Obama Goes to Cuba

[Hermit]

...all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away. ... lifting the embargo would enrich the Castros.

What? You claim not to be on the moral high horse? Man, I don't know how you have avoided vertigo. The US as the defender of freedom and fairness. Let's think about it for a while.

Ah, yes. There it is already:

[Forty Two]

...all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away. ... lifting the embargo would enrich the Castros.

What? You claim not to be on the moral high horse? Man, I don't know how you have avoided vertigo. The US as the defender of freedom and fairness. Let's think about it for a while.

Ah, yes. There it is already:

What's wrong with shaking hands with other world leaders, even dictators?

Nothing wrong with Obama doing that either. Next thing, you'll be criticizing him for treating with the theocratic Iranians. They're just as bad as Saddam was.

[Hermit]

...all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away. ... lifting the embargo would enrich the Castros.

What? You claim not to be on the moral high horse? Man, I don't know how you have avoided vertigo. The US as the defender of freedom and fairness. Let's think about it for a while.

Ah, yes. There it is already:

What's wrong with shaking hands with other world leaders, even dictators?

Nothing wrong with Obama doing that either. Next thing, you'll be criticizing him for treating with the theocratic Iranians. They're just as bad as Saddam was.

Point is, they are dictators, they kill their political opponents, they enrich themselves by immoral means, and yet, and yet, where is the economic blockade? Has your country's determination to press for freedom, democracy and the American way run out after demanding it from only one other, a tiny one at that?

[Forty Two]

Same goes for Castro, dude. Why aren't you on about Obama meeting with Castro? Fidel and Raul are dictators, and they kill their political opponents, or imprison some of them. They enrich themselves by immoral means? Yet, he goes there and shakes hands with them?

Where is the economic blockade on Iraq? What the fuck are you even talking about? Did you miss the 12 years preceding the Iraq War? We wouldn't sanction Iraq now, because they aren't ruled by a dictator. 25 years go, we did impose onerous sanctions on Iraq, and they were in force for 12 years, with flyovers by our military.

Yes -- he goes there and shakes hands with Saddam Hussein -- on December 20, 1983. LOL. 33 fucking years ago, dude. It's called diplomacy, at a time long before Saddam invaded Kuwait, before there was any hint that he was trying to build nuclear weapons or had any way of doing so, before he had amassed chemical and biological weapons, five years before he used chemical weapons in attacks on Halabja, etc. etc. At that time, Saddam had been President for four years, and the US was engaged in diplomacy and diplomatic relations with Iraq. What the hell is possibly wrong with that?

In 1983, Rumsfeld was Special Envoy to the Middle East. Rumsfeld was sent there on behalf of the US President to mediate in negotiate regarding then existing issues -- the Iran-Iraq War, the Syrian invasion of Lebanon, arms trafficking, and the like. This is normal fucking shit. And, for the love of fucking FSM -- if you're going to lambaste people for meeting with dictators, at least fucking be consistent. You lambaste Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam Hussein, but you're all for Obama meeting with fucking Castro? How do you square that circle?

[Tyrannical]

Damn it, I thought Obama was going to Cuba for good

[Hermit]

Why aren't you on about Obama meeting with Castro?

Because I am addressing your claim that the Cuban economic blockade is based on a moral principle. Hollow words, in view of the number of dictators the US actually supported materially and even helped to attain power at the same time.

Yes -- he goes there and shakes hands with Saddam Hussein -- on December 20, 1983.

Yes, he did, "to discuss matters of common interest" - after the Dujail Massacre five months earlier, about which the US administration was well aware of. It's also worth mentioning that Hussein had pursued his genocidal policies against the Kurds unhindered for four years before economic sanctions were implemented. I guess the fact that Kuwait was sitting on so much more oil than the Kurds might have had something to do with it. Genocide did not trigger the sanctions. Threatening oil resources did.

LOL. 33 fucking years ago, dude.

Ancient, huh? Or maybe not, considering that the Cuban economic blockade began 55 years ago.

if you're going to lambaste people for meeting with dictators, at least fucking be consistent.

