When my wife and I were in Delhi earlier this year, she came down with a stomach bug that left her bad dehydrated. In the middle of the night, I took her to the nearest emergency room, which happened to be at the Centre for Spinal Injuries. We walked in, she was seen immediately, and put on a drip. While she was getting her IV fluids and antibiotic, I walked over to the desk and paid the bill, which came to $18. Less than two hours later, she was rehydrated and well enough to return to our hotel. The doctors were efficient, the nurses were friendly, the facility was simple and clean, the treatment was effective, and there were no bureaucratic hoops to jump through. I wish emergency medicine was like that in this country.

I fail to see the relevance of methods used by the Indian construction workers, other than the standard oh-how-exotic reaction. And as for contaminated blood, dirty needles, etc., I think the point of the article is that the quality of health care in India is very uneven, and getting good care requires knowing where to look, living in a big city, and being middle class.

By the way, Ms. Viswanatha, you really should not have eaten the salad, or drunk water that wasn't bottled or filtered. Even middle-class Indians know that. What were you trying to prove? Sheesh. ABCDs, I swear.

and hump the cameraman's leg before the year is out, so no worries, Glenn.

we simply used the expression "rednecks," would that satisfy you, Mr. Lind?

"Time for you to retire and go into happy pill rehab."

Keillor has been in happy pill rehab for a long time, welcoming the rest of us to join him in his warm-and-fuzzy, nostalgic, perfectly medicated, and curiously Reaganesque Lake. How dare you imply otherwise.

that GK would take this position. His "liberalism" has never been anything more than a complacent, narcissistic, can't-sensible-white-Minnesotans-all-just-get-long posture. Can't have any unpleasantness, now, so let bygones be bygones and forget that torture is not pleasant either. I'll buy this rubbish when all crimes are forgiven for the sake of letting bygones be bygones. As for the idea that prosecuting the torturers would somehow bring the government to a standstill, let me reiterate a point Paul Krugman made a couple of days ago: it IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Among the democracies, the US is the only country (apart, interesting, from France and Israel) that has a significant Cult of the Military. Every election, people tie themselves into knots guessing whether a candidate would be a good "commander in chief," which assumes a permanent and natural state of war. The preening on aircraft carriers and military bases, the frequent homages to "our brave men and women in uniform," the exhortations to "support the troops," the parades, and so on, all give the military an unhealthy centrality in our culture. Not surprisingly, in our political discourse, war appears to be a normal extension of foreign policy. Ultimately, the anti-militarism embraced by post-war Japan and Germany (both of which have large but low-profile defense forces) is far more conducive to a democratic and peaceful society. But perhaps a society first needs to go through the experience of defeat and near-total destruction to reach that condition of sanity.

Or any other Blue Dog, for that matter. They're merely articulating their own interests. The "we might need that one extra vote" argument is laughable, but so it goes.

and he knows it. In any case, the man is far too invested in the absurd fantasy of 'bipartisanship' to make any radical policy departures, and he gets deeper into bed with AIPAC everyday. I volunteered for him, donated to his campaign and voted for him, and will probably vote for him again in '12, but am fairly sure that I'll be sick of him by the end of his eight years.

Lind's periodization of US history is a conventional war-to-war structure. A more nuanced scheme might look something like this -

1st republic: Washington to Jefferson, or Articles of Confederation to the Constitution

2nd republic: Jefferson to Andrew Jackson, i.e., until the beginnings of white populism

3rd republic: Jackson until the outbreak of the Civil War

4th republic: Civil War through Reconstruction

5th republic: The end of Reconstruction through TR

6th republic: The Progressive state, or TR until 1928

7th republic: The crisis state, or Great Depression and WWII

8th republic: Racial reckoning; from 1945, through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, until Nixon's victory in 1968

9th republic: Redneck backlash; 1968-2008

10th republic: Maybe now

David Terry is quite right to note that social conservatism among church-going black Americans isn't identical to the social conservatism of other self-identified Christians. I would suggest, however, that black Americans (even church ladies!) are generally more receptive to civil rights issues than, say, church-going white Appalachians. The problem is packaging. Gay rights, including the right to marry, have often been packaged by their own advocates (not to mention their adversaries) as a cultural struggle. If the right to marry was removed from the realm of moral/cultural debate and re-packaged straightforwardly as a civil rights issue, it might meet with less resistance from black voters. That would still leave the enormous problem of homophobia in the white community (religious as well as secular), but that's a separate matter.

Many thanks, I'll check it out.