Sicko

Okay. It was a stunt and an act of propaganda. He's a gonzo documentary film-maker with a loudly announced agenda that has been common knowledge for going on twenty years.

Does that mean a ten year old boy didn't die of a cavity in Washington DC last year? Does that mean that 9/11 first responders are, in fact, getting the health care they need?

You forgot to point out that he's fat and dresses badly.

I don't understand this post. I read the times article, and I thought that the article said that Moore's argument was correct. Cubans live longer than Americans and have a much lower infant mortality rate.

In a word, they are achieving at least as good results by paying 30 TIMES LESS MONEY per person than the U.S. is paying for health care.

The article attempts to offer other possible rationales for why this may be the case, but overall, all it can offer is hypotheticals. Much like Mr. Moore's argument. Even the article concedes that Cuban health care may be better because it focuses on prophylaxis and preventive medicine rather than corrective medication.

Please actually link to articles which support your argument that Moore is wrong, not merely articles which show that Moore's argument is likely correct.

Better journalists, please.

Here is a quote from the Times article:
"Despite such skepticism, many medical experts say they do believe that average Cubans can live as long as Americans, and the reason may lie in a combination of what Cuba does well and the United States does poorly, if at all.

Dr. Robert N. Butler, president of the International Longevity Center in New York and a Pulitzer Prize-winning author on aging, has traveled to Cuba to see firsthand how doctors are trained. He said a principal reason that some health standards in Cuba approach the high American level is that the Cuban system emphasizes early intervention. Clinic visits are free, and the focus is on preventing disease rather than treating it."
Does this expose Michael Moore's 'stunt' as propaganda?

It's a good thing the New York Times is out there exposing the propaganda of the dirty hippy Michael Moore! I'll sleep much better tonight. Because we all know that the New York Times and their crack reports, like Judith Miller, would never, ever fall for propaganda.

BTW, Joe, have you seen Moore's film yet? Or are you just repeating the accounts of it that the right wing have been putting out there before it's even opened yet?

Joke Line, don't make me laugh, OK?

Sorry, Joe. I tried to like you - actually do like your writing style - and I've defended you here in days gone by. But there's just been too many "coincidental" innacuracies, too much cya, too few apologies for blatant mess-ups. And every one of them smears someone on the left.

As far as I'm concerned, anymore, you're a low-credibility tool and a right-wing hack. You take extraordinary measures to see to it that you're part of the problem.

You can earn your way off my scheisseliste, but I'm not staying up nights waiting for that.

Just go away.

You keep using words like "disgrace" and "propaganda" in regards to Moore's film.

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

Still, this little post is a classic. Klein covers his bases by throwing in the obligatory line in favor of the liberal position while at the same time bashing the spokesperson who is trying to effect this change. It's a little microcosm of Klein's career, or it would be if he threw in one or two factual inaccuracies and blasted his critics for pointing them out.

OK, not to jump on the Bash Joe Klein bandwagon (because it's too easy), but I read the exact same Times article everyone else did (and Joe claimed to), and I don't know where he's getting his assertions. Nothing in the piece backs up snide passive-agressiveness like "actual reporting", "stunt", and "propaganda".

I was radio-channel-surfing in my car the other day and happened to come upon Sean Hannity making the same sort of criticisms of Klein that the "lefty blogosphere" does; that he's a pompous know-it-all know-nothing who doesn't have the background or the skill to man his current post.

Ouch, Joe. The left AND the right hate you. If you weren't so in love with the sound of your own voice, I don't know where you'd be.

The MSM have a real nose for propaganda don't they?

I feel so relieved that they are ready and quick to expose propaganda, whenever it appears.

F**king hypocritical morons.

"Klein covers his bases by throwing in the obligatory line in favor of the liberal position while at the same time bashing the spokesperson who is trying to effect this change. It's a little microcosm of Klein's career, or it would be if he threw in one or two factual inaccuracies and blasted his critics for pointing them out."

I get irritated when someone says what I was thinking in my own head but couldn't express. ;)

That happens when I read Matt Taibbi a lot, too. Nice job.

yikes.

joe, you're lookin' pretty bad on this one, buddy.

might want to re-read the Times piece, and then amend your post.

it won't save you with the Kossacks, but it'd be nice for the rest of us to know you do care.

I'm not going to bash you at all, Joe. I can't say for certain what point you're making, or if it's accurate.

But if you post claiming that the NYTimes demonstrates that Mike's film is "propaganda", by which I assume you mean "says things that are not true", you'd better make sure that

a) you specify exactly what claims Mike makes, preferably with quotes, and

b) you specify exactly how the NYTimes demonstrates these claims to be false.

As others have pointed out, the NYTimes offers a lot of supporting evidence for the claim that the statistics are, in fact, right, and that Cuba has the same life expectancy as the US for 1/30'th of the cost.

That sounds a lot like the NYTimes article reports that M. Moore is right, and your sneering is unwarranted.

Hopefully, you have something to say in your defense.

I echo what others have said here--Joe Klein's disparaging vocabulary regarding Michael Moore is unsupported by this NY Times article. Fact, and ill-supported opinion are horribly mixed in Klein's post above.

Joe, get over your anti-Michael Mooreism. It's getting in the way of logic and good reason. You're overly attached to various of your published opinions, and it would be much better punditry if you were open to abandoning some of your emotionally infused opinions of yore (in my humble opinion).

Protect the insaurence industry by keeping them and their high costs the market will cut the costs right Joe? Then add in government regulation of private industry to keep things fair? Michael Moore should do his next movie about the press!

The NY Times is propagating propaganda! The reporter, Anthony DePalma, is fat!

Joe,

You work for a magazine that employs William Kristol. You are hardly in a position to accuse someone of being a propagandist.

What is the obsession so many pundits have with Michael Moore? He makes films. He writes them and creates them and finds his own financing, even when he's making a film like this which doesn't necessarily have the subject matter endearing to moneymen. He's a success, and he exposes real problems in an entertaining way. I don't believe every word he says-- I think he, like every pundit out there, including Joe-- selects what he presents to create an effect. So? Doesn't every filmmaker, including every documentary maker? So you don't like his message, huh? Why? Because he's making it? Because he's making it in a way you don't like? It's fine if you want to criticize him-- but CRITICIZE him. Sit down and watch his film and note down what you approve and what you don't approve, and then share it with us.

