Disqus - Latest Comments for JFeldman

Re: Do Doctors in America Turn Away the Uninsured?

JFeldman — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 12:49:49 -0000

So sorry to hear about this. I know someone (overseas) with the same recurrent issue. The surgeries are very costly and without a national health insurance system, would have been very difficult to come by. I sincerely hope you find a workable solution so you can get the care you need. Thanks for sharing your story on Frameshop.

Re: Do Doctors in America Turn Away the Uninsured?

JFeldman — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:57:41 -0000

Yikes. Hope you're ok, now. I've heard many stories like yours. Thanks for posting the comment.

Re: Trivial Linguistic Question of the Day

JFeldman — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 22:31:42 -0000

Each is an example of situational irony--a narrative convention often used in New Yorker cartoons.

Re: New Focus: Occupy Wall Street

JFeldman — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:03:24 -0000

They do have a point, right now--which is the point of every new protest movement: bring more people to the street to express the idea that the status quo is bad. So the point right now is vague by design--and that's a good thing because it allows a wide array of people to see the movement as voicing their frustrations, too--as opposed to just a very specific constituency for focused issue "X" or "Y." It's the difference between growing a movement and focusing it. There's no point in focusing too soon when growing is having a big impact all by itself. And it is worth noting that rapidly rising numbers and geographic breadth is itself a very strong point in politics.

Also: I think the concern for wanting to move to the next stage of the movement--to the phase where the general takes on specifics, including policy recommendations--comes from a fear (reasonable or not--you decide) that the movement will undermine the ongoing re-election efforts.

That fear could be seen as legitimate because the re-elect Obama effort is ITSELF an outgrowth of the same process we are seeing. It began with a movement in 2007, and has matured to what it is now. But that fear could also be seen as not legitimate because many believe the re-election effort requires a suspension of short-term advocacy on key issues.

In the end, not such a simple situation to decode.

I don't want to be too clinical, here. Ultimately, I support OWS in its current form because I believe the path to achieving the future I want to see for this country must begin with a giant public airing of the frustrations that a vast majority of Americans are currently hiding within their private discussions. The right uses smoke and mirrors to create the illusion that the concerns of a few are actually the concerns of the many. But the frustrations we hear/see in the OWS actions are in fact the concerns of a huge majority of the public. And when the time comes to direct that mass outpouring towards more specific goals, we can all do our part.

Re: Speaking in Yellow: The Crisis in American Politics

JFeldman — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 08:41:57 -0000

It does seem that way at times to me, too.

In my second book--Outright Barbarous--I discuss how Americans today often forget the full meaning of the First Amendment, which should include protection of free speech AND freedom from harm that may occur when others broadcast speech into our lives. The solution is a return to the thoughtful regulations that governed our political media when it worked well and which helped keep our open society truly open. The loss of those rgulations has led us to where we are, now--just like the loss of environmental regulation leads to environmental disasters.

So, what we need is not to abandon or doubt an open society, but to make sure it is open in practice, not just in name.

Thanks so much for your comment! -JF

Re: Mr. President, Please Quench Dr. West’s Thirst

JFeldman — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:43:21 -0000

Harris Perry gets it right when she describe's West's comments as the embodiment of a crisis in a certain cohort of leaders. Much of the content of West's remarks are about Obama's legitimacy--as a progressive, a black man, etc. He's not legitimate in West's eyes because...he hasn't continued to accept West's stamp of approval in the manner West had grown accustomed to. One can only image what it must be like during the campaign to have the most significant person in recent world history--the most famous person on Earth--ask for your stamp of approval 65 times. Must have been the biggest ego boost for West--for anyone--ever. And then to keep giving that approval and have it not embraced so readily after the campaign was over--the crash must have been excruciating for West.

Re: Mr. President, Please Quench Dr. West’s Thirst

JFeldman — Wed, 18 May 2011 15:23:30 -0000

I think Harris-Perry gets it right when she dismisses

Re: (video) With President Obama’s Birth Certificate, Klansman Trump Reminds Blacks They Will Never Be American

JFeldman — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:46:00 -0000

Agreed. I think it also raises a frustrating issue about what to do when this kind of racist political humiliation rears its head. Boycotts seem to be the only mode of response, lately. And while effective, sometimes, boycotts leave the well of anger and pain largely untreated. It just isn't enough. How does one move a nation in response to this outrage? It's not an easy question to answer.

