Academia, Politics, Society

San Diego Professor Criticizes Those Wishing “War Criminal” John McCain Sympathy Over His Cancer

downloadAnother controversy over free speech was triggered this week on social media by an academic expressing hateful views.  Various people have called for San Diego State University Political Science Professor Jonathan Graubart to be fired after denouncing those wishing Sen. John McCain best wishes for his recovery.  Graubart called McCain a “war criminal” and said that he was “annoyed” by all of the expressions of sympathy for his dire cancer prognosis.  Others at the school supported and shared his views.

Graubart went on Facebook to declare “I find myself annoyed at the groundswell of good wishes for John McCain after his diagnosis of glioblastoma and have been thinking through why.” Professor Jonathan Graubart recently posted on Facebook about the Arizona Republican.  He added:

 

“McCain is a war criminal and, more to the point someone who as a politician has championed horrifying actions and been lousy on state commitment to public health. So dying or not, he’s a risible public figure (I have no idea what he is like on the personal level and don’t care).  But ultimately what troubles me is the urge to send such well wishes to an utter stranger as it reinforces the notion that some lives are more important than others. There are lots of people with glioblastoma and who have died from it (including my mother twenty years ago).”

Graubart’s comments are hurtful and hateful.  It is a reflection of the incivility that has taken hold of our social and political dialogue.  It is always sad to see a fellow academic rush to the bottom of our national discourse.  However, we have free speech and academic freedom to protect unpopular, not popular, speech.  Popular speech does not need protection.  Graubart is expressing his deep political and social viewpoint on social media. He should be able to do that just as his critics have a right to denounce his views.

The San Diego State University spokesperson said the university “does not have a social media policy for faculty and staff.” It added that “As a public institution, we do not and cannot regulate the private speech of students, faculty or staff. However, that should not imply the university’s endorsement of any particular viewpoint.”  That is precisely the position to take and, if the university applies its consistently regardless of the content of the speech, it would be an important act of restraint in favor of free speech.

Jonathan Graubart is an attorney who practiced before becoming a political science professor.  He received his Ph.D. in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2002 and his JD from UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall in 1989.

I am “troubled” by Graubart’s statement that “ultimately what troubles me is the urge to send such well wishes to an utter stranger as it reinforces the notion that some lives are more important than others.”  Few people would view such expressions of sympathy in that way.  Moreover, Graubart makes clear that his political and policy disagreements with McCain is a core reason why he is so “annoyed” by those expressing basic humanity and concern over the news.  Politicians often become personifications for movements and groups even in their illnesses or deaths.  The coverage often brings needed attention to illnesses like glioblastoma for groups like the American Cancer Association.  However, the main reason for expressing sympathy is that he is a human being who is suffering.  Graubart’s historical reference to the Nazis only highlights the amorality of his views.  The answer to hatred is for people to transcend their differences and learn to embrace people as human beings — to identify with their suffering despite their differences.

Here is the whole statement:

I find myself annoyed at the groundswell of good wishes for John McCain after his diagnosis of glioblastoma and have been thinking through why. A great line from Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem comes to mind regarding the valuing of elite lives over ordinary lives:
“There are more than a few people, especially among the cultural elite, who still publicly regret the fact that Germany sent Einstein packing, without realizing that it was a much greater crime to kill little Hans Cohn from around the corner, even though he was no genius.”

This analogy should not be interpreted too strictly. McCain is certainly no Einstein and I don’t mean just on brains. Einstein had very appealing humanist instincts, as a socialist, antiwar, anti-imperialist, and anti-statist Zionist. McCain is a war criminal and, more to the point. someone who as a politician has championed horrifying actions and been lousy on state commitment to public health. So dying or not, he’s a risible public figure (I have no idea what he is like on the personal level and don’t care).

But ultimately what troubles me is the urge to send such well wishes to an utter stranger as it reinforces the notion that some lives are more important than others. There are lots of people with glioblastoma and who have died from it (including my mother twenty years ago). I would much rather read random good wishes to contemporary little Hans Cohns than to politicians.

