A Tangled Mess of Incompatible Motivations
Posted on
Friday, September 04, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
The healthcare debate in the U.S. has been THE hot topic of the summer of 2009. My Twitter posts have been hammering on that particular drum like a shaggy Muppet. It's time to step back and logically examine the motivations of four of the current players in the upside-down craziness we call our for-profit healthcare system in this country, if for no other reason than to figure out why they act as they do. The four players are care providers (doctors and hospitals), insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and the patients, and each wants something slightly different from the healthcare system. It is these different desires that are at odds with each other, and that opposition is contributing to the declining quality of healthcare in our country.
In a for-profit system, three of the four players compete for the attentions of the fourth and most important player, the patient. The patient is the ultimate source of profit for those three players, though not always in the most direct manner. The patient's motivations are easy enough to decipher, because we all share them. No matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, no matter what race or creed, religion or sexual preference, you access the healthcare system for one reason only: you want to be healthy. That's it, you want to be healthy. Unfortunately, the for-profit system has added a qualifier to that desire. Everyone wants to be healthy, and will do everything within their means in order to achieve that health. The for-profit system restricts that health based on the financial means of the patient. Everyone wants to be healthy, but no one wants to go bankrupt doing it. After all, if your cancer is cured but you lose your home and can't afford to feed yourself, the cure is akin to burning the grass to mow your lawn. Yes, your grass is indeed controlled, but it looks like the aftermath of Hiroshima and smells like gasoline. People want their health so they can enjoy their life as it is, not so they can move into a van down by the river. I'm sure most patients could care less who treats them so long as the end result is health without financial ruin.
The other three players have entirely different motivations, and it becomes most apparent when you consider what type of patient these players desire the most. Care providers, such as hospitals and doctors, are paid based on the services they render, whether that be an MRI, 20 minutes in consultation with a patient, an X-Ray, a surgery, or a hospital stay. Their most profitable patient is likely someone who is just sick enough to need plenty of care but not terminally ill. This ideal patient is also someone with the financial means to pay every time services are rendered, whether they pay directly or through an insurance provider. Healthy patients are no good to them because they don't need that many services. Poor people can't pay, so in addition to the costs of providing care and the time they take away from patients who can pay, poor people cost more because the provider often has to pay for collection agencies to extract as much money as they can from the non-paying clients.
Pharmaceutical companies want patients that are very similar to a hospital's ideal patient. As long as you're just sick enough to need constant medication but not sick enough that the medication is only delaying the inevitable, you are manna from heaven if you have the means to pay. In addition, if you need help for a condition that doesn't threaten your life like impotence, you are even better. No one NEEDS Viagra - it could go away tomorrow and the patients who use it wouldn't die. These drugs are very similar in my mind to things like alcohol or tobacco without the deadly side effects. Get the patient hooked on the euphoric feeling the drug provides, and they will keep coming back so long as they can pay. But people who can't pay for even the basics of care without significant hardship? Like care providers, pharma doesn't want them either.
Insurance companies, however, want a completely different type of patient. Their ideal patient isn't a patient at all, it's a healthy customer with the financial means to pay premiums. Premiums are revenue, revenue leads to profit. But the minute a patient needs to use the insurance product, they are a drain on the insurance company's revenue. Paying claims is a loss. The most profitable patient is the one that never uses the service.
With that in mind, it becomes obvious that providers and pharma are at odds with the insurance companies. Hospitals and pharma need patients that use their services, but insurance companies need patients who do not need those services. When those services are used by patients, it is in the best interests of the insurance companies that the prices for each service are as low as possible, while the care provider and the pharmaceutical companies want to charge as much as the market will allow. The patient wants to be healed with minimal financial loss and minimal interference.
How do you reconcile such conflicting desires? As a matter of policy, which desire should the government pay most attention to when discussing reforms? Is it the care providers, who want patients to use as many of their services as possible? Is it the pharmas, who want patients to use as many drugs as possible? Is it the insurance companies, who generate huge profits from not providing their services? Or is it the patient, the people part of the whole "We the people" form of government?
Government policy must put the needs of the whole community first in a system founded on the principles in the U.S. Constitution. All four of the players in this drama have financial motivations as a component of their desires. Is it more important for hospitals to make a profit than for insurance companies? Since hospitals provide the care that saves patients' lives, I would lean towards the hospitals. Should pharmaceutical companies be more important than hospitals? They are likely to be co-equal if not slightly less important than the hospital itself. In all this, insurance companies are the least important - after all, their function is that of a facilitator of payment. While their function can certainly ease the burden of the sick, are we any better off for having a third party extract a fee for shuffling paperwork instead of dealing with direct payment for services rendered?
But what should become readily apparent in all of this is that none of these entities exist, none of their profits are possible without the patient. If no one gets sick, the providers do not get paid. If no one needs to pay for treatment, insurance companies have no function. If all the patients die off, no one gets paid. The source of all the profit in the system is ultimately the patient. And since every single last one of us will be a patient at some point in our life, the patient IS the most important element in the entire healthcare system. Government policy must absolutely center on the patient, and the patient's desire for health without financial hardship must absolutely take precedence over any other desire.
There may well be room for profit in a patient-centric system. We can argue over the amount of that profit, or the recipient, as there are valid arguments to be made on all sides. But those arguments must never, ever forget that without caring for the patient, there can be no profit.
In a for-profit system, three of the four players compete for the attentions of the fourth and most important player, the patient. The patient is the ultimate source of profit for those three players, though not always in the most direct manner. The patient's motivations are easy enough to decipher, because we all share them. No matter if you are rich or poor, male or female, no matter what race or creed, religion or sexual preference, you access the healthcare system for one reason only: you want to be healthy. That's it, you want to be healthy. Unfortunately, the for-profit system has added a qualifier to that desire. Everyone wants to be healthy, and will do everything within their means in order to achieve that health. The for-profit system restricts that health based on the financial means of the patient. Everyone wants to be healthy, but no one wants to go bankrupt doing it. After all, if your cancer is cured but you lose your home and can't afford to feed yourself, the cure is akin to burning the grass to mow your lawn. Yes, your grass is indeed controlled, but it looks like the aftermath of Hiroshima and smells like gasoline. People want their health so they can enjoy their life as it is, not so they can move into a van down by the river. I'm sure most patients could care less who treats them so long as the end result is health without financial ruin.
The other three players have entirely different motivations, and it becomes most apparent when you consider what type of patient these players desire the most. Care providers, such as hospitals and doctors, are paid based on the services they render, whether that be an MRI, 20 minutes in consultation with a patient, an X-Ray, a surgery, or a hospital stay. Their most profitable patient is likely someone who is just sick enough to need plenty of care but not terminally ill. This ideal patient is also someone with the financial means to pay every time services are rendered, whether they pay directly or through an insurance provider. Healthy patients are no good to them because they don't need that many services. Poor people can't pay, so in addition to the costs of providing care and the time they take away from patients who can pay, poor people cost more because the provider often has to pay for collection agencies to extract as much money as they can from the non-paying clients.
Pharmaceutical companies want patients that are very similar to a hospital's ideal patient. As long as you're just sick enough to need constant medication but not sick enough that the medication is only delaying the inevitable, you are manna from heaven if you have the means to pay. In addition, if you need help for a condition that doesn't threaten your life like impotence, you are even better. No one NEEDS Viagra - it could go away tomorrow and the patients who use it wouldn't die. These drugs are very similar in my mind to things like alcohol or tobacco without the deadly side effects. Get the patient hooked on the euphoric feeling the drug provides, and they will keep coming back so long as they can pay. But people who can't pay for even the basics of care without significant hardship? Like care providers, pharma doesn't want them either.
Insurance companies, however, want a completely different type of patient. Their ideal patient isn't a patient at all, it's a healthy customer with the financial means to pay premiums. Premiums are revenue, revenue leads to profit. But the minute a patient needs to use the insurance product, they are a drain on the insurance company's revenue. Paying claims is a loss. The most profitable patient is the one that never uses the service.
With that in mind, it becomes obvious that providers and pharma are at odds with the insurance companies. Hospitals and pharma need patients that use their services, but insurance companies need patients who do not need those services. When those services are used by patients, it is in the best interests of the insurance companies that the prices for each service are as low as possible, while the care provider and the pharmaceutical companies want to charge as much as the market will allow. The patient wants to be healed with minimal financial loss and minimal interference.
How do you reconcile such conflicting desires? As a matter of policy, which desire should the government pay most attention to when discussing reforms? Is it the care providers, who want patients to use as many of their services as possible? Is it the pharmas, who want patients to use as many drugs as possible? Is it the insurance companies, who generate huge profits from not providing their services? Or is it the patient, the people part of the whole "We the people" form of government?
Government policy must put the needs of the whole community first in a system founded on the principles in the U.S. Constitution. All four of the players in this drama have financial motivations as a component of their desires. Is it more important for hospitals to make a profit than for insurance companies? Since hospitals provide the care that saves patients' lives, I would lean towards the hospitals. Should pharmaceutical companies be more important than hospitals? They are likely to be co-equal if not slightly less important than the hospital itself. In all this, insurance companies are the least important - after all, their function is that of a facilitator of payment. While their function can certainly ease the burden of the sick, are we any better off for having a third party extract a fee for shuffling paperwork instead of dealing with direct payment for services rendered?
But what should become readily apparent in all of this is that none of these entities exist, none of their profits are possible without the patient. If no one gets sick, the providers do not get paid. If no one needs to pay for treatment, insurance companies have no function. If all the patients die off, no one gets paid. The source of all the profit in the system is ultimately the patient. And since every single last one of us will be a patient at some point in our life, the patient IS the most important element in the entire healthcare system. Government policy must absolutely center on the patient, and the patient's desire for health without financial hardship must absolutely take precedence over any other desire.
There may well be room for profit in a patient-centric system. We can argue over the amount of that profit, or the recipient, as there are valid arguments to be made on all sides. But those arguments must never, ever forget that without caring for the patient, there can be no profit.
Labels: Health Care, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 8:37 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
| 
The Jesus Co-Pay
Posted on
Monday, July 13, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
After some interesting Twitter discussions about healthcare reform last week, I began to think about the conservative right position against universal/socialized/single-payer/public-option healthcare in America. Since the Republican party has so inextricably linked itself with the increasingly odious politically evangelical Christian movement in order to win elections, I'm rather insulted at the hostile reaction our Republican political establishment has shown towards any option that doesn't allow private insurance companies to bankrupt ordinary Americans with high premiums and denial of coverage on financial grounds. No one in favor of some form of public option for healthcare is under any illusion that the program won't be costly. I personally feel that it should likely be expected to cost the country a metric fuckton. If there was ever a government program for which deficit spending is a necessary evil, it's providing healthcare to every citizen regardless of ability to pay. Better to lose a dollar saving a life than to spend fifty cents taking a life in war. But the argument I'm so often hearing against healthcare is the "I shouldn't have to pay so some lazy bastard without a job can get healthcare."
Let's cut the bullshit. For the record, you are already paying for the lazy bastard without a job to get care at the emergency room. The law does not allow emergency rooms to refuse care to anyone. When that "lazy bastard" gets care at the ER, he does so on the hospital's dime if he cannot pay. The hospital passes that loss off to the people who can pay - if you have health insurance, that's you and your insurance company. You pay higher costs at the hospital, the insurance company charges you a higher premium, and healthcare costs continue to balloon well past the normal rate of inflation. Of course, just calling that person who can't pay a "lazy bastard" assumes that the ER isn't the only healthcare outlet for the working poor, who often can't take afford to take time off of work to visit a doctor during banker's hours.
But continue to call anyone who receives any kind of government aid a "lazy bastard" if that's what helps you sleep at night knowing you are condemning working mothers with three kids as shiftless drains on society. Forget the fact that not only do you receive government benefits for paying insurance premiums (it cuts down on your taxable income - so in effect, it's a tax credit) but your employer does as well (who also gets deductions for providing health insurance). We can quibble about the amount of benefit you receive in comparison, but don't act like you aren't sucking at a government teat just a wee bit.
The most galling part about hearing someone who claims to be a Christian criticizing a universal program as forcing them to pay for "lazy bastards" is how dissociated that attitude is from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I'm no Christian - I find organized religion odious. Nor am I a Biblical scholar, but having grown up with Baptist and Assembly of God teaching, as well as having done my own reading, I can safely say that your attitude would make baby Jesus weep.
Jesus did a lot of healing in his short time as wandering prophet. He healed lepers, cripples, whores, the poor - you know, pretty much every shitheel he could find. If you believe the stories, he even cured a zombie (or created one - we don't know if Lazarus developed a taste for brains). I don't ever remember Jesus asking for a co-pay, or checking for an insurance card. He didn't even moralize about your life choices, or refuse to help someone who might have been gay, or had an abortion, or didn't vote Republican. He didn't ask if you were crippled from birth and therefore might not be eligible for MessiahCare™. Perhaps the disciples forgot to mention Jesus easy payment terms, or the fact that he took checks, debit or credit cards for service. No, Jesus healed the sick with nothing more than a few words about his father and a helpful life lesson. Maybe he asked for a loaf of bread or a fish for his posse, but even then, he was the original Discover card - give one fish, get five back in his handy Fish Back™ program.
If Republicans/Conservatives want to claim they are Christians and that our nation is a Christian one, founded on Christian values, it's time to put up or shut the fuck up. Jesus didn't charge a co-pay. Of course, neither the government nor healthcare professionals are Jesus; they can't practice medicine without some costs. Jesus had no drug costs, his time was free and his materials were divine. But the philosophy is what's important here. Jesus wanted to heal the sick, regardless of whether they were "lazy bastards" or working members of society, whether they were moral followers or the dregs of immorality. The government may not be Jesus, but they damn sure should aspire to one of the basic tenets of the founding of America: every citizen has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which is difficult when one has to choose between crippling bankruptcy or crippling sickness.
It's almost like the political establishment expects everyone to get their healthcare from this guy.
Let's cut the bullshit. For the record, you are already paying for the lazy bastard without a job to get care at the emergency room. The law does not allow emergency rooms to refuse care to anyone. When that "lazy bastard" gets care at the ER, he does so on the hospital's dime if he cannot pay. The hospital passes that loss off to the people who can pay - if you have health insurance, that's you and your insurance company. You pay higher costs at the hospital, the insurance company charges you a higher premium, and healthcare costs continue to balloon well past the normal rate of inflation. Of course, just calling that person who can't pay a "lazy bastard" assumes that the ER isn't the only healthcare outlet for the working poor, who often can't take afford to take time off of work to visit a doctor during banker's hours.
