‘For Many Ukrainians, It’s Been a 10-Year War, Not a 2-Year One’ headline, The New York Times. While the Washington Post has long been considered the mouthpiece of the CIA, the New York Times has been more effective at carrying water for it in recent years. The recent longish Times article entitled
Mr Urie, superlative article. If I might add a thought regarding why the youth didn't mobilize two years ago, in the case of Gaza there was a clear-cut and obvious "bad guy" making outrageously racist statements and strategems. As the 125th reading percentile indicates, few americans (even the open-minded) keep up with world events. Some recognize bullshit when they see cnn/fox/nyt vilifying Iran or Venezuela or Palestine but they don't grasp Russia is also vilified and is a far more positive player on the world scene than any of the US satellites and client states the media touts as the good guys.
Another great piece! My only potential gripe is that one *could possibly* flip the argument on the following statement "The concentration of low life expectancy (at birth) in the ‘Black belt’ of former slave states illustrates an American conundrum. A national healthcare system such as those that exist in civilized nations could go far in bringing healthcare to all Americans." I say this because how much of that lower life expectancy is from things either directly unrelated or indirectly effect the quality of healthcare? For example, ever since they began the process of centralizing the US economy in the late 1970s (it began before then, but that's when it went in to over drive) and all but eliminated the effective interstate capital flow inhibitors there was massive capita flight from most of the places in those states. Along with other things like using the powers of the national government to effectively nullify state usury laws, and not to mention so called "free" trade deals (which can be thought of as nationalizing because it erodes local economic prerogative and was done through power of the national government), along with other things, have very negatively harmed people's economic prospects there (some of these places have been on upswing in recent years, somewhat counter intuitively with Republican governments doing well thought out market interventions, but they have a ways to go) which may have greatly effected their lifetime health outcomes. So I think it could be argued that national centralization may be the culprit behind the problem that another form of national centralization (nationally centralized health care program) would be trying to solve :)
Mr Urie, superlative article. If I might add a thought regarding why the youth didn't mobilize two years ago, in the case of Gaza there was a clear-cut and obvious "bad guy" making outrageously racist statements and strategems. As the 125th reading percentile indicates, few americans (even the open-minded) keep up with world events. Some recognize bullshit when they see cnn/fox/nyt vilifying Iran or Venezuela or Palestine but they don't grasp Russia is also vilified and is a far more positive player on the world scene than any of the US satellites and client states the media touts as the good guys.
Another great piece! My only potential gripe is that one *could possibly* flip the argument on the following statement "The concentration of low life expectancy (at birth) in the ‘Black belt’ of former slave states illustrates an American conundrum. A national healthcare system such as those that exist in civilized nations could go far in bringing healthcare to all Americans." I say this because how much of that lower life expectancy is from things either directly unrelated or indirectly effect the quality of healthcare? For example, ever since they began the process of centralizing the US economy in the late 1970s (it began before then, but that's when it went in to over drive) and all but eliminated the effective interstate capital flow inhibitors there was massive capita flight from most of the places in those states. Along with other things like using the powers of the national government to effectively nullify state usury laws, and not to mention so called "free" trade deals (which can be thought of as nationalizing because it erodes local economic prerogative and was done through power of the national government), along with other things, have very negatively harmed people's economic prospects there (some of these places have been on upswing in recent years, somewhat counter intuitively with Republican governments doing well thought out market interventions, but they have a ways to go) which may have greatly effected their lifetime health outcomes. So I think it could be argued that national centralization may be the culprit behind the problem that another form of national centralization (nationally centralized health care program) would be trying to solve :)