Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "The Jimmy Dore Show"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ Escorpion Venenos + Cythia Johson part 2 - Nafta vs. beneficial trade
Let me tell you which KIND OF INTERNATIONAL Trade has been beneficial for decades and drove technological progress in all nations. - I live in Europe in one of the countries famous for their export industry. Whether it was in Western Europe, Commonwealth, Japan, U.S. - all these nations built the export industry (for technical parts and machines - B2B !!) beginning with the 1950s to 70s.
In that time there was only somewhat "free trade" and a LOT of regulation. Not even the WTO (that came in 1993 or 94 before it was GATTS, before it was ??) LOTS of tariffs, protectionism, import quotas and what not were in place - in all nations..
Customs controls and procedures at the borders (or the freight carrier had to do it in advance). These were extra costs (did not matter with the B2B consignments which are usually larger and happen only from time to time, at that time also no "just in time" production.
I worked in the export industry (one line of products were for for assembly line production in a neighbour country, usually weekly larger consignments / the other line were sparte parts which were sold worldwide and required a completely different kind of handling of orders (usually 1 - 4 deliveries per year to a distributor in the foreign country). Also the exchange rates for currencies were fixed (by governments not the speculators).
At that time there was no EURO, no common market, no EU in it's current form (only the E.C a loose economic cooperation), not even the WTO was in place.
- Did. Not. Matter. Business was fine (and still is for that company).
Quality products in Business to Bussiness export/import: These kind of products have a limited market (not like steel, cement, garments which are mass consumer products and/or sold in really huge quantities). That means if you supply spare parts or machine (for industrial production!) you will have to compete with only 5 - 20 corporations worldwide.
Research costs a lot of money, the niche once it is taken is very hard to break into for a newcomer, the existing companies chase each other for price and quality, if anything they buy up a competitor.
The advantage of mass productions comes with more output. If you have a specialized product you MUST export (even a large country like the U.S. would not be enough of a market) in order to have enough sales to make production and future investment and development viable. The advantage for the customers: on the international industry fairs they will learn about the new products, they could pick between a Swiss, German, Australian, Japanese ... product whatever was best. And because the manufacturers all exported (= enough sales), not only were you able to get their product at all (the best technology could offer) - it would also come at a good price.
THAT IS THE GOOD KIND OF TRADE. - And while the Europeans happily built their export industry, there were a lot of restrictions in place for OTHER KIND OF PRODUCTS. For instance dairy, steel, cement - my country produced its own cement, did import cement - or only restricted quantities (which may have been cheaper if the producers cut corners with environmental protection, also our energy costs were traditionally high). So maybe we paid a little more for cement, it did not matter - at that time a LOT was built. The advantage: that industry employed well paid workers, and for the profits at that time they paid higher taxes and they actually paid them. So the higher price for the consumers in the end did not matter much. And since the local market was LARGE ENOUGH to WARRANT COST-EFFICIENT INDUSTRIAL MASS PRODUCTION, there was enough sales WITHIN the country, it did not matter that we did not have export/import with cement. The disadvantage (like a slightly higher price) were balanced out by positive job effects and disposable income of the workers they were able to pay well.
Same with sugar, steel (I guess we exported much more steel than we imported), dairy products were not imported, some of them were exported (not in the European countries which were equally protectionist regarding agriculture).
Does it improve the life of the citizens, that we now get cheap steel, or Aluminium from China, or that Irish butter is sold here ?
I think those cheap(er) imports come at a high price. - "free" trade and globalization and all the other neoliberal buzzword phenomens are definitely not necessary to build an economy from scratch after a terrible war. As Europe proves - and Japan as well. The Japanese were really good in protectionism.
And they provided several case studies how to do GOOD COMPETITION without cutting corners (lowering the standards for environment, quality, and workforce) when they upset the markets for electronics and cars.
They won that race fair and square. But of course the other countries/manufacturers adapted. If you do not resort to cutting the pay of the workforce and cut other corners to "improve" your efficiency and performance - if you go the path of REAL TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT there is only so much you can do.
