Not only was Glenn Beck's December 9 rant against India and the Indian health care system xenophobic, it was incredibly elitist and ignorant.
After airing video of an American woman explaining why she went to India for her hip replacement - $40,000 in the U.S. v. $16,500 for her trip to India, the surgery and 13 days of medical care - Beck explained the cost differential thusly:
The best I can figure is all that money goes to high-tech hospitals and doctors who studied at Harvard rather than Gajra Raja medical school. Oh sure, yeah, you know, it's weird. You can buy a Gucci bag on any New York street corner for like four bucks. No different than the 3,000 dollar real thing. They're identical! They are! Yes, yes.
So Beck is defending the $3,000 Gucci bag rather than the $4 knockoff? That's not very populist!
Of course most people will never be able to afford the Gucci bag and thus, the knockoff is their only option. After all, in many cases, there is no difference between the Gucci bag and the knockoff - they are assembled the same way using the same materials. One just is licensed by Gucci and the other is not. Gucci is using its brand name to mark its price up by 1,000% (or whatever) so that its cost is what it's worth to upper class consumers and the knockoff is worth what it cost to make it.
All of which is to say, Beck is defending the American health care system by pointing to Harvard-trained doctors - but how many of his audience members -- how many Americans -- will ever have access to a Harvard-trained doctor? And do most Americans regularly need access to a Harvard-trained doctor?
Truth is, American patients are far more likely to be treated by a doctor trained in India than at Harvard.
In fact, more than four times as many Indian-trained MDs practice in the U.S. as their Harvard-trained colleagues.
According to NPR, "No other country has exported as many physicians as India. More than 40,000 practice in the United States, making up one of every 20 U.S. doctors."
According to Harvard Medical School, there are 9,088 living alumni with MDs from the classes 1929-2008.
Of course, with the estimated $18 million Beck makes this year, he can have his choice of doctors - and Gucci handbags.
As I mentioned last week when the shockingly good (or, shockingly not bad) job numbers were released, it will be interesting to see how conservative pundits react. The right-wing media seems to have tied their hopes on the U.S. economy remaining in the ditch. And any sort of turn around, particularly in job growth, represents very bad news for the Obama haters.
But how do you sustain a political, and media, movement that's build around the hope that as many Americans as possible lose their jobs and remained unemployed? It's an unsightly platform to rally around, but so far conservative pundits seem to be doing just that.
Check out Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal. Here's the headline to today's column
ObamaJobs: Uncle Sam's Hiring Hall
First, in a column devoted to the topic of jobs, Henninger magically forgot to mention the jobs numbers from Friday; the optimistic job report that Obama's critics don't want to acknowledge.
Second, watch how Henninger dismisses the idea of an economic recovery [emphasis added]:
Every serious person should welcome the president's proposals to lift the dormant economy and reduce unemployment. Not because every serious person would agree with them but because they are a clear test of how a left-wing government would run the American economy. If this works, hats off to them and we become France.
If not, Americans may finally dump left-wing economics into the ash heap of history, starting next November and then in the next presidential election, which can't come soon enough.
Note the open disdain Henninger has for the idea of an economic recovery, and how he claims that even if job creation works, it will be the wrong kind of recovery. Andn that even if the unemployment rate falls it will be because Obama ruined America in the process. (i.e. Turned it into France.) Henninger would clearly prefer Obama get blamed for continued high unemployed "next November and then in the next presidential election."
It seems obvious that Henninger doesn't really care about people today who are unemployed, and in fact, because of his partisan blinders, he'd actually prefer that people remain unemployed so he can writes columns slamming Obama.
Me? I just wish conservatives would stop rooting against America.
Fox News just ran a segment on public relations superpower Burson-Marsteller's receipt of federal stimulus contracts for their work on a campaign to raise public awareness of the national switch from analog to digital television. During her discussion with Douglas Schoen - who used to work with B-M head and former Clinton pollster Mark Penn -- and National Review's Rich Lowry, Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum commented that "people say" "so this is a place that needs $6 million in stimulus to save three jobs?":
Luckily for MacCallum, there's someone within the Fox News family itself who may be able to answer her question: Fox News contributor Dana Perino, whose day job is Chief Issues Counselor for Burson-Marsteller. Perino has no trouble using her Fox News platform to defend her former boss, President Bush; surely she'd have no qualms about defending her current one.