Re: Speaking in Yellow: The Crisis in American Politics

JFeldman — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 07:42:58 -0000

Thanks for your comment.

I don't agree with the "both sides do it" argument on this issue. If
you read the bio of Roger Ailes in the recent Esquire, you'll see
what's going on in media on the right and how it has a unique impact
on all of politics. I think many Americans are uncomfortable with the
idea that there could be a specific source of our problems that can be
identified. We would rather believe in a system wide problem. FOX News
runs a business model that consciously undermines public debate for
profit. It's no secret. The person responsible for running FOX News
admits everyday that he is trying to undermine the system to make
money. Everybody knows it. And that FOX approach is not the business
model of any other network. They are the problem. So, we can comment
on the declining quality of journalism in America, sure--that may be
true. But that doesn't change the fact that so long as FOX's business
model remains unchallenged, we will be stuck with a political
discourse continuously undermined from within.

Re: GOP Leaders Match Up Message to Violent Talk

JFeldman — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 18:34:51 -0000

I'm not a quantitative analyst. I don't have the kind of numbers you
request. My data set is in my book, which includes a representative
selection of right-wing rhetoric from television and books.

Re: Speaking in Yellow: The Crisis in American Politics

JFeldman — Sat, 08 Jan 2011 10:14:39 -0000

Good point and...thanks for the comment.

Re: Speaking in Yellow: The Crisis in American Politics

JFeldman — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 11:14:52 -0000

That's a great comparison. I've lived extensively in Italy and I can
confirm what you say. Thanks for posting the comment.

Re: Conspiracy Tea Served Up As Constitutionalism

JFeldman — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:43:33 -0000

Absolutely. And when those people think the "world" is what they see
on a single cable TV channel--that makes the situation even worse...

Re: Conspiracy Tea Served Up As Constitutionalism

JFeldman — Wed, 19 May 2010 10:42:06 -0000

I think the Liberal conspiracy might have already seized Breitbart's
$10K and used it to create the Gulf oil spill...

Re: George W. Bush "Kept Us Safe"?

JFeldman — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:37:22 -0000

Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber," attacked during Bush's Presidency.
He didn't seem very scared. Bush's policies spurred massive Al Qaeda
recruiting and inspired new terrorist techniques that we are still
dealing with today.

Re: Conspiracy Tea Served Up As Constitutionalism

JFeldman — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:30:51 -0000

DNA evidence could be faked by a complicit media and police (e.g).
There's no arguing with conspiracists. Any evidence that undercuts
their argument is just treated like evidence of the conspiracy. People
in this mindset do not debate in good faith. They simply use the
premise of debate to repeat the conspiracy triggers.
---

Re: Conspiracy Tea Served Up As Constitutionalism

JFeldman — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:06:40 -0000

Sad...hmmm. I'm simply not going to engage in this "show me" B.S.
from you people. IF you can find your way to my site and post a
comment on the disqus system, you're capable of finding the evidence
you require on your own time. If you haven't see the videos of
congressmen being spit on and the tea party sign that said "n***r,"
it's because you've convinced yourself that the entire media industry
except FOX is part of the conspiracy. And there's no "both sides are
doing it," either. "Both sides" didn't unleash death threats on
Congress for passing hcr. The right wing did that--the part of the
right wing that finds a comfortable place at tea party events.
"Everyday people"? the Democratic Party has hosted working class
people for decades. What's distinctive about the Tea Party is not
the ages or jobs--but the fact that 99% are white, 99% believe their
President is a foreign Muslim spy, 99% believe the capitalist reforms
passed by their representatives are "communist," and 99% believe the
U.S. constitution does not afford basic powers of taxation to the
Congress--a fact, somehow, unbeknownst to every sitting judge to
date, including the right wing conservative head of the current
supreme court. It's white people with sour grapes, and sour grapes
can have a big impact on elections. But it doesn't mean the
complaints are anything other than that--complaints.