Your competitors will learn from you and catch up. Which happened. The UK automobil industry had a hard time, but the car builders on the continent - after shortly scratching their heads - ADAPTED. The products were vastly improved thanks to the Japanese real innovations. The Japanese still have an excellent reputation but the gap of advantages has been closed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
See the inteviews when the book "Shattered" (Hillary campaign) came out. The "consultants" were all over the place with the platform (or HRC was). HRC said: "I do not understand the country anymore." like she had understood the country in the years before ?? - Chuck Schumer figured out that "we have to throw a bone to the plebs, the unwashed masses are getting restless. And they wont be placated. We really have to DO BETTER MESSAGING." (The red bow did not work and we cannot talk about the content of the parcel, so let's introduce a golden bow - all new and shiny. Surly THEN they will vote for us.).
Humans, even politicians, are very social beings, HRC and Schumer are not stupid. If you want to promote policies that benefit you (and your donors) and your people IN the bubble but are to the disadvantage of the population - then you have to use your intelligence to preserve your peace of mind, to NOT KNOW that you are a sellout, coward, unethical person who is responsible for the misery of many people. Hardly anyone has the intellectual honesty to admit it to themselves when they screw over other people, and stay aware of it.
That self dumbing down for ideological and selfish reasons cannot be selective. These people literally become unable to process information and to read the signs on the wall.
All those consultants (like in the HRC campaign) want the lucrative jobs, what does it REALLY matter if the election is won and what becomes of the country (or the world). So they cannot SEE either.
Winning elections would be a bonus point on the resume, but the donors NEED the Democratic Party - so there will be always work for well connected consultants and lobbyists.
The role of the Dems is to neutralize the Progressives - and in that function they are better than the Republicans. The Dems can tell the progressives to be "patient" or "realistic". The GOP has not influence with the Progessives anyway.
In the Spanish Civil War the revolutionaries were "supported" by Communists representing the agenda of the Soviet Untion - they held the revolutionaries back. Unlike the Stalinistic dictatorship these people really took the Marxist principles to heart (the workers, not the bosses and not the state control the means of production, democracy in the workplace, that is a very subversive idea, and the S.U. did not like it anymore than Franco).
Martin Luther King got told time and again that the president (JFK, Johnson) was sympathetic to the cause - it was "just not yet the right time". Patience was necessary, more patience.
1
-
1
-
Caring for seniors and UBI is NOT a contradiction. - But the 18th century ideas about the economy and the need to "work hard" are deeply ingrained in the American psyche. So for a start, bring back the REAL 40 hour week - and then reduce work hours (without reducing pay, the increase in productivity covers that). Undo globalization (that means help the workers in foreign countries to get a better deal - right now the workers in rich and poor countries are pitted against each other. BTW Marx got this exactely right: "Workers of all countries unite", they have all the same interests - the Chinese workers are not our enemies. They are screwed over and even more like their peers in the Western World, if they were treated better (pay, environment), they would become our future customers. More of an exchange instead of a one way street - export everything to the West (because the Chinese produce much more than they can afford to buy).
higher minimum wage, massive infrastructure programs (repair and renewables), Medicare for All. Important: end the mass incarceration. better schools, not necessarily college. But the kids from the "inner cities" must not continue to be lost to society - and that would take an extra effort plus some time - maybe 10 - 15 years.
You need mature people who possess themselves !, to build a society. Who can cooperate and and also are abe to think and to stand for themselves, are not as easily manipulated and do not need the "consolation" of materialism and the distraction of (social) media.
People who like to contribute and to create (which is human nature if not distorted)
With that kind of population you CAN implement UBI. It will become necessary anyway because of automation - that is if we do not self destroy before.
And if you have people who cannot structure their time or are prone to addictions, people COULD get into trouble without the hamster wheel they are used to.
1
-
+Neal Kaye - because they made a reasonable calculation for the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan war, didn't they ? (and Yemen, Libya, Syria came later) The media pressed them all the time. It is not like WAR and DESTRUCTION is treated as if it was free. - U.S. regular military budget 600 bn USD (it is going to be increased !), wars are extra, several trillions, the agencies (incl. VA) 1,2 trillion per year.