I would really like to visit whatever planet it is that NewsBuster Brent Baker calls home. It sounds like an interesting place -- not only is there no climate change, but on Baker's planet acts of wanton criminality are "laudatory" feats that deserve copious amounts of praise.
At least, that's the story Baker told this morning as he attacked the ABC and CBS evening newscasts for "discount[ing] the scientific relevance of the admissions and obfuscations displayed in the ClimateGate e-mails." According to Baker: "The two networks, however, painted the 'stolen' e-mails not as laudatory whistle-blowing, but as an unwanted impediment to the left's global warming agenda."
Let's consider that sentence for a moment -- Brent Baker, one of the premiere media critics on the right, considers hackers who illegally broke into e-mail servers at the University of East Anglia and stole several thousand e-mail messages to be "whistleblowers," and he wanted ABC and CBS to praise these criminals for their "laudatory" actions.
Once again, Brent Baker, media critic, praises criminals and wants the media to do the same. This isn't media criticism. This isn't even sane.
So yeah, book me a seat on the next rocket ship to the Bakersphere. That's an alternate reality I'm curious to explore.
In support of health care reform, SEIU's website recently highlighted the case of Karlyn Zimbelman, an American who received successful medical treatment abroad because she couldn't foot the $40,000 bill for hip replacement surgery she would have been forced to pay in the United States. And so, she went to India, where the surgery and 13 days of medical care cost her $12,500 -- $16,500 with travel and other costs.
Beck ran parts of a video testimonial from Ms. Zimbelman, who had the audacity to say the following: "I think the American health care system is excellent, but I just think it's so expensive. Where's the money going?" Beck then offered the following explanation of the cost differential (emphasis added):
The best I can figure is all that money goes to high-tech hospitals and doctors who studied at Harvard rather than Gajra Raja medical school. Oh sure, yeah, you know, it's weird. You can buy a Gucci bag on any New York street corner for like four bucks. No different than the 3,000 dollar real thing. They're identical!
But he wasn't finished. Beck continued (emphasis added):
And also, in our research that it took us, oh about 40 seconds, we figured out that some of that money here in America winds up in the pocket of a skilled doctor that helps off-set the 20 years of schooling that he endured and the loans he took out. And - you're not going to believe this one, Karlyn - some of that money seems to go to the 1 million SEIU workers in the healthcare industry that make slightly more here than in India. Because, you know, they have an American lifestyle, maybe a couple of cars, great union benefits, and homes with something that we in America like to call flush toilets.
And finally (emphasis added):
I don't want a discounted doctor. I don't want discounted wages. I don't want any of this stuff. If I wanted to live in India, I'd live in India. I want not the Indian lifestyle, I want the American lifestyle. I'm sure, no offense to India, I'm sure it's beautiful and everything. I've heard especially this time of year, especially by the - you know that one big river they have there that sounds like a disease? Come on, it does. I mean, if somebody said, 'I'm sorry, you have a really bad case of Ganges,' you'd want Cipro."
Thus, within the span of a few minutes, Beck implied that there are no quality medical schools in India; implied that medical care in India is a shoddy imitation of real health care; implied that the entire nation is an undeveloped backwater without even so much as indoor plumbing; and compared the Ganges River, a holy body of water for one of the world's oldest and largest religions, to a disease.
What does this say about Beck's respect for the millions of Indian-Americans living in the United States, let alone the Indian people? What does it say about his respect for the faith traditions of others? What does it say about his views on the tens of thousands of doctors who graduate Indian medical schools every year in the hopes of serving the world's second largest nation? Or on the tens of thousands of doctors who studied medicine in India but now practice it in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia?
Most importantly, why does Beck feel that ignorant, bigoted rants like these are funny? Or does he simply have so little respect for his viewers that he thinks he must resort to this kind of xenophobia in order to maintain his ratings?