Re: GOP Leaders Match Up Message to Violent Talk

JFeldman — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:55:52 -0000

It's not that this comment is entirely inaccurate--it just uses a
larger perspective to suggest that what we're seeing now is neither
distinct nor cause for alarm.

In my book Outright Barbarous, I discuss this exact point: 40 years
ago, violent rhetoric in politics existed on both the left and the
right. Today, by contrast, it is not a significant factor on the
left--not at all. To say that Afghanistan is a product of
"extremism," for example, doesn't really make much sense. By
contrast, the right has deeply invested in this form of political
talk over the past 10 years--most notably in best-selling books,
broadcast media, and campaign rhetoric. Sure--this also appears to
some extent on left-wing blogs--no question. But It's not
comprehensive. Therefore, it is no accident that the explosion of
violent threats and intimidation that happened during and after the
passage of the #hcr bill came from the right. That's not a reality
that becomes less troubling if we talk about 1968--because we're not
in 1968.

Re: GOP Leaders Match Up Message to Violent Talk

JFeldman — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:35 -0000

That's a GREAT quote from Anais Nin. Thanks for the comment...

Re: "Tea Party Movement" Planned Months Ago by GOP Billionaires

JFeldman — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:24:34 -0000

That's a solid point...

Re: Do Doctors in America Turn Away the Uninsured?

JFeldman — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:41:57 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Kahlan.

Even worse than the scenario you posit--what happens is that people
who know they cannot afford to risk financial ruin for their families
as a result of medical visits, end up in a kind of self-imposed no-
doctor dead zone: they psychologically eliminate the possibility of
going to a doctor from their lives. These folks then present with
terminal cancer at the emergency room, when they could have been
diagnosed 5 or even 10 years earlier. Even worse, what starts as
worry for financial ruin ends up as a full-fledged fear of doctors.
The number of people in this country who are truly afraid of doctors
is staggering, and growing. It's also very hard to measure. So we
have a deep problem, here, and can only be solved by first
acknowledging these very difficult situations--like the problem of
setting up an appointment without insurance.

Re: Do Doctors in America Turn Away the Uninsured?

JFeldman — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:06:32 -0000

Thanks for the comment, Rick!

Best,

Re: Oh, The Vision Thing

JFeldman — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:52:56 -0000

Robbins! Thank you...

Re: Oh, The Vision Thing

JFeldman — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 11:34:07 -0000

"Rules" is not a governing vision because it doesn't speak to the
broader meaning and purpose of our lives. It speaks to a function of
government. "Government is bad" and "corporations are bad" function
as governing visions (albeit ineffective ones, IMO) because they
emerge from foundational ideas about the nature of society.

A relationship to land is a core value that extends all the way back
to the period before the American revolution, guided westward
expansion, and shapes contemporary environmental thinking. Full
employment was the core of MLK's late vision. Together, these two
ideas offer the basis for a governing vision, within which the
details and priorities of a legislative agenda (e.g., reform,
regulation, etc.) can make sense.

Re: Senator Harry Reid’s ‘ Negro’ Problem

JFeldman — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 09:57:06 -0000

Reid's language was poorly chosen on this one, but in 2008 there was a national discussion going on about "whether or not the county was ready," and the core themes were, basically: does he look black, does he sound black, etc. I had literally dozens of conversations like that at that time. It was the "first black President" discussion and it happened in ways that were good, bad and everything in between.

But there's a second issue: the racism INHERENT IN the right saying that NOT forcing Reid out is a "double standard." Whenever the right talks about double standards on issues of race, what they are really doing is saying that accusations of racism are just a rouse liberal elites use to hold white people back--which appeals to about 35% of their base.

So when we have Liz Cheney calling for Harry Reid's head for saying "negro," but no push back to date on Limbaugh's "magic negro"--there, I think, is the naked politics of this. Reid apologizes, and from here we need to make sure that the right does not get to set down it's "double standard" meme and make a mockery of efforts to deal with racism.