250 thoughts on “San Diego Professor Criticizes Those Wishing “War Criminal” John McCain Sympathy Over His Cancer”

  4. After crashing a couple jet fighters a hot dogging Navy pilot most generally is given a ground job regardless the circumstances of the crashes. McCain was given another jet fighter. He then became an instrument in an illegal, immoral, and hugely counterproductive war in which he enthusiastically attacked N. Vietnam in support of that tragic miscarriage of justice to Vietnam and honesty to the American people. After being shot down and imprisoned he was tortured so nothing he did during his captivity can be held against him IMO but neither does his being a victim of criminal treatment, being a victim of tragically criminal circumstances which he went on to help create for untold numbers of others later in his life, make him a hero.
    McCain suffered lasting physical injuries which have long been apparent but he also suffered severe psychic damage, again IMO, and this too has been long apparent.
    Skipping past his [probably] criminal guilt in the S&L scandal he went on to become a rabid Russia hater and an advocate of bombing any country that came up in the news as in any way hindering U.S. global hegemony. He politically played his history of being tortured by constantly bringing up his claimed opposition to it to great affect even as he voted for the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales, torture enabler, to be A. G.
    John McCain aint no saint, he aint no hero, and his life story should not be a hagiography which bends public perception towards thinking his war-mongering views percolating from a damaged psyche should be given extra weight due to glowing descriptions, minus any critical analysis, of his response to experiences he lived through.

  5. yup, this guy nailed it – value of elite lives over ordinary lives. Warmonger McCain is at the cushy Mayo and vets have died and are dying because they can’t get decent treatment at the VA in Phoenix.

  7. I disagree, respectfully, with the first amendment analysis of this man’s “speech.” While I understand the need to protect free speech in our institutions of higher learning, protecting this man’s speech runs counter to that purpose. In my view, his purpose in publishing this was to chill free speech on his campus. He is throwing down the gauntlet. It’s as though someone during the French Revolution showed pity to the beheaded. He is informing the masses that any humanity shown to those individuals will be interpreted as an assault on the principles he holds dear. I don’t see how we can complain about the lack of civility in public interactions and allow this man to retain his status as protected, coddled, keeper of our future! Just saying.

    1. “While I understand the need to protect free speech in our institutions of higher learning, protecting this man’s speech runs counter to that purpose.” This type of expression, basically saying free speech is good, except when I think it’s a bad idea, is part of the fundamental attack on free speech rights that we are seeing more and more. Even someone’s speech advocating that the First Amendment and its protections be eliminated is and should be protected and what could run more counter to the purpose of the First Amendment than that?

      1. So then if you have an employee who tells you to “go f@#k yourself.” You can’t fire him because he’s exercising his free speech? if you could fire him without concern for his “free speech”
        Then how do you distinguish this?

        1. The First Amendment does not prevent private individuals or entities from taking lawful actions in response to speech they don’t like. It prevents the government from squashing speech.

  8. The use of the term ‘war criminal’ has been so loose and promiscuous that it doesn’t mean anything anymore.

    If these wankers do not care for someone, they should just call him poopy-pants.

  9. Putting aside claims of insensitivity, the most important part of what Prof. Graubart wrote is his claim that McCain is a “war criminal.” That claim should be examined closely and thoroughly because it has been in play since the conclusion of WWII and has never received the attention it deserves in a country that has engaged in about 300 military interventions during this period. Most of these military escapades were done in contravention of international treaties and compacts to which we are a party. That is a legal issue and is what we should be talking about, but are avoiding so that we can focus on the non-legal issue of insensitivity.

    1. engaged in about 300 military interventions during this period. Most of these military escapades were done in contravention of international treaties and compacts to which we are a party.

      Thanks for the recycled talking points. It’s been an education.

      1. Consider the current MSM talking points how evil and (likely) illegal was Russia’s meddling in the 2016 US election. Now consider the USA is currently practicing another failed “regime change” in Syria, after the two most recent “successes” in Libya (McCain-inspired) and Iraq. (That’s sarcasm for war mongers like yourself.)

        Please list, Ms. War Monger, for the audience’s edification, the exact and specific USA interest in Syria worthy of shedding more US blood and treasure. (crickets) The USA’s political and security interest in Syria is exactly zero. The entire philosophy is based on the presumption of “moderate Islamic militants,” as common as pink unicorns on Saturn. I’d love to see the CIA’s questionnaire for these “moderates:” “What is your daily limit for beheading women caught wearing skirts showing their ankle?” (The CIA limit is three.)