If you can point to a post of mine where I defended or excused people for meeting with dictators I would concede that I am being inconsistent. Point to one, if you can.

[Forty Two]

Why aren't you on about Obama meeting with Castro?

Because I am addressing your claim that the Cuban economic blockade is based on a moral principle. Hollow words, in view of the number of dictators the US actually supported materially and even helped to attain power at the same time.

Oh! Here's what you misunderstand. I do not claim that the Cuban embargo is based on a moral principle.

Yes -- he goes there and shakes hands with Saddam Hussein -- on December 20, 1983.

Yes, he did, "to discuss matters of common interest" - after the Dujail Massacre five months earlier, about which the US administration was well aware of.

Well, right, the US and every other country still tries to negotiate with those that have committed atrocities. And, Dujail Massacre occurred in July, 1982, not 1978. Now, it's not clear that the Reagan Administration was "well aware of" the massacre back then, as there were no reporters there at the time, the Iraqi government denied the issue, and the surrounding Arab states were backing Iraq against Iran so they squelched any stories about it. It was more rumor at the time. That being said, it doesn't really change the fact that the US -- and every other country in the world - knew what Saddam was, and that he had seized power in a coup, was a dictator and was ruling through murder and terror. That's true -- so, these things you mention - they are not reasons to refrain from sending envoys to meet with the dictator. They are all the more reason to meet with the guy.

If, however, meeting with bloody dictators is something that bothers you, then I would ask you to comment on Obama's meeting with the Castros. Is that not as bad? Why? Because it's Obama doing the meeting?

It's also worth mentioning that Hussein had pursued his genocidal policies against the Kurds unhindered for four years before economic sanctions were implemented. I guess the fact that Kuwait was sitting on so much more oil than the Kurds might have had something to do with it. Genocide did not trigger the sanctions. Threatening oil resources did.

Of course. That's why things like Darfur and Rwanda get little attention from France and the UK, too. Because they prioritize their involvement based on what's most important to them. The US is no different. Threatening oil resources is no small matter, either. The price of electricity and fuel goes up, and deaths in the first world measurably increase, and the economy is measurably destabilized.

LOL. 33 fucking years ago, dude.

Ancient, huh? Or maybe not, considering that the Cuban economic blockade began 55 years ago.

What are you on about? You're the one claiming it was bad for Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East, to meet with one of the major middle east world leaders at the time because he was a bad guy. I'm just asking you to criticize Obama the same -- or moreso -- since he went and met personally with the Castros, not just through an envoy.

You can't have it both ways. Either it's bad to meet with bad guys, or it makes sense to do so because we need to treat with and negotiate with these bad guys to get things done. Which is it? Well, I guess another alternative is that you think the Castros aren't bad guys. I'll leave that to you to argue.

if you're going to lambaste people for meeting with dictators, at least fucking be consistent.

If you can point to a post of mine where I defended or excused people for meeting with dictators I would concede that I am being inconsistent. Point to one, if you can.

It sounds like you're defending Obama for meeting with dictators. Or, are you saying it was way out of line.

I'm defending him on it, for the record. I think it's a great idea to to meet with dictators, generally speaking, at least through an intermediary if not in person. However, if someone is going to criticize the Reagan administration for sending an envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein, then one must be willing, if one wants to be consistent, to also level that criticism on Obama, bare minimum. Do you?

[Forty Two]

Those were WHO stats.

You think the WHO goes to Cuba and collects stats independently? What the fucking hell, dude?

I don't know, dude, do have evidence that their stats are wrong?

You don't know how the WHO collects its data? Do I -- yes. Example cited above.

And what about life expectancy? How do they fudge that? Keep otherwise dead people alive for years on respirators?

