Une personne multi-genre, dont le genre d’assignation est masculin, mais vivant socialement de manière équilibrée entre plusieurs genres, peut-elle être qualifiée d’hétérosexuelle si elle est exclusivement attirée par les femmes? Wikipedia
Ceci révèle parfaitement l’illusion qu’est Barack Obama. Avec ce prix, les élites mondiales poussent Obama, l’homme de paix, à ne pas envoyer plus de troupes en Afghanistan, à ne pas s’en prendre à l’Iran et son programme nucléaire et en somme à continuer à émasculer les Etats-Unis. Ce qu’ils aiment par dessus tout, c’est des Etats-Unis affaiblis et castrés et c’est leur manière de promouvoir ce concept. Rush Limbaugh
Nous vivons dans un âge de leaders idéologiquement travestis. Le Français Nicolas Sarkozy ridiculise le rêve de désarmement » de M. Obama’ un jour et le lendemain appelle à la redéfinition du PIB en termes de bonheur. L’Allemande Angela Merkel fait un petit pas à droite ou un petit pas à gauche selon l’humeur du moment. Le Britannique Gordon Brown est sur le point de disparaître parmi un brouillard idéologique, pour être remplacé par le Conservateur brumeux David Cameron. Les Conservateurs américains ne peuvent citer un seul responsable politique à qui ils confieraient leurs idées. (…) Si M. Moore et sa galerie de victimes pleurantes y regardaient à deux fois, ils verraient que leur problème n’est pas le capitalisme mais la politique. Une fois élus, pratiquement tous les politiciens aux États-Unis ou en Europe occidentale joignent le Parti Pas beaucoup de grand chose, et cela inclut Barack Obama ou l’inclura bientôt. (…) Aux États-Unis, les politiques définissent le capitalisme comme le système dont l’activité économique est suffisante pour produire des contributions électorales. Mais cela assure la stagnation de revenu pour les masses de M. Moore. (…) Le problème le plus immédiat pour les États-Unis n’est pas que nous ayons trop de capitalisme, mais que nous n’en ayons pas assez. (…) Le rejet de Chicago par le Comité olympique a été perçu ici comme une histoire d’Obama de plus. Le véritable et moins gratifiant message est que du point de vue des membres du comité qui connaissent le monde, Chicago est un has-been. Rio est l’avenir. (…) La différence importante entre le « socialiste » Barack Obama et les Républicains est qu’il se contenterait d’une croissance annuelle de 2% (faut bien payer les rêveries vertes) et qu’eux pourraient obtenir 3%. Dans le monde de la Chine, de l’Inde et du Brésil qui croissent entre entre 5% et 9% annuels, il nous faut davantage. Pour moi, un futur président qui remettrait les États-Unis dans la course avec ces cracks-là pourrait même s’appeler communiste si ça lui fait plaisir. Daniel Henninger
Quelle confusion des genres ?
En ces temps étranges où un prix Nobel récompense un homme juste pour ses belles paroles ou le fait qu’il ne soit pas George Bush …
Et où le choix, pour les prochains JO, de la principale ville d’un pays émergent et 10e PIB mondial contre la ville natale de Capone, Daley et Qui-vous-savez est présenté comme la faute à George Bush …
Alors qu’en dépit des pires dénonciations y compris de la part de son actuel président, le pays dudit Bush pendant 8 des 9 dernières années continue justement à truster tant les récompenses que les innovations dans les domaines qui comptent le plus pour une économie (10 Nobels sur 11 possibles cette année entre physique, chimie, médecine et économie) …
Et que comme vient de le confirmer après la Justice britannique le tout récent film de l’ancien journaliste du Financial Times ( « Not Evil, Just Wrong », Phelim McAleer – merci Sylvain), les thèses du prédécesseur d’Obama pour le Nobel de la paix d’il y a deux ans (opposant américain lui aussi par hasard à Bush comme le Dhimmi Carter de 2002) ne valent guère plus que la célèbre réputation de bonimenteur de leur auteur …
Retour, avec la critique du dernier film de Michael Moore par l’éditorialiste du WSJ Daniel Henninger, sur ces non-leaders en mal d’identité idéologique qui nous servent de dirigeants et dont le premier président américain postracial et multiculturel est l’incarnation la plus parfaite …
Michael Moore’s ‘Socialist’ President
The most immediate problem facing the U.S. is not that we have too much capitalism, but that we don’t have enough of it.