        These same “moderates” we armed and trained in Libya to behead and anal rape Gadaffi (was that “moderate” enough for you?) turned out to be radical ISIS after they finished taking out Gadaffi for his mortal economic sin v. the West of admonishing his fellow African leaders to unite under one African currency to increase their bargaining power v. Western banks, hell bent on financial rape of Africa, the single largest store of untapped wealth on planet earth….e.g. more Western banks, more Coca Cola, more cigarettes, more abortion, more debt, more war…..notice the cycle, yet, dummy?

        1. Please list, Ms. War Monger, f

          I am not under any obligation to contend with your worthless imagination. Not your fantasies about McCain or about any foreign country.

      2. Once again, some anonymous person (using a pseudonym) has chosen to make a snide remark about a comment, rather than write something substantive about the issue raised, to wit, has the US (and thus its military) engaged in war crimes by prosecuting war in violation of our treaty obligations and international norms? I see the Vietnam War as such a violation. However, I have not called McCain or others who fought in that war “war criminals.” I have termed some of our politicians and Generals responsible for that war with that title. As a politician, McCain has both supported war crimes and railed against them. Consistency is seldom a characteristic of the political class.

        None of this has anything to do with his cancer, a regrettable malady for all who are stricken. I certainly hope he can be treated successfully, though I know the odds are against it long term.

        1. Once again, some anonymous person (using a pseudonym) has chosen to make a snide remark about a comment, rather than write something substantive about the issue raised, to wit, has the US (and thus its military) engaged in war crimes by prosecuting war in violation of our treaty obligations and international norms?There is no such thing

          That is not what ‘war crimes’ means, we are under no ‘treaty obligations’ to refrain from engaging in war, and there are no ‘international norms’ contra the use of warfare.

          1. If you will do an internet search for “Law of War” you can find dozens of examples of declarations, conventions, treaties and judgments, and on the laws of war that the US is a party to. If you are correct that there are no laws of war, why does John McCain have the impression that torture violates the rules of war?

  10. Here’s his self-description:

    http://politicalscience.sdsu.edu/people/faculty/graubart_j.html

    Yammering self-promoter. BDShole as well

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sdut-bds-israel-palestine-2016may11-story.html

    What’s grossly amusing is that this strange and damaged creature is a welcome addition to their arts-and-sciences faculty while ordinary Republicans are not welcome additions. The vast bulk of colleges and universities are sandboxes for their tenured employees and it’s particularly galling when public institutions lapse into this state. If the Republiicans in state legislatures were serious, there would be blood.

  11. I think this may be the same SDSU professor that wrote a letter to the editor expressing outrage that security persons prevented him from bringing his folding chairs to a rock band concert at the park, rudely pointing out to him where it was printed on his ticket that folding chairs were not permitted. He was even more highly outraged that they were enforcing such trivial issues while not preventing the smoking of marijuana nearby, a fact which was obvious to him based on his olfactory detective ability. Imagine. People smoking pot at a rock concert, while he was being forced to sit on the grass. Pun intended. The horror of it all.

    1. sorry to interrupt your happy reconstruction but I am not that same professor. Reading does not seem to be your strong suit. I would encourage all to reread the post and my explanation submitted to the post before repeating the nasty charge that I rejoice in McCain’s illness. I most certainly do not. I’m reminded of an interview Hannah Arendt did after Eichmann in Jerusalem where she noted the following: “Why readers who read ‘banality of evil” should jump to the conclusion that ‘their sufferings are banal’ is beyond me. It can be answered only by another question. Why can’t Johnny read?”

  12. I personally think Hillary is the war criminal, but I don’t wish ill on her. These people are sick, and that’s all there is to it. Sanity and basic human decency are no longer a part of their functional reality. I hope he never has to go through anything like this himself (I have loved ones that were claimed by cancer, it isn’t pretty) and sees his hatred coming back to him in equal measure.

