "free" to listen to, but you do pay the price of enduring about 2 hours of commercials during a 3-hour show. That kind of content-to-advertising ratio is way more than that of free network TV. Why? Because AM talk radio is so bad, the only way advertisers will agree to buy air time and keep it afloat is if the ads are comparatively cheap and plentiful. (That's why you'll hear advertisers you never heard of elsewhere only on talk radio.)

Like crack, the talk radio ghetto's daily dose of anger is profitable because it's so cheap & easy to produce -- and reproduce. Most of your production costs go toward one loudmouthed, angry white guy's salary (and nowadays, angry white guys are a dime a dozen). And through syndication, the angry white host's daily rants can be cheaply mass-produced nationwide.

Alternatively, lower-tier angry white hosts (local DJs) can swipe their material from the big fish like Hannity, Limbaugh, Liddy and O'Reilly. The local guy's listeners won't care. In fact, they'll love him more for it. Indeed, endless repetition is part of the formula: The more times angry listeners hear the same "truth" from more angry mouths, the more it is reinforced, and the more they want to hear it. Everybody wins, from the big fish to the small fry.

Talk radio is a virtual community (a ghetto) where angry people go slumming to get their daily anger fix. And, just like real ghettos, all the AM ghettos are pretty much alike, which is comforting to a certain type of person. You know what you'll find there. It's a safe, out-of-the-way place to be angry & mean. Nobody hears you but four echoing walls.

In real life people can't allow themselves to be this ornery, because no one would tolerate their company. But in the hermetic isolation of locked sedan, closed office, or shady parlor, it's perfectly OK to wish violent revenge on treasonous, traitorous liberals, and take pleasure in knowing that thousands (or millions) of listeners are spewing their bile -- privately, harmlessly -- along with you.

(Interestingly, as Jack Shafer wrote in Slate in 2005, FOX's relative success in cable news is thanks to following the talk-radio formula: (1) "finding stories and causes that will make white, middle-class [people] feel angry and disgusted, and then hammering away at these stories/causes day after day;" and (2) various talk-radio techniques to grab your attention and keep you on-message: cut-ins for news briefs every 30 minutes; segments running 10 minutes or less; and constant "sweepers" -- tag lines the show or the station wants its audience to associate with it, like "Fair and Balanced" and "No Spin Zone.").

So I say, let them keep it. Give up the fight to win over talk radio listeners. We don't want them; and they can't be persuaded.

But we can rest assured. After all, talk radio fans live under a kind of voluntary "house arrest:" For most of the day we know where they are and what they're up to. At least they're not getting outside, trying to persuade and organize others (besides their poor kids).

And when you think about it, they're really only talking to themselves. On the street when you encounter a crazy guy talking to himself, you may shake your head, but you just step aside and leave him be.

Forget the Fairness Doctrine. Just let them be.

Krugman: Bush's health care "plan"

Gold-Plated Indifference

Sunday, January 21, 2007

The New York Times

By Paul Krugman

President Bush's Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow's State of the Union address. Mr. Bush's proposal won't go anywhere. But it's still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should "treat health insurance more like home ownership." He went on to say that "the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance."

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don't need an "incentive" to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can't afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions — everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won't solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we're least concerned about — affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process — whaddya know — giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.

While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase — not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, "unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need."

Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have "gold plated" health coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the wealthy; we're talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What's driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance — that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.

The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance — admittedly a deeply flawed system — into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out "high risk" applicants — and keeping them uninsured.

I'm somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.

What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing "incentives" to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as "gold plated," is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush's speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they're not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.

GAO: $ Billions wasted in Iraq

Where's the outrage from fiscal conservatives about all the $ BILLIONS in waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq?

By Jim Fry | Voice of America News

Washington, DC

19 January 2007

Government auditors told Congress Thursday that waste and fraud in the reconstruction of Iraq have been rampant. They predict they will uncover losses in the billions of dollars. Key Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee demanded an accounting within two months.

You can see traffic flowing on some Baghdad streets--and evidence of progress. In Baghdad the traffic lights are under repair.

Some reports say Americans and Iraqis have made headway reopening schools. The U.S. has pumped about $22 billion into Iraq reconstruction -- mostly between the years 2003 and 2005. Many reports out of Iraq indicate the U.S. has little to show for the effort.

Democrats now running the House Armed Services Committee called government inspectors general and auditors to explain.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Democrat from Missouri and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, explains. "The story on reconstruction is that it's not a total failure but it's not, by any means, a success."

The auditors said the assumption of those who planned reconstruction is that daily violence would be long over by now, but it is not.

Last week President Bush announced, in the face of mounting political opposition, that he plans to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq to reduce the violence.

Comptroller General David Walker said Iraq was expected to be a relatively stable society. "That's the number one problem--the lack of adequate security. And the lack of adequate security also impairs the ability to make progress with regard to oil, electricity, potable water as well as employment."

After years of anecdotal reports of waste and abuse, the Pentagon is now auditing the overall performance of its largest contractors.

Special Inspector General Stuart Bowen, Junior told Chairman Skelton the first of the findings will be reported sometime this year:

Mr. Bowen added, "Then we can begin to parse what the actual waste number is."

To which Mr. Skelton asked, "Do you have that figure as of this date?"

"No, I don't have that figure yet," said Bowen. "Do you have a judgment as of this date?" he was asked.

"As I said, the potential loss could be 10 to 15 percent. But we are waiting till we finish the actual hard analysis," Bowen answered.

Bowen said that losses at that rate would amount to perhaps $3 billion. But Walker is more pessimistic. "I think the numbers, frankly, will be higher than you might expect. Given G.A.O.'s professional standards to have evidential matter, I can't give you an estimate right now. I can tell you that it's billions," said the comptroller general.

The Iraqi government has allocated another $14 billlion in oil revenue for reconstruction. Committee members asked Bowen how much of that has been spent wisely. He answered, "Given the fact that there's been three governments over the last three years in Iraq and the lack of accountability on the Iraqi side of how they've disposed of their funds, we don't have a firm figure of how much as been spent since 2004."

One Democrat, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, wanted to know if auditors would look not just at money squandered by contractors, but at bad decisions: "My question is, in Iraq, how often do you look at something and say: 'Gee, that was a stupid way to spend money?' "

The congressman did not get a clear answer. The comptroller did say that so-called "cost plus" contracts give government officials in Iraq the power to spend freely. He said that should be curtailed.

President Bush is asking for another $1.2 billion for rebuilding and jobs in Iraq. But with so much uncertainty, the committee chairman wants the government auditors to return in two months with estimates on how much money has been wasted in Iraqi reconstruction.