But continue to call anyone who receives any kind of government aid a "lazy bastard" if that's what helps you sleep at night knowing you are condemning working mothers with three kids as shiftless drains on society. Forget the fact that not only do you receive government benefits for paying insurance premiums (it cuts down on your taxable income - so in effect, it's a tax credit) but your employer does as well (who also gets deductions for providing health insurance). We can quibble about the amount of benefit you receive in comparison, but don't act like you aren't sucking at a government teat just a wee bit.
The most galling part about hearing someone who claims to be a Christian criticizing a universal program as forcing them to pay for "lazy bastards" is how dissociated that attitude is from the teachings of Jesus Christ. Now, I'm no Christian - I find organized religion odious. Nor am I a Biblical scholar, but having grown up with Baptist and Assembly of God teaching, as well as having done my own reading, I can safely say that your attitude would make baby Jesus weep.
Jesus did a lot of healing in his short time as wandering prophet. He healed lepers, cripples, whores, the poor - you know, pretty much every shitheel he could find. If you believe the stories, he even cured a zombie (or created one - we don't know if Lazarus developed a taste for brains). I don't ever remember Jesus asking for a co-pay, or checking for an insurance card. He didn't even moralize about your life choices, or refuse to help someone who might have been gay, or had an abortion, or didn't vote Republican. He didn't ask if you were crippled from birth and therefore might not be eligible for MessiahCare™. Perhaps the disciples forgot to mention Jesus easy payment terms, or the fact that he took checks, debit or credit cards for service. No, Jesus healed the sick with nothing more than a few words about his father and a helpful life lesson. Maybe he asked for a loaf of bread or a fish for his posse, but even then, he was the original Discover card - give one fish, get five back in his handy Fish Back™ program.
If Republicans/Conservatives want to claim they are Christians and that our nation is a Christian one, founded on Christian values, it's time to put up or shut the fuck up. Jesus didn't charge a co-pay. Of course, neither the government nor healthcare professionals are Jesus; they can't practice medicine without some costs. Jesus had no drug costs, his time was free and his materials were divine. But the philosophy is what's important here. Jesus wanted to heal the sick, regardless of whether they were "lazy bastards" or working members of society, whether they were moral followers or the dregs of immorality. The government may not be Jesus, but they damn sure should aspire to one of the basic tenets of the founding of America: every citizen has the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," all of which is difficult when one has to choose between crippling bankruptcy or crippling sickness.
It's almost like the political establishment expects everyone to get their healthcare from this guy.
Labels: Corporate Corruption, Government Corruption, Government Idiots, Health Care, Politics, Religious Corruption
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:30 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
That New Math
Posted on
Monday, April 20, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
I find it hard to believe that some members of the Republican party are functional human beings. While I will be criticizing Republicans in this post, I must make the disclaimer that I do not believe this form of mental retardation is unique to conservatives, Republicans or right-wingers. But the particular display of idiocy I am criticizing in this case comes from unnamed Republicans.
President Obama is challenging government agencies to shave $100 million in total off of their upcoming expenses. While admirable, I'm not entirely sure such an amount is worth the hassle, when the budget he's proposing totals $3.5 TRILLION. After all, those savings won't even reduce the part of that number to the right of the decimal point. When you're budget is in the trillions and much of that is added deficit spending, does any number that doesn't end with the word billion even matter much?
That isn't the galling part. The true outrage comes from critics of this budget. Beyond the hypocrisy of Republicans criticizing deficit spending after 8 years of deficit spending under a Republican president, four of those years coming with a Republican majority, the true extent of cognitive dissonance is apparent in their particular criticism.
I can only respond with a "LOLWUT?" It's called math, you mental midgets, look it up. You can't criticize deficit spending (spending money over and above the tax money received) while at the same time calling for cutting more taxes. If you cut taxes, you have less money to spend, thus creating GREATER DEFICIT SPENDING. Is this really that hard a concept? It shouldn't be to anyone who passed third grade arithmetic. Perhaps we need a new law: No Congressmen Left Behind.
Criticize the President all you want. But if you can't even create enough mental heat to light a piece of flash paper soaked in kerosene, please join the other useless fuckers in line at the Shut the Fuck Up Kitchen. They serve retards extra helpings.
President Obama is challenging government agencies to shave $100 million in total off of their upcoming expenses. While admirable, I'm not entirely sure such an amount is worth the hassle, when the budget he's proposing totals $3.5 TRILLION. After all, those savings won't even reduce the part of that number to the right of the decimal point. When you're budget is in the trillions and much of that is added deficit spending, does any number that doesn't end with the word billion even matter much?
That isn't the galling part. The true outrage comes from critics of this budget. Beyond the hypocrisy of Republicans criticizing deficit spending after 8 years of deficit spending under a Republican president, four of those years coming with a Republican majority, the true extent of cognitive dissonance is apparent in their particular criticism.
Republicans have accused the president and the Democratic-controlled Congress of wasteful spending, saying Obama's $3.5 trillion 2010 budget plan carries too much deficit spending and too few tax cuts.
I can only respond with a "LOLWUT?" It's called math, you mental midgets, look it up. You can't criticize deficit spending (spending money over and above the tax money received) while at the same time calling for cutting more taxes. If you cut taxes, you have less money to spend, thus creating GREATER DEFICIT SPENDING. Is this really that hard a concept? It shouldn't be to anyone who passed third grade arithmetic. Perhaps we need a new law: No Congressmen Left Behind.
Criticize the President all you want. But if you can't even create enough mental heat to light a piece of flash paper soaked in kerosene, please join the other useless fuckers in line at the Shut the Fuck Up Kitchen. They serve retards extra helpings.
Labels: Government Idiots, Politics, President Obama
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:39 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Getting a Head Start on the Angry Mob
Posted on
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
by Gary A. Ballard
What do I see in the New York Times online edition? Some promising news about the upcoming battle to provide Americans with healthcare, of course. It seems that the major health insurers are now ready to drop their objections to covering people with pre-existing conditions. How big of them to show a readiness to work with Congress after decades of obstructing any progress on universal healthcare based on the objection that people with chronic conditions were unprofitable and thus unworthy of coverage.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the insurers softening their stance. This country needs universal (GASP SOCIALISM!) healthcare in the worst possible way. Our economy has suffered greatly for it, our businesses are getting gang-raped by the onerous cost of making sure their workers are well enough to come to work, and families are one goddamn disease away from total financial ruin. But make no mistake, this was not the insurers being magnanimous, nor is it a signal they are really ready to give up the gravy train fed from the bone marrow of cancer patients.
This is an industry realizing that their customers have had enough and they aren't going to take this shit lying down anymore. Well, the ones that can still stand, that is. For whatever his flaws and failings may be, Pres. Obama is committed to providing every American healthcare, and the amount of public hostility towards insurers as well as the shift in Congressional party makeup makes the writing on the wall clear in gigantic, 90-point Helvetica type. Your money-siphoning days are over.
Of course, these insurers are still opposed to a government-run health care system. They are opposed because if a government system is run in competition to their own, the chances are they will lose most of their business. Not because the government system will automatically be better (though it certainly couldn't be much worse) but because that system will likely be CHEAPER, and these companies have never really had to compete on price to individuals. Sure, they'll offer group discounts to businesses, because that money is guaranteed. But individuals? They've never wanted to have to compete for individuals, because those are nickel and dime customers. It's harder to please them, the margins are terrible and the industry has spent almost 40 years pissing them off. I can almost guarantee that if offered a chance between a cheaper government-run system and a private insurer, the cheaper option would win out for 70% of the population. With that kind of competition, what are insurers going to offer customers for the higher premiums?
All they would have at that point is better doctors (very subjective), lower wait times and... well, what else do they have? Their entire business model would have to change, and they might actually have to market themselves. It's a lose-lose proposition.
But within their willingness to work with Congress on dropping the pre-existing condition restrictions is a fun little poison pill. They only want to do it if Congress can mandate that every American must be covered by insurance. That means they want to pull the same crap the auto insurers did years ago - i.e. make everyone have to buy coverage from the insurers. At that point, their pool of healthy customers is large enough that it offsets the need to help the deadbeats with Parkinson's. And of course, they would resist any government intervention in pricing policies.
Let me be blunt, health insurance industry. The free ride is over. In whatever form it finally comes, you will not be able to keep things going as they are. Whether it takes 20 years and goes through three Presidents and multiple changes of Congress, the American people are fed up with your bullshit. You'd better get a head start now, because there's an angry mob right the fuck behind you and they won't stop until they get what they want.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad to see the insurers softening their stance. This country needs universal (GASP SOCIALISM!) healthcare in the worst possible way. Our economy has suffered greatly for it, our businesses are getting gang-raped by the onerous cost of making sure their workers are well enough to come to work, and families are one goddamn disease away from total financial ruin. But make no mistake, this was not the insurers being magnanimous, nor is it a signal they are really ready to give up the gravy train fed from the bone marrow of cancer patients.
This is an industry realizing that their customers have had enough and they aren't going to take this shit lying down anymore. Well, the ones that can still stand, that is. For whatever his flaws and failings may be, Pres. Obama is committed to providing every American healthcare, and the amount of public hostility towards insurers as well as the shift in Congressional party makeup makes the writing on the wall clear in gigantic, 90-point Helvetica type. Your money-siphoning days are over.
Of course, these insurers are still opposed to a government-run health care system. They are opposed because if a government system is run in competition to their own, the chances are they will lose most of their business. Not because the government system will automatically be better (though it certainly couldn't be much worse) but because that system will likely be CHEAPER, and these companies have never really had to compete on price to individuals. Sure, they'll offer group discounts to businesses, because that money is guaranteed. But individuals? They've never wanted to have to compete for individuals, because those are nickel and dime customers. It's harder to please them, the margins are terrible and the industry has spent almost 40 years pissing them off. I can almost guarantee that if offered a chance between a cheaper government-run system and a private insurer, the cheaper option would win out for 70% of the population. With that kind of competition, what are insurers going to offer customers for the higher premiums?
All they would have at that point is better doctors (very subjective), lower wait times and... well, what else do they have? Their entire business model would have to change, and they might actually have to market themselves. It's a lose-lose proposition.
But within their willingness to work with Congress on dropping the pre-existing condition restrictions is a fun little poison pill. They only want to do it if Congress can mandate that every American must be covered by insurance. That means they want to pull the same crap the auto insurers did years ago - i.e. make everyone have to buy coverage from the insurers. At that point, their pool of healthy customers is large enough that it offsets the need to help the deadbeats with Parkinson's. And of course, they would resist any government intervention in pricing policies.
Let me be blunt, health insurance industry. The free ride is over. In whatever form it finally comes, you will not be able to keep things going as they are. Whether it takes 20 years and goes through three Presidents and multiple changes of Congress, the American people are fed up with your bullshit. You'd better get a head start now, because there's an angry mob right the fuck behind you and they won't stop until they get what they want.
Labels: Corporate Corruption, Health Care, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:34 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Don't Vote on Ignorance
Posted on
Monday, November 03, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
Tomorrow is the big day, the vote to end all votes, the election of our life times. We stand on the precipice of a gigantic metaphorical cliff. No matter what your political affiliation, I think we can all agree that this election is likely the most important we will ever see. America can turn its back on the racism of over 200 years of existence and elect the first black president, or we can follow a leader who seems deadset on repeating the still-fresh mistakes of the previous administration. We can reward hard work and intellectual honesty, or we can champion the cause of ignorance, intolerance and small-town arrogance. Believe what you want to believe and vote your conscience, but by all that is holy, please don't vote on ignorance. Don't vote because someone said something about someone's voting record, vote because you actually took the effort to understand that candidate's positions. I always recommend Project Vote Smart, a web site that contains as much information in one place about politicians as any other. You'll be able to find voting records, public statements and policy positions on most any candidate, from the Presidential to Congressional races. Vote for what you believe, but make sure what you believe is actually supported by the asshole who gets your vote. There is no reason to vote ignorant.
Labels: McCain, Obama, Palin, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:35 PM
1 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Wait... What? Sarah Palin Tells Obama to Answer Reporter's Questions
Posted on
Friday, October 10, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
Readers of my blog will no doubt be completely unsurprised that I would highlight Republican hypocrisy. As a matter of fact, highlighting right-wing pretzel logic is somewhat of a hobby of mine. Gov. Sarah Palin's explosion onto the national scene has been quick and bloody, and her own hypocrisy has been adequately highlighted even by the zombiefied remains of our mainstream media. It's certainly indicative of hypocrisy that the so-called "maverick reformer" from Alaska is currently embroiled in at least one ethics scandal of her own, complete with family members abusing her government position for personal vendettas. I don't think she could really be called a Republican without her own Keating 5 albatross. But the video, shown after the jump, is really just an incredibly devil-may-care-balls-in-your-face act of hypocrisy that puts her right up there in the annals of shitdickery alongside the likes of Bush and Cheney.
Pay little attention to the old coot in the crowd haranguing the old coot on the stage. That's just the typical "Coot-Off" that only Republican politics and a disastrous economic outlook will produce. No, watch the video for Sarah Palin's bit at the end, whereby she expresses her frustration with those doggone mainstream media people. After all, those darn media guys just won't ask Obama the tough questions and they won't demand the answers from him. I'm assuming she was whinging about the ridiculous Bill Ayers smears the McCain campaign has been trying to paint on Obama lately. You know, not outright calling Obama a terrorist, but trying to claim a closer relationship with a "known terrorist," a relationship everyone involved with denies including Republican politicians who served on the same board as both Obama and Ayers. Oh, and that terrorist? Turns out even Republican politicians in the Chicago area consider him respectable these days.
But that darn mainstream media just won't make Obama answer those tough questions. Never mind that McCain had every opportunity to ask Obama about Ayers to his face during the nationally-televised debate and chose not to do so. That was just McCain being a pussy. But what's really so incredibly funny about Sarah Fucking Palin criticizing Obama and the media for not providing answers is the fact that this is Sarah Fucking Palin. Sarah Fucking Palin - the vice-presidential candidate who has done a total of three interviews in the weeks since she was announced. The same Sarah Palin who has refused interview requests from NBC because their sister cable channel has been critical of her. This is the same Sarah Palin who could not intelligently discuss the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy despite being a supposed expert on foreign policy what with Russia being her next door neighbor, don't you know? The same Sarah Palin who will not (or is not being allowed to) hold a press conference on anything at all because the media has not shown her enough "deference." Really, Sarah? Seriously? You are going to criticize Obama for not answering questions when you can't even be arsed to let that same mainstream media ask you any questions?