    2. I personally think Hillary is the war criminal,

      The bill of particulars contra HRC is lengthly. It does not include anything which remotely resembles that.

    3. “…Kill a dozen, you’re a mass murderer. Kill thousands, and you’re a ‘conqueror’…” Character Eric Qualen played by John Lithgow, immediately after shooting his “girl friend” point blank after he had no more use for her. (Cliffhangar)

  13. I do not see McCain as either a war hero or a war criminal. I do not think he is a nice person and quite frankly, I think pay back is a bi*tch. He has not represented Arizona since Barry Goldwater died.

    However, people are kind of heart and send well-wishes to all sorts of people. I read the other day where some young boy got 5000 get well cards. I think the professor is mean spirited, however he has a right to his wrong-headed opinion.

    1. He has not represented Arizona since Barry Goldwater died.

      His voting record in Congress before 1998 and after 1998 is quite unremarkable for a member of the Senate Republican caucus. He’s an abrasive man and (along with Lindsey Graham and George W. Bush) has a baffling attachment to lax enforcement of immigration law. His campaign-finance law was bad. Otherwise, he’s a standard-issue Republican.

    2. I do not see McCain as either a war hero or a war criminal. I

      He’s a combat veteran who survived 5 years in a prison camp. That’ll do.

      I do not think he is a nice person

      He’s disagreeable to other politicians. He’s not known to have issues with anyone close to him. Like Frank Sinatra, all his wives speak well of him.

      1. You are woefully ignorant of John McCain’s sordid & squalid track-record in voting for Wars4Profit in order to pad his own pockets with money from the Military Industrial Complex. His “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” vitriol is despicable. Study the facts dear.

        Refer to:–>

        1. zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-22/complete-history-john-mccain-calling-war-around-world?page=3

        2. mintpressnews.com/former-clinton-foundation-donors-flocking-mccain-institute/229249/

        3. watchdog.org/104692/senators-backing-war-in-syria-are-flush-with-defense-industry-cash/

        1. You are woefully ignorant of John McCain’s sordid & squalid track-record in voting for Wars4Profit

          There is no such thing as ‘Wars4Profit’.

          As I have a 3-digit IQ, I cannot be bothered with ZeroHedge.

      2. DSS – his constituents from his townshalls do not speak highly of him.

        1. But they’ve elected him to Congress on 8 separate occasions.

          2. DSS – I wish that had not happened, but the Democrats do not put up a good candidate, so…… Personally, I did not vote for Senator this last time.

    3. Sure. But the question here is whether first amendment “speech” would be wrongfully abridged or chilled if this man were fired as a result of this. I think the only speech being chilled on college campuses these days is empathic speech. This man is using his lofty position to restrain empathic speech and prevent meaningful discussion. Fire his worthless ass!

      1. The institution has contractual obligations to him, and that protects him.

        The thing is, faculties are social organisms and they tend not to hire and tend not to retain people who violate certain non-negotiables. The incident in question is not likely a one-off. He ‘fits’ on that faculty, and tells you what they think is acceptable disposition and behavior.

        Question, why is a public institution harboring people who do not shun those who engage in gross piggery? Workplaces are not comboxes. Someone who yammered on in a staff lounge like some of the cretins posting here would spike turnover statistics.

  14. Another college stricken from the list of potential choices for my rising high school sophomore. This is getting easier with stories like this from one school or another almost every day.

    U of Missouri remains at the top of the list!

  16. “I am “troubling” by Graubart’s statement that “ultimately what troubles me is the urge to send such well wishes to an utter stranger as it reinforces the notion that some lives are more important than others.” Few people would view such expressions of sympathy in that way.” – Jonathan Turley

    Sending well wishes to a stranger, when the stranger is famous, is pedestrian. For let’s be honest: the famous person normally doesn’t know or care about the unknown person. In John McCain’s case, he has voted time and time again against the health care for the rest of us that he receives.

    McCain enjoys tax-payer funded health care. He doesn’t even have to endure the agony of undergoing care by the underfunded VA. He went to the Mayo Clinic. Many Americans have to live with cancer knowing that death is around the corner, because we can’t afford gold-plated operations that McCain receives.