Because guess what? We do not think your every word is gospel. We are not going to accept that there's something wrong with his film, or that it is "propaganda" (which isn't even that bad a thing, Joe, and if you think it is, please explain why), just on your say-so. Join the world, Joe, and understand that when you make assertions, we expect you to back them up.

Moore does. You might not like the way he backs up his assertions, you might think his support is wrong or inadequate, but he does his job of finding evidence to support his assertions.

See, it's the assertion without support that really counts as propaganda, and you do that so frequently, I am always surprised on the infrequent occasions you actually provide evidence. Like now-- you say you support Wyden's proposed policy. Okay. Now what are we to get from that assertion? That we ought to support it too? Just because you do? It might or might not be something I'd support... but you haven't given any reason why, even to the point of explaining what it is. Maybe you have in the past... but that's what hyperlinks are for--link to your past explanation of why Wyden's plan is good. Heck, link to Wyden's plan. Don't you understand that it's the height of arrogance to say you support something and expect that is all we need?

Michael Moore quite simply does a better job than you do. Is that why you dislike him so intensely?

And frankly, he's doing more than you are to explore the horrors of the American health system. You can do better. I know you can. Please do. If you were doing your job, maybe we wouldn't need Michael Moore, ever think of that?

Joe,
Just because someone takes an actual stance on an issue, and mounts a persuasive argument, does NOT mean he is making PROPAGANDA.

Given how much you love wishy-washy, on the one hand [something rational], on the other hand [something crazy] style opinion making, I'm not surprised you're confused.

"You work for a magazine that employs William Kristol. You are hardly in a position to accuse someone of being a propagandist."

Don't forget that buffoon Halperin.

Good news, Joe. Anymore, you rank above Drudge on my credibility scale. The bad news is, you don't rank as high as Greg Palast.

Now that I'm off my sentimental "wanting to like you" kick, I feel more at liberty to tell you how I really feel:

If you've missed the not-so-subtle point that propaganda is, by definition, actually *not the truth*, then guess which one of you two (you or Moore) is the actual propagandist?

Did you think we were all too stupid to notice your chronic innacuracies and misinterpretations, and mischaracterizations? And timelines, Joe - the easiest thing in the world to factcheck, yet you "blew" two of them in the last 10 days. And instead of an admonition, let alone an apology, all we got was cya "Itwasn'tmeItwasn'tmeItwasn'tme".

Take your severence package now, Joe. It's gonna be all downhill for you from here.

As a service to my fellow sufferers of this benighted blogorrhea, I humbly give you, and at no charge, an algorithm in 5 parts:

The Klein-Bot 2000 template!

"[Fill in freshly outraged or tired, resigned decrial of ad hominem attacks by others here.]

Regular Swampland readers know that I favor [fill in unsupported, argument-by-appeal-to-authority, argument-by-appeal-to-insiderism, revisionism through recasting, revising, omitting and/or lying about facts here].

[Fill in argument-by-appeal-to-own-expertise through quantification of years with experience in this particular debate, nasty ad hominem attacks from dirty hippies weathered which prove how close to the truth I am, books read, elections "survived", and/or off-the-record-experts-who-agree-with-me.]

[Fill in written equivalent of tired, insider sigh here.]

[Fill in ad hominem attack here.]"

lather, rinse, repeat.

As I said, I expect no remuneration for having done the work here. Knowing that I am assisting my fellow sufferers is all the compensation I will ever need.

"You work for a magazine that employs William Kristol. You are hardly in a position to accuse someone of being a propagandist."

I'll echo that as well.

Joe, please provide some support for your assertion that Moore's film is propaganda. To the extent that he is attempting to shape perceptions, I suppose Sicko would qualify in the broadest possible sense. If so, I would note that you are propagandizing as well. Health care systems is an area where you are probably out of your depth. That's okay, most people are. But infant mortality rate is an unmistakable hallmark of the quality of health care in a region.

Your kneejerk aversion to the thought of better health care in Cuba, CUBA!, is amusing.

~
(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
...
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births.
~

I was hoping that you would be more reluctant to post unsubstantiated opinions as fact, but alas! I was wrong.

"You work for a magazine that employs William Kristol. You are hardly in a position to accuse someone of being a propagandist."

I'll echo that as well.

Joe, please provide some support for your assertion that Moore's film is propaganda. To the extent that he is attempting to shape perceptions, I suppose Sicko would qualify in the broadest possible sense. If so, I would note that you are propagandizing as well. Health care systems is an area where you are probably out of your depth. That's okay, most people are. But infant mortality rate is an unmistakable hallmark of the quality of health care in a region.

Your kneejerk aversion to the thought of better health care in Cuba, CUBA!, is amusing.

~
(CNN) -- An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
...
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.

"The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, but its newborn rate is higher than any of those countries," said the annual State of the World's Mothers report.

The report, which analyzed data from governments, research institutions and international agencies, found higher newborn death rates among U.S. minorities and disadvantaged groups. For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births.
~

I was hoping that you would be more reluctant to post unsubstantiated opinions as fact, but alas! I was wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

Sorry about the double post, I guess the cancel button doesn't work. I wanted to be sure to get that link in, which as we know is the minimum standard in the internet tubes.

**Posted by Carneyvore
May 27, 2007
Joe,
You work for a magazine that employs William Kristol. You are hardly in a position to accuse someone of being a propagandist.**

Good point. If Joe has a shred of intellectual honesty, he'll explain his sneering about Michael Moore to his defense Cheney mouthpiece Bill "Pop sociology" Kristol, and of Time Magazine's hiring of that nutcase.

Then we'll talk about Krauthammer.

An anonymous source of mine says Cuba does not even exist. Yet another source says they wouldn't see the film, even though they already had, but appologized to me for reporting it wrong even though I am still right, even though I said they saw it before Michael Moore made it, but obviously that is only factually incorrent, so I still stand by it.

C'mon. The NYT article is fairly weak, but does raise questions. The most obvious to me is that the Cubans and Michael Moore did what all folks with an agenda do.