It is VERY EXPENSIVE to try to control the oil reserves of the world. (and frankly it does not look like a success)
They calculated that mass incarceration would be good policy (in Rikers they pay + 230k for every person - and no, not everybody is a dangerous villain there, or even a CONVICTED criminal. They have many people who are waiting for trial (right to a speedy trial anyone ?) and are too poor to pay the bail. They had a young man there for 3 - THREE - years, in single confinement, and never pressed charges. They eventually ! let him go w/o any trial. And it sure had a positive impact on his social capabilites - or his resume.
Those 3 years mean + 600k in costs - for destroying the future of a young man. It would have been cheaper to invite the guy on a regular basis to a10 hour weekly workshop and for that he gets 10 k per year. Some of them could be reached by social workers and join the ranks of productive members of society.
Under Reagan the care for the mentally ill was dismantled, that's why so many of them land in prison.
But they cannot possibly find the money for healthcare for everyone or welfare. That would be FREE SERVICES. Provided mostly by state employees. So that is not a for profit business model. BAD.
Think what you will - almost everything is cheaper than incarcerating (non violent) petty law offenders or mentally ill people. And when you offer very good schools, excellent well staffed social services you can at least bring the next generation on the right side - even IF the parents are "undeserving" wellfare recipients.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
To which Europeans has Robert been listening ???? - no the Germans, the Swiss, the Austrians usually are not hostile towards Russia or Putin, and they are certainly NOT TERRIFIED. Our spineless politicians and the media play along with the US/NATO agenda. German newspapers and publicly funded TV got furious letters of their audience (online and offline) about their biased, and false reporting. Imagine a interview in Prime Time News. A fighter for the new (US friendly) government is interviewed - maybe 2 - 3 minutes. Nothing spectacular about what he says - but the guy has a NAZI emblem on his uniform, not the of the regular German army, no NAZI - the "good old WW2 logo". Let me repeat, this was on publicly (very well) funded ! German ! TV prime time news ! People used to respect that news show and it is still widely watched. Did they say ANYTHING about that scandalous uniform. No, but there there enough viewers who noted that little detail. Informed people knew from alternative media (not mainstream) that the folks that were sold as noble freedom fighters pro democracy had outright NAZIS in the new party and in parliament. Politicians of that fraction had issued threats against the Russian speaking part of the Ukrainian population. Vile threats and before Crimea was taken by the Russians.
The Nazi emblem did not fit the official narrative, and mainstream media tried to gloss over that gaffe. Well the viewers did not let them get away with this - and many other nonsense.
Many Europeans (also the French or even the UK citizens - not the politicians) are well aware of the constant US aggressions and war mongering (they may not know the details, but that much is agreed upon). 1985 Nicaragua was a topic here, not only Sandinistas were killed also Catholic priests by the US supported scum and we learned about it).
I agree - the Polish and the Finnish and the Baltic States have some historical baggage with Soviet Union. Plus due to economic troubles there are right wing parties (or other fringe parties) on the rise - and they might use scare mongering (with the former enemy) to gain political points by stirring up public opinion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Austria, Germany, NL, Belgium, France, Italy and many others have costs around 5.000 to 5.500 USD per person. Some countries are in the range between 4.500 to 6000. The US has more than USD 9.000 and not everyone is insured plus the other countries have better outcomes (life expectancy and even more telling infant mortality - tells you how the
system works for the low income people and how well prevention works).
Austria and Germany for instance have a non-profit government regulated agency, a Social Security Insucrance company. It is legally independent of the government though. The system is funded by a MANDATORY payroll deduction of the working population and a mandatory contribution of the employers as well (a percentage for a monthly wage between 400 and 4000 USD).
That means the young and high income earners subsidize the lower paid and the sick. Singles help the families out. Workers in branches that tend to pay lower wages (like restaurants) get a transfer from the branches that pay well (for instance the export industry for technical goods). Rural areas pay usually somewhat lower wages and also do not have as many high earning jobs - they get help form the urban, richer areas.
There is a deduction of the pensions from the retired , and then there is access for students (till the age of 26), stay at home mums, disabled, jobless, etc.
So everyone has insurance in the end and those who have not enough income to pay into the insurance pool get coverage.
