My first reaction would be to dismiss the Norwegian as an arrogant, condescending prick. Norway happens to be sitting on an oil field which has generated a sovereign wealth fund of $750 billion supporting a nation of 5.1 million people, or about $150,000 per person and growing. Understand, this represents not the value of the oil, but the profit after extraction and after funding a generous welfare state. We’re not all so lucky.
Of this bounty, Norway spends 1.5% of GDP on defense. Meanwhile they shelter under the NATO nuclear umbrella. I wish the US could spend 1.5% of GDP on defense. I really do. But if we did the world would be dominated militarily by Russia, China, and Iran, and Norway might find such a world surprisingly uncongenial.
Norway is a nation of 5.1 million people, almost all of whom have been in the country for generations and share a common world view and heritage. The US is a country of 330 million people, most of whom arrived either enslaved or dead broke, from every corner of the world, with almost nothing in common. Maybe we deserve some credit for building the society that we have, imperfect as it is.
A great many Americans are stupid…because we’re free to be. We don’t have mandatory re-education camps; if someone drops out of high school, that’s his or her right.
We encourage education, and we reward education, but we don’t mandate it (for adults.)
When people are free, they are likely to prioritize differently than you might think they should.
LOL. The US spends almost as much on its military than the next 9 nations combined. US military spending is close to 40% of the entire world. China is 10%. Russia is 5%. Iran is an error term.
Norway also spends 1.03% of GDP on developmental aid while the US clocks in at 0.19%. So there’s that.
Europeans have been assuming they know what is best for everyone to catastrophic results for centuries, what makes them so confident that they have it right this time?
I lived in Germany as a teenager and loved it very much. I think many of the desired outcomes reflected in many European countries’ policies would be good to achieve in the USA, even if circumstances require different approaches. If Europeans are really interested in my thoughts on why we haven’t achieved those outcomes (or seem to not value those outcomes), I am happy to talk about it. If they just want to inaccurately bash America (and this has been a very small group, in my experience), they’re usually not people worth talking to in any case.
To be fair, most abolitionists weren’t supportive of actually promoting racial equality.
Well, here in America pretty much everyone - men, women, and children - get generally screwed by healthcare. So I figured a question specifically about women’s healthcare was referring to abortions.
Salon has published some useful and intelligent stuff in the past; for instance, they played a role in Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying. But anything worthwhile that they’re publishing now is getting buried under a tidal wave of dumb shit, of which that article is an excellent example. For instance, it says the Iraq War was “opposed by the entire world”. Regardless of how one felt about the Iraq War at the time–I was opposed to it–this is false. More than 30 countries, most of them in Europe, sent troops to Iraq. Tony Blair was the war’s biggest cheerleader among world leaders. Even Norway, if I recall correctly, voted in favor of the war resolution at the UN. So Ann Jones is flat wrong in that assertion. Debunking the entire article would take more time and patience that I have, but I’ll take a stab at a few of the questions.
Like others in this thread, I’ll assume that this is only about abortion. “Women’s health care” includes everything from anti-depressants to major surgery, but left-wingers who use the words generally mean abortion only. As I noted in a GD thread a few months ago, most European countries have much more restrictive abortion laws than the United States. That includes Norway. There’s no legal abortion on demand in Norway after the 12th week, though it may be allowed under cases of medical necessity. In the USA, courts routinely knock down attempts to restrict abortion even after the 20th week.
I hate torture and oppose it strongly. However, there is little reason in the main to believe that international law will always give better human rights results than American law. Vast amounts of human rights abuse in many countries is routinely ignored by the United Nations and other international bodies, giving little reason why anyone would want international law to play a larger role than it does.
Despite the humiliating use of torture during Dubya’s Administration, the USA still has many human rights areas to be proud of. Our defenses of free speech and freedom of religion are among the world’s strongest. Given the proliferation of “hate speech” bans in many other countries, there’s just reason for Americans to fear what would happen if we let international laws and standards override our own national laws.
I didn’t bother reading the replies so far so forgive me if I repeat info. And giving the obviously anti-US nature of the questions forgive me if I treat this thread as a ‘hostile witness’.
So in a nutshell:
*
Why can’t you Americans stop interfering with women’s health care?*
If you want to talk about abortion, just say so, don’t use pretentious, pseudo-intellectual euphemisms. And abortion is legal in all 50 states.
** Why can’t you understand science?
How can you still be so blind to the reality of climate change?*
Don’t ask two identical questions when only one is enough. Climate change as it exists today is less science than it is a neo-hippie fad and it deserves to be held up to intense scrutiny by anyone claiming to be a real scientist. Not doing so is the very definition of ignoring the ‘scientific method’ and instead caving to politics & media hype.
