First of all, China's low murder rate may be connected to its culture, but it is definitely related to its repressive policing, frequent executions, and spying on its own civilians. While the U.S. certainly has lots of problems (Shamefully our incarceration rate is higher, per capita, than China's, and many of those incarcerated are non-violent drug offenders.) I'll take our freedoms and a higher murder rate over repression and 'safety' any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I also think that the cultural forces that make the Chinese think about collective appearance and guilt are much less healthy than the American attitude that people are responsible for their own actions. I am not responsible for Eric Rudolph's actions, why should I even think about apologizing for them?

Finally, Kaufman completely underplays the crude sensationalism of the American media. If a family member of an Olympic coach were murdered while at a U.S. Olympics it would be news everywhere. The pipe bombing in Atlanta was news for months (Granted that was a bombing and not a stabbing, but how about Jon Benet Ramsey? Violent crimes that can be sensationalized nationally ARE.) In addition, I wouldn't brag about Chinese media. The majority of it is state controlled and censored, and we don't know what's being said about the stabbings in those formats, but my guess is that much of what's being said is editorialized and controlled to the party's advantage. Kaufman seems to admire China, and there are things to admire about the country, but not the things he is talking about.

Far be it from me to claim America doesn't have an aggression problem, but it is absolutely insane to claim that America is the most violent culture in the HISTORY of the earth. Not only are there cultures around right now with worse track records than ours (North Korea kills countless numbers of its own citizens. Russia has a much higher murder rate, and no compunction about going to war, etc...etc...) but we're leaving out fun civilizations like Nazi Germany, the Huns, Ancient Rome etc...etc...

America has a big murder problem. It, like every superpower in human history, (Remember how the British never invaded anyone? They got their empire in a box of crackerjack.) is far too quick to pursue military solutions to its problems. We glorify violence and guns. These are all valid criticisms, but they are not an excuse for bandying about insane hyperbole. People who claim that America is the worst, or most violent, country in the world, let alone the history of the world, are expressing an idea of such profound ignorance that I tend to suspect them of being right wing trolls.

Another Benny once said: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

It is a proven fact that you can drastically lower the crime rate by implementing draconian laws, harsh punishments, and constant surveillance. Police states have low murder rates (If, of course, you do not include state sanctioned killing, but in some cases even if you do.) Take away people's guns, photograph them all the time, pay their neighbors to spy on them, restrict their speech and gatherings etc...etc... and you reduce murders significantly. It isn't worth it. We can disagree on where the line should be drawn, but if given my druthers I will happily take an increased chance of assault by my fellow citizens over guaranteed control of my life by the state. In China people do not have freedom of movement, they do not have freedom of speech, they do not have freedom of religion freedom of association. These are essential freedoms that I will not give up for a bit of security. I have been to many places in the world, and there are many things I think other countries do better than the United States. I would love to see the U.S. change in a number of ways But if you would willingly trade your right to speak your mind freely for a little added security then you are a coward by any definition, and you do not understand the American project

I'm an atheist but I believe religious freedom is important. If some religious fanatic doesn't want to help lesbians have children he shouldn't have to. There are more than enough doctors in California who will happily do the job. I think that hospitals and practices who hire doctors should be allowed to demand in their contract that they not discriminate based on sexual orientation, and should in fact do so, but if someone wants to set up a practice that caters only to heterosexuals that is within their rights. We license doctors to avoid putting patients at risk, not so we can control who they treat (otherwise we wouldn't let the best plastic surgeons focus so much of their work on facelifts and nose jobs when they could be doing reconstructive surgery.) I would be fine with a law saying that doctors cannot deny emergency care to anyone for reasons of discrimination, but such a law is unnecessary since I can't imagine there are even 100 doctors in the country who would not provide emergency care to gays and lesbians, even if they don't approve of the 'lifestyle.'

Government services should not be allowed to discriminate, private services should be. It's called freedom of association and its important. Plus, would you really want a doctor who didn't approve of you and didn't want to be working on you doing so when there are plenty of equally qualified physicians who suffer from no such internal conflict? This is unnecessary and unjust government meddling, and I say that as someone who thinks both religion and homophobia are ignorant bunkum.