Issues of life expectancy are highly impacted by fucking infant mortality. So, a country like the US, which takes great measures to try to save risky pregnancies and expends extra effort on premature babies and such is going to lose more babies than countries that fucking abort a higher percentage of them, or throw the premies in the trash. Some countries don't even count many premies as live births, if they die quick enough after being born. If a newborn doesn't live more than 24 hours, it often doesn't show up in infant mortality statistics in Cuba, but in the US, if the baby lives even for a moment, it's counted as live birth. And, Cuba does not count its suicide rates as deaths for life expectancy purposes, and they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Evidence for any of this?

You need evidence that a low infant mortality number reduces the life expectancy number? Dude - when you're calculating life expectancy from birth, then babies that die in the first day are part of those numbers, driving the numbers down. High risk babies that are either not born, or born but not counted as live births, drive that number down. That's just a function of the way numbers work.

80% of surviving babies born at weights under 400g were born in the United States. That's an example of the US being at the forefront of efforts to save newborns. Some of the countries do not count babies that die within the first 24 hours as live births, they count them as either "stillborn" or "miscarriage" and therefore do not affect mortality rates. In the States, if you have a heartbeat when you are born then you are considered alive (40% of all infant deaths occur within 24 hours). Surely you see how the numbers are effected by that?

The WHO does NOT control for these kinds of differences in recordkeeping.

Your evidence that Cuba doesn't count premies (or those who live less than 24hrs) as live births.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrcuba.htm

Cuba claims to have an infant mortality rate slightly lower than the U.S. But upon further examination, this claim is quite misleading. The reality is that Cuban physicians are coerced into using extraordinary means to skew the infant mortality rate in return for financial incentives. "Life support may be artificially instituted and continued on an individual infant...to achieve a numerical goal in the infant mortality of a particular health sector or region."
The article reveals that the mortality rate of children in Cuba from 1 to 4 years is 34% HIGHER than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). Also, the maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES that of the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000).

http://medicinacubana.blogspot.com/2009 ... ality.html

Here is the basic info on why the US is reported to have an embarrassingly high infant mortality rate -- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db23.htm

"Cuba does have a very low infant mortality rate, but pregnant women are treated with very authoritarian tactics to maintain these favorable statistics," said Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld, the chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma who spent nine months living in Cuba to study the nation's health system. "They are pressured to undergo abortions that they may not want if prenatal screening detects fetal abnormalities. If pregnant women develop complications, they are placed in ‘Casas de Maternidad’ for monitoring, even if they would prefer to be at home. Individual doctors are pressured by their superiors to reach certain statistical targets. If there is a spike in infant mortality in a certain district, doctors may be fired. There is pressure to falsify statistics."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... mortality/

http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2009/07/06/h ... %E2%80%9D/

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversie ... ews=840096

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/05/07/ ... ial-world/

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cub ... h-myth.htm

The U.S. ranks poorly on the infant mortality list largely because this country actually counts neonatal deaths, notably premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries who don't count these infant deaths.

"In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births,” the OECD says.

Other statistical quirks give the U.S. an unjustifiably poor showing in this ranking compared to other countries.

Start with the definition of the infant mortality rate.

The World Health Organization [WHO] defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any sign of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one single breath, or has one heartbeat.

The U.S. uses this definition. But other countries do not -- so they don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.

The United States actually counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity, or size, or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross.

And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries do not count, much less report.

Also, what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says.

And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants who are not now counted, says Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Moreover, the ranking doesn't take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

Likewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.'s 300 million-plus citizens.

Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

Moreover, the U.S. is not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies who die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks' gestation and seven days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th -- and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique and San Marino.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011 ... rates.html

[Hermit]

If, however, meeting with bloody dictators is something that bothers you...

You're the one claiming it was bad for Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East, to meet with one of the major middle east world leaders at the time because he was a bad guy.

It sounds like you're defending Obama for meeting with dictators.

Reading your replies, two possibilities have occurred to me. One is that you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere did I say it was bad for Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein. Good or bad does not enter into Realpolitik. For the same reason I am neither criticising nor defending Obama, nor does meeting with bloody dictators in general annoy me.