Moore picked, as he always does, a worse case scenario with an emotional appeal. The p*** poor treatment of 9-11 responders from the reviews that I have read and goes to Cuba. Originally, his destination was Gitmo with all its inherent emotional triggers. Then, Castro's Cuba responds with a best case care for those who are forgotten in the USA system.

Would I say that Cuba used a situation for propaganda? Yes. Did MM use this lever to make a case that the US health care system needs drastic improvements? Yes. Does this make MM message any less viable? NO

If one has some knowledge of the US health care system, the NYT's article does bring up issues that need addressed. Right now, the 'fixes' for US health care, including Klein's, are pretty lame as they address such a small portion of the problem.

From Cuba, the abundance of Doctors is a plus compared to our system where Doctors have much leverage in controlling the number of places in medical school. Supply siders at work. Our system, including PhRMA, Insurance, Doctors, Nurses and Corporate Providers, is basically self-policing by those with a huge conflict of interest.

The NYT points out that statistics are skewed. DUH
But it does point out that access to the system makes a difference.

The recent Walter Reed expose has brought much of the DoD-VA health care system into question. Emergency response, intensive and acute care was 'propagandized' to some degree. But, behind the scenes someone found BLDG 18 with deficits that could be photographed. With further inspection we find that paper work, long term care, access, nosicomial infections and mental health care are a nightmare.

The actual New York Times article was measured, considered and did not attack Michael Moore. Klein can't even be trusted to fairly represent the contents of the article. That's why the NYT has credibility that Klein does not.

More BS from Joke Line. Everytime you write an intelligent article my admiration for you makes an upswing, and everytime you excrete a post like this it goes down.

Taking the 9/11 survivors to Cuba was undoubtedly a promotional stunt and generated footage for his movie...I'm sure he was aware of the debate he would stir up from the media bottom feeders...

But it was NOT PROPAGANDA...what we get from this administration and most of the MSM concerning this illegal and immoral war IS propoganda!

His cause, universal Healthcare in the US is a patriotic one, the propagandists for this war are traitors.

Shorter Joe Klein:

I favor universal health care and will reliably undermine anyone else who does the same.

I will wager Joe didn't read the article beyond the snarky little "neatest thihng since the white linen guayabera" bit.

Those of us that bothered to do Joe Klein's rading for him might feel moved to point out that the supply shortages pointed out in the article are the direct, calculated result of United States policy. The U.S. blockade prevents a lot of essential goods from flowing to the island AND THEY STILL have lower infant mortality than in the U.S.

Makes you think... that it, if thinking is something you DO.

Goodness, that was a mess -- must use "preview," must use "preview..."

I will wager Joe didn't read the article beyond the snarky little "neatest thing since the white linen guayabera" bit.

Those of us that bothered to do Joe Klein's reading for him might feel moved to point out that the supply shortages pointed out in the article are the direct, calculated result of United States policy. The U.S. blockade prevents a lot of essential goods from flowing to the island AND THEY STILL have lower infant mortality than in the U.S.

Makes you think... that is, if thinking is something you DO.

"I don't understand this post. I read the times article, and I thought that the article said that Moore's argument was correct."

You don't understand how Joke works, do you?

:The most obvious to me is that the Cubans and Michael Moore did what all folks with an agenda do."

Oh no - Michael Moore has an AGENDA???

Who knew???????

Guys, I agree with Michael Moore about most things, and I like his films a lot. They are propaganda, and I'm cool with that. Up against Big Insurance, the status quo, and the indifferent rich, universal health care could use some propaganda.

I think what Klein was responding to was Dr. Cordova's comment that Cuba offers much better health care to officials and foreigners than to ordinary citizens. If that's true, then of course it makes Moore's visit a stunt--albeit a compelling one.

If we assume everything in the Times article is true, it's still the case that Cubans live about as healthily as Americans, and on a much lower health care budget. But it's not because they're better at treating sick people. It's because Cubans eat less and exercise more, and get better preventive care.

Which is great! One of the advantages of single-payer health care, and to a lesser extent the more elaborate plans offered by people like Wyden and Edwards, is a stronger focus on preventive care. We can all agree that that's a good thing--it's not only more efficient, it's just more pleasant not to get sick than to get sick and then get better.

Joe, I guess my question for you is, why focus on two paragraphs that suggest Moore's cinematic tactic was dishonest? The big picture, both in the article and in the real-life problem that is American health care, is that we can do better, and there are lessons we can learn from countries like Cuba. But anyone who read your post, and not the article, would get the exact opposite impression. Why do that?

Part of the problem is the confusion between the original definition of "propaganda" and the negative overtones that have been added to it over the years. Traditionally, "propaganda" is just a one-sided argument designed to persuade; in other words, all editorialists and pundits are propagandists, including Joe Klein and Bill Kristol and Michael Kinsley. Going back a few years, Tom Paine was the author of a classic piece of anti-monarchial propaganda, "Common Sense."

Back in college, I was exposed to two classic examples of filmed propaganda, Leni Reifenstahl's pro-Nazi "Triumph of the Will" and Frank Capra's WW2-era pro-American and pro-Allies "Why We Fight" series. Neither is dishonest to any great degree; they just put a positive spin on the causes they're advocating. (Heck, "Triumph of the Will" doesn't even mention Jews, and the word "Aryan" is only used once.) Think of them as celluloid press releases -- and press releases are inherently propaganda.

See, Joe, there's relatively honest propaganda and deceptive, dishonest propaganda. For example, during the runup to the Iraq War, the American public was barraged 24/7 by almost thoroughly dishonest propaganda from our TV sets. Then, in the summer of 2004, Michael Moore came out with the The Great Anti-Propaganda Propaganda Film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which definitely falls into the relatively honest propaganda category. Yeah, I'm aware of the right-wing's lame attempts to discredit it, but as usual the GOP Smear Machine's arguments were filled with straw men, gross distortions and wild misrepresentations.

Put it this way: Even giving the dishonest right wing debunking attempts a little benefit of the doubt, there's far more dishonest propaganda in any random two minutes of Fox News than there is in the two hours of Moore's film.