    It’s good that McCain, Cheney, Clinton & the rest all get the best of health care: but they don’t want us to have even the most basic protections. McCain would strip us of Medicaid & Social Security: let’s be honest. He’s a cruel, callous man. That he is also a war criminal is true: there isn’t a war that he doesn’t support in order to pad his pocket with cash from the Military Industrial Complex contractors.

    I don’t believe in wishing ill to anybody– but the very poor slobs & hypocritical politicos who rushed to wish him well publicly are the very people who don’t give a damn about their fellow citizens dying in pain without health care or about the US soldiers sent to die or come back from war maimed & bloodied, in order to enrich the Oligarchy.

    John McCain is not an admirable man: he is a greedy, corrupt politico who doesn’t care whether the Middle Class or Poor people die without health care or are killed in Wars for Profit that injure us– so long as he & his big donors remain wealthy and in power. I have some sympathy for speakers who call out the sanctimonious talking-heads who feign concern about McCain who doesn’t give a damn about the rest of us.

    1. You’re very adept….

      at making the case that you’re a repellent human being.

      1. I suggest that you go to visit a VA hospital, dear. It’s obvious that McCain doesn’t want to get his health care there– because the quality of care is deplorable, something that doesn’t bother him. Poor soldiers– men & women who aren’t rich are powerful are forced to wait in under-funded hospitals and often struggle to obtain the most basic care: forget about operations for brain cancer– they simply die. You are either ignorant or corrupt or both– just like McCain who should know better.

        1. VA hospitals treat service related disabilities and provide long term care. That’s it. They account for about 2% of all health care expenditure in this country and are not the main locus of medical care for veterans.

          No, I don’t believe you know jack-sh** about the ‘quality of care’ in VA hospitals.

      2. Your posts disprove your claim to 3-digit IQ. Did you learn “repellant human being” on the Harvard debate club?

        If you have a 3-digit IQ, you don’t use it, and are incredibly lazy.

        1. He wrote multiple paragraphs whinging that someone else has more generous medical insurance than he does. You’re happy to give ‘kudos’ to an inhabitant of graceless wankerdom.

          1. I’m a she, not a he. But if you are fortunate enough to have fantastic medical insurance– but don’t care about your fellow citizens that lack health care– then you are the repellent human being. We are all in this together– something that both you & McCain fail to comprehend. I pity you.

            1. Whatever he cares about or not, he only votes on the bills which come before him, which may ameliorate or exacerbate extant problems with financing medical care. Someone who was not an arrested development case would understand this. You do not.

        2. Thank you Ynot.

          It’s obvious from the comments that too many folks don’t do research into Sen. John McCain’s support for Wars for Profit; his ties to military contractors who donate money to him; and his lack of concern about health care for US citizens. His lip-service given to Veterans (VA hospitals) is belied by his actions.

          Refer to:

          1/ https://thinkprogress.org/chet-edwards-if-you-look-at-mccains-record-on-veterans-issues-it-s-a-failed-one-cf78a8d5826

          2/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brandon-friedman/mccains-non-support-for-t_b_131046.html

    4. Gadfly, agree with everything you wrote. I don’t wish cancer on anyone either, but I won’t feign sympathy for McCain.

    5. Blame the messanger.

      Generally, I agree that personal tragedy is not the best time to land hard on someone be he/she a public or private figure. You have found the exception.

      This is an excellent comment about the hypocrisy of politicians of all stripes who feather their own nests with the very bounty they strip from the public.

      The weaknesses of political correctness is mentioned often by many on this site when it concerns liberals; PC is then derided as being for snow flakes only. (In case you don’t know, snowflake applies to liberals only – a conservative may be easily offended by breach of etiquette, but apparently can not be a snowflake.). But of course, when we are speaking of arch conservatives, such common decency as not mentioning the elephant in the room ( healthcare for me but not for thee) is de rigeur and the more egregious the hypocrisy, the more you, the messanger, are blamed as a sore looser for bringing it up, particularly at at time when others might hear you.

      You are correct. McCain will get the very best of health care and it is indeed, among other things, a payoff for being willing to deny it to millions of others. As you point out, on a personal level, may his suffering be little and his care the best. On a public level, however, It’s hard to find a more appropriate time to bring the subject up if your intention is the public weal and awareness of a great wrong that is a cancer on all our society. If your intention is the well being of one unfortunate at the expense of the many, on the other hand, you are a cad of bad manners regarding misfortune befalling the rich and powerful.