You can watch the clips here:
The Times columnist uses the phrase all wrong today in her attempt to portray a Democratic senator as being caught up in a "sex scandal" [emphasis added]:
It's time for political sex scandals to reclaim their rightful place in our national discourse. The way things have been going lately, you'd think extramarital sex only happened to professional athletes. Consider the case of Senator Max Baucus of Montana. We learned last week that the recently divorced Baucus had nominated his girlfriend, Melodee Hanes, to be a U.S. attorney without warning the White House that they were an item.
Note also that the headline for the column reads "The Joys of Political Sex."
Collins tries very hard to push the Baucus story as a "sex" one, and even constituting a "political sex scandal," even though sex had nothing to do with the story. (See CJR.) And there certainly isn't a "sex scandal," or even "extramarital sex," involved in the story.
So simple question for Collin: what exactly are you talking about?
It comes courtesy of Public Polling Policy, last seen making headlines when, just days before Election Day, it announced that conservative Doug Hoffman boasted a "commanding" 17 point lead in the NY-23 special election last month. (Hoffman promptly lost.)
With its latest, PPP, which conducts automated, computerized surveys (i.e. push button phone replies only), the polling firm claims it has a shocker:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor.
First of all, if Obama wins his re-election in 2012 and he wins the popular vote 50% vs. 44% against his GOP challenger, that will be considered to be a landslide. A six-point win in a two-man nationwide race is enormous. (It's not that far off from what Obama trounced McCain last year; 53% vs. 46%.) Just sayin'.
Secondly, and more importantly, does it really make sense to take somebody's who's out of public life and no longer has a single political responsibility and who hasn't commented on, let alone taken a stance on, current events in nearly 12 months, and pit him with against the man sitting in the Oval Office and who's forced to make all sorts of unpopular decision on a weekly basis? Of course it doesn't make sense.
Why, other than headline trolling, would PPP poll about somebody who will never run for office again? Why is PPP asking people about a fictitious candidate? And if that's the route it wants to take, why doesn't PPP ask people if they'd prefer if Ronald Reagan were president, or Teddy Roosevelt? Or Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise for that matter. They're in the public arena today about as much as Bush is, which is to say no at all.
Meanwhile, I love the hilarious headline Politico's Ben Smith put on his PPP item; "Bush closes the gap." If that's meant to be a tongue-in-cheek joke, than I give Smith credit because he sees the absurdity of treating Bush as a candidate; as somebody who's trying to close "the gap." But if the headline's meant to be serious, than I'm laughing at Smith, because whole Bush vs. Obama premise is almost too dumb for words because one guy no longer has to make a single difficult decision (except maybe select a golf partner), while the other one has to make tough, controversial choices pretty much on a weekly basis and be held up for relentless critiques. But gee, we're supposed to be surprised by the polling results?
UPDATED: And congratulations PPP, you also scored the second dumbest Obama polling question of the week [emphasis added]:
Do you support the impeachment of President Obama for his actions in office so far? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. If you're not sure, press 3.
A little Thursday morning fun:
For past editions of Rush Limbaugh Karaoke on NBC's Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, click here.
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his December 9 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
In a December 9 post on the Chicago Tribune's "The Swamp" blog, Mark Silva wrote that the Piast Institute, which is "a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting the understanding of Poland and Polish Americans," condemned Beck for mocking the name of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in his comments this week about her and her husband, Robert Creamer.
It took a smug-faced Beck five or six syllables to get through Schakowsky's name - which he used to suggest that Creamer is "well-connected'' in Washington.
And it took the Piast Institute, a nonprofit group dedicated to promoting the understanding of Poland and Polish Americans which is based in Hamtramck, Mich., about a day to protest Beck's attempt at ethnic humor.
"American names come from all over the world and it is incumbent on all of us, especially those in the media, to learn to pronounce them correctly,'' the institute said in a statement released today. "Ms. Schakowsky's name is only three syllables long and its original spelling was altered to make it easy for English speakers to say.
"Our names are a key to our identity, self-esteem and our pride in our heritage and family,'' the institute noted. "To fail to pronounce them correctly, especially on national television, is a mark of disrespect. This is a serious matter. The prejudice the Polish-Americans have suffered has usually begun with the mockery of our names.''