Joe,

I suspect what you are trying to do with this post is show "the lefties," that you "call them like you see them." Thus, your shouting down of a perceived lefty icon like Michael Moore. It also has the bonus affect of showing the Fox News right that you are "reasonable,” and a not a prisoner ideology.

Unfortunately, your shoddy reporting (no quotes or evidence from either the documentary or the news article), makes you look foolish to both the left and the right.

From the Fox News website:

“Filmmaker Michael Moore's brilliant and uplifting new documentary, "Sicko," deals with the failings of the U.S. healthcare system, both real and perceived. But this time around, the controversial documentarian seems to be letting the subject matter do the talking, and in the process shows a new maturity.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html

Joe,
I *dare* you to add some substance to this post. Otherwise, I (and I suppose other commenters as well) will have to assume that "Michael Moore = Big Bad Propagandist" is simply, for you, a sacred truth held to be self-evident which you learned long ago from, I don't know, Rush Limbaugh or Tony Snow or some other fascist you deeply admire. You have been unwilling or unable to elaborate on your Moore-phobia in the past (the day of the Va. Tech massacre) so the burden is on you to come up with something quick.

It's too bad a documentary film maker has to resort to cheap, propagandist stunts, in order to get our representatives to improve health care. If they were doing their job, cheap shot propagandists like Moore, would have no need to embarrass them into action.

Joe,

Michael Moore started out as a lower middle class guy from Flint, MI. He has the balls to face up to the entrenched political and economic forces in this country and tell them where to shove it.

He's a genuine poplulist hero, and we desperately need more like him.

You are a putz.

Erik - "I think what Klein was responding to was Dr. Cordova's comment that Cuba offers much better health care to officials and foreigners than to ordinary citizens. If that's true, then of course it makes Moore's visit a stunt--albeit a compelling one."

No end of lax journalism by somebody, then - Moore made extensive arrangements to assure that the American citizens were treated just like average Cubans would be in every way. This is a fact I've seen checked and cross-checked time and again.

Joe, in your earlier post you lie again and say Iraq is entirely the fault of George W. Bush.

Why do you lie all the time?

Everyone knows we wouldn't be in the Iraq mess if not for the support of useful idiots/dissembling charlatans like yourself.

After all, you said invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Remember?

Surely then you remember lying about it, and saying you never supported the invasion?

Meanwhile, somewhere in Dakota, TIME magazine lands on the doorstep of some poor, clueless citizen who thinks Joe Klein, repeatedly demonstrated liar, is helping him understand issues facing our nation.

We need universal health care.

But if Michael Moore says we need universal health care, it's "propaganda."

When in God's name are you going to stop doing your part to gin up phony "controversies?"

Do some reporting on why we don't have universal health care. Stop playing "gotcha" with Michael Moore, who is way out of your league in any case.

I'm with izzy. I admire the hell out of Moore; the man is trying to level the playing field for the everyday joe, who has been taking it up the old wazoo for six long years now thanks to our "ceo" faux prez. You want to see authentic propaganda? - Anything, and I do mean anything, that comes out of cheney and/or rove's offices. Now that is propaganda.

Did you read the NYT piece before linking to it?

NYT, 5/27/07: "There could be one great leveler for Cubans and Americans. While all Cubans have at least minimal free access to doctors, more than 45 million Americans lack basic health insurance. Many are reluctant to seek early treatment they cannot afford, Dr. Butler said. Instead, they wait to be admitted to an emergency room.

“I know Americans [like Joe Klein] tend to be skeptical,” he said, “but health and education are two achievements of the Cuban revolution, and they deserve some credit despite the government’s poor record on human rights.”"

Since you've got your propaganda detector rented all weekend can you let us know what you think of this story from the US Veterans Administration?

McClatchy, 5/10/07: "The Department of Veterans Affairs has habitually exaggerated the record of its medical system, inflating its achievements in ways that make it appear more successful than it is, a McClatchy Newspapers study shows.

While the VA's health system has gotten very good marks for a transformation it's undertaken over the past decade, the department also has a habit of overselling its progress in ways that assure Congress and others that the agency has enough resources to care for the nation's soldiers."

Propaganda or not?

One week when Joe was recovering from one of his gin benders in an undisclosed location, I set out on my own to take a trip to Cuba.

Anyhoo, with respect to its medical system, it has doctors and nurses, it has know-how, but it has little equipment or pharmaceuticals. I do think that Moore's ground zero victim stunt was ill chosen (at least as I understand it, not having seen the movie) as it makes no point other than Cuba was willing to use some of its limited medical resources for, yes, propaganda purposes (their own, not Moore's). Moore probably could have done the same thing in almost every country in the world, from Sweden on down to the most wretched place in the planet (and Cuba is pretty wretched itself) had he been able to get the right important mucketymuck in the kingdom to agree.

The other points about life expectancy and infant mortality are good ones, and while I don't know where Moore goes with the issues they raise good questions about what good health care actually requires.

Michael Moore is brave, knowledgeable, and independent - and he is a self-made rich man. All of these make him the object of loathing less successful and accomplished people. The press loves Bush because he is like them: an unqualified, overpaid, incompetent.

Joe: Please stop the Junior High rhetoric. "I disagree but really, really like you. Please be my friend."
When I saw Fahrenheit 911, it was the only movie I have attended where complete strangers stood outside to discuss its content. It made us think. And, please tell me how inaccurate was it. It was something the MSM did not want to hear.
Having worked for years in the insurance health care industry, I can tell you the only way you are going to acheive efficiency, quality, and equal coverage is a single payer universal system. By getting rid of a for profit, bureaucratic system that really does not want to treat people, you can directly control costs and offer care for everyone. If you don't think Cuba is a good example, try Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.

Jane Harman told me we're going to bomb Cuba to prove we support our troops.

"Statistics from the World Health Organization, the C.I.A. and other sources all show that the people of Cuba and the United States have about the same life expectancy — 77 years, give or take a few months — while infant mortality in Cuba is significantly lower than in the United States."

OMG TEH PROPAGANDAZ!!!!!1!1!1!one!1!