      I’m less inclined to pay the same tribute to the subject of this post, though I agree with professor Turley that the University administration’s response is correct. I still differ slightly in that I would first examine the truth of his statements before qualifying them as hurtful and hateful, however.

      1. Political correctness has drowned out our ability to conduct civilized discourse without attributing nefarious motives to the interlocutors; thus all too often individuals speak past each other instead of engaging with each other. As I stated, I wish no ill will to any human being. Having lost family members to cancer, I understand the suffering of the victim & the pain of the caretakers. My point is not that the rich & powerful should not have health care– of course they should– we all should. It’s a pity however that Sen. John McCain; the Bush/Clinton mafias; and other politicians in D.C. fight against proposals like Medicare For All/Single Payer which would ensure that every American is able to obtain decent care, because these selfish, callous politicians are beholden to the large Insurance & Big Pharma vultures who donate vast sums of money to them. That’s corruption of the most caddish sort.

        2. The Urban Institute estimates that Medicare for all would increase government spending by $32 Trillion over the next ten years.
          Total federal tax receipts….mainly from income tax, payroll taxes, corporate taxes….are probably a bit over $3 Trillion a year.
          The Medicare for all proposal is getting more traction as the stumbling continues on the “repeal and replacement” of Obamacare.
          The cost side of the ledger will have to be addressed.
          Doubling all taxes ….income tax, payroll taxes, corporate….would fully fund a Medicare for all program.
          If there is an honest debate about the cost/benefits of MediCare for all, we may find out how dedicated taxpayers are to fund it.
          My guess is that there will be relatively little realistic discussion of costs.

          1. Generally, the US gets the least bang for it’s health care buck since so much of the money is swallowed up in the for profit structure of our system. Cost analysis of these countries always put them on top in terms of the care and quality of care people get for the money. We are one of the only so called advanced (or industrialized) countries to have such a for profit private system with so few restraints on profits. It’s no wonder they pump out all manner of propaganda to keep sucking the public dry. It’s even illegal even for our government to intervene or negotiate on the cost of drugs so they can be three or more times higher here than just across the Canadian border. And were proud of it.

            Obviously if the industry sponsors lucrative scare tactics about the cost or political impossibility of single payer, many trusting souls will be against their own interests. If we make honest comparisons with what other countries have already done, for generations, not so much.

            That said, the UK as well as France, that have had universal health care for decades, are under intense pressure by international investment groups to starve their public programs of funds with the aim of destroying their value and public support until eventual privatization can be foisted on the public making the health care industry as lucrative there as it is here in the States. The ideology of hatred that is spawned by making people believe they are paying for the lazy, that underpins austerity (so that people don’t mind getting almost nothing as long as the hated “others” are getting even less) – perfected in the US – has been exported abroad for over a decade, and European citizens may soon be able to look forward to being exploited just as much as we are here.

            1. Cost analysis of these countries cost analysis of countries with single payer or with very strict government regulation of insurance companies and the medical industry, always put them on top…

            2. B.Bridge,…
              50 years ago, the per capita cost was c.$300-400 per Medicare beneficiary.
              The current per capita cost is c.$12,000 per year.
              The overall cost of living over that period has increased c. 600%, so had Medicare per capita costs tracked the CPI, we’d be looking at per capita costs of c. $2,000-$2500, not the $12,000 + cost we actually pay.
              There is a legitimate question that begs an answer; if this single-payer Medicare system is so effecient at containing costs, why has the cost per benificiary in this “efficient. system increased at least 30-40× in the past 50 years?
              If the “administrative efficiency” of Medicare were such a great money saver, why didn’t those savings materialize in the segment of healthcare controlled by Medicare?