The point I keep trying to make is that, contrary to the general drift of your argument, the Cuban economic blockade is not about introducing democracy per se to that country. If it was, the US administration would have imposed a blockade when it was ruled by his predecessor, the bloody dictator Batista, and dozens of other countries that where bloody dictators ruled. Instead, the US has traded quite happily and profitably with all of them most of the time. And yes, your general drift is just that fairy tale stuff: "in 1992, all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away." "You mean....sanctions on a dictatorship to try to effect change to a democratic society is bad?"

The problem with your fairy tale is that your country's fervent wishes to convert Cuba to capitalistic enlightenment, democracy, freedom and the American way was not applied to many countries ruled by other dictators. Your claim does not hold water, and that's all I'm arguing.

The other one is that you comprehended my point perfectly well, but chose to ignore it and use my posts as an opportunity to get on your soap box or polish your rhetorical skills instead.

Either way it seems to me a good idea to give interacting with you a bit of a break. Not much point trying to conduct a discussion with someone who does not understand what I'm saying or chooses to ignore it.

[Forty Two]

If, however, meeting with bloody dictators is something that bothers you...

You're the one claiming it was bad for Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East, to meet with one of the major middle east world leaders at the time because he was a bad guy.

It sounds like you're defending Obama for meeting with dictators.

Reading your replies, two possibilities have occurred to me. One is that you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Nowhere did I say it was bad for Rumsfeld to meet with Hussein. Good or bad does not enter into Realpolitik. For the same reason I am neither criticising nor defending Obama, nor does meeting with bloody dictators in general annoy me.

Good - then we are agreed.

The point I keep trying to make is that, contrary to the general drift of your argument, the Cuban economic blockade is not about introducing democracy per se to that country.

I never said it was. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem. The reference to democracy was about the 1992 amendments, wherein the law provided a way for Cuba to lift the embargo, if they would have adopted democratic reforms.

If it was, the US administration would have imposed a blockade when it was ruled by his predecessor, the bloody dictator Batista, and dozens of other countries that where bloody dictators ruled. Instead, the US has traded quite happily and profitably with all of them most of the time. And yes, your general drift is just that fairy tale stuff: "in 1992, all Cuba had to do was adopt a democratic system (allow elections) and convert to a regulated free market, and the embargo would have gone away." "You mean....sanctions on a dictatorship to try to effect change to a democratic society is bad?"

Note the reference to the 1992 law. Reading comprehension?

The problem with your fairy tale is that your country's fervent wishes to convert Cuba to capitalistic enlightenment, democracy, freedom and the American way was not applied to many countries ruled by other dictators. Your claim does not hold water, and that's all I'm arguing.

Not my fairy tale. Just because a country doesn't hold all other countries to the same standard doesn't mean anything. Countries have intervened for alleged humanitarian reasons in the past -- like when European countries ,attacked Libya. It was for humanitarian reasons, they said. Also Bosnia and Kosovo, right? yet, they never did so in Rwanda, until it was too late.

The other one is that you comprehended my point perfectly well, but chose to ignore it and use my posts as an opportunity to get on your soap box or polish your rhetorical skills instead.

Either way it seems to me a good idea to give interacting with you a bit of a break. Not much point trying to conduct a discussion with someone who does not understand what I'm saying or chooses to ignore it.

Que sera sera.

[pErvinalia]

You think the WHO goes to Cuba and collects stats independently? What the fucking hell, dude?

I don't know, dude, do have evidence that their stats are wrong?

You don't know how the WHO collects its data? Do I -- yes. Example cited above.

Issues of life expectancy are highly impacted by fucking infant mortality. So, a country like the US, which takes great measures to try to save risky pregnancies and expends extra effort on premature babies and such is going to lose more babies than countries that fucking abort a higher percentage of them, or throw the premies in the trash. Some countries don't even count many premies as live births, if they die quick enough after being born. If a newborn doesn't live more than 24 hours, it often doesn't show up in infant mortality statistics in Cuba, but in the US, if the baby lives even for a moment, it's counted as live birth. And, Cuba does not count its suicide rates as deaths for life expectancy purposes, and they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Evidence for any of this?