As for cost control AND access to the latest medical innovation the broad coalition of interested people / entities seems to work well: all employers (Multinationals or small biz they all pay the same %), the workers = patients, the doctors (who ask for the latest innovation they would like to have for their patients). The hospitals are also non-profits they have their streamlined and proven range of treatments, extras - like very expensive medication or treatment has to be applied for. That can happen and if medically arguable will be paid, but it is a small part of the treatments. Usually the doctors have everything they need within the range of approved measures.
Family doctors, X-ray, dentists are usually small entrepreneurs. Their profit is their "wage", unlike as within the NHS these doctors have to take care of location, equipment, staff and subsitutes for holidays. The majority of them have a contract with the insurance company - so they know exactely what they get for every patient's treatment and the bill goes to the insurance company (again a very streamlined process). The large players deal with each other (the self-employed doctors have a Chamber - comparable to the Chamber of Commerce - which does collective bargaining with the insurance company for the "price list" for instance ). There is no incentive in the system to play games with the patient or to deny treatment.
There is a quota system for all Pharmacies and the doctors who would like to get a contract (so all regions have enough doctors and pharmacies, and those have a chance to get enough clients to make a living - the rates per appointment are not that high).
Doctors can practive without such a contract of course and then without quota - there are not so many of them, usually they offer some specialities like TCM or weight loss etc.
Private for profit hospitals are possible but rare. (Abortion , plastic surgery, weight loss, TCM etc. ). I know one for laser correction for myopia. If a person has severe myopia the public healthcare system will likely pay for it (that would be one of the cases for extra application), The rest of us who just does not like normal glasses has to pay for it out of pocket.
If the non-profit insurance company has a problem to fund something that puts a burden on their budget but help society at large (more expenisve treatment but with better survial rate, quicker recovery, less side effects or for prevention) it will be a public discussion and it is considered a political issue not the problem of an individual patient or doctor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The NERVE and DELUSION Obama shows here - the citizens DID vote, they were desperate for change in 2008. He had a mandate to be the next FDR - if you do not have the guts, don't apply for the job in the middle of the crisis. He just wanted to satisfy his ambition - like HRC and many others. He just has the gift to appeal to the masses and used that. Plus he was not as long on the public stage so less baggage.
Fact: the voters did get more neoliberalism thanks to him (what had led to the crisis in the first place), more war, Wallstreet not Mainstreet was protected and courted (as always). The healthcare was a lukewarm, unsatisfying compromise. No wonder the GOP could attack it.
He seems to have forgotten how the Dems were slaughtered under his presidency at every other level of governance. (states, governors, Senate, Congress)
He tried to cut Social Security to pander to the GOP - well he met some resistance, not doubt Sanders was one of the dissenters - so Obama gave up the scheme * - how come thes welfare programas are ALWAYS at the table to be bargained away. Tax cuts under Bush - THAT became PERMANENT under Obama, that was not at the table to be thrown out of the window. That was not used to twist the arm of the GOP.
* Bill Clinton also had the glorious idea to get his hands on SS, to privatize SS, a secret pact with Newt Gingrich. Larry Summers was in the middle of the secretive group in the WH planing the handing over of the funds to the private for-profit industry (mandatory investment no less !)The Lewinsky scandal prevented Clinton from pursuing that scheme further . SS would have gone down in 2007/2008.
1
-
Imagine if the Soviets (who had gotten an invitation 1 year before they acutally came to Afghanistan in Dec. 1979) had been able to stay safely in Afghanistan. The country was very poor then, little resources, no modern industry, high illiteracy, a very patriarchal and frankly backwards Muslim society. They used to have a king, then they had a more or less secular government (certainly not a real democracy, no idea how it was on the range from authoritarian to cruel dictatorship). Afghanistan is hard to control for anyone (topography). So especially in the cities ! the Soviets brought better schools, education, more rights for woman. Not sure how pissed off the population was at them. In the villages far away and in the mountains the tribes did not care much what happened in Kabul (king, president, Soviet approved leader - whatever - as long as they did not bother them).