** How can you speak of the rule of law when your presidents break international laws to make war whenever they want?*
9/11 was more than a justification for everything we’ve done in the war on terror. If anything, we haven’t gone far enough. When terrorists attack and destroy one of your country’s greatest structures/achievements and murder 3000+ of its innocent citizens call us. Till then questions like the above mean next to nothing.
** How can you throw away the Geneva Conventions and your principles to advocate torture?*
Waterboarding is not torture.
** How can you hand over the power to blow up the planet to one lone, ordinary man?*
First, a nuclear war would not ‘blow up the planet’, but it would destroy most of Western civilization. And second, it is neither in the hands of ‘one’ nor an ‘ordinary’ individual. It would require two (and actually quite a few more) top members of the US govt to launch a nuclear strike, and on many levels the US President can hardly be called an ‘ordinary individual’ (and this coming from one of the only countries that has NEVER had a king).
** Why do you Americans like guns so much? Why do you kill each other at such a rate?*
Because this country was formed by armed revolt and personal ownership of firearms was (and to some degree still is) an integral part of that. Again, those of you who’s history is dominated by aristocracy & peasantry will never understand this. And we are a nation of over 300 million people. Percentages distort.
If only these were the sorts of questions I were asked.
Instead, I get on a daily basis, ‘Will this be on the exam?’ and ‘Do I have to keep to the assignment deadline?’ and ‘Does a hangover count towards an excused absence?’
Of course, I’ve pre-empted a lot of it by informing people that Americans are issued with a gun and a banjo at birth.
I’ve seriously never been asked any of the questions in the OP despite working several years at a university populated in the majority by British and European students and staff. No wait, I told a lie – I was once asked early on why one of my American colleagues is SO DAMNED LOUD, and myself and the other American aren’t. That’s been about it.
Hit enter not preview: another instance recently: a student asked me a bit shyly if it were ok for her to use clips from Team America in her class presentation (which was indeed relevant to her topic), as she was worried I’d find it offensive. I’ve got another student doing his senior thesis on the influence of Classics on early Federalist propaganda who was fretting over how he ought to refer to the American Revolution in his paper.
Oh! I’ve also been asked several times why all the baddies in Hollywood films are played by British actors.
The article makes it pretty clear that the author is an American, contrasting America with the way things are done in Norway.
All the oil income goes into the sovereign wealth fund. That is why its so big. There is no “after”. Oil does not fund the welfare state. The welfare state is funded of the governments normal non-oil income. The fact that it can be generous without a crushing tax burden is normally attributed to policies like maternity leave, childcare etc which ensures a large workforce participation, and the fact that the country is mostly middle class.
Norway has conscription for men and women, and a military budget that is in the top 30 in the world. Not per person, total expenditure. 1,5 % of Norways GDP is enough to put its military expenditure in the top 30 in the world.
Perspective. The US military budget is not normal, or usable as a yardstick.
And if you total up the 2009 military budgets of Russia and China, you’d be well short of the total of the UK, Germany and France.
Also, the US military budget is 4 % of GDP. Healthcare is 18 %. Norway spends 9 % of GDP on healthcare. US waste in healthcare is more than twice its total military budget and if the US reduced is spending to Norways % of GDP, that would save one-third of the healthcare waste.
In general, having more people should make it easier to get results. thats whay the economies of size are all about.
If you’re talking financial & industrial stuff, yeah. Freddy is clearly not. If you’re talking about voluntary consensus, no. We have metaphors for this: too many chiefs, not enough Indians; too many cooks spoil the soup; please everyone and you’ll please no one, etc. It’s actually a pretty good description of why the USA has the problems it does. A squabbling and disarticulated populace is easily manipulated.
SIPRI yearbooks 2009 (table 5.2) and2010. To keep it in tune with the above, Norway military budget alone was about 6 billion in 2009. 1/9 th of Russias.
Very good points. Come to West Virginia (you know, country roads, Blue Ridge mountains, Shenandoah river…) sometime. One of the most heavily armed places in the world, and one of the safest too. People are polite. Very polite.
Indeed. The high oil price has allowed Russia to allocate far more money to its military budget than previously. However, some friends of mine who are heavily into military matters have argued quite convincingly that little of Russias increased spending has made all the way to the military. They believe that much of the money stopped with the military production and purchasing authorities. Its hearsay, but it does fit with my understanding of how Russia works.
Chinas increase is a different story I understand, but less relevant to Norway.