I realize it's an easy target to attack the mainstream media. Hell, not even Republicans like those lazy bastards. I don't even like them, as I feel they've done a piss poor job during the entire Bush presidency as well as on the campaign trail. But are you seriously going to criticize both Obama and the media for answers when you won't even allow questions for your own set of issues? You couldn't even handle a softball Katie Couric interview. I think it best you just go back to the closet they've been keeping you in and let the fucking grown-ups talk.
Pay little attention to the old coot in the crowd haranguing the old coot on the stage. That's just the typical "Coot-Off" that only Republican politics and a disastrous economic outlook will produce. No, watch the video for Sarah Palin's bit at the end, whereby she expresses her frustration with those doggone mainstream media people. After all, those darn media guys just won't ask Obama the tough questions and they won't demand the answers from him. I'm assuming she was whinging about the ridiculous Bill Ayers smears the McCain campaign has been trying to paint on Obama lately. You know, not outright calling Obama a terrorist, but trying to claim a closer relationship with a "known terrorist," a relationship everyone involved with denies including Republican politicians who served on the same board as both Obama and Ayers. Oh, and that terrorist? Turns out even Republican politicians in the Chicago area consider him respectable these days.
But that darn mainstream media just won't make Obama answer those tough questions. Never mind that McCain had every opportunity to ask Obama about Ayers to his face during the nationally-televised debate and chose not to do so. That was just McCain being a pussy. But what's really so incredibly funny about Sarah Fucking Palin criticizing Obama and the media for not providing answers is the fact that this is Sarah Fucking Palin. Sarah Fucking Palin - the vice-presidential candidate who has done a total of three interviews in the weeks since she was announced. The same Sarah Palin who has refused interview requests from NBC because their sister cable channel has been critical of her. This is the same Sarah Palin who could not intelligently discuss the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy despite being a supposed expert on foreign policy what with Russia being her next door neighbor, don't you know? The same Sarah Palin who will not (or is not being allowed to) hold a press conference on anything at all because the media has not shown her enough "deference." Really, Sarah? Seriously? You are going to criticize Obama for not answering questions when you can't even be arsed to let that same mainstream media ask you any questions?
I realize it's an easy target to attack the mainstream media. Hell, not even Republicans like those lazy bastards. I don't even like them, as I feel they've done a piss poor job during the entire Bush presidency as well as on the campaign trail. But are you seriously going to criticize both Obama and the media for answers when you won't even allow questions for your own set of issues? You couldn't even handle a softball Katie Couric interview. I think it best you just go back to the closet they've been keeping you in and let the fucking grown-ups talk.
Labels: Mainstream Media, McCain, Obama, Palin, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 11:23 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The Game Radio
Posted on
Sunday, August 24, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
Watching the coverage of Obama's vice-presidential selection this weekend has left me with an even lower opinion of the mainstream media establishment. As the peanut gallery of Washington pundits, strategists and talking heads like Wolf "the Beard" Blitzer pored over and over the choice of Joe Biden, I was constantly reminded of sports talk radio. While I enjoy sports talk radio almost as much as I enjoy sports, a corollary between election coverage and discussion of hot stove trade talk is hardly a flattering comparison. In fact, the comparison leaves the mainstream media only one step above propaganda broadcasts on the depravity scale.
All of the discussion of the vice-presidential pick was focused on the strategy of the pick. Would the pick win Obama a certain state? Such a pick would play well with the elderly demographics. Poor white voters in Pennsylvania would respond well to Biden. Biden could be used as an attack dog, keeping Obama above the fray. Biden would mouth off, saying something stupid that would damage Obama's campaign. Biden's previous comments about Obama's lack of experience disqualifying him for the Presidency would hurt Obama. It was all everything about the tactics of the GAME of politics, and nothing about the actual policy inherent in the politics.
Is this what we've become? Is this the coverage we deserve? It isn't just the Biden coverage that has fallen into this trap, it's been the whole goddamn primary coverage and everything in between. The Pennsylvania primary was a wretched example, a continual spin cycle of Rev. Wright soundbites and Hillary Clinton doing shots at a bar she'd never darken if she hadn't been courting blue-collar votes. There was and has been and is no discussion of the candidate's actual platforms, of their proposed policies, of the proposed solutions to this country's problems, just dogwhistle politics casting aspersions on each candidate's bona fides. Experience, religion, whether the candidate eats arugula or who would drill for oil in their backyard, all of these consume hours and days of coverage, while the actual policies proposed are left to the candidate's respective web sites with absolutely no actual television analysis and discussion.
Perhaps the media establishments have been beaten so soundly about the head and neck by Rovian shit-peddling that it has reached the status of cynical battered housewife. The editors must believe that their viewers accept all campaign promises as bald-faced lies, and with cynical laziness discard all discussion of policy proposals as useless. After all, if the proposals are nothing more than lies the politician has no intention of following through on, why cover them at all? Instead, they focus on the sensationalistic, the he-said-she-said reality-tv backbiting. Obama suggests proper inflation of our tires to save gas mileage and instead of covering his entire energy policy, the media chooses to cover the McCain campaign's mocking of said proposal, even though all experts and the McCain camp itself agrees that proper tire inflation would alleviate the need for the amount of extra oil we could drill for domestically. But rather than examine and contrast the details of both side's energy plans, the focus is on who can get the best dig in.
Even the coverage of the McCain "how many houses" gaffe has gotten entirely too much coverage. Yes, it shows McCain to be more out of touch with normal Americans financial difficulties than Obama, but it's a trivial bit of playground snaps. How about examining what McCain's policies about mortgage company bailouts as opposed to individual homeowner assistance? The media spends thousands of words repeating outright lies like "Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress" without ever critically examining where that "statistic comes from - even though the exact same thing was said by the exact same people about John Kerry in '04. How can Obama be the "most liberal Senator" when John Kerry is still serving in the Senate, and both were serving in the Senate in '04?
It is the responsibility of a moderator like Wolf Blitzer to challenge such ridiculous assertions by his guests when they are demonstrably false, but most of these programs allow their guests to spew such horseshit ad nauseum. It seems they feel that as long as they have someone from the opposite side to spew equally ridiculous fabrications, it's ok because both sides are represented. I'd like to say we can blame the Fair and Balanced propaganda-rich FoxNews for that, but really at least they are consistently blatant about where their allegiances lie. I have news for you media organizations about there. Objectivity does not mean allowing both sides to lie through their teeth, and it doesn't impose on you the restriction of being blank-faced ciphers to the most ludicrous shitheel liars on the planet.
The election isn't a game, though the media seems to want to treat it as such. Sports and games are great fun, but when we are on the cusp of the most important election since Nixon was impeached, America needs a media establishment that is willing to fight for truth. We don't need bobbleheaded sports broadcasters discussing the strategy of getting elected, we need honesty and integrity and the ability to critically challenge policies. Give it a try, guys. Spend 1 fucking hour a day just picking apart each candidate's platforms. Start with each candidate's energy policy and move on from there. Don't just toss out "he's pro-life" platitudes without really looking to see the leash you're being dragged along with.
Turn off the Game Radio and turn on the Truth Machine.
All of the discussion of the vice-presidential pick was focused on the strategy of the pick. Would the pick win Obama a certain state? Such a pick would play well with the elderly demographics. Poor white voters in Pennsylvania would respond well to Biden. Biden could be used as an attack dog, keeping Obama above the fray. Biden would mouth off, saying something stupid that would damage Obama's campaign. Biden's previous comments about Obama's lack of experience disqualifying him for the Presidency would hurt Obama. It was all everything about the tactics of the GAME of politics, and nothing about the actual policy inherent in the politics.
Is this what we've become? Is this the coverage we deserve? It isn't just the Biden coverage that has fallen into this trap, it's been the whole goddamn primary coverage and everything in between. The Pennsylvania primary was a wretched example, a continual spin cycle of Rev. Wright soundbites and Hillary Clinton doing shots at a bar she'd never darken if she hadn't been courting blue-collar votes. There was and has been and is no discussion of the candidate's actual platforms, of their proposed policies, of the proposed solutions to this country's problems, just dogwhistle politics casting aspersions on each candidate's bona fides. Experience, religion, whether the candidate eats arugula or who would drill for oil in their backyard, all of these consume hours and days of coverage, while the actual policies proposed are left to the candidate's respective web sites with absolutely no actual television analysis and discussion.
Perhaps the media establishments have been beaten so soundly about the head and neck by Rovian shit-peddling that it has reached the status of cynical battered housewife. The editors must believe that their viewers accept all campaign promises as bald-faced lies, and with cynical laziness discard all discussion of policy proposals as useless. After all, if the proposals are nothing more than lies the politician has no intention of following through on, why cover them at all? Instead, they focus on the sensationalistic, the he-said-she-said reality-tv backbiting. Obama suggests proper inflation of our tires to save gas mileage and instead of covering his entire energy policy, the media chooses to cover the McCain campaign's mocking of said proposal, even though all experts and the McCain camp itself agrees that proper tire inflation would alleviate the need for the amount of extra oil we could drill for domestically. But rather than examine and contrast the details of both side's energy plans, the focus is on who can get the best dig in.
Even the coverage of the McCain "how many houses" gaffe has gotten entirely too much coverage. Yes, it shows McCain to be more out of touch with normal Americans financial difficulties than Obama, but it's a trivial bit of playground snaps. How about examining what McCain's policies about mortgage company bailouts as opposed to individual homeowner assistance? The media spends thousands of words repeating outright lies like "Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress" without ever critically examining where that "statistic comes from - even though the exact same thing was said by the exact same people about John Kerry in '04. How can Obama be the "most liberal Senator" when John Kerry is still serving in the Senate, and both were serving in the Senate in '04?
It is the responsibility of a moderator like Wolf Blitzer to challenge such ridiculous assertions by his guests when they are demonstrably false, but most of these programs allow their guests to spew such horseshit ad nauseum. It seems they feel that as long as they have someone from the opposite side to spew equally ridiculous fabrications, it's ok because both sides are represented. I'd like to say we can blame the Fair and Balanced propaganda-rich FoxNews for that, but really at least they are consistently blatant about where their allegiances lie. I have news for you media organizations about there. Objectivity does not mean allowing both sides to lie through their teeth, and it doesn't impose on you the restriction of being blank-faced ciphers to the most ludicrous shitheel liars on the planet.
The election isn't a game, though the media seems to want to treat it as such. Sports and games are great fun, but when we are on the cusp of the most important election since Nixon was impeached, America needs a media establishment that is willing to fight for truth. We don't need bobbleheaded sports broadcasters discussing the strategy of getting elected, we need honesty and integrity and the ability to critically challenge policies. Give it a try, guys. Spend 1 fucking hour a day just picking apart each candidate's platforms. Start with each candidate's energy policy and move on from there. Don't just toss out "he's pro-life" platitudes without really looking to see the leash you're being dragged along with.
Turn off the Game Radio and turn on the Truth Machine.
Labels: Biden, Mainstream Media, McCain, Obama, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:15 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Yes, June, the United States DOES Torture... But Only a Little
Posted on
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
This morning's news provided me fodder for a new political posting from two separate but related stories. The first is from CNN, a report from a group of physicians dedicated to human rights that confirms what we already knew, some of the detainees held at Gitmo have been tortured. The second report, from the Wall Street Journal of all places, confirms that as early as 2002 Pentagon lawyers were looking at and approving harsh interrogation techniques that some military lawyers were pretty adamant could be considered torture. So yes, June, the United States really does torture people, has done for years and by the way, at least 11 of those people were never charged with any crimes despite being held for over three years.
In other words, we detained, tortured and imprisoned innocent people who were not terrorists.
The report in the CNN story came after two-day examinations with 11 former detainees who came from Afghanistan or Abu Ghraib in Iraq and were later shipped to the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both medical and psychological tests proved these people were tortured, including such lovely treatment as "beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and sodomy." And unlike our own prison system, this treatment wasn't administered by other prisoners but by the jailers. Is this the type of treatment we should be inflicting on anyone?
Bear in mind, these people were not terrorists. They had not been charged with any crime when these acts were perpetrated. They were given no reason for their imprisonment. They were given no access to a jury of their peers, shown no evidence to explain why this punishment was being inflicted. They were just rounded up, shuttled off from one prison to the next and beaten, sodomized and electrocuted. And after three years of this vile shit, they were let go, completely innocent of any wrongdoing. These weren't suicide bombers, or decapitators. These were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. They weren't allowed to speak with someone from their country's embassy. How would any American react if an American citizen had been treated this way? For fuck's sake, much of America was up in arms when a 19-year old American citizen was caned in Singapore, and he at least got a trial. How can we honestly claim moral indignity when American hostages are kidnapped overseas if our government is doing the exact same thing?
We can't, not without being the biggest fucking pile of hypocritical assholes on the planet. Our President and everyone he allowed to perform this kind of brutality on detainees are guilty of war crimes and should be suitably punished. Nothing would fill me with greater pride in our country than seeing this cabal of brutal fucksticks brought before an international war crimes trial and convicted.
The Wall Street Journal story is just as infuriating. In 2002, just months after Gitmo was opened, Pentagon lawyers debated and ultimately approved "harsh interrogation techniques." That includes approval by the grand pappy of the Pentagon himself, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. When it was suggested to these lawyers that perhaps asking the experts on interrogation, the FBI, about the efficacy of such extra-legal measures, they refused. Rummy was apparently "very jealous of other agencies" and it would have been "unthinkable" to bring that up to the Secretary.
Yeah, fuck you Donald. Rather than sully yourself by speaking to experts on the subject, you'd just rather try to drown some brown people. Even some military criminal investigators thought these techniques would "shock the conscience of any legal body" and warned that it "looks like the kinds of stuff Congressional hearings are made of." And yet, they went forward with these techniques based on a legal redefinition of the detainees' status, the idiotic "illegal enemy combatant" tagline that justified ignoring the laws of our land and the Geneva Conventions.
Tell me again why our President and his administration should not be impeached, convicted and thrown to the wolves of the international community for war crimes? The United States is no longer a place where the moral high ground exists, not when this type of behavior is encouraged by the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and the President himself.
In other words, we detained, tortured and imprisoned innocent people who were not terrorists.
The report in the CNN story came after two-day examinations with 11 former detainees who came from Afghanistan or Abu Ghraib in Iraq and were later shipped to the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Both medical and psychological tests proved these people were tortured, including such lovely treatment as "beatings, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation and sodomy." And unlike our own prison system, this treatment wasn't administered by other prisoners but by the jailers. Is this the type of treatment we should be inflicting on anyone?