Of course Afghanistan is important for strategic reasons. So the US under Jimmy Carter decided to fund the Mujihadeen* in Summer 1979 (June or July) - in December 1979 the Soviets came to Afghanistan. The Western world especially the US (who wants to dominate the oil region and the access to it) was huffing and puffing.
* Muhihadeen = Those who fight the jihad, the religious war with the end goal of theocracy. Many of them were not even Afghans, a lot of them were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia did the recruiting on order of the US, cherry picking the religous crazies.
If we just had let them alone ! the Soviets would have kept order, it was on THEIR budget and risk. When the mujihadeen fought - and fought with all means, likely including suizide attacks - the Soviets hit back hard and cruelly and that also hurt the civilians. I assume the Soviet Army was much better behaved before getting under constant attack, especially outside the cities. I do not think the Afghans themselves would have resisted them - most wanted the economy to do better, many appreciated modern medicine and education etc., and the population had only old fashioned hunting riffles - if they were lucky.
The terrorists got stinger rockets from the US. After the Soviets left Afghanistan (their Vietnam - they allegedly lost 50,000 men) it dawned on the US that maybe it would be good NOT to have these weapons (defense to shoot down helicopoters for example) in the hands of religious extremists with the (always) declared intention to found an Islamic theocray and to EXPAND that reign in the region.
Well the mujihadeens also thought these stinger rockets were usefull - and refused to return them - go figure. I guess the US found out that it was not easy to bribe or frighten these religous fanatics into obedience.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One can observe the same with Labour Party in the UK (who got beaten badly in 2015 general elections) because they too do not watch out for their base. They became "New Labour" under Tony Blair the war mongerer. The "Establishment" Labour Party Members of Parliament decidedly dislike Jeremy Corbyn, the new party leader elected by the base.
And the British media, including the so called "liberal" non-Rupert-Murdoch media and the publicly finananced BBC play along nicely, critizing him for trivia. Like Sandes he was accused of (tolerating) racism, sexism and antisemitism. Which is as plausible as accusing Bernie Sanders of these things (Corbyn is polite, well-spoken, thoughtful - a liberal and labour man in the best sense of the word. Hardly any mentionning of Corbyn without stating that his is "unelectable" (in general elections 2020 - they know that NOW). Which is strange if your consider the masses he attracts at his rallies, and that Labour party membership grew from 100.000 to 600.000 within a few months because of him.
The unexpected Brexit vote did not stop that "unelectable" talk either, now with Trump being voted in I assume that narrative was put on the shelf. Talking about his suits (not elegant enough), if he bowed deep enough when honouring fallen WW1/WW2 soldiers. ANYTHING but the issues he brings up (healthcare, poverty, tax evasion, war ...)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She can stay under 50 employees can't she? And with 50 people you are not a small business. I assume it is possible to make a nice living managing while leveraging the workforce of 50 people. She wants to grow and have more financial success - fine. She is totally O.K. with her employees NOT having healthcare. Since well paying businesses (small or not) usually offer benefits I assume her workforce are lower paid workers, meaning these people will have a hard time to come up with the costs for a good plan themselves..
If she has the opportunity to expand then I would assume business is good and she is making a decent profit. Which should take care of the higher costs. Or the business model is not suited to be leveraged up. Then be thankful that you are even allowed to skip the healthcare as smaller biz and leave it at that. She does not need to grow - other corporations that are willing to pay or that have a better business plan will do that.
She (and you) act as if she has a right to expand. The country does not need ANY kind of jobs NO MATTER HOW. Acutally people do NOT NEED work or employment. They work to have an INCOME, they can find themselves something worthwhile to do without a boss. So if people work to have an income it should be sufficient and healthcare is part of it. Else the business model is a DRAIN on society (see Walmart, where the employees are paid so little that many get and need food stamps. Walmart is subsidized with taxes (costs of foodstamps) and they are making profits like crazy. Same when people without healthcare delay going to the doctor and finally end up in the emergency room, this is a lose/lose situation - the patient gets only the medical care that is immediately and absolutely necessary = too little too late and it is still very expensive. Of course other insured people have to compensate for the unpaid costs, and there is the related buraucracy of finding out who has what coverage and trying to get payment from patients without coverage.