What claim does Mike make that is false Joe please provide a link or a site I can look up, books, Magazines etc are acceptable. I will reply after I see the movie by the way how do you report on a movie you never seen. Tell me do you even have an editor?

thenekkidtruth - thanks for the correction.

Here's a link to a video of Moore discussing his movie with Bill Maher, including how his group ended up getting treated in Cuba's medical system. It's interesting.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/26/michael-moore-talks-sicko-on-real-time/

"Jane Harman told me we're going to bomb Cuba to prove we support our troops."

She told me we already DID bomb Cuba. She's a serious person, one of the most sensible members fo the House, and very intellectually honest, so I believe her.

"But the Times does expose Michael Moore's stunt for what it was: propaganda."

Gasp! Michael Moore is a propagandist. Imagine that. What a stupid post, demonstrating once again that Palooka Joe, still smarting after the beating he took over his "disgusting" comnment, is more interested in sating his massive ego than doing the job of a reporter.

Hey, the Times also exposed the propaganda the Bush people used to get us into Iraq. Sorta. Kinda, in a half-hearted way. Well, they started to, anyway. And it was a couple of years after the fact, but who's counting? Maybe the Times is getting the hang of recognizing this propaganda thing.

I don't really care much about Michael Moore. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the idea that his movie is full of lies, damn lies, and statistics.

But seriously, what on earth is the point of this post?

According to that article, Cuba has way less money, a better infant mortality rate, very comparable life expectancy, more preventive care, and, due to backwardness, more a more active lifestyle among its population, than the US.

How in the name of God does this show that the movie is propaganda?

Look, there is no way that health care in Cuba should be anywhere remotely near the level in the US. We're bigger, richer, better, freer than they are.

But we're neck and neck with those backwards commie bastards.

You, presumably, have excellent health care. Maybe you can consult a psychiatrist to get to the root of your obsession with attacking Michael Moore regardless of facts or context.

Joke Line calls Michael Moore's work "propaganda"? Pot, meet Kettle. You pompous windbag.

You're a lying sack of crap.
You're a lying sack of crap.
You're a lying,
scheming,
stinking,
nasty,
sack of liquid crap.
Dun.
Dun.

Mr. Klein,

You need to see a psychiatrist. That's not an
insult. You need help. Your combination of
insecurity, lack of self-awareness and vanity
needs professional analysis. Time must employ
you because you have a compulsion to repeat
the most trite conservative themes as if they
are established fact. You seem to be terrified
of offending the conservative noise machine.
Does someone have compromising photographs of
you, or are you really just a coward?

Say it aint so joe.If you are for universal health care and there is a film that overall pushes for universal health care and you go and and on a NYT aricle that can be read many ways you label a documentary propaganda that supports your position.Have you been to Cuba?If we have learned anything from the Judith Miller debacle would you beleive the Times or Michael Moore.Which one was right on the war you supported?Since one entity Michael Moore had the war right from the beginning and one the Times had it wrong I am going to go with the one who has the history of getting it right.By the way as a good reporter you did not contact Mike Moore to check on the validity of the source.To use a single source and that source to be the New York Times shows how stupid you have become.

This post is pure hypocrisy. Pure propaganda. A textbook case for journalism schools everywhere.

As Chomsky points out, it's the media comissars who breath the fumes of their nation's own propaganda most deeply.

Joe Klein called Noam Chomsky "anti-American" -- he never explained why. The most logical conclusion is that Klein thinks people who cite facts are propagandists.

I haven't seen Sicko yet (I'm pretty sure that 99% of us here haven't), but from what little I know about Moore's visit, that article doesn't seem to "expose" anything. In fact, it doesn't even seem to claim to "expose" anything. It's like an inconclusive side-bar more than anything.

I would call the US invasion of the middle east a stunt

The article clearly explains why it's a stunt: well-connected people get a much higher level of medical treatment in Cuba than the average Joe. In that sense, it's no different than the immoral health care system in this country. But people watching the movie aren't going to be told that, and they will actually get the opposite impression that everyone in Cuba gets the same uniformly high level of care that these 9/11 workers get on camera.

The Times article itself had its share of propaganda. For instance, you have some guy speculating that high abortion rates in Cuba is a reason why Cuba's infant mortality is so low. This makes almost no sense --- infant mortality is based on live births, and the only way that abortion rates could have an inpact on infant mortality rates is if the Cuban health care system was vastly superior to the US one in identifying symptoms in fetuses that will result in their deaths after they've been born. And of course this would require a plethora of advanced technologies that Cuba doesn't provide to the vast majority of its people.

The second problem with the Times piece is its reliance on a doctor (Leonel Cordova) with strong ties to the anti-Castro Cuban exile community. Relying on someone like Cordova for an accurate and unbiased view of Cuban medicine is like relying on Iraqi exiles affiliated with Chalabi for the facts on Iraqs WMDs.

Of course, Joe doesn't read the news critically -- he just "reads" what he agrees with, and doesn't question any reporting that is consistent with his own point of view. Joe is not alone in this -- we all do it. The difference is that Joe has a "big megaphone" and with that privilege comes a professional obligation to do more than just rely on the facts that he likes, and ignore the facts he doesn't.

I've read a lot of the posts here savaging Joe Klein and his reading of the NY Times article and I think it is those who are quick to tell Mr. Klein to re-read it that probably need to do a more thorough read of what it is saying.

The first point the article makes is that while statistics gathered by the World Health Organization state that Americans and Cubans live about as long as one another, the Cuban statistics are dubious. Possibly reasons for this include the large number of Cuban refugees whose births are reported but deaths aren't, which can lower the mortality age.

The second point (and probably the most important point) that was made, which was made at the end of the article (which I imagine that many of the most ardent Klein critics failed to make it to), was that there are two health care systems in Cuba. There is the one that wealthy foreigners like Mr. Moore and his 9/11 rescue workers as well as top party officials receive which is on-par with the United States. The health care system that the average Cuban is cared for in, is actually pretty terrible. There is a lack of medicine, patients are required to bring their own linens, soap, etc. to the hospital.

So, while the article is not overt in savaging Michael Moore, it does show that he does not tell the whole story about health care in Cuba. It was in fact a nice stunt.