Bear in mind, these people were not terrorists. They had not been charged with any crime when these acts were perpetrated. They were given no reason for their imprisonment. They were given no access to a jury of their peers, shown no evidence to explain why this punishment was being inflicted. They were just rounded up, shuttled off from one prison to the next and beaten, sodomized and electrocuted. And after three years of this vile shit, they were let go, completely innocent of any wrongdoing. These weren't suicide bombers, or decapitators. These were just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. They weren't allowed to speak with someone from their country's embassy. How would any American react if an American citizen had been treated this way? For fuck's sake, much of America was up in arms when a 19-year old American citizen was caned in Singapore, and he at least got a trial. How can we honestly claim moral indignity when American hostages are kidnapped overseas if our government is doing the exact same thing?
We can't, not without being the biggest fucking pile of hypocritical assholes on the planet. Our President and everyone he allowed to perform this kind of brutality on detainees are guilty of war crimes and should be suitably punished. Nothing would fill me with greater pride in our country than seeing this cabal of brutal fucksticks brought before an international war crimes trial and convicted.
The Wall Street Journal story is just as infuriating. In 2002, just months after Gitmo was opened, Pentagon lawyers debated and ultimately approved "harsh interrogation techniques." That includes approval by the grand pappy of the Pentagon himself, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. When it was suggested to these lawyers that perhaps asking the experts on interrogation, the FBI, about the efficacy of such extra-legal measures, they refused. Rummy was apparently "very jealous of other agencies" and it would have been "unthinkable" to bring that up to the Secretary.
Yeah, fuck you Donald. Rather than sully yourself by speaking to experts on the subject, you'd just rather try to drown some brown people. Even some military criminal investigators thought these techniques would "shock the conscience of any legal body" and warned that it "looks like the kinds of stuff Congressional hearings are made of." And yet, they went forward with these techniques based on a legal redefinition of the detainees' status, the idiotic "illegal enemy combatant" tagline that justified ignoring the laws of our land and the Geneva Conventions.
Tell me again why our President and his administration should not be impeached, convicted and thrown to the wolves of the international community for war crimes? The United States is no longer a place where the moral high ground exists, not when this type of behavior is encouraged by the Secretary of Defense, the Vice President and the President himself.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Government Corruption, Iraq, Politics, Torture
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:17 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Things I'd Like to Fire Into the Sun: So-Called Experts
Posted on
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
I've never been a fan of Hillary Clinton's, despite the respect I have for the presidency of her husband. She is a thoroughly unlikeable woman, whose good ideas are balanced by an equal weight of bad ideas. Since her carpetbagging move from Arkansas to New York in order to run for a Senate seat, I have felt the same unfortunate vibe from her that I do from her husband, i.e. that both are rabid politicians, who will say or do anything to get elected. While Bill Clinton's geniality and ability to properly fake human sympathy make him likeable, Hillary Clinton's entire personality is not only acerbic, but rings of a striking phoniness down at the gut level. Even so, were she to win the Democratic nomination, I would vote for her over John McCain, if only because McCain's chorus of "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" and his flip-flopping on the propriety of torture have convinced me he is as much of a rabid politician as any other. But some of Sen. Clinton's comments in today's Chicago Tribune story make me want to fire her into the sun.
According to the article:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but being the wife of the President is not an elected position. It is not typically a position that comes with any civil authority whatsoever other than perhaps the running of the household at the White House. Any authority or power of the position is at most granted out of deference to the wife of the President.
So how fucking arrogant do you have to be to claim eight years as first wife as any kind of governing or foreign policy experience? Whispered pillow talk does not make for foreign policy experience. Listening to your husband vent about the Republican noise machine does not make for crisis management. And while Mrs. Clinton was certainly the target of many personal and nasty attacks during her time as First Lady, that no more prepares her for service as Commander in Chief than running the drive-thru at a fucking McDonalds.
As for your time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, let's see where that time got this nation. Oh right, it got you to vote to give this cluster fuck of a President authorization to use force in Iraq. Five years later, this country is still paying for that mistake in blood and treasure. If that is the kind of whip smart decision-making your experience will give us, then I will kindly tell that experience to fuck right off. If you'd like to run on your record of experience, your record tells me you are an easily-led tool who has enabled our President to skullfuck this country into the ground. Do you really want to run on your experience?
Senator Obama may be young and fresh-faced. He may not have been the snuggle bunny of a sitting, popular President. That doesn't mean he can't approach foreign policy as well if not better than you or any of the other clowns who've had a hand in our foreign policy for over a decade. And unlike you, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama did not vote to invade Iraq, which tells me he has more foreign policy foresight than you showed.
First Lady is not a position of authority, and it is not the kind of experience you can put on a resume. Please shut up about your time as Wife-in-Chief or get the fuck on the Sol Rocket Express.
According to the article:
Speaking at George Washington University, Clinton chided Obama for what she said was a lack of experience that could rival a Bush administration that had a strategy based on "false choices and then is indifferent about the consequences -- force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, hard power versus soft."
"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," she said. "We can't let that happen again."
Clinton cited her experience in the White House with her husband during times of crises as well as her service as a two-term New York senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but being the wife of the President is not an elected position. It is not typically a position that comes with any civil authority whatsoever other than perhaps the running of the household at the White House. Any authority or power of the position is at most granted out of deference to the wife of the President.
So how fucking arrogant do you have to be to claim eight years as first wife as any kind of governing or foreign policy experience? Whispered pillow talk does not make for foreign policy experience. Listening to your husband vent about the Republican noise machine does not make for crisis management. And while Mrs. Clinton was certainly the target of many personal and nasty attacks during her time as First Lady, that no more prepares her for service as Commander in Chief than running the drive-thru at a fucking McDonalds.
As for your time on the Senate Armed Services Committee, let's see where that time got this nation. Oh right, it got you to vote to give this cluster fuck of a President authorization to use force in Iraq. Five years later, this country is still paying for that mistake in blood and treasure. If that is the kind of whip smart decision-making your experience will give us, then I will kindly tell that experience to fuck right off. If you'd like to run on your record of experience, your record tells me you are an easily-led tool who has enabled our President to skullfuck this country into the ground. Do you really want to run on your experience?
Senator Obama may be young and fresh-faced. He may not have been the snuggle bunny of a sitting, popular President. That doesn't mean he can't approach foreign policy as well if not better than you or any of the other clowns who've had a hand in our foreign policy for over a decade. And unlike you, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama did not vote to invade Iraq, which tells me he has more foreign policy foresight than you showed.
First Lady is not a position of authority, and it is not the kind of experience you can put on a resume. Please shut up about your time as Wife-in-Chief or get the fuck on the Sol Rocket Express.
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008, Things I'd Like to Fire Into the Sun
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:12 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The Surge of Success! Or Yet Another Carefully Crafted Iraq Lie
Posted on
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
by Gary A. Ballard
We've been told for over a year now that the surge of troops would be a rousing success. That in a year's time, the extra bodes thrown at the problem of Iraq would cut down on the violence, giving the Iraqi government time to make political headway on the most pressing issues the country faces. Those issues include things like regular electricity, potable running water and really, any of the things you expect a government to be able to provide. Thankfully, the violence in Iraq HAS gone down. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government's various ethnic and sectarian factions have done absolutely nothing in the way of providing anything close to a working government. Yet, despite that lack of important political progress, advocates for the surge have all been gleeful because the violence is down. The surge has worked! Success. The only problem with that success is that it's a carefully constructed lie.
Yes, it is true that the violence has gone down in Iraq. That's something I should be ecstatic about, but I can't help but feel sickened by the flim-flam with which such a positive result was achieved. In order to more effectively fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that did not exist prior to our invasion, by the way, the military began supplying Sunni insurgents with weapons and cash. That's right, those same Sunni insurgents who used to blow up American convoys with IED's are now aiding the American occupation in rooting out Al-Qaeda. This tactic is incredibly brilliant, in that the best way to actually defeat a guerrilla insurgency is to involve them in the positive future of their country. Defeating a bunch of foreign fighters intent on sowing sectarian discord in Iraq is most certainly something that all Iraqis, Sunni or Shia should be cheering.
But from the American perspective, it should be seen with the proper context. First, the Sunni insurgents are terrorists, at least in the eyes of the administration. So that administration, by allowing payments to the Sunni insurgents have now "negotiated with terrorists," which is something they claimed they would not do. This shows how hypocritical the administration is, but at least they finally acknowledged that just being bull-headed "kill 'em all" psychopaths was not a tenable long-term solution. This deal with the Sunnis also has nothing whatsoever to do with the tactic of putting more troops in country. Whether you had 100,000 or 100 troops in Iraq, this tactic would have likely born fruit. The Sunni insurgency's main beef has always been that America is an occupying force. If they don't want Americans occupying their country, they won't want Saudi or Jordanian or Lebanese terrorists doing the same thing, especially when those terrorists start bombing centuries-old mosques. Their other aim has been to ensure that the newly-empowered Shia majority, with the aid of the U.S. military, is attempting to oppress them in the same way their minority oppressed the Shia under Saddam Hussein's reign. Attempts at communication, even funding the Sunni militias, make them feel a part of the process instead of an oppressed minority.
But the real kicker to the entire "surge is succeeding" lie is that it's an accurate lie. The violence has gone down, but it isn't just because we tossed 20,000 more troops into the mix. The Sunni insurgency's main weapon has been the IED, the improvised explosive device, otherwise known in not-doublespeak as the roadside bomb. Now that the Sunni insurgency isn't targeting Americans and Shia anymore, focusing instead on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, those IED's aren't being seen as much. Isn't that a coincidence? No, but you won't hear anything about that particular connection from the proponents of the surge. All you will hear is "THE SURGE HAS WORKED!!!!" Never mind that it was a political solution and not a military one that caused much of the drop in violence. It's all about the military.
Don't believe it. The military has done an impossible job as best they can, but Iraq is the kind of problem that can never be solved with purely military solutions. Insurgencies do not get defeated by anything less than sustained genocidal insanity, something I hope our government doesn't consider a viable final solution. The violence has dropped, because we bought off some of the insurgents. Saying it as anything else is a flim-flam job meant to win elections.
Yes, it is true that the violence has gone down in Iraq. That's something I should be ecstatic about, but I can't help but feel sickened by the flim-flam with which such a positive result was achieved. In order to more effectively fight Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a group that did not exist prior to our invasion, by the way, the military began supplying Sunni insurgents with weapons and cash. That's right, those same Sunni insurgents who used to blow up American convoys with IED's are now aiding the American occupation in rooting out Al-Qaeda. This tactic is incredibly brilliant, in that the best way to actually defeat a guerrilla insurgency is to involve them in the positive future of their country. Defeating a bunch of foreign fighters intent on sowing sectarian discord in Iraq is most certainly something that all Iraqis, Sunni or Shia should be cheering.
But from the American perspective, it should be seen with the proper context. First, the Sunni insurgents are terrorists, at least in the eyes of the administration. So that administration, by allowing payments to the Sunni insurgents have now "negotiated with terrorists," which is something they claimed they would not do. This shows how hypocritical the administration is, but at least they finally acknowledged that just being bull-headed "kill 'em all" psychopaths was not a tenable long-term solution. This deal with the Sunnis also has nothing whatsoever to do with the tactic of putting more troops in country. Whether you had 100,000 or 100 troops in Iraq, this tactic would have likely born fruit. The Sunni insurgency's main beef has always been that America is an occupying force. If they don't want Americans occupying their country, they won't want Saudi or Jordanian or Lebanese terrorists doing the same thing, especially when those terrorists start bombing centuries-old mosques. Their other aim has been to ensure that the newly-empowered Shia majority, with the aid of the U.S. military, is attempting to oppress them in the same way their minority oppressed the Shia under Saddam Hussein's reign. Attempts at communication, even funding the Sunni militias, make them feel a part of the process instead of an oppressed minority.
But the real kicker to the entire "surge is succeeding" lie is that it's an accurate lie. The violence has gone down, but it isn't just because we tossed 20,000 more troops into the mix. The Sunni insurgency's main weapon has been the IED, the improvised explosive device, otherwise known in not-doublespeak as the roadside bomb. Now that the Sunni insurgency isn't targeting Americans and Shia anymore, focusing instead on Al-Qaeda in Iraq, those IED's aren't being seen as much. Isn't that a coincidence? No, but you won't hear anything about that particular connection from the proponents of the surge. All you will hear is "THE SURGE HAS WORKED!!!!" Never mind that it was a political solution and not a military one that caused much of the drop in violence. It's all about the military.
Don't believe it. The military has done an impossible job as best they can, but Iraq is the kind of problem that can never be solved with purely military solutions. Insurgencies do not get defeated by anything less than sustained genocidal insanity, something I hope our government doesn't consider a viable final solution. The violence has dropped, because we bought off some of the insurgents. Saying it as anything else is a flim-flam job meant to win elections.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Iraq, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:24 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Saving Lives, Damning Souls
Posted on
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
The CIA has always operated as a shadowy organization, sometimes following questionable policies with enough moral ambiguity to provide a fertile ground for equally questionable tactics. Mining the harbors of Nicarauga, smuggling drugs and selling weapons to Iran to fund the Contras, secret drug research programs, brainwashing techniques, propping up the Ba'ath Party in Iraq, overthrowing the government of Iran and installing the Shah in 1953, all of these things have been attributed to the CIA since its inception. It comes as no real surprise then that the CIA has been the frontrunner organization in America's recent embrace of torture to fight the war on Terror. Just last week, we learned that videotapes of torture sessions involving waterboarding by CIA operatives were destroyed to "protect the identities of the operatives involved." Of course, the protection such operatives required was not from revealation to our enemies but from criminal prosecution once our government de-assified its collective head and chose to follow the law again. But now we have a former CIA operative who participated in torture speaking out, and his words are a slap in the face.
This man admits he used waterboarding. He admits that now he considers waterboarding torture, and that he regrets using the technique. How nice of him. The most galling part of his statement is that the use of the technique he now regrets "saved lives." He traded away America's good name, America's soul, to "save lives."
Bully for you.
I do understand that there are people working their asses off to make me safe. I understand there are a metric fuckton of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now more likely to be tortured and decapitated when they are captured because someone thought waterboarding was A-OK.
