The late David Rosenbaum of the New York Times, one of the longest-serving true journalists in the nation's capital, was a master at reading, digesting and analyzing the important legislation in Congress.
Oh, how we need him today!
The House of Representatives has passed a massive (nearly 2,000 pages) bill designed to provide health insurance for Americans regardless of their ability to pay, and prohibit some of the worst practices of the private health insurance industry such as denying coverage for pre-existing conditions or family health history.
I wonder if any single legislator who voted late Saturday night for or against the bill had read and understood it the way David understood the legislation he wrote about so clearly and lucidly. I doubt it.
The media accounts don't really tell us much, either, and what they do say is suspect given today's media reliance on spin, sound bites, handouts and propaganda. So it's hard to work up much jubilation because our elected representatitives -- at last! -- at last! -- seem to have taken a meaningful step toward giving our citizens the kind of health care that citizens of most other civilized democracies have long taken for granted.
I share the feelings of my friend and sometime contributor, Mort Persky: "Lord, I hope it's a good bill that leads to an even better bill, but gotta be highly skeptical."
Until we can flyspeck the thing, neither he nor I will know if it's a "good bill," nor will our fellow citizens. The mindless lemmings of the right will parrot Limbaugh and Beck and Boehner and other Republican meatheads, prattling about "government takeover" and what-all, as if they actually knew something about the bill. But their vacuous barnyard leavings don't matter.
What matters is whether some of our elected representatives actually read every line of the legislation, and its Senate counterpart when that emerges, with as much thought, care and objectivity as David Rosenbaum once did. If that were to happen, perhaps another Republican mind or two would see what Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican from New Orleans, saw: that the importance of health care transcends party politics. He voted "yes" last night. Thirty-nine Democrats, including one who represents my district, voted against health care for all. There are like-minded Democrats in the Senate.
Will any of them see the light of reason? Most of them won't even bother to read and analyze what they're ranting against.
Would that David were still around to tell them.
"Don't tell Momma I'm a journalist; say I play the piano in a whorehouse."
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Forest Evashevski, Football Coach
Forest Evashevski came to Iowa in the 1950s with a Michigan background and the Delaware winged-T offense.
He took over a downtrodden program whose last great memory was the 1939 season when Nile Kinnick was an all-American.
Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan, in one order or another, were the top dogs in the Big Ten back then. Evy beat all three of them in his first two seasons as head coach of the Hawkeyes.
Woody Hayes, the Ohio State coach, should have known what was coming when Evy snatched three of the best Ohio high school stars, including an end named Jim Gibbons, in his very first season of recruiting. Gibbons caught the game-winning touchdown pass in Iowa's upset victory over an OSU team that had national championship aspirations.
Two years later two of Iowa's most promising recruits were suspended after two young women who were not students filed sexual assault charges against them. Ultimnately the charges were dismissed when defense lawyers produced records of previous convictions of the complainants on prostitution charges -- in Columbus, OH.
I was a young sportswriter when Evashevski, the newly-hired Hawkeye coach, made his first speaking visit to eastern Iowa. Thinking to be helpful, I told him about a high school freshman the local folk thought would blossom into a very special player. "I've been in touch with Kenny's Dad," Evy replied. "I think he'll play at Iowa some day."
Play indeed. Kenneth Allen Ploen led Iowa to the Rose Bowl, where he was the most valuable player in a one-sided victory over Oregon State.
Evashevski seemed to be a step ahead of everybody -- including the fiery-tempered Hayes. Twice Evy outfoxed Hayes by installing entirely new offensive and defensive schemes just for the Ohio State game.
I learned of Forest Evashevski's death, at age 91, on the same day that I watched an Iowa football team remain undefeated through nine games by making an improbable comeback to beat Indiana 42-24.
Kirk Ferentz, who coaches the Hawkeyes these days, attributed his team's success to its "mental toughness."
Surely Evy was smiling in his new grave.