Paul is right about abortion being completely irrelevant to infant mortality rate. Also, what exactly does a professor of economics know about factors affecting mortality rates? I'll wager not very much.

~Carmelo Mesa-Lago, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Pittsburgh, said statistics also show that Cuba has a high rate of abortion, which can lower infant mortality rates and improve life expectancy figures. The constant flow of refugees also may affect longevity figures, since those births are recorded but the deaths are not.~

Firstly, 60-70% of the infant mortality rate are neonatal deaths, meaning the infant died at less than 28 days. The vast majority of neonatal deaths die within the first day or two of birth. That renders the statement about the "flow of refugees" er, inoperative, because there are few women who flee the country within a day or two of giving birth.

I suppose that the writer called around the anti-Castro community to get quotes. One would think he could find an epidemiologist to explain mortality rates, rather than an economist. I doubt that an epidemiologist could explain the effect of the M3 on the Cuban economy, either.

Also, Mr Quisenberry is misinformed. Tsk. I provided a link which discussed that, too.

Okay, I'll repeat what I said above. A nation's infant mortality rate is a key indicator of the quality of the health care system. Cuba's infant mortality rate is not lower than most of the developed world, but lower than that of the US. The US has an unacceptably high infant mortality rate. (Calculated by dividing number of deaths in infants who haven't reached their first birthday by the number of live births during the same period, times 1,000)

The World Health Organization is perfectly capable of determining an accurate infant mortality rate for Cuba and for most other countries. That you doubt that reflects upon your need to reject innocuous facts.

I imagine that Cubans have much better access to early prenatal care, which is key to preventing neonatal death. The highest mortality in neonates is for very low birthweight babies, born at less than 1500 grams or 3.2 pounds, and the key to preventing VLBW births is early prenatal care and good maternal health. Those facts are not in dispute. There is no reason to be amazed about it, unless maybe you are an economist, I guess, or have an agenda to reject anything that Michael Moore might say.

Here's a list of infant mortality rates by country: If you don't trust Wikipedia, the data is easily accessible elsewhere. No normal person would blame a country's infant mortality rate on how many refugees there are. Just look at the rates in Rwanda and Iraq, then reflect upon that ridiculous statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)

"Of course, many people regard any figures about Cuba as at least partly fiction."

I was taught in law school to be suspicious of any statement that starts "of course." I also wonder who the "many people" are. I also wonder why the writer does not provider any alternative statistics.

National embarrassment Joe Klein, fake liberal.

Not to pile on, but the NYT story doesn't support Klein's original blog post. It argues the opposite: that Cuba's health care system is quite remarkable and that the US system could learn a lot from it -- which I understand to be Michael Moore's whole point.

"Not to pile on, but the NYT story doesn't support Klein's original blog post. It argues the opposite: that Cuba's health care system is quite remarkable and that the US system could learn a lot from it -- which I understand to be Michael Moore's whole point."

Exactly. Another chronic Klein mischaracterization. And if it's not a mischaracterization, it's likely to be a misinterpretation, or even a phoney timeline. I have honesty issues with Joe, same as I do with Bush, and he's now on my low-credibility right-wing hack list.

Mr. Klein,
Please remind me, for how many 9/11 rescue workers have you acquired health care?

Dan Quisenberry: "The article clearly explains why it's a stunt: well-connected people get a much higher level of medical treatment in Cuba than the average Joe. In that sense, it's no different than the immoral health care system in this country. But people watching the movie aren't going to be told that, and they will actually get the opposite impression that everyone in Cuba gets the same uniformly high level of care that these 9/11 workers get on camera. "

Dan, the article doesn't say any of those things at all... You write that "well-connected people get a much higher level of medical treatment in Cuba" but the article says that Castro got botched treatment. It also doesn't say anything about the quality of the care that the American workers get except that it appears to be better than what they were able to get in America.

"But the Times does expose Michael Moore's stunt for what it was: propaganda."

Didn't you just recently accuse Eric Alterman of mischaracterizing your work? Please point out the sentence(s) that you feel expose Moore's actions as 'propaganda'?

"it does show that he does not tell the whole story about health care in Cuba. "

TJ, so you've obviously seen the film then? How was it overall? You did see it right? Did you see it in Cannes?

Joe Klein on a good day: "Iraq is screwed up and it's George Bush's fault."

Joe Klein ninety-nine percent of the time: "Allow me to very forefully support a meaningless, stupefying, middle-of-the-road position." Or, alternately: "Allow me to call people who I think are extremists silly names."

Klein on a good day requires about 4 brain cells. Klein the rest of the time uses none. Go away, Mr. Klein. You are not useful to anyone.

As someone without health insurance, this issue affects my life more than those insured. If it is true that Mr. Moore represents care given to Cuban party elites and foreigners, as being available to ordinary citizens, then he is promoting propaganda.

I found the linked to article very balanced. The Cuban focus on preventive care is important. U.S. patients, generally, show signs of pre-diabetes for about decade before it is full-blown. During this window of opportunity, little to nothing is done.

The article said the current Cuban medical system doesn't even have antibiotics. The golden years of Cuban medicine was when the country was subsidized by the Soviet Union.

During the Cold War the US, through funding most of Nato and guaranteeing security for the west, allowed Western Europe to pour resources into social programs because they didn't have to pay for their own defense.

It's time now for the US to put the health care of its citizens before corporate concerns and needs in the rest of the world.

Mr. Klein gets dinged from both the right and the left. It probably means he is being honest in his opinion, rather than being calculating. An honest opinion should be considered and is valuable. It's something to think about, if only to understand others, whether one will agree or not.

It could mean that he's calculating, but just objectively sucks; hence, drawing fire from both sides.

It's worth considering. . . .

"If it is true that Mr. Moore represents care given to Cuban party elites and foreigners, as being available to ordinary citizens, then he is promoting propaganda."

But of course the American system has three levels of care. One for elites such as members of Congress and Joe Klein. The second for members of "managed" care, which is the subject that Moore is addressing in his film, and NONE for those who have no insurance, such as yourself.

If you had clicked the link I provided above on Mr. Moore's interview with Bill Maher, you would be more informed about how his group came to be treated in the Cuban medical system. Please educate yourself.