              1. I’m losing interest.

                Your figures are misleading and your assumptions are bogus. Health care costs have far outstripped the cost of living for over 40 years. Medicare is for the elderly so unit costs are naturally much much higher than if it were an actual single payer system for the whole population. Moreover, comparing Medicare which exists entirely within a largely unrestrained for profit system to the efficiency gained under a true universal health care system, or even a public/private one designed to ensure care for all (meaning the bank vultures don’t run a whole specialized industry on related bankruptcies), is bogus out of the gate. Even then, studies have been done proving that if senior citizens had to get their care under the existing system by private insurance, the costs per unit of care would be far higher than what is obtained by the government run program..

                If you want to say nay, fine. Take the bat and the ball and hit it out of the park of your mind if it makes you happy. Just about every civilized country in the world, except the US, overwhelmingly indicate otherwise.

                1. Brooklin Bridge,…If you have an issue with the accuracy of the numbers I presented, correct them.
                  That is preferable to your weaselng out by saying you”re “losing interest”, or my figutes are “bogus”.
                  The MediCare program primarily treats the elderly in 2017…it exclusively treated the elderly in 1967.
                  Yes, the elderly cost more to treat.
                  ..that’s a contant factor in 1967 or 2017, so your apparent justification of the exploding costs of the program bevause of the cost of treating the elderly is asinine.
                  You’re interested in slogans, and I can inderstand why you cop out and “lose interrst” when,congronted with facts.
                  I didn’t mean to strain your limited knowledge and capacity.

                2. Brooklin Bridge,…If you have an issue with the accuracy of the numbers I presented, correct them.
                  That is preferable to your weaselng out by saying you”re “losing interest”, or my figutes are “bogus”.
                  The MediCare program primarily treats the elderly in 2017…it exclusively treated the elderly in 1967.
                  Yes, the elderly cost more to treat.
                  ..that’s a contant factor in 1967 or 2017, so your apparent justification of the exploding costs of the program bevause of the cost of treating the elderly is asinine.
                  You’re interested in slogans, and I can inderstand why you cop out and “lose interrst” when,confronted with facts.
                  I didn’t mean to strain your limited knowledge and capacity.
                  Proceed with your useless slogans
                  ..you are incapable of a fact-based, honest discussion.

                3. If it makes your “mind happy”, ignore all fiscal realities, and spout the BernieSpeak about every family saving $3500-$5000 per year with Medicare for all.

                4. I did explain why your numbers are misleading and your assumptions bogus – without resorting to ad hominem attacks. As to your personal non substantive remarks, weasel, they are all you have to fall back on. Yawn…

                  I forgot to mention two major donors to the The Urban Institute that you use for your assertion about Medicare spending are CIGNA Corporation and Pfizer. Insurance companies. Like getting the car salesman to give you an assessment of the car he wants to sell you. Like getting the fox to guard the hen house.

                  Attack away. Do the one thing you do well. Ad hominem.

                  1. Correction, Insurance companies AND drug companies – Pfizer- (even worse) the two major players in robbing US citizens blind.

  17. The professor’s words were pretty revolting. The SDSU leadership could (and I think should) have disavowed them and expressed distaste for what the professor had said. They were under no obligation to profess neutrality about this.

  18. And you wonder why you’re kids return from school with no respect for the country or you and wind up jobless in your basement. While McCain was serving his country I wonder what this guy was doing, maybe burning his draft card or running off to Canada.

      1. and still is six years old. Attaining adulthood is not a matter of a certain age. It is when one accepts responsbility for one’s actions as an individual and learns that for every ‘right’ there is a ‘responsbility’ as a an indididual , a family member or a citizen. One may not hide behind The Collective and expect to be treated as anything more than a child. Neither is there such ting as juvenile delinquent for not being delinquent in one’s duties is a trait of adulthood. But for every juvenile miscreant there is or are one more delinquent adults. Some called parents and some called educators.

  19. Yes, he has his right to free speech but he must be one of the ugliest, most reprehansibke people who ever walked the earth.

    1. Exactly. He has every right to be as vile as he wants to using words.
      Protecting HIS freedom to say vile things is what the 1st amendment is all about.

  20. Here’s SDSU statement on the topic.it should be required reading:

    “SDSU does not have a social media policy for faculty and staff. As a public institution, we do not and cannot regulate the private speech of students, faculty or staff. However, that should not imply the university’s endorsement of any particular viewpoint.”

Comments are closed.