You need evidence that a low infant mortality number reduces the life expectancy number? Dude - when you're calculating life expectancy from birth, then babies that die in the first day are part of those numbers, driving the numbers down. High risk babies that are either not born, or born but not counted as live births, drive that number down. That's just a function of the way numbers work.

80% of surviving babies born at weights under 400g were born in the United States. That's an example of the US being at the forefront of efforts to save newborns. Some of the countries do not count babies that die within the first 24 hours as live births, they count them as either "stillborn" or "miscarriage" and therefore do not affect mortality rates. In the States, if you have a heartbeat when you are born then you are considered alive (40% of all infant deaths occur within 24 hours). Surely you see how the numbers are effected by that?

The WHO does NOT control for these kinds of differences in recordkeeping.

Your evidence that Cuba doesn't count premies (or those who live less than 24hrs) as live births.

http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrcuba.htm

Cuba claims to have an infant mortality rate slightly lower than the U.S. But upon further examination, this claim is quite misleading. The reality is that Cuban physicians are coerced into using extraordinary means to skew the infant mortality rate in return for financial incentives. "Life support may be artificially instituted and continued on an individual infant...to achieve a numerical goal in the infant mortality of a particular health sector or region."
The article reveals that the mortality rate of children in Cuba from 1 to 4 years is 34% HIGHER than the U.S. (11.8 versus 8.8 per 1000). Also, the maternal mortality rate in Cuba is almost FOUR TIMES that of the U.S. rate (33 versus 8.4 per 1000).

http://medicinacubana.blogspot.com/2009 ... ality.html

Here is the basic info on why the US is reported to have an embarrassingly high infant mortality rate -- http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db23.htm

"Cuba does have a very low infant mortality rate, but pregnant women are treated with very authoritarian tactics to maintain these favorable statistics," said Tassie Katherine Hirschfeld, the chair of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma who spent nine months living in Cuba to study the nation's health system. "They are pressured to undergo abortions that they may not want if prenatal screening detects fetal abnormalities. If pregnant women develop complications, they are placed in ‘Casas de Maternidad’ for monitoring, even if they would prefer to be at home. Individual doctors are pressured by their superiors to reach certain statistical targets. If there is a spike in infant mortality in a certain district, doctors may be fired. There is pressure to falsify statistics."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... mortality/

http://www.drwalt.com/blog/2009/07/06/h ... %E2%80%9D/

http://www.allgov.com/news/controversie ... ews=840096

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2013/05/07/ ... ial-world/

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cub ... h-myth.htm

The U.S. ranks poorly on the infant mortality list largely because this country actually counts neonatal deaths, notably premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries who don't count these infant deaths.

"In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births,” the OECD says.

Other statistical quirks give the U.S. an unjustifiably poor showing in this ranking compared to other countries.

Start with the definition of the infant mortality rate.

The World Health Organization [WHO] defines a country's infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any sign of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one single breath, or has one heartbeat.

The U.S. uses this definition. But other countries do not -- so they don't count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.

The United States actually counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity, or size, or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross.

And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries do not count, much less report.

Also, what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says.

And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway's underweight infants who are not now counted, says Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Moreover, the ranking doesn't take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

Likewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.'s 300 million-plus citizens.

Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

Moreover, the U.S. is not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies who die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks' gestation and seven days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th -- and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique and San Marino.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011 ... rates.html

You just don't get the concept of providing evidence, do you? You said that Cuba doesn't count premies or those who live less than 24hrs as live births. You've provided a whole heap of shit that simply doesn't back up your claim.

[pErvinalia]

If, however, meeting with bloody dictators is something that bothers you...

You're the one claiming it was bad for Rumsfeld as Special Envoy to the Middle East, to meet with one of the major middle east world leaders at the time because he was a bad guy.

It sounds like you're defending Obama for meeting with dictators.

Reading your replies, two possibilities have occurred to me. One is that you seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

No shit. I have to spend an inordinate amount of time making the same point to him over and over and over again until he finally gets it. It's fucking infuriating.