Moore states that he is hopeful that this film will not be as divisive as his other films and sees no reason it should be. Unfortunately, people like yourself and Joe Klein choose to fabricate and perpetuate a controversy when your energy could be better spent thinking about solutions to the undeniable problem of health care reform. Why the gratuitous bashing of Moore before anyone has even *seen* the film?

I know that Joe is required to required to bash a liberal at least thrice per week in order to keep his job, but I don't think that's the case for you.

James (Los Angeles),
You seem like a partisan sniper. I'm more impressed with Mr. Klein, who I disagree with half the time.

As far as Bill Maher goes, he's on the extreme left-wing, and I don't buy into how he slants things. That said I thought he got a raw deal in having his show shut-down a few years ago, due to comments he made about 911, which made sense to those who actually saw him make them on his show. Maher is interesting, but not a news source to me.

As far as Moore goes, he's normally light on facts, or he uses editing to distort what he filmed to shove it into the message he's promoting. He may be talented in preaching to the left, but his labeling his films as documentaries annoys me. I'm a 'show me undistorted facts' kind of person, so if Moore turns-up on Charlie Rose I'll tune in. I would also tune in to PBS's liberal NOW show if Moore tuned-in, as they also have a regard for facts.

But about healthcare... My hope is the next president will do something. We need government to address healthcare because the free market hasn't, and government has been too busy kissing the feet of business and insurance companies to care. And I'm well aware that elites get preferential everything, including healthcare.

The only positive I see in Moore's film is that it hopefully will add pressure to the back of politicians who would prefer to close their eyes, and not deal with the people's problems.

My big fear is that congress with address healthcare, but make it worse, while saying they are doing a great thing.

"Mr. Klein gets dinged from both the right and the left. It probably means he is being honest in his opinion."

Oh, please. Tell that David Broder bs to the tourists.

You know, Kim Jong Il gets dinged from the right and the left. It must mean he's doing something right. Same for Osama bin Laden. You may not like him but the guy's intellectually honest.

Tsk Tsk! How uncivil! A name-caller!

Unhinged name-calling isn't an argument, dearie. Nor is unsubstantiated opinionated statements.

You lose.

Joe, how come you're not blaming the health care crisis on the teacher's unions?

Just asking.

Because Joe already blamed it on busing

"Mr. Klein gets dinged from both the right and the left. It probably means he is being honest in his opinion, rather than being calculating."

More likely, it means Klein continues to cash a fat check for aping out his role as "corporate media liberal."

Which is sort of like having the Taco Bell chihuahua as an immigrant's rights spokesperson....

"As far as Moore goes, he's normally light on facts, or he uses editing to distort what he filmed to shove it into the message he's promoting."

Moore had about two hours to rebut years of lies about Bush, Iraq and the "war on terror". Unsurprisingly, there was a lot of condensing necessary --- give Michael Moore 40 or 50 hours to tell the story, and he'll give you a fuller picture of the truth.

But ultimately, Moore's films are about the truth. And your comments re: Moore are the concern troll version of wingnut anti-moore propaganda.

Shorter Joe Klein:

"Michael Moore came in here and trashed the place, and it's not his place."

Seriously Joe, if you actually care about health care in America, how can you not be energized and excited by this film, and the possibilities for change that it could help stimulate?

Joe calls Michael Moore a propagandist. But Joe works alongside Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, whom he would never call propagandists. Those people are propagandists in the original sense, and they've got the Trotskyist pedigree to prove it too.

Michael Moore is just trying to help us get freaking health care, like the rest of the industrialized world has. Implying he's a communist plays directly into the right wing talking points. Maybe someone can fact check one or two things in his work, but a "propagandist"? Please.

I have to agree with the other columnists here, Joe, even though I like your column and have defended you in the past. The life expectancy of the average Cuban is about the same as that of the average American. That's pretty damning evidence.

Moore's film is propaganda, but so what? Propaganda doesn't always imply falsity. For instance, during WWII the U.S. government used propaganda to galvanize the war effort and demonize the Nazis - which was a good and true cause.

Joe,

Can you please react to our concerns that the article you've linked to doesn't seem to back-up your claim that Mr. Moore's film is "propaganda"?

Joe Klein would never dream of engaging in propaganda, now would he?

"Well [the Democrats] won't [win] if their message is that they hate America--which is what has been the message of the left-wing of the party for the past twenty years."

Nope, that's not propaganda at all.

Once again, READ the article before you post something. The reporting confirms the points Moore was making. Sheesh.

"How could a poor developing country — where annual health care spending averages just $230 a person compared with $6,096 in the United States — come anywhere near matching the richest country in the world?"

Isn't that one of the central premises of Moore's movie?

Joe Klein is a journalist of incredible courage and sanctimony. his abilities to condense both sides and find the path of least resistance are unforeseeable and blatant. He makes complicated matters into neophyte issues with a linguistic superlativeness that is proprietary and furtive. his point is always taken and given with the same imbalanced credulity. he has a way of getting premises written, too.

MANCHESTER, N.H. - Presidential bonehead Hillary Ramrod Clixon today outlined a broad, hefty economic vision, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and private jet prosperity.

The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between the rich and really, really Democrat party hack rich.

"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans that make over $2 million a year, like well me and Blozo. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for slackers and special education for Dade County poll workers..."

"Joe Klein is a journalist of incredible courage and sanctimony. his abilities to condense both sides and find the path of least resistance are unforeseeable and blatant. He makes complicated matters into neophyte issues with a linguistic superlativeness that is proprietary and furtive. his point is always taken and given with the same imbalanced credulity. he has a way of getting premises written, too."

Hey.

I do the Fake Joe Klein jokes around here.

Union, you know.

Physician, heal thyself.

At some point...I may be getting close...we are all going to tire of telling Joe the truth about his posts and just stop reading him. Why bother? He never engages his readers. He just posts again and if it's one of his 4 brain cell pieces we say, "Good post Joe." Then a day later he posts one like this. It's just stupid. I can read TPM everyday, and have since 2002, and get real news, real facts, and opinions that are interesting and make me think in ways I hadn't thought before. Is Josh partisan? Sometimes, maybe. It's hard not to be partisan in the US these days. But I'll read something there, and 2 weeks, or 2 months, or 2 years later I'll finally spot it in the MSM. Usually watered down.