I also understand that as a citizen of this country, I never authorized agents to torture in my name, to break the laws of this land to make me safe. The cost is entirely too high. Every person, guilty or not, who was tortured in the war on terror, was ostensibly tortured IN MY NAME, and in the name of every other American citizen. Those acts of barbarism were done without my knowledge, without my consent, without even the backing of the laws of this land, and they were wrong. They tarnish the very soul of this entire country and everyone in it. Not only were the wishes of the American people that we NOT torture anyone made explicit in the law, those wishes were ignored for what? The sake of expediency? To justify more abuses of the law such as warrantless wiretapping and indefinite imprisonment without the right to object to such confinement?
Kiriakou says that he regrets the torture because "Americans are better than that."
No, it was not necessary at the time. We haven't moved beyond that because not only are we still doing it, the Bush administration has been attempting to make sure those techniques are legal now and are retroactively legal. His cronies in the CIA are destroying evidence just in case he can't bless those acts with the legal stamp. We haven't moved beyond it because assholes like you haven't accepted that such acts are wrong now and more importantly were wrong then. The lives that were supposedly saved, a quantity that cannot be measured because we'll never know what would have been, those lives were not worth damning our souls with the stink of barbarism.
America is SUPPOSED to be better than that, but we've let ourselves believe the lie. We've let ourselves believe the lie that we can do no wrong, that we are better than everyone else. The ugly truth is we have allowed ourselves to fall to a mentality that is no better than the vicious bastards we claim to oppose.
This man admits he used waterboarding. He admits that now he considers waterboarding torture, and that he regrets using the technique. How nice of him. The most galling part of his statement is that the use of the technique he now regrets "saved lives." He traded away America's good name, America's soul, to "save lives."
Bully for you.
"It's easy to point to intelligence failures and perceived intelligence
failures, but the public has to understand how hard people are working to make
them safe," [Kiriakou] said.
I do understand that there are people working their asses off to make me safe. I understand there are a metric fuckton of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are now more likely to be tortured and decapitated when they are captured because someone thought waterboarding was A-OK.
I also understand that as a citizen of this country, I never authorized agents to torture in my name, to break the laws of this land to make me safe. The cost is entirely too high. Every person, guilty or not, who was tortured in the war on terror, was ostensibly tortured IN MY NAME, and in the name of every other American citizen. Those acts of barbarism were done without my knowledge, without my consent, without even the backing of the laws of this land, and they were wrong. They tarnish the very soul of this entire country and everyone in it. Not only were the wishes of the American people that we NOT torture anyone made explicit in the law, those wishes were ignored for what? The sake of expediency? To justify more abuses of the law such as warrantless wiretapping and indefinite imprisonment without the right to object to such confinement?
Kiriakou says that he regrets the torture because "Americans are better than that."
"Maybe that's inconsistent, but that's how I feel," he said. "It was an
ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time. But we've moved
beyond that."
No, it was not necessary at the time. We haven't moved beyond that because not only are we still doing it, the Bush administration has been attempting to make sure those techniques are legal now and are retroactively legal. His cronies in the CIA are destroying evidence just in case he can't bless those acts with the legal stamp. We haven't moved beyond it because assholes like you haven't accepted that such acts are wrong now and more importantly were wrong then. The lives that were supposedly saved, a quantity that cannot be measured because we'll never know what would have been, those lives were not worth damning our souls with the stink of barbarism.
America is SUPPOSED to be better than that, but we've let ourselves believe the lie. We've let ourselves believe the lie that we can do no wrong, that we are better than everyone else. The ugly truth is we have allowed ourselves to fall to a mentality that is no better than the vicious bastards we claim to oppose.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Habeus Corpus, Iraq, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008, Torture
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 8:54 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The 60-Vote Fallacy
Posted on
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
In today's information-soaked media environment, a meme can gain such a ironclad hold on the imagination of the public with startlingly ease. The mainstream media is the Ebola monkey of viral memes, spreading such fantastic misconceptions as Iraqi WMD with the speed of a Level 4 outbreak. The latest meme to really gain hold in the American political media is what I've termed the 60-Vote Fallacy. It refers to Senate votes and the Democratic majority's attempts to pass a bill forcing the President to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops home, and it's such a simple mangling of the truth.
Senate bills require a simple majority to pass. However, bills can be filibustered, a procedural shenanigan the minority party uses to kill a bill that might pass by simple majority vote. Filibustering consists of talking, and talking and talking, talking so much that the asses of Senators literally fall off and wither up like the dissected segments of an earthworm. A successful filibuster is the nuclear option for minorities, an option scorned by the Republicans when they were in the ascendancy but one which they are all too willing to threaten now that they are in the minority. And in order to defeat a filibuster, the Senate calls a cloture vote, which means that the bill or amendment under debate goes up for an immediate "yay" or "nay" vote. Cloture requires 60 votes to pass, which means 60 votes is required to defeat a filibuster. This is different from the 67 votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto.
The media, in its rush to soundbite the most important news so that it may continue to focus on the inane trivialities of celebrity baby daddy's, has cut to the chase with their Senate coverage lately. They've simplified things for us complete idiots out there. Rather than try to explain what a cloture vote is and how it's used, instead they say that legislation such as that calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been defeated because the Senate couldn't get the required 60 votes. The media fails to mention, perhaps purposefully, that the bill wasn't actually voted on at all, or that the Republicans who claimed for years that Democratic partisanship was destroying America with filibusters chose to use their filibuster power without actually going through with the filibuster. No, the coverage is dominated by the implication that the Senate Democrats are impotent because they don't have a 60-vote majority.
The media gets it wrong all the time, of course. They are factually incorrect, in so much as the facts they spread do not tell the entire picture and the devil is in the details. But what I find most disturbing is an even more subtle implication that may or may not be an actual Democratic strategy. By repeating this meme over and over on bill after bill, it almost seems as if the Democrats are attempting to gain the same sort of one-party majority in the 2008 elections that the Republicans battered the country with since 2002. It's almost a certainty that the White House will be Democratic in 2008, or at least it should be given the abuses the Republicans have inflicted with that power. By not correcting the mainstream media's mistaken framing of the 60-vote rule, are the Democrats insinuating to the voters that without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they can't get anything accomplished?
I am wary of any political party which has the kind of rubber stamp majority exercised by the Republican Party since 2002. It is an absolute power that is absolutely corrupting in every sense of the word. While many of my political beliefs fall under the Democratic tent, especially since the hijacking of the GOP by the evangelical moonbats, the very problems inflicted upon the country by the Bush administration have been because of the lack of a check from an empowered minority. I find nothing in any political party that makes me believe the Democrats are above the temptation to rob this country blind should the most important checks and balances be removed. I no sooner want to see America as a one-party Democratic state than I did a Republican one.
Democrats do not need 60-votes to end the Iraq War. They need a backbone. Defunding the war does not require a successful vote at all. It just requires being frank with the American people, and it requires standing up to the Bush junta with purse strings pulled tight. It's high time the Democrats said no to tyrants.
Senate bills require a simple majority to pass. However, bills can be filibustered, a procedural shenanigan the minority party uses to kill a bill that might pass by simple majority vote. Filibustering consists of talking, and talking and talking, talking so much that the asses of Senators literally fall off and wither up like the dissected segments of an earthworm. A successful filibuster is the nuclear option for minorities, an option scorned by the Republicans when they were in the ascendancy but one which they are all too willing to threaten now that they are in the minority. And in order to defeat a filibuster, the Senate calls a cloture vote, which means that the bill or amendment under debate goes up for an immediate "yay" or "nay" vote. Cloture requires 60 votes to pass, which means 60 votes is required to defeat a filibuster. This is different from the 67 votes needed to overturn a Presidential veto.
The media, in its rush to soundbite the most important news so that it may continue to focus on the inane trivialities of celebrity baby daddy's, has cut to the chase with their Senate coverage lately. They've simplified things for us complete idiots out there. Rather than try to explain what a cloture vote is and how it's used, instead they say that legislation such as that calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been defeated because the Senate couldn't get the required 60 votes. The media fails to mention, perhaps purposefully, that the bill wasn't actually voted on at all, or that the Republicans who claimed for years that Democratic partisanship was destroying America with filibusters chose to use their filibuster power without actually going through with the filibuster. No, the coverage is dominated by the implication that the Senate Democrats are impotent because they don't have a 60-vote majority.
The media gets it wrong all the time, of course. They are factually incorrect, in so much as the facts they spread do not tell the entire picture and the devil is in the details. But what I find most disturbing is an even more subtle implication that may or may not be an actual Democratic strategy. By repeating this meme over and over on bill after bill, it almost seems as if the Democrats are attempting to gain the same sort of one-party majority in the 2008 elections that the Republicans battered the country with since 2002. It's almost a certainty that the White House will be Democratic in 2008, or at least it should be given the abuses the Republicans have inflicted with that power. By not correcting the mainstream media's mistaken framing of the 60-vote rule, are the Democrats insinuating to the voters that without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, they can't get anything accomplished?
I am wary of any political party which has the kind of rubber stamp majority exercised by the Republican Party since 2002. It is an absolute power that is absolutely corrupting in every sense of the word. While many of my political beliefs fall under the Democratic tent, especially since the hijacking of the GOP by the evangelical moonbats, the very problems inflicted upon the country by the Bush administration have been because of the lack of a check from an empowered minority. I find nothing in any political party that makes me believe the Democrats are above the temptation to rob this country blind should the most important checks and balances be removed. I no sooner want to see America as a one-party Democratic state than I did a Republican one.
Democrats do not need 60-votes to end the Iraq War. They need a backbone. Defunding the war does not require a successful vote at all. It just requires being frank with the American people, and it requires standing up to the Bush junta with purse strings pulled tight. It's high time the Democrats said no to tyrants.
Labels: Bush Administration, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:12 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
This FEMA Trailer Sure Does Stink
Posted on
Friday, July 20, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Something at FEMA stinks. We've known this since 2005, of course, when the bodies of dead New Orleans residents started flowing down Canal Street as the survivors of Katrina were left to boil in the destruction of the Superdome. But since those early days, Americans seem to have assumed that FEMA would take care of the problems, would bring New Orleans back from the brink of destruction, despite all evidence to the contrary. Congress seemed totally uninterested in figuring out how such a tragedy could occur on US Soil, at least until the Democrats regained a majority in the House and Senate. Now we know that the stench coming from FEMA smells like formaldehyde.
That's right, FEMA was providing residents of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast with trailers so full of formaldehyde, the air was literally killing them. For over a year now, FEMA field staff had let the top brass at the agency know of this problem, and for over a year, their pleas were ignored. Not because there was no evidence, because the one time FEMA actually allowed testing of a trailer under living conditions, the trailer was found to have 75 times more formaldehyde than is allowed in the workplace. After that one test found a positive result, they halted testing. Why? According to Rep. Henry Waxman's statement in the video linked above, because FEMA attorneys didn't want FEMA to have to deal with the issue.
What is it these poor, mostly black homeless bums from New Orleans want? FEMA got them a damn trailer for free. They want to be able to breathe in it? If FEMA let those subhumans breathe in their trailers, FEMA might have to actually clean up their city which is still in ruins. That's like... hard and stuff. Oh and it doesn't enrich Republican donors, or land developers looking to scoop up land on the cheap.
I feel it necessary to point out that the preceding paragraph was written with an overdose of sarcasm. But it really does seem as if FEMA and Homeland Security really does want to exterminate the residents of New Orleans. First, we let them swelter in ungodly heat, flood waters and filth for almost a week claiming that entry to the city was impossible, even when we saw hordes of reporters and actors sweltering alongside the city's residents. Then we discovered that the levees were not only not built to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's strength, but were built incorrectly as well. Next, we found out that a private company charged with rebuilding and upgrading New Orleans' flood-prevention pumps was incompetent and incapable of doing so. And now this. The message is clear. Homeland Security and the Bush Administration don't just dislike poor black people, they are actively engaged in trying to exterminate the poor mendicants.
When do they start sending in the trains to collect the unwashed masses?
That's right, FEMA was providing residents of New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast with trailers so full of formaldehyde, the air was literally killing them. For over a year now, FEMA field staff had let the top brass at the agency know of this problem, and for over a year, their pleas were ignored. Not because there was no evidence, because the one time FEMA actually allowed testing of a trailer under living conditions, the trailer was found to have 75 times more formaldehyde than is allowed in the workplace. After that one test found a positive result, they halted testing. Why? According to Rep. Henry Waxman's statement in the video linked above, because FEMA attorneys didn't want FEMA to have to deal with the issue.
What is it these poor, mostly black homeless bums from New Orleans want? FEMA got them a damn trailer for free. They want to be able to breathe in it? If FEMA let those subhumans breathe in their trailers, FEMA might have to actually clean up their city which is still in ruins. That's like... hard and stuff. Oh and it doesn't enrich Republican donors, or land developers looking to scoop up land on the cheap.
I feel it necessary to point out that the preceding paragraph was written with an overdose of sarcasm. But it really does seem as if FEMA and Homeland Security really does want to exterminate the residents of New Orleans. First, we let them swelter in ungodly heat, flood waters and filth for almost a week claiming that entry to the city was impossible, even when we saw hordes of reporters and actors sweltering alongside the city's residents. Then we discovered that the levees were not only not built to withstand a hurricane of Katrina's strength, but were built incorrectly as well. Next, we found out that a private company charged with rebuilding and upgrading New Orleans' flood-prevention pumps was incompetent and incapable of doing so. And now this. The message is clear. Homeland Security and the Bush Administration don't just dislike poor black people, they are actively engaged in trying to exterminate the poor mendicants.
When do they start sending in the trains to collect the unwashed masses?
Labels: Bush Administration, Corporate Corruption, Dick Cheney, Fascism, Government Corruption, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:37 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
The Shortest Term
Posted on
Friday, May 25, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
The last week has been a depressing one for anyone following Congressional activity, unless you are a fan of the current administration and its army of sycophantic fearmongers. First we had the news that a "compromise" had been reached in the immigration battle, a compromise which promised to give President Bush and his corporate backers the cheap slave labor it wanted. Then, we were treated to the news that the Democrats in Congress had reached a "compromise" with President Bush on Iraq war funding. The word compromise is in quotes because both of these deals are nothing like a compromise, unless your definition of compromise is the one used by the Bush administration. You know the definition, as seen in their wonderful diplomatic relations with North Korea, Iran and the UN. Give us what we want or we'll do it anyway and blame you when it fails. And if we're being really petulant, we'll blow the shit out of you and everyone we love in a fit of pique. The two deals struck by Congress with the White House this week represent a low point in politics, and are a depressing reminder that the Democratic party still have not gotten their collective shit together.