He took over a downtrodden program whose last great memory was the 1939 season when Nile Kinnick was an all-American.
Michigan State, Ohio State and Michigan, in one order or another, were the top dogs in the Big Ten back then. Evy beat all three of them in his first two seasons as head coach of the Hawkeyes.
Woody Hayes, the Ohio State coach, should have known what was coming when Evy snatched three of the best Ohio high school stars, including an end named Jim Gibbons, in his very first season of recruiting. Gibbons caught the game-winning touchdown pass in Iowa's upset victory over an OSU team that had national championship aspirations.
Two years later two of Iowa's most promising recruits were suspended after two young women who were not students filed sexual assault charges against them. Ultimnately the charges were dismissed when defense lawyers produced records of previous convictions of the complainants on prostitution charges -- in Columbus, OH.
I was a young sportswriter when Evashevski, the newly-hired Hawkeye coach, made his first speaking visit to eastern Iowa. Thinking to be helpful, I told him about a high school freshman the local folk thought would blossom into a very special player. "I've been in touch with Kenny's Dad," Evy replied. "I think he'll play at Iowa some day."
Play indeed. Kenneth Allen Ploen led Iowa to the Rose Bowl, where he was the most valuable player in a one-sided victory over Oregon State.
Evashevski seemed to be a step ahead of everybody -- including the fiery-tempered Hayes. Twice Evy outfoxed Hayes by installing entirely new offensive and defensive schemes just for the Ohio State game.
I learned of Forest Evashevski's death, at age 91, on the same day that I watched an Iowa football team remain undefeated through nine games by making an improbable comeback to beat Indiana 42-24.
Kirk Ferentz, who coaches the Hawkeyes these days, attributed his team's success to its "mental toughness."
Surely Evy was smiling in his new grave.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Two Updates
Update No. 1
The United States of Goldman Sachs has shifted one of its oligarchs from a high position in the businesses it controls to a high position for regulating businesses in the government it controls.
Adam Storch, vice president in Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the Security and Exchange Commission's enforcement division.
The Pianist has begun an autdit to determine of there are now more foxes guardinmg henhouses than there are hens in the henhouses.
A report will be published when the audit is finished.
Update No. 2
There are independent courts of great integrity in at least one western democracy: the United Kingdom.
After long months of a function called due process, which once existed also in the late United States of America, the highest court in the U.K. has reversed itself on making public information in a torture case that has aroused international indignation.
Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen, alleges in a suit against the United States and in statements by his lawyers on his behalf, that he was tortured at the hands of the CIA while in custody in Pakistan and in other countries to which he was "rendered" by the Bushies, a practice the Obamaniacs continue to defend.
Because the CIA told British intelligence agents exactly what was done to Mohamed while he was in custody, he asked the British courts to release those documents to him to prove that anything he told the CIA was coerced.
The High Court's original ruling in Mohamed's favor contained seven paragraphs which described the torture to which Mohamed was subjected. In its original decision in favor of Mohamed, the High Court redacted those seven paragraphs at the request of the British government, because the Bushies threatened -- the court's verb -- to cut off intelligence flow to Britain that was deemed essential to the national security of the U.K .
The Obamaniacs stood behind the Bush threats, but in a new decision, the British High Court ruled that it considered the threats to be mainly blue smoke, and in any event, the U.K. public interest in the seven paragraphs overrules any national security questions.
In short: Truth trumps government bullshit.
There's one more appeal to be heard before the stuff hits the fan. (Hint: Reports in England, where many reporters still practice journalism, indicate that the most lenient of what was done to the prisoner was waterboarding.)
The United States of Goldman Sachs has shifted one of its oligarchs from a high position in the businesses it controls to a high position for regulating businesses in the government it controls.
Adam Storch, vice president in Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group, is assuming the new position of managing executive of the Security and Exchange Commission's enforcement division.
The Pianist has begun an autdit to determine of there are now more foxes guardinmg henhouses than there are hens