Of course it is not reasonable to establish such a hard treshold (below or over 50 employees) without fade-in. it becomes prohibitive. And a fade-in would make matters more complicated.
In European countries like Austria which I know well, the healthcare is financed with payroll deductions. Every person earning over approx. 400 USD monthly (hours do not matter) has mandatory healthcare, full coverage, it covers the employee, spouse and children up to minimum age 18 (or till 26 if they are students). It is a percentage up to a certain amount, so people with more income pay more (and subsidize the lower incomes or the people with more children. Every business pays the same percentage.
If your business does not earn enough to cover these costs you are out. You can't be a business owner, get a job.
BTW: Austria has a highly competitive export industry. And chains like McDonalds (lower paid jobs) have to insure their workers in the same way and also grant 5 weeks paid vacations etc. The costs for their product seem to be about the same as in the US.
Details vary in the countries but all wealthy European countries have their healthcare organized as non-profits and under the solidarity principle. Your health status does not matter, and there are provisions for those who have more children, or a low income to participate in the same way than all the other insured people.
The costs are between USD 4,500 - 5,500 which is much less than the + 9,000 in the US (per capita healthcare costs in 2014, source World Bank). And yes healthcare is good and no, there are not long waiting times.
Advantage: the NON-PROFIT system is very streamlined (for enterprises, the non-profit insurance company, patients, administrators and doctors). No denial of coverage bureaucracy. And the employees of small and large biz have the same coverage and at the same costs for the biz (not huge corporations can offer much better conditions to their employees and pay less for the plans because of their negotiating power).
If you want to start a business (again mandatory insurance for the self-employed), you know that you and the family will have healthcare no matter what. The new project might be a success or not. Your financial means do not determine the access to healthcare. That may be important if a family member has a pre-existing conditon or needs expensive treatment. You are not tied to your old job because it offers benefits.
1
-
+ DarklyDreaming Good luck to you ! Check out Atkins, the Atkins diet (very low carb diet). Should be helpful especially if you have Diabetes typ 2, read it carefully. (And I saw an add recently a book written by a doctor "The 8 week blood sugar diet" - seems to go in the same direction. If you eat almost no carbs (which would be broken up to sugar) there is almost no sugar in your blood for which you would need insulin (or insulin boosters). Insulin removes the surplus of sugar out of your blood stream and into the cells. We should have only a small but constant amount of sugar in our blood and too high sugar levels over longer time will do damage to your blood vessels, eyes, etc. If that is the type of medication you are quitting you are risking your eyes or an amputation of a limb (blood vessels, blood circulation)
The brain prefers sugar (and absolutely needs some fuel). We can run our brain and muscles also on Ketones *. Which come from digesting fat (including the fat reserves) and proteines.
If you do not want to eat so much meat (protein) you can substitute with soy, eggs, dairy products.
Added benefit: you will start losing weight - which often helps with Diabetes Type 2. And there is a good chance to dramatically improve you cholesterol. Sounds counterintuitive - we have heard for a long time that butter, eggs, everything that contains animal fat causes bad cholesterol levels. Not true - eating sugar and starch = carbonhydrates does that, especially sugar, honey, white flour, rice etc. Everything the body can easily and quickly transform into sugar. Everything that causes sugar spikes and Insulin spikes.
* Ketones: you will know the test sticks, Doctors are wary if their Diabetes patients have Ketones in the urine. A person that takes medication because of Diabetes and eats the normal diet with carbonhydrates/sugar should not have Ketones in the urine.
It shows that the body burns stored fat. Meaning that the medication does not work properly
If it would work the carbonhydrates you are constantly eating would be used as fuel.
And the body always uses carbonhydrates or sugar (with the help of insuline ! ) before going after the fat reserves.
you take the medication to provide your body with the necessary Insuline. If your body "ignores" your sugar/carbonhydrates intake and goes after your fat reserves instead you know that your insuline or insuline stimulating medication does not work as intended.
On the other hand if you hardly eat any carbonhydrates of course you will burn fat. And it shows in the Ketones in the urine - which in this case are harmless and do not indicate a need to adjust the medication.