This Democratic majority came in with clear mandates from the people of this country. The message was clear. The Bush administration and its rubber stamp Congress were driving this country into ruin, and the Democrats were needed to fix it, real quick like. The main symptom of the problem was clearly the war in Iraq, but it was only a symptom of the real problem. This president and his vice president in charge were dangerously abusive of their power, and were constantly seeking to legitimize that overreaches of power through lies, deception, political wrangling and worst of all, redefining the terms of their office's authority. More than just ending the war in Iraq, the Democrats needed to attack the disease at its core, a runaway rogue branch of government doing what it wanted, when it wanted with no checks to its authority.
These two bills are wretched displays of simpering surrender, resembling the servility of a whipped dog who has rolled over to show its belly to its master. I realize its difficult to go against an obstinate President without the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto. I get that. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable for this Congress to give up after the first veto.
The immigration bill is a joke. It's a bald-faced paean to the gods of exploitative capitalism. Not only does it grant amnesty to law-breakers, giving illegal immigrants a clear path to citizenship while not helping those immigrants who have chosen to follow the hard yet legitimate path, but it does so for the worst of reasons. Grading immigrants on a point system, it gives greater emphasis on work-related skills than anything else. It's almost a recruiting application for corporations seeking to hire illegals. Even worse, it favors those job skills over family units, which is the galling part. The bill reads like nothing more than a corporate wish list for cheap yet skilled labor. Does this country really want to change the slogan "Give me your tired, your poor,. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" to "Give us your doctors, your engineers because American labor wants too much money and too many benefits?" Protecting the working man from exploitation by corporate greedheads is supposed to be one of the planks of the Democratic Party Platform, and this bill shits upon that ideal.
But the Iraq war funding bill is worse. The Democratic majority was elected to end the Iraq War. Poll after poll after poll have proven that the vast majority of Americans want us to get the fuck out of Iraq as quickly as possible. We are tired of watching Americans die because they are trying to referee the worst type of civil war, one fought over which religious sect gets to control the political power in a country. There may never have been a more obvious mandate for any Congress in history. But the Democratic majority has pissed upon that mandate by offering a bill that gives the President everything he wanted in the first place.
To the Congressional Democrats who voted for this spending bill, I must ask you. What do you think this accomplished? Do you think that by giving the President what he wants now, he'll later show you some love on something you want? If the President were a reasonable man, that might happen, but the President is not a reasonable man. He is the bullheaded retard puppet with Dick Cheney's hand pulling the strings. Dick Cheney is an unreasonable cunt, who believes that compromise involves you agreeing with him completely. They will not budge because they do not have to. Furthermore, despite their intractability causing disruptions in funding to the troops, they will continue to blame the Democrats for the delays and their servile news media will let them do so. These people are cut from the same mold as Newt Gingrich only less cuddly. They will not quit, they will not give up, unless you compel them to do so.
The proper course of action for a responsible majority who cannot override a veto is not to just give in. Every minute our troops are in Iraq is a minute they are the target of someone. They have no support over there. There is no functioning government, police force or army for our troops to get support from. They are in an unwinnable situation, with no fucking idea what conditions will constitute a strategic victory. They are living day to day, trying to keep their head down so that it doesn't get shot off or blown up by one of any number of hidden enemies. The responsible course of action for the majority is to meet the rock with a hard place.
Keep hammering at the timelines. If he vetoes one bill with timelines, send him another goddamn bill with timelines. If he vetos that, send it again. No amount of jiggering, rejiggering, semantics or wordplay is going to garner a Presidential signature if the bill compels him to do anything he does not want to do, especially if it compels him to take responsibility for his failures. And when it comes to the time that the military has no more funds with which to carry out the Iraq war, if the President still will not accept timelines, then refuse to fund the war. Refuse it. It's going to hurt and it's going to seem intransigent. But you know what?
It's the right goddamn thing to do.
The President needs to have his arm twisted. The Congress controls the purse strings. Funding his wars only makes you culpable in senseless slaughter. And if the President still refuses to bring our troops home, impeach him. God knows he's done so many things worth impeachment that I'm quite sure SOMETHING would stick, if nothing more than obstruction of justice and the crime of lying to the American people.
Stop being pussies. Stop worrying about taking the blame in the short term. Take that short term political hit. Nothing will erase the memory of defunding the military like pictures of the troops coming home right as we head into primary season. Republicans who supported the President, who support the war in Iraq will be unable to fight against the image of military families embracing on the tarmac after a long nightmare of separation. That's the image you want to hang on Democratic Presidential Candidates, those joyous reunions of the bravest of men and women in the world.
I would like to give thanks to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama and all the others who voted against the funding bill. Now if the rest of the Democrats would grow some sack, perhaps we could end this shameful chapter in American history and get back to cleaning up the rest of the administration's messes. New Orleans residents still need houses.
This Democratic majority came in with clear mandates from the people of this country. The message was clear. The Bush administration and its rubber stamp Congress were driving this country into ruin, and the Democrats were needed to fix it, real quick like. The main symptom of the problem was clearly the war in Iraq, but it was only a symptom of the real problem. This president and his vice president in charge were dangerously abusive of their power, and were constantly seeking to legitimize that overreaches of power through lies, deception, political wrangling and worst of all, redefining the terms of their office's authority. More than just ending the war in Iraq, the Democrats needed to attack the disease at its core, a runaway rogue branch of government doing what it wanted, when it wanted with no checks to its authority.
These two bills are wretched displays of simpering surrender, resembling the servility of a whipped dog who has rolled over to show its belly to its master. I realize its difficult to go against an obstinate President without the two-thirds majority needed to override his veto. I get that. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable for this Congress to give up after the first veto.
The immigration bill is a joke. It's a bald-faced paean to the gods of exploitative capitalism. Not only does it grant amnesty to law-breakers, giving illegal immigrants a clear path to citizenship while not helping those immigrants who have chosen to follow the hard yet legitimate path, but it does so for the worst of reasons. Grading immigrants on a point system, it gives greater emphasis on work-related skills than anything else. It's almost a recruiting application for corporations seeking to hire illegals. Even worse, it favors those job skills over family units, which is the galling part. The bill reads like nothing more than a corporate wish list for cheap yet skilled labor. Does this country really want to change the slogan "Give me your tired, your poor,. Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" to "Give us your doctors, your engineers because American labor wants too much money and too many benefits?" Protecting the working man from exploitation by corporate greedheads is supposed to be one of the planks of the Democratic Party Platform, and this bill shits upon that ideal.
But the Iraq war funding bill is worse. The Democratic majority was elected to end the Iraq War. Poll after poll after poll have proven that the vast majority of Americans want us to get the fuck out of Iraq as quickly as possible. We are tired of watching Americans die because they are trying to referee the worst type of civil war, one fought over which religious sect gets to control the political power in a country. There may never have been a more obvious mandate for any Congress in history. But the Democratic majority has pissed upon that mandate by offering a bill that gives the President everything he wanted in the first place.
To the Congressional Democrats who voted for this spending bill, I must ask you. What do you think this accomplished? Do you think that by giving the President what he wants now, he'll later show you some love on something you want? If the President were a reasonable man, that might happen, but the President is not a reasonable man. He is the bullheaded retard puppet with Dick Cheney's hand pulling the strings. Dick Cheney is an unreasonable cunt, who believes that compromise involves you agreeing with him completely. They will not budge because they do not have to. Furthermore, despite their intractability causing disruptions in funding to the troops, they will continue to blame the Democrats for the delays and their servile news media will let them do so. These people are cut from the same mold as Newt Gingrich only less cuddly. They will not quit, they will not give up, unless you compel them to do so.
The proper course of action for a responsible majority who cannot override a veto is not to just give in. Every minute our troops are in Iraq is a minute they are the target of someone. They have no support over there. There is no functioning government, police force or army for our troops to get support from. They are in an unwinnable situation, with no fucking idea what conditions will constitute a strategic victory. They are living day to day, trying to keep their head down so that it doesn't get shot off or blown up by one of any number of hidden enemies. The responsible course of action for the majority is to meet the rock with a hard place.
Keep hammering at the timelines. If he vetoes one bill with timelines, send him another goddamn bill with timelines. If he vetos that, send it again. No amount of jiggering, rejiggering, semantics or wordplay is going to garner a Presidential signature if the bill compels him to do anything he does not want to do, especially if it compels him to take responsibility for his failures. And when it comes to the time that the military has no more funds with which to carry out the Iraq war, if the President still will not accept timelines, then refuse to fund the war. Refuse it. It's going to hurt and it's going to seem intransigent. But you know what?
It's the right goddamn thing to do.
The President needs to have his arm twisted. The Congress controls the purse strings. Funding his wars only makes you culpable in senseless slaughter. And if the President still refuses to bring our troops home, impeach him. God knows he's done so many things worth impeachment that I'm quite sure SOMETHING would stick, if nothing more than obstruction of justice and the crime of lying to the American people.
Stop being pussies. Stop worrying about taking the blame in the short term. Take that short term political hit. Nothing will erase the memory of defunding the military like pictures of the troops coming home right as we head into primary season. Republicans who supported the President, who support the war in Iraq will be unable to fight against the image of military families embracing on the tarmac after a long nightmare of separation. That's the image you want to hang on Democratic Presidential Candidates, those joyous reunions of the bravest of men and women in the world.
I would like to give thanks to Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama and all the others who voted against the funding bill. Now if the rest of the Democrats would grow some sack, perhaps we could end this shameful chapter in American history and get back to cleaning up the rest of the administration's messes. New Orleans residents still need houses.
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Iraq, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:34 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Finally! A Republican President with a Brain
Posted on
Friday, May 04, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Thanks to Crooks and Liars for this story. I've not followed the early Presidential primary debates, seeing as how it's entirely too early to start stumping the 2008 race in my opinion. But I have caught a little bit of the pertinent bits. I've discovered that three of the Republican candidates are apparently anti-science zombies, since Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee all think evolution is a lie. And I had some hope for Huckabee, dashed by one bit of obstinence. McCain has played his usual crazy-man-appealing-to-the-wingnut-base role, Guiliani just keeps reminding me of the worst bits of authoritarianism and hypocrisy, and Romney is a flip-flopping Mormon fundie whose religion didn't even recognize blacks as humans until the '70's. But this clip of Ron Paul (R-TX) made my day.
Here is a Republican who talks about the real Conservative values that made the Republican party viable in the 20th century. He speaks about restraint in foreign policy, about the reasoned use of military force. He speaks about actually declaring a war before entering a war, instead of the pussy-footing type of police actions like Korea and Vietnam and Iraq. Declaring war has become political poison, so the Congress doesn't do it, they just delegate the authority to make the decision that gets soldiers killed onto the President. In short, the guy talked like someone I would vote for, which is a pretty bold statement coming from me. Unfortunately, the crazy bloodthirsty jackals in charge of the shambles of the Republithug party will make sure he never gets through the first primary, and no one would give him enough money to matter as an independant.
But it's sure refreshing to hear common sense from a Republican. I've gotten so hardened to their frothing, hate-soaked talking points that I almost couldn't recognize a real conservative without a scorecard.
Here is a Republican who talks about the real Conservative values that made the Republican party viable in the 20th century. He speaks about restraint in foreign policy, about the reasoned use of military force. He speaks about actually declaring a war before entering a war, instead of the pussy-footing type of police actions like Korea and Vietnam and Iraq. Declaring war has become political poison, so the Congress doesn't do it, they just delegate the authority to make the decision that gets soldiers killed onto the President. In short, the guy talked like someone I would vote for, which is a pretty bold statement coming from me. Unfortunately, the crazy bloodthirsty jackals in charge of the shambles of the Republithug party will make sure he never gets through the first primary, and no one would give him enough money to matter as an independant.
But it's sure refreshing to hear common sense from a Republican. I've gotten so hardened to their frothing, hate-soaked talking points that I almost couldn't recognize a real conservative without a scorecard.
Labels: Politics, Presidential Campaign 2008
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 4:16 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
It's Called Accountability
Posted on
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
It's been a long time since the Bush administration was actually acquainted with the reality of accountability for their actions. Since 2002, the Republican/neocon stranglehold on Congressional power has rendered the concept a quaint anachronism which the Bush/Cheney junta can scoff at over their afternoon tea out on the lawn with a hearty Ivy League 'HARRUMPH!' Today's news brings a welcome return to the long-lost concept of checks and balances, and I for one am quite thrilled. You see, the House of Representatives voted to issue subpoenas for Karl Rove and other White House aides, compelling them to testify truthfully under penalty of perjury about their roles in the politically-motivated firings of eight U.S. federal prosecutors.
Not only is it a welcome sign for Congress to send subpoenas to any White House officials on any matter, it's even more satisfying knowing that such actions are a rejection of Bush's orders. President Bush had "offered" these people to the Congress for private interviews with closed-door, unrecorded Congressional committee meetings, interviews which would not require being sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth or any portion of the truth. In other words, interviews which would miss the accountability off-ramp by light-years on the highway of truth.
But ever obstinate in his pursuit of an absolute veil of secrecy about White House activities, Bush has vowed to challenge the subpoenas in court, and I'm quite sure the grounds he'll attempt to use will be that of executive privilege. If he does so, his transformation into Tricky Dick Nixon Part Duh will be complete. Thankfully, though not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure we've been down the executive privilege path before, and the Supreme Court shot it directly in the face. Whether or not this conservative-appointed Supreme Court will agree with the previous precedents on the matter is debatable, but I don't think anyone can argue that the original 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon is the decision we want this land to be ruled by. Sure, there are those wingnut imperial president neocons out there, but I hope those fools have been revealed as the bloodthirsty moonbats they really are.
You see, Mr. Bush, being President does not entitle you to do as you wish with the United States government. No one serves 'at the pleasure of the President,' a too-frequently used phrase that gives me shivers right down to my subcockles. Your political advisor shouldn't have a damn thing to say about what federal prosecutors get to keep their jobs, and the Patriot Act shouldn't allow you to replace prosecutors at will indefinitely without any sort of Congressional oversight. That is what we call accountability, which is being forced to give an account for all the decisions and actions you have made, including the reasons for making them. The founding fathers fought a war to remove us from the boot heel of a power which made decisions that were accountable to no one. Why then would you think, Mr. Bush, that those same founding fathers would want there to be any method in which an elected or appointed official can achieve the same kind of unaccountable behavior?