Joe and all (not Ana) this won't go on forever. Unless you give us something we can't get somewhere else or better, no one will stay here and read your posts.

It's already begun for me with the New York Times and Washington Post. I can pick and choose my pundits now and I know who the good ones are.

thanks alot
برامج
دليل مواقع
منتدى

منتديات
الرياض

كول

 بنات كول

 شباب كول

 كول كول

 قياس
سرعة الاتصال

منتدى الرياض

جنس ثقافه
جنسية

بنات كول شباب كول

الطب
بالاعشاب
منتديات عامة

وظائف

التوظيف

وظائف حكوميه

وظائف شركات

وظائف
بالسعودية

حوادث

جرائم



الاسره والطفل

العنايه
بالاطفال

ازياء

ميك اب

فساتين

العناية بالشعر

مكياج



ثقافه جنسيه

سكس

اداب الجماع

ليلة الدخله



وصفات للاكل

اكلات مغربيه

اكلات سعوديه

وصفات عربيه لبنانيه سوريه خليجيه

طريقة اعداد الطعام



منتدى الصحة

الحفاظ على الصحه

صحة الاطفال

الامراض والوقايه منها



منتدى الشعر

خواطر

قصص



صور حصرية

صور

مقاطع صوتيه style="text-decoration: underline;">



بلوتوث

فيديو

مقاطع



صور سياحية

معلومات سياحيه



الرياضه



السيارات



برامج



توبيكات

برنامج الماسنجر

صور ماسنجر



تصاميم

صور للتصاميم

برامج التصميم

تصاميم جاهزة



الاتصالات

جوالات

رسائل

مسجات

العاب جوال

ثيمات

برامج جوالات

كورة
الاخبار الرياضية
منتديات
برشلونة
ريال مدريد
ارسنال
تشيلسي
انتر ميلان
مانشستر يونايتد
الميلان
يوفنتوس
روما
ليفربول
الهلال
النصر
الاتحاد
الاهلي
الشباب
رياضة
اشبيلية
بايرن ميونخ
فالنسيا
الوحدة
الاتفاق
نجران
الحزم
القادسية
الوطني
البث المباشر
الجزيرة الوثائقية
قناة الاخبارية
قناة الرسالة
الجزيرة الرياضية 2
الجزيرة الرياضية 1
شوتايم
قناة عين
قناة الكاس
دبي الرياضية
صور رياضية
ريكاردو كاكا
فرانك ريبري
رافائيل ماركيز
توتي
ماركو ماتيراتزي
فرناندو توريس
فرناندو غاغو
اندريا بيرلو
فابيو كانافارو
ستيفن جيرارد
خافيير زانيتي
سيرجيو راموس
ادوين فان در سار
صامويل ايتو
ديكو
سالومون كالو
ديفيد فيلا
رود فان نستلروي
دافيد تريزيغيه
ديفيد بيكهام
رونالدينيو
كرستيانو رونالدو
سيسك فابريغاس
روبرتو كارلوس
كارلوس تيفيز
ريو فرديناند
كارلو كوديتشيني
ريكاردو كواريسما
كارلوس بويول
جينارو غاتوزو
باولو
ارين روبين
اليساندرو نيستا
باولو مالديني
اليساندرو دل بييرو
جيلاردينيو
ادريانو
مايكل أوين
سامي الجابر
مالك معاذ
سعد الحارثي
لوكا توني
محمد نور
ليونيل ميسي
ياسر القحطاني
فرانك لامبارد
اكسافي اكزافي
تييري هنري
خوان رومان ريكيلمي
توماس روسيكي
خافيير سافيولا
فيكتور فالديس
ايكر كاسياس
زين الدين زيدان
هرنان كريسبو
زالاتان ابراهيموفتش
فيديو رياضي
اهداف الاتحاد
اهداف الهلال
اهداف النصر
اهداف الاهلي
اهداف الاتفاق
اهداف الشباب
اهداف عالمية
مهارات
برنامج صدى الملاعب
منصور البلوي
صالح القرني
حمزة ادريس
محمد الشلهوب
مارسيلو تفاريس
طارق التايب
يوسف الثنيان
نواف التمياط
مهارات سعد الحارثي
ماجد عبدالله
فهد الهريفي
حسين عبدالغني
عبده عطيف
باتو
دروقبا
بالاك
تحميل يوتيوب
برامج فوتوشوب
خطوط فوتوشوب
فرش فوتوشوب
ستايلات فوتوشوب
أشكال فوتوشوب
باترون فوتوشوب
دروس فوتوشوب
خطوط فوتوشوب عربية
خطوط فوتوشوب انجليزية
العاب رياضية
العاب كرة القدم
فيفا 2008
تردد القنوات الرياضية
ثيمات رياضية
بكين 2008
الكرة السعودية
الكرة الخليجية
الكرة العربية
الكرة العالمية
الكالشيو الإيطالي
الليغا الأسباني
البريميرليغ الإنجليزي
السيارات
PlayStation
منتدى البلاي ستيشن
X Box منتدى اكس بوكس
الجزيرة الرياضية
art الرياضية
الكمبيوتر والاتصالات
سنوات الضياع
محمد الدعيع
العربي الكويتي
الاهلي الاماراتي
الريان القطري
كاس العالم 2010
الاهلي المصري
حسنى عبدربه
الكرامة السوري
ليون الفرنسي
الانتقالات الصيفية
بلاتر
الدوري الالماني
الدوري الاسباني
مورينهو
الروسونيري
سكولاري
اخبار الليغا الأسبانية
صور برشلونة
راؤؤل
الدوري الانجليزي
صور مشاهير
اهداف زيدان
الزمالك المصري
مواقع السيارات
اسعار السيارات
صور سيارات
الهلال السوداني
نادي جالكسي
الدوري السعودي
كاظمة الكويتي
اسرار البلاستيشن
الماسترليغ
اسرار حرامي السيارات
طريقة تشغيل الايف اكس بوكس
مشاك