Also note that when you start changing your diet, your need for Diabetes medication is likely to change. If you take the normal dose it might be too much but at the same time you should know what you are doing, not just stop taking it (using blood tests ? to determine your blood sugar levels ). If you go off the carbonhydrates there is no more (or much reduzed) need for Insuline so take that into account.
Same applies to medication that lowers blood pressure. Atkins or low carb diets can dramatically reduce = normalize blood pressure. So if one continues to take such mediciation one could end up with a too low blood pressure. Again - caution and measuring would be needed to safely adjust if adjustment is needed.
Humans can live on a diet of protein and fat or the humans in the ice age or the Inuit would never have made it.
However if a human eats only protein and fat, the body cannot use all the energy in these foods. The process is not very efficient. (even a little sugar/carbonhydrates can alter the efficiency of that process dramatically, that explains why humans very much go after sweets).
That means the Inuits needed lots and lots of food to not starve. It also means you can easily lose weight.
1
-
1
-
Wrong - the U.S. DID NOT GET RID of the Taliban - they are recovering right now. Guess who also detected Afghanistan as retreat ? ISIS !!! - They are getting in trouble in Syria, in Iraq and even in Libya (the U.S FINALLY decided to fight them for real and to cut them off their oil revenue). Afghanistan is ideal for guerilla warfare, it is a military nightmare to control. 80 or 90 % of the country are middle to higher altitude - think hills, mountains, valleys, caves - excellent for a guerilla war. Villages that have brick or stone walls around them - so approaching troops (even if they want to uphold peace and order) can never know what awaits them the next minute.
In summer 79 Jimmy Carter signed a budget to support the muJIHADeen - the then existing president of Afghanistan (no doubt authoritarian or dictator) had asked the neighbour country Soviet Union to help out against a coup he was expecting. In December ! 1979 the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan. (So the U.S. first decided to finance regime change in Afghanistan and THEN the Soviets reacted). The Western World was huffing and puffing. (sanctions, boycott the Olympic Games in the Soviet Union, morale outrage in the media). And the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continued to send a lot of extreme Islamic FOREIGN fighters to Afghanistan to fight the HOLY WAR of ISLAM - the JIHAD (hence the name). Reagan increased budgets and efforts, and the Western press pained the fight of the Islamic foreign terrorists as "fight for freedom". Osama Bin Laden (from a wealthy Saudi family) was one of those "freedom fighters". They got stinger rockets to fight against the Soviet helicopters. After the Soviet Army gave up and the Taliban (another extremist Islamic group that originated in Pakistani camps of Afghan refugees) finally took over Afghanistan they got the VIP tour in the U.S. and they met of course with Reagan in the White House. I think part of the mujihadeen merged with the Taliban, some will have returned to their home countries waiting for the next "mission" they could join.
The U.S. wanted a pipeline built through Afghanistan so democracy, secular order (as opposed to the theocracy of the Taliban) and women's rights did not matter. The Taliban eventually fell from grace (maybe the pipeline plans did not work out). And of course their theocratic rule of terror made it easy to villify them. And when in was in the interest of the Western governments to villify them, the obedient Western media outlets finally could be bothered to report the truth about the Taliban.
Of course the international community of Islamic terrorists that fought together the jihad against the godless Soviets bonded for life - they still use the networks forged in the brotherhood in the 80s.
The US jumpstarted international Islamic terrorism in the 80s.
Imagine the world would have left Afghanistan alone (for them the Soviet influence would have been positive - more technology, women's rights, education, secular ideas). Without foreign funding there could not have been much opposition to the military power of the Soviets (at least not in the larger settlements - no advanced military can control the mountains and rural areas of Afghanistan). That means the Soviets would have abstained from brutality against the civilian population because they as a "occupying force" resp. they as a foreign force that supported an authoritarian regime would not have been in danger. Once they got attacked - mostly by foreign funded terrorists in a proxy war - especially outside the larger settlements, they fought back - ruthlessly.
The Soviet Army respectively the Russian Army likely would be no more in Afghanistan - and if - it would be their problem, their costs, and their soldiers risking their life.
1
-
1