The answer is they wouldn't, and neither would the American people. If you gave the American people access to the truth, the REAL truth about how you and your administration have conducted their business, and the reasons for the business being conducted, I'm quite sure you'd long wistfully for the days of 36% approval ratings. Or do you truly wish to drag the Executive Branch back to the depths it plumbed during the worst years of Nixon's presidency? You've already followed his game plan to disgustingly similar results. I shudder to think what more damage you could do to this great nation and the world without this healthy dose of accountability.
Not only is it a welcome sign for Congress to send subpoenas to any White House officials on any matter, it's even more satisfying knowing that such actions are a rejection of Bush's orders. President Bush had "offered" these people to the Congress for private interviews with closed-door, unrecorded Congressional committee meetings, interviews which would not require being sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth or any portion of the truth. In other words, interviews which would miss the accountability off-ramp by light-years on the highway of truth.
But ever obstinate in his pursuit of an absolute veil of secrecy about White House activities, Bush has vowed to challenge the subpoenas in court, and I'm quite sure the grounds he'll attempt to use will be that of executive privilege. If he does so, his transformation into Tricky Dick Nixon Part Duh will be complete. Thankfully, though not a lawyer, I'm pretty sure we've been down the executive privilege path before, and the Supreme Court shot it directly in the face. Whether or not this conservative-appointed Supreme Court will agree with the previous precedents on the matter is debatable, but I don't think anyone can argue that the original 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon is the decision we want this land to be ruled by. Sure, there are those wingnut imperial president neocons out there, but I hope those fools have been revealed as the bloodthirsty moonbats they really are.
You see, Mr. Bush, being President does not entitle you to do as you wish with the United States government. No one serves 'at the pleasure of the President,' a too-frequently used phrase that gives me shivers right down to my subcockles. Your political advisor shouldn't have a damn thing to say about what federal prosecutors get to keep their jobs, and the Patriot Act shouldn't allow you to replace prosecutors at will indefinitely without any sort of Congressional oversight. That is what we call accountability, which is being forced to give an account for all the decisions and actions you have made, including the reasons for making them. The founding fathers fought a war to remove us from the boot heel of a power which made decisions that were accountable to no one. Why then would you think, Mr. Bush, that those same founding fathers would want there to be any method in which an elected or appointed official can achieve the same kind of unaccountable behavior?
The answer is they wouldn't, and neither would the American people. If you gave the American people access to the truth, the REAL truth about how you and your administration have conducted their business, and the reasons for the business being conducted, I'm quite sure you'd long wistfully for the days of 36% approval ratings. Or do you truly wish to drag the Executive Branch back to the depths it plumbed during the worst years of Nixon's presidency? You've already followed his game plan to disgustingly similar results. I shudder to think what more damage you could do to this great nation and the world without this healthy dose of accountability.
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 3:28 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Iran-Contra Part Duh... And No One Cares?
Posted on
Thursday, March 15, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
A week or so ago, I read an article from Seymour Hersh about a new form of the Iran-Contra shuffle going on in the White House, directed at Iran and run through the Vice-President's office. It was a frightening story, and not one I had the slightest difficulty believing. I filed it in the back of my mind, thinking it would be front page news for months to come. It was that big a story. And yet, there's been nary a peep out of the mainstream media or much else about the story. Have you read it?
Now TomPaine.com has written an article summarizing not only the story, but also the lack of media attention its been given. This must-read article is written by Tom Engelhardt. The original article by Hersh is in the New Yorker and can be found here.
This story isn't just big news, it's colossal news that should have every investigative journalist from here to Timbuktu clawing each others' eyes out to get the dirt. Why isn't anyone following this story? Why isn't CNN, NBC, ABC or any of the other echo chambers out there grabbing ratings with this story? Do they condone this sort of illegal behavior? Does the American people, or the Congress? I know that many of the Republicans like my very own set of assholes support this kind of backdoor dirty tricks, but is there no politician willing to impeach the President and the Vice-President over this kind of shit?
Now TomPaine.com has written an article summarizing not only the story, but also the lack of media attention its been given. This must-read article is written by Tom Engelhardt. The original article by Hersh is in the New Yorker and can be found here.
This story isn't just big news, it's colossal news that should have every investigative journalist from here to Timbuktu clawing each others' eyes out to get the dirt. Why isn't anyone following this story? Why isn't CNN, NBC, ABC or any of the other echo chambers out there grabbing ratings with this story? Do they condone this sort of illegal behavior? Does the American people, or the Congress? I know that many of the Republicans like my very own set of assholes support this kind of backdoor dirty tricks, but is there no politician willing to impeach the President and the Vice-President over this kind of shit?
Labels: Bush Administration, Government Corruption, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 4:52 PM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Incompetence Keeps Its Day Job
Posted on
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
There are news stories that make you think, news stories that make you sad and news stories that really have no impact on you whatsoever. Then there are some news stories that make you so intractably furious, so outraged and disgusted that language should fail even the most accomplished wordsmith. One can only be left in a puddle of quivering anger jelly, that bilious substance that fuels this angst-ridden collection of feelings. You see, it wasn't enough that Republican campaign contributors with fat contracts and Republican politicians failed the city of New Orleans so spectacularly during the events of Hurricane Katrina. No, that wasn't enough. The right wing greed machine and the companies it employs to clean up its messes have decided that New Orleans didn't deserve working flood pumps before the thankfully mild 2006 hurricane season.
Yep, that's right. The new flood pumps that were put in place in early 2006 to protect New Orleans from another hurricane, whether that hurricane was a pedestrian Category 1 or the more dangerous Katrina types, those life-saving pumps were installed in a non-functioning state. They were fucked, in essence. The pumps themselves were defective, testing of the pumps was half-assed at best and the decision was made by the Army Corps of Engineers to go ahead with this catastrophuck in the making. The Corps had no way of knowing if any of those pumps would work, what capacity they would work at, nor did they apparently know how bad the flooding would be in case of a hurricane.
How is this acceptable? How is this making good on Bush's promise to use the $5.7 billion Congress allocated to protect New Orleans better than it was pre-Katrina? How are people not being fined, fired and jailed for this kind of absolute cockup?
The really galling part lies here:
This is unacceptable. First off, this company which has shown its corruption and incompetence before, is given an extremely important contract. Said incompetent company was founded by friends of the President's brother and a Republican campaign contributor. Isn't that the very definition of corruption, or at the least, a conflict of interests? The Corps of Engineers shouldn't be withholding 20 percent of the contract, they should be demanding all the money back and for this company to complete the work for free. At the very least, the company should be barred from seeking such contracts in the future, should they ever manage to complete this contract acceptably. But no, the Corps decided to pay them an additional $4 million for extra portable pumps. This company doesn't deserve more money to deliver what they were supposed to already have delivered.
How do politicians support this sort of vile profiteering? How can they endorse such rampant incompetence? These douchebags have stolen money from the American public, and are likely to be the cause of future deaths that will not only be a goddamn tragedy, but will, I would hope, cause these politicians to lose their cushy jobs. Does this just not get through to them that these current Republicans and friends of Republicans are tarring their Party with the unwashable stench of corruption the likes of which this country has never seen before?
But of course, the story is likely to not get front page news. I couldn't even find this story on CNN.com, which was plastered with the smug piehole of that cunt of an AG, Alberto Gonzales, who knows he won't lose his job despite being consistently wrecthed at it. New Orleans has almost been the forgotten abused child since the bodies stopped floating in front of TV cameras, except when celebrities show up for Mardi Gras. Congress sure has forgotten about the city, what with Senators spending three weeks just arguing over whether they can actually debate the fucking Iraq War without emboldening the terrorists.
What the fuck is wrong with you ivory tower jackasses? Is the petty squabbling more important than people's fucking lives? Get on with it, and get on with actually helping New Orleans. And for fuck's sake, get on with prosecuting the bejeesus out of any shitheel corporation like MWI, IAP or Haliburton that wants to suck off the government tit while pissing on the American people who are funding their welfare windfall.
Yep, that's right. The new flood pumps that were put in place in early 2006 to protect New Orleans from another hurricane, whether that hurricane was a pedestrian Category 1 or the more dangerous Katrina types, those life-saving pumps were installed in a non-functioning state. They were fucked, in essence. The pumps themselves were defective, testing of the pumps was half-assed at best and the decision was made by the Army Corps of Engineers to go ahead with this catastrophuck in the making. The Corps had no way of knowing if any of those pumps would work, what capacity they would work at, nor did they apparently know how bad the flooding would be in case of a hurricane.
How is this acceptable? How is this making good on Bush's promise to use the $5.7 billion Congress allocated to protect New Orleans better than it was pre-Katrina? How are people not being fined, fired and jailed for this kind of absolute cockup?
The really galling part lies here:
The drainage-canal pumps were custom-designed and built under a $26.6 million contract awarded after competitive bidding to Moving Water Industries
Corp. of Deerfield Beach, Fla. It was founded in 1926 and supplies flood-control
and irrigation pumps all over the world.
MWI is owned by J. David Eller and his sons. Eller was once a business partner of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in a venture called Bush-El that marketed MWI pumps. And Eller has donated about $128,000 to politicians, the vast majority of it to the Republican Party, since 1996, according to the Centerfor Responsive Politics.
MWI has run into trouble before. The U.S. Justice Department sued the company in 2002, accusing it of fraudulently helping Nigeria obtain $74 million in taxpayer-backed loans for overpriced and unnecessary water-pump equipment. The case has yet to be resolved.
Because of the trouble with the New Orleans pumps, the Corps has withheld 20 percent of the MWI contract, including an incentive of up to $4 million that the company could have collected if it delivered the equipment intime for the 2006 hurricane season.
This is unacceptable. First off, this company which has shown its corruption and incompetence before, is given an extremely important contract. Said incompetent company was founded by friends of the President's brother and a Republican campaign contributor. Isn't that the very definition of corruption, or at the least, a conflict of interests? The Corps of Engineers shouldn't be withholding 20 percent of the contract, they should be demanding all the money back and for this company to complete the work for free. At the very least, the company should be barred from seeking such contracts in the future, should they ever manage to complete this contract acceptably. But no, the Corps decided to pay them an additional $4 million for extra portable pumps. This company doesn't deserve more money to deliver what they were supposed to already have delivered.
How do politicians support this sort of vile profiteering? How can they endorse such rampant incompetence? These douchebags have stolen money from the American public, and are likely to be the cause of future deaths that will not only be a goddamn tragedy, but will, I would hope, cause these politicians to lose their cushy jobs. Does this just not get through to them that these current Republicans and friends of Republicans are tarring their Party with the unwashable stench of corruption the likes of which this country has never seen before?
But of course, the story is likely to not get front page news. I couldn't even find this story on CNN.com, which was plastered with the smug piehole of that cunt of an AG, Alberto Gonzales, who knows he won't lose his job despite being consistently wrecthed at it. New Orleans has almost been the forgotten abused child since the bodies stopped floating in front of TV cameras, except when celebrities show up for Mardi Gras. Congress sure has forgotten about the city, what with Senators spending three weeks just arguing over whether they can actually debate the fucking Iraq War without emboldening the terrorists.
What the fuck is wrong with you ivory tower jackasses? Is the petty squabbling more important than people's fucking lives? Get on with it, and get on with actually helping New Orleans. And for fuck's sake, get on with prosecuting the bejeesus out of any shitheel corporation like MWI, IAP or Haliburton that wants to suck off the government tit while pissing on the American people who are funding their welfare windfall.
Labels: Bush Administration, Corporate Corruption, Government Corruption, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 10:00 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
Bizarro World: Where the Right Went Wrong (Book Review)
Posted on
Monday, March 12, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
It's a telling indictment of the political world we live in today that not only did I read a Pat Buchanan book, but there were parts of it I actually agreed with. Buchanan is the kind of bigoted, right-wing douchebag that I not only disagree with vehemently, I actually have wished violence upon the man many times. Not the kind of death-wish violence reserved for evil people like Dick Cheney or Osama Bin Laden, mind you. It's more of the "someone should punch him directly in the face" type of violence. But the events of the last six years have created such a Bizarro version of the world that I've no choice but to admit that in Buchanan's 2004 book Where the Right Went Wrong, he actually has some points on which we both can agree.
Why would someone who leans left enough to be considered a social democrat on most days want to read someone as proudly right-wing as Pat Buchanan? Unlike many of the members of the current administration who think even hearing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to treason, I do believe in hearing viewpoints that I cannot agree with, even from people whose politics I find morally offensive. Failure to listen to the opposing side, even when that side wanders into moonbat territory, sets up an echo chamber within one's own mind. In short, it's wholly positive that one can hear another viewpoint that makes one think, "How can any sane, intelligent person actually believe this?" With that in mind, I spied Buchanan's book in the dollar store while Christmas shopping, and for $1, I can certainly hear what Mr. Buchanan has to say no matter how much it raises my blood pressure with indignation.
Imagine my surprise to find a reasoned, sane, intelligent argument criticizing the very right wing, authoritarian government of George W. Bush. That's right, Buchanan wrote a detailed treatise tearing apart the administration of Bush's first term for unnecessary and illegal secrecy, ill-advised foreign policy mistakes such as the war in Iraq and even his free trade policies that have resulted in massive outsourcing and the destruction of the American manufacturing sector. In short, Buchanan made sense, strengthening my beliefs about the inadequacy and illegality of the Bush presidency.
And then the real Pat Buchanan came out from behind the curtain.
The first half of the book was quite good, and something I could certainly agree with. Midway through the book, he begins to go off the track a bit, delving into the history of other imperialistic regimes such as the Roman and British empires. While those are instructive, he loses steam when he begins trying to chronicle the birth of Islam and the rise of the Islamist political movements. Had he ended the book there, it would have been anticlimactic, but at least he'd have stayed in the village of reason.
But the trainwreck of Buchanan's particular brand of bigoted, intolerant right-wing beliefs cannot be restrained throughout an entire book. The last half of the book goes through what conservatives should believe, and in true wingnut fashion, it hits all the low points. From his fearful mistrust of immigrants diluting the Eurocentric nature of American culture to his outright homophobic discrimination against gays, Buchanan shows his true colors. He repeats all the worst conservative half-truths, such as his tirades against "activist judges" that goes so far as to criticize the Supreme Court for ending segregation, claiming they not only lacked the Constitutional authority but were actively part of a left-wing conspiracy to strengthen the Judiciary Branch. One gets the idea Strom Thurmond was his ghost writer on parts of the book. Never mind that had the Court not ruled against segregation, we'd likely never have removed that embarrassing stain from our public school system. Buchanan claims to be the last "Goldwater conservative" but his social views on things like gay marriage reveal that be a lie. Goldwater, for all his conservative views, believed that the government should stay out of the sexual arena. Buchanan seems to have no such qualms.
