“Not when I live in France. You would, of course, be served lunch.”

Not where I lived in France for decades. You’d be offered an omelette, or a croque monsieur, or a sandwich Paris-beurre at the zinc. But to expect a full meal would have you labelled an oddball.

“I have not noticed the problems that you speak of with social heterogeneity in Luxembourg, Switzerland or Canada.”

First, I did not speak of any “problems” of social heterogeneity; I simply observed that Kilmeade had a point that European countries such as Finland or Sweden have populations which are smaller and more homogeneous than the USA.

Second, you have not understood the point. Luxembourg and Switzerland are miniscule compared to the USA, and do indeed have a certain homogeneity of attitude even if not of language.

Canada is sui generis.

Kilmeade remains correct that sociology and epidemiology and other such studies need take into account differences in population, in scale, and in heterogeneity between the USA and Scandinavian countries.

@ermintrude

“you have managed to work in a racial element as an explanation for the wider number of objects available for purchase in developed countries and as an explanation for later shopping hours in such states is, however, truly remarkable”

Nothing racial about it. You’re quite ignorant of international cultural differences if you were unaware of consumer marketing differences from country to country, whether in clothing or in dining. Marketing of ANY good differs from culture to culture, as does the practice of medicine, as do sociology and social work.

The Americans make the mistake in reverse when they marketed left-hand-drive vehicles in Japan, or marketed a completely alcohol-free Disney Europe to visitors who expect wine or beer with lunch.

Cultures differ. Some are more homogeneous in attitudes and habits, some less. As nations of immigrants, countries such as the USA, Canada, Argentina, and Brasil can be argued to be far more heterogeneous than Finland or Sweden. That’s all Kilmeade was trying to suggest, in his inarticulate way.

Question: Are Kilmeade’s coments and Carlson’s amazed reaction an example of Fox’s “fair and balanced” coverage?

As for Kilmeade’s next assignment, believe it will have something to do with covering the unrest in far western China with occasional news features from Mongolia.

Sue R – 10 July, 8:20 PM: Yes, my parents have done 56 years of their life sentence so far; their determination to outlive the other is their primary motivation and has kept them going strong. My mother turned 84 in May and the Good Lord Willing, my Dad will be 81 in September.

I have rarely seen such a set of clearly controvertible set of interpretations for commodity variety and sale opportunities in developed countries.

That, however, you have managed to work in a racial element as an explanation for the wider number of objects available for purchase in developed countries and as an explanation for later shopping hours in such states is, however, truly remarkable… if a bit weird, frankly.

God is all seeing
Using your logic God would have problems seeing what Orthodox Jews get up in the dark on Sabbath because their primitive tribal cult forbids them turning on a light!

Not when I live in France. You would, of course, be served lunch.

I have not noticed the problems that you speak of with social heterogeneity in Luxembourg, Switzerland or Canada.

The other bloke is not much better. Their constant snide comments about Obama rather garner support for Obama. At least with me.

Funny, Brian walked off the set one day because of what he thouht was Obama bashing. Any connection – Obama defender/idiot statement?? Sounds about par for the course.

So, there’s an opportunity for a sociologist or public health student to attempt to reproduce the study’s results in the USA – reproducible results being a normal research requirement in any case. I expect it to be someone’s nice little post-graduate thesis.

1. Kilmeade is surely not the only major talking head who is inarticulate. The USA even had a President – far more powerful than a mere news commentator – who was spectacularly inarticulate.

The venerable Grey Lady herself (New York Times) once published a half-page article lamenting the tribulations of a Times “international reporter” newly-transferred from New York to London, who simply appeared at Heathrow and announced to customs, “I’m here to work”. Even more amazing than an “international” reporter so incompetent as not to realise one needs a work visa in advance before entering another country, was the fact that the Times advertised rather than hid its incomptetence.

I remember one (Beeb?) anchor who mis-read the teleprompter, identifying two runaway cows as being named “Black and Gus” (black Angus!).

All to say that incompetence (or mere inarticulateness) in the news media is so common as to be unremarkable.

2. Kilmeade said nothing about “genetic distinctiveness”. He said “pure genes,” by which I infer not any bizarre or complex racist theory on Kilmeade’s part, but simply Kilmeade’s inarticulate (your correct term) way to introduce the issue of homogeneity in the study’s subjects. It’s a valid question. Kilmeade may be wrong in asserting the study not tranferable at all, but it’s not so unreasonable a question to ask.

@Hector

You seem to have ignored my statement that “I don’t think [Kilmeade's] assertion necessarily correct.” I merely formulated his assertion into reasonable English.

However, Kilmeade’s assertion isn’t an obviously incorrect one, either. Most medical parameters (starting with height) show far greater variance in the USA (and other high-immigration new-world countries) than in the more homogeneous populations of smaller, old-world countries. It’s observable even in the far wider range of clothing sizes and shapes available in the USA.

That the issue (of population homogeneity vs heterogeneity) might affect the applicability of a study is not only conceivable, but probable. In other words, Kilmeade’s question remains a very good one even if his skills of expression are not.

Ordinarily, Harry’s commenters are fairly astute. I am truly surprised that an entire thread of comments was generated without anyone realising the question Kilmeade was trying to ask – “To what extent does population homogeneity raise issues of transferability of results?”

I point out as well that the same heterogeneity vs homogeneity issue also affects social and cultural behaviour, and is frequently cited as one of the reasons the USA has more social conflict, a more difficult time establishing social norms, lesser “social solidarity,” greater problems managing social programmes, more problems trying to establish consensus for national health insurance, more problems trying to establish gun control, etc.

The heterogeneity of the USA is even evident in its restaurant hours. French and Italians generally dine from 7pm to 9pm; the Spanish, from 8pm to 10pm. The Americans, however, range from 4pm to 11pm, with many a restaurant open 24 hours. I’ve walked into restaurants in the USA at 3pm and been served, while doing the same in France (if the door were even opened) would simply elicit, “C’est un fou!”

All to conclude, once again – the study results may or may not be transferable, but Kilmeade’s question wasn’t entirely so stupid as was his manner of delivery.