Daniel Henninger
The Wall Street Journal
October 9, 2009
Barack Obama has an identity problem. When this column has suggested that Barack Obama is not a standard-brand socialist, some readers have attached nuclear warheads to their emails, which scream of course Obama is a socialist (you idiot).
The White House itself appears to be getting some of this same email, judging from Mr. Obama’s plaintive defense when insisting to George Stephanopoulos that his health-care tax isn’t a tax: « My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. » Which if true, would be socialism.
Daniel Henninger discusses Michael Moore’s new film « Capitalism: A Love Story » and President Obama’s ideological confusion.
With friends like Michael Moore, Barack Obama doesn’t need imaginary enemies. Michael Moore’s « Capitalism: A Love Story » has opened and is doing poorly at the box office. Feeling sorry for the old Catholic socialist, I spent 12 after-tax dollars to see it.
Don’t expect « Capitalism » to make the White House theater.
The movie is largely a paean to plaintiffs lawyers and unions, who alas depend on evil capitalism for their incomes. Still, it’s been noted that « Capitalism » slams Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd for being one of the unseemliest friends of Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO of Countrywide Financial, the famous subprime toxic waste site.
In fact, Mr. Moore holds up to ridicule a Who’s Who of notable Democrats for selling out to the bankers: Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Robert Rubin. At this point in Mr. Moore’s narrative, all hope is lost, sinking beneath satanic capitalism.
But something happened, the movie says, that no one saw coming. « Change is what’s happening. » We are introduced to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama (whose post-election supervisory link to the unseemly Geithner and Summers goes unremarked).
Of all the issues raised in the two-year campaign, Mr. Moore picks one, the famous charge that will not die: « Obama is a socialist. »
Unlike the president, Mr. Moore doesn’t duck. « The more they called Obama a socialist, » he says, « the more he rose in the polls. »
Michael Moore is a progressive saint. If he believes Barack Obama is a socialist camouflaged inside a Brioni suit, so must many of his fellow progressives.
This matters because the president’s confused ideological identity has become an impediment to passing his agenda.
He says his health-care bill is not a Trojan horse for a Canadian-style single-payer system, but then feels forced to appear on five Sunday talk shows to prove otherwise; or he plants white-coated docs like plastic flamingos on the White House lawn.
On the first September anniversary of the end of Wall Street as we know it, Mr. Obama stood in the Federal Hall on Wall Street to say, « I’ve always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. » Only a therapist could explain why some people say, « I’ve always been . . . »
We live in an age of ideologically transgendered leaders. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy ridicules Mr. Obama’s « dream of disarmament » one day and the next calls for redefining GDP in terms of happiness. Germany’s Angela Merkel hops a little bit right or a little bit left as the moment requires. The U.K.’s Gordon Brown is about to disappear amid an ideological fog, to be replaced by the foggy Tory David Cameron. American conservatives can’t name one politician they would trust with their ideas.
Michael Moore’s « Capitalism, » however awful, should not be passed off as irrelevant. Beyond the agitprop lie individuals screaming at political and economic institutions that are manifestly bogged down.
Congress’s approval rating is dead in the water at 22%. California is being described as America’s first failed state. Voters in New Jersey, which may already be a failed state, must choose soon between the ineffectual Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine and his hapless GOP opponent Chris Christie.
If Mr. Moore and his gallery of weeping victims took a closer look, they’d see their problem is not capitalism but politics. Once elected, virtually all politicians in the U.S. or Western Europe join the Not Much of Anything Party, and that includes Barack Obama, or soon will.
In the U.S., both Republican and Democratic pols define capitalism as a system with economic activity sufficient to produce campaign contributions. But that ensures income stagnation for Mr. Moore’s masses.
The most immediate problem facing the U.S. is not that we have too much capitalism, but that we don’t have enough of it.
In a recent visit to the Journal’s offices, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key suggested Americans and Europeans don’t quite comprehend the enormous « wealth » rising in Asia. Add to that Brazil. This isn’t just fat cats but the wealth of billions rising on commerce—on crude, potent capitalism.
The Olympic Committee’s rejection of Chicago played here as yet another Obama story. The real, less entertaining message is that from where the well-traveled committee members sit, Chicago is a has-been. Rio is the future.
The important difference between the « socialist » Barack Obama and the Republicans is he’d settle for 2% annual growth (gotta pay for the green dreams) and they might get 3%. In a world of China, India and Brazil, growing at rates between 5% and 9%, we need more. A future president who puts the U.S. back in the race with these fast runners could call himself a communist for all I care.
Write to henninger@wsj.com
About Daniel Henninger
Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Mr. Henninger joined Dow Jones in 1971 as a staff writer for the National Observer. He became an editorial-page writer for the Journal in 1977, arts editor in 1978 and editorial features editor in 1980. He was appointed assistant editor of the editorial page in 1983 and chief editorial writer and senior assistant editor in October 1986, with daily responsibility for the « Review & Outlook » columns. In November 1989 he became deputy editor of the editorial page.
Mr. Henninger was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in editorial writing in 1987 and 1996, and shared in the Journal’s Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of the attacks on September 11. In 2004, he won the Eric Breindel Journalism Award for his « Wonder Land » column. He won the Gerald Loeb Award for commentary in 1985. In 1998 he received the Scripps Howard Foundation’s Walker Stone Award for editorial writing, for editorials on a range of issues, including the International Monetary Fund, presidential politics and cloning. He won the 1995 American Society of Newspaper Editors’ Distinguished Writing Award for editorial writing, and he was a finalist in that award in 1985, 1986 and 1993. A native of Cleveland, Mr. Henninger graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor’s degree from the School of Foreign Service
Voir aussi:
NScott Atlas
National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA)
March 24, 2009Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government rôle in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America’s health care system should be considered.Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).
* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.
* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).
* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report « excellent » health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as « fair or poor. »[5]
Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long – sometimes more than a year – to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]
Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either « fundamental change » or « complete rebuilding. »[9]
Fact No. 8: Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the « health care system, » more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared to only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).[10]
Fact No. 9: Americans have much better access to important new technologies like medical imaging than patients in Canada or the U.K. Maligned as a waste by economists and policymakers naïve to actual medical practice, an overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identified computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade.[11] [See the table.] The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Canada and Britain.[12]
Fact No. 10: Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.[13] The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other single developed country.[14] Since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to American residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined.[15] In only five of the past 34 years did a scientist living in America not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.[16] [See the table.]
Conclusion. Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
Scott W. Atlas, M.D., is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor at the Stanford University Medical Center. A version of this article appeared previously in the February 18, 2009, Washington Times.
[1] Concord Working Group, « Cancer survival in five continents: a worldwide population-based study,.S. abe at responsible for theountries, in s chnologies, » Lancet Oncology, Vol. 9, No. 8, August 2008, pages 730 – 756; Arduino Verdecchia et al., « Recent Cancer Survival in Europe: A 2000-02 Period Analysis of EUROCARE-4 Data, » Lancet Oncology, Vol. 8, No. 9, September 2007, pages 784 – 796.
[2] U.S. Cancer Statistics, National Program of Cancer Registries, U.S. Centers for Disease Control; Canadian Cancer Society/National Cancer Institute of Canada; also see June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, « Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S., » National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 13429, September 2007. Available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w13429.
[3] Oliver Schoffski (University of Erlangen-Nuremberg), « Diffusion of Medicines in Europe, » European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, 2002. Available at http://www.amchampc.org/showFile.asp?FID=126. See also Michael Tanner, « The Grass is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care Systems around the World, » Cato Institute, Policy Analysis No. 613, March 18, 2008. Available at http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9272.
[4] June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, « Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S. »
[5] Ibid.
[6] Nadeem Esmail, Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, « Waiting Your Turn, (17th edition) Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada, » Fraser Institute, Critical Issues Bulletin 2007, Studies in Health Care Policy, August 2008; Nadeem Esmail and Dominika Wrona « Medical Technology in Canada, » Fraser Institute, August 21, 2008 ; Sharon Willcox et al., « Measuring and Reducing Waiting Times: A Cross-National Comparison Of Strategies, » Health Affairs, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 2007, pages 1,078-87; June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, « Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S. »; M.V. Williams et al., « Radiotherapy Dose Fractionation, Access and Waiting Times in the Countries of the U.K.. in 2005, » Royal College of Radiologists, Clinical Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 5, June 2007, pages 273-286.
[7] Nadeem Esmail and Michael A. Walker with Margaret Bank, « Waiting Your Turn 17th Edition: Hospital Waiting Lists In Canada 2007. »
[8] « Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics, » Department of Health, England. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Statistics/Performancedataandstatistics/HospitalWaitingTimesandListStatistics/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=186979&Rendition=Web.
[9] Cathy Schoen et al., « Toward Higher-Performance Health Systems: Adults’ Health Care Experiences In Seven Countries, 2007, » Health Affairs, Web Exclusive, Vol. 26, No. 6, October 31, 2007, pages w717-w734. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/26/6/w717.
[10] June O’Neill and Dave M. O’Neill, « Health Status, Health Care and Inequality: Canada vs. the U.S. »
[11] Victor R. Fuchs and Harold C. Sox Jr., « Physicians’ Views of the Relative Importance of 30 Medical Innovations, » Health Affairs, Vol. 20, No. 5, September /October 2001, pages 30-42. Available at http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/20/5/30.pdf.
[12] OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html.
[13] « The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation, » Economic Report of the President (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2004), 108th Congress, 2nd Session H. Doc. 108-145, February 2004, Chapter 10, pages 190-193, available at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/2004_erp.pdf; Tyler Cowen, New York Times, Oct. 5, 2006; Tom Coburn, Joseph Antos and Grace-Marie Turner, « Competition: A Prescription for Health Care Transformation, » Heritage Foundation, Lecture No. 1030, April 2007; Thomas Boehm, « How can we explain the American dominance in biomedical research and development? » Journal of Medical Marketing, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2005, pages 158-66, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, July 2002. Available at http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/erp/page/8649/download/47455/8649_ERP.pdf .
[14] Nicholas D. Kristof, « Franklin Delano Obama, » New York Times, February 28, 2009. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/opinion/01Kristof.html.
[15] The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. Available at http://almaz.com/nobel/medicine/medicine.html.
[16] « The U.S. Health Care System as an Engine of Innovation, » 2004 Economic Report of the President.
Voir enfin:
Al Gore’s First (and Probably Last) Q&A
A Nobel Prize winner takes a few questions.
John Fund
The Wall Street Journal
October 12, 2009
Before President Obama won his Nobel Peace Prize, the real signal that the Norwegian Nobel committee had become politicized was its 2007 prize to Al Gore, largely for his global warming film « An Inconvenient Truth. »
For a public figure, Mr. Gore has been strangely reluctant to answer questions or debate the more controversial parts of his work. But over the weekend, he deigned to take a few questions during a meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Madison, Wisconsin.
Irish documentary filmmaker Phelim McAleer was in the line. A former Financial Times journalist, his new film, « Not Evil, Just Wrong, » is a direct refutation of Mr. Gore’s thesis and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world’s poor. When his turn came, Mr. McAleer asked Mr. Gore about a court case in Britain in which a parent had objected to « An Inconvenient Truth » being shown to British schoolchildren because it was largely propaganda, not science.
Mr. Gore swatted away the question by claiming the judge had found in favor of his film. He also briefly addressed one of the objections to his film by scoffing at claims that polar bears weren’t an endangered species. Mr. McAleer tried to follow up by pointing out that polar bear populations were increasing, but his microphone was quickly cut off. Organizers insisted that several other people were waiting with questions and they had to move on.
In fact, Mr. Gore didn’t answer Mr. McAleer’s question and was wrong on the facts. The British court found that An Inconvenient Truth « is a political film » riddled with scientific errors. The judge also held that requiring the film to be shown in schools would be a violation of law, unless accompanied by « guidance » pointing out its errors. The judge concluded that the claimant who objected to the film « substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act. »
As for polar bears, Mr. McAleer was correct: Surveys show their numbers are increasing.
Mr. McAleer, whose film premiers this weekend, says he’s more disappointed in the environmental journalists who give Mr. Gore cover than in the former vice president. Mr. Gore is simply doing what any propagandist with a weak case would do — avoiding serious debate or exchange. To quote the late William F. Buckley, « There is a reason that baloney rejects the grinder. »