In the end, the book misses the mark by a great deal, not because Buchanan's wingnut nature spoils the logic of the first half of the book, but because he lacks the strength of his convictions. The book was published before the 2004 election with an eye towards influencing those elections. But after all the egregious errors and deliberate lies Buchanan criticizes the administration for, he still urges conservative readers to vote Republican in 2004. Somehow, he still believed that Bush was a decent sort of man, worthy of the presidency, choosing to believe the errors and corruption he'd highlighted earlier in the book were the fault of Bush's advisers and not the man himself. It was more important to Buchanan that conservatives not vote for a Democrat than that they hold the President accountable for incompetence, corruption and deception.
Here's a hint, Pat. Party loyalty above all else is what has fucked the conservative movement these last six years. Party loyalty despite blatant corruption is what has led the Republican party astray. It's what has killed over 3,000 troops in Iraq, it's what killed hundreds of Katrina victims in New Orleans, and it's what has wasted billions in fraud from no-bid contracts. It's what has led to the despicable crime against our veterans at Walter Reed hospital. Take your party loyalty and shove it up your ass, Mr. Buchanan, right up there with your racist screeds against hard-working immigrants and homosexuals. In short, you are just as responsible as President Bush for all the lives lost to his administration's fuckups, as is anyone who voted Republican in 2004 despite his policy's failure in Iraq. You made Bush what he is today.
The book is an interesting read, but only for those who don't already drink the Kool-Aid Buchanan has been swigging for years. Otherwise, readers might be tempted to vote McCain in 2008. If that happens, the right will really go wrong and nothing will be able to bring them back.
Why would someone who leans left enough to be considered a social democrat on most days want to read someone as proudly right-wing as Pat Buchanan? Unlike many of the members of the current administration who think even hearing a dissenting opinion is tantamount to treason, I do believe in hearing viewpoints that I cannot agree with, even from people whose politics I find morally offensive. Failure to listen to the opposing side, even when that side wanders into moonbat territory, sets up an echo chamber within one's own mind. In short, it's wholly positive that one can hear another viewpoint that makes one think, "How can any sane, intelligent person actually believe this?" With that in mind, I spied Buchanan's book in the dollar store while Christmas shopping, and for $1, I can certainly hear what Mr. Buchanan has to say no matter how much it raises my blood pressure with indignation.
Imagine my surprise to find a reasoned, sane, intelligent argument criticizing the very right wing, authoritarian government of George W. Bush. That's right, Buchanan wrote a detailed treatise tearing apart the administration of Bush's first term for unnecessary and illegal secrecy, ill-advised foreign policy mistakes such as the war in Iraq and even his free trade policies that have resulted in massive outsourcing and the destruction of the American manufacturing sector. In short, Buchanan made sense, strengthening my beliefs about the inadequacy and illegality of the Bush presidency.
And then the real Pat Buchanan came out from behind the curtain.
The first half of the book was quite good, and something I could certainly agree with. Midway through the book, he begins to go off the track a bit, delving into the history of other imperialistic regimes such as the Roman and British empires. While those are instructive, he loses steam when he begins trying to chronicle the birth of Islam and the rise of the Islamist political movements. Had he ended the book there, it would have been anticlimactic, but at least he'd have stayed in the village of reason.
But the trainwreck of Buchanan's particular brand of bigoted, intolerant right-wing beliefs cannot be restrained throughout an entire book. The last half of the book goes through what conservatives should believe, and in true wingnut fashion, it hits all the low points. From his fearful mistrust of immigrants diluting the Eurocentric nature of American culture to his outright homophobic discrimination against gays, Buchanan shows his true colors. He repeats all the worst conservative half-truths, such as his tirades against "activist judges" that goes so far as to criticize the Supreme Court for ending segregation, claiming they not only lacked the Constitutional authority but were actively part of a left-wing conspiracy to strengthen the Judiciary Branch. One gets the idea Strom Thurmond was his ghost writer on parts of the book. Never mind that had the Court not ruled against segregation, we'd likely never have removed that embarrassing stain from our public school system. Buchanan claims to be the last "Goldwater conservative" but his social views on things like gay marriage reveal that be a lie. Goldwater, for all his conservative views, believed that the government should stay out of the sexual arena. Buchanan seems to have no such qualms.
In the end, the book misses the mark by a great deal, not because Buchanan's wingnut nature spoils the logic of the first half of the book, but because he lacks the strength of his convictions. The book was published before the 2004 election with an eye towards influencing those elections. But after all the egregious errors and deliberate lies Buchanan criticizes the administration for, he still urges conservative readers to vote Republican in 2004. Somehow, he still believed that Bush was a decent sort of man, worthy of the presidency, choosing to believe the errors and corruption he'd highlighted earlier in the book were the fault of Bush's advisers and not the man himself. It was more important to Buchanan that conservatives not vote for a Democrat than that they hold the President accountable for incompetence, corruption and deception.
Here's a hint, Pat. Party loyalty above all else is what has fucked the conservative movement these last six years. Party loyalty despite blatant corruption is what has led the Republican party astray. It's what has killed over 3,000 troops in Iraq, it's what killed hundreds of Katrina victims in New Orleans, and it's what has wasted billions in fraud from no-bid contracts. It's what has led to the despicable crime against our veterans at Walter Reed hospital. Take your party loyalty and shove it up your ass, Mr. Buchanan, right up there with your racist screeds against hard-working immigrants and homosexuals. In short, you are just as responsible as President Bush for all the lives lost to his administration's fuckups, as is anyone who voted Republican in 2004 despite his policy's failure in Iraq. You made Bush what he is today.
The book is an interesting read, but only for those who don't already drink the Kool-Aid Buchanan has been swigging for years. Otherwise, readers might be tempted to vote McCain in 2008. If that happens, the right will really go wrong and nothing will be able to bring them back.
Labels: Bush Administration, Literature, Politics, Privatization
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 9:30 AM
1 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|
An Emboldened Enemy
Posted on
Thursday, February 22, 2007
by Gary A. Ballard
Over the last month since the President revealed his "new strategy" for Iraq, proponents of this surge/escalation/last-ditch desperate attempt have hammered the media with endless soundbites repeating the same criticism of opponents. Like some deranged mantra of unintended earnest idiocy, this oft-repeated meme has been gobbled up by the increasingly propagandized media and regurgitated whole onto the American public. Congressional proponents and punditry puppets have all fired this staccato three-word mantra like buckshot in attempts to discredit opponents, to make opponents of the plan seem like sympathizers with the enemy and in such fashion, remove all criticism by painting all criticism as somehow unpatriotic. Those words, sprinkled in the Kool-Aid flavored speeches of Congresspersons and the hate-filled tirades of neocon sympathizers like William Kristol and Bill O'Reilly, are that public criticism of the plan and the President will "embolden the enemy."
To respond with my trademarked profanity, that is horseshit spewed from the festering gobs of a pack of raging douchebags.
Let's put aside for the moment the logic that this surge will actually target THE TERRORISTS!!1! such as Al-Qaida who are supposed to be our main enemies in the War on Terror™. Let's just swallow for the moment the lie that adding 20,000 troops to Iraq will target THE TERRORISTS!!1! It won't, and anyone who has bothered to read anything other than neocon propaganda for more than five minutes will see through this lie.
How much more bold do you think these people can get? The Al-Qaida terrorists, while craven, brutal and bloodthirsty, are nothing if not bold. 19 of these people entered a hostile country illegally, despite some of them being listed on watch lists as known terrorists. They lived among a people whose lifestyle they believe is morally reprehensible, in a culture they see as the greatest evil on the face of the planet. They got jobs and they trained to fly aircraft. They took ordinary box cutters through airport security, got on four separate planes and commandeered those planes with said box cutters, then flew those planes into buildings, knowingly killing themselves. What would they have to do to be considered more bold? Would they need to mail an itinerary of their suicide bombing runs to the CIA and FBI, strap on a bomb vest and walk down the street in broad daylight wearing nothing but their vest before walking into Capitol Hill and addressing their final goodbyes to the C-Span cameras in Congress?
They do not fear death, not their own hand, and not by our military. In point of fact, they want such a death. They want a war with the United States. They want a war between Western culture and Islam, because they want our military and our corporations and our meddling diplomats out of their Holy Lands. They want Israel out of Palestine. They want Shi'a and Sunnis to kill each other, because they want their brand of brutal, stringent Wahabbi/Sunni Islam to be the dominant, final Islamic dogma. They want the US to stir up enough trouble in the Middle East that heretical Shi'a and secular governments are toppled to be replaced by stricter Sunni governments. Osama bin Laden likely cheered when the US attacked Iraq, because the it removed a secular power he considered a heretic, and replaced it with chaos, a chaos that now pits Shi'a against Sunni.
This enemy can't get any bolder. Our military does not frighten them because they want a warrior's death in battle on an individual basis, and they want a political victory that sees the Muslim world sympathetic to their cause and hostile to the American cause. This enemy could not hope to achieve the chaos and destruction without the aid of a mighty military power, and the US has given them that chaos and destruction. They lead the US around by the nose, constantly stinging the giant just enough to get him fighting mad before melting away. They are the matador dismantling the bull, and the bull is too maddened with blood lust and dreams of historic grandeur to realize it's being led to its slaughter.
As for opposition to the surge emboldening these terrorists, that's also a horseshit statement because the surge wouldn't target Al-Qaida anyway. All reports indicate AQ doesn't even contribute to 5% of the death and devastation in Iraq. No, the surge would be used to kill Sunni insurgents at the urging of the Shiite majority in control of the Iraqi Parliament, and the latest propaganda scapegoat, al-Sadr's Mahdi army, a Shiite militia that is fiercely anti-American. In the process, Sadr will be portrayed as an Iranian-backed terrorist despite the fact that he likely receives little if any support from Iranian sources. No, the militias who would receive Iranian support, like the Badr Brigade, are all the militant arms of the majority Shiite political groups in Parliament, including that of Nouri Al-Maliki.
You see, we aren't fighting the War on Terror in Iraq. We are caught in the middle of a number of civil wars, and sooner or later we'll have to pick sides in that war if we stay. It appears the side we will pick is Al-Maliki's, which is doubly ironic considering his ties and sympathies with Iran, a nation we are currently rattling sabres at left and right. Rather than emboldening terrorists who contribute little to the Iraq mess, we'll be emboldening Iran. But that kind of logic is probably emboldening the terrorists too. After all, they are surely plotting in their caves around a broadband Internet connection to my blog, with C-Span and CNN in the background while they put together Lite-Brites in the shape of a fictional character flipping the bird.
To respond with my trademarked profanity, that is horseshit spewed from the festering gobs of a pack of raging douchebags.
Let's put aside for the moment the logic that this surge will actually target THE TERRORISTS!!1! such as Al-Qaida who are supposed to be our main enemies in the War on Terror™. Let's just swallow for the moment the lie that adding 20,000 troops to Iraq will target THE TERRORISTS!!1! It won't, and anyone who has bothered to read anything other than neocon propaganda for more than five minutes will see through this lie.
How much more bold do you think these people can get? The Al-Qaida terrorists, while craven, brutal and bloodthirsty, are nothing if not bold. 19 of these people entered a hostile country illegally, despite some of them being listed on watch lists as known terrorists. They lived among a people whose lifestyle they believe is morally reprehensible, in a culture they see as the greatest evil on the face of the planet. They got jobs and they trained to fly aircraft. They took ordinary box cutters through airport security, got on four separate planes and commandeered those planes with said box cutters, then flew those planes into buildings, knowingly killing themselves. What would they have to do to be considered more bold? Would they need to mail an itinerary of their suicide bombing runs to the CIA and FBI, strap on a bomb vest and walk down the street in broad daylight wearing nothing but their vest before walking into Capitol Hill and addressing their final goodbyes to the C-Span cameras in Congress?
They do not fear death, not their own hand, and not by our military. In point of fact, they want such a death. They want a war with the United States. They want a war between Western culture and Islam, because they want our military and our corporations and our meddling diplomats out of their Holy Lands. They want Israel out of Palestine. They want Shi'a and Sunnis to kill each other, because they want their brand of brutal, stringent Wahabbi/Sunni Islam to be the dominant, final Islamic dogma. They want the US to stir up enough trouble in the Middle East that heretical Shi'a and secular governments are toppled to be replaced by stricter Sunni governments. Osama bin Laden likely cheered when the US attacked Iraq, because the it removed a secular power he considered a heretic, and replaced it with chaos, a chaos that now pits Shi'a against Sunni.
This enemy can't get any bolder. Our military does not frighten them because they want a warrior's death in battle on an individual basis, and they want a political victory that sees the Muslim world sympathetic to their cause and hostile to the American cause. This enemy could not hope to achieve the chaos and destruction without the aid of a mighty military power, and the US has given them that chaos and destruction. They lead the US around by the nose, constantly stinging the giant just enough to get him fighting mad before melting away. They are the matador dismantling the bull, and the bull is too maddened with blood lust and dreams of historic grandeur to realize it's being led to its slaughter.
As for opposition to the surge emboldening these terrorists, that's also a horseshit statement because the surge wouldn't target Al-Qaida anyway. All reports indicate AQ doesn't even contribute to 5% of the death and devastation in Iraq. No, the surge would be used to kill Sunni insurgents at the urging of the Shiite majority in control of the Iraqi Parliament, and the latest propaganda scapegoat, al-Sadr's Mahdi army, a Shiite militia that is fiercely anti-American. In the process, Sadr will be portrayed as an Iranian-backed terrorist despite the fact that he likely receives little if any support from Iranian sources. No, the militias who would receive Iranian support, like the Badr Brigade, are all the militant arms of the majority Shiite political groups in Parliament, including that of Nouri Al-Maliki.
You see, we aren't fighting the War on Terror in Iraq. We are caught in the middle of a number of civil wars, and sooner or later we'll have to pick sides in that war if we stay. It appears the side we will pick is Al-Maliki's, which is doubly ironic considering his ties and sympathies with Iran, a nation we are currently rattling sabres at left and right. Rather than emboldening terrorists who contribute little to the Iraq mess, we'll be emboldening Iran. But that kind of logic is probably emboldening the terrorists too. After all, they are surely plotting in their caves around a broadband Internet connection to my blog, with C-Span and CNN in the background while they put together Lite-Brites in the shape of a fictional character flipping the bird.
Labels: Bush Administration, Politics
Read more!
posted by Gary A. Ballard @ 11:07 AM
0 Comments
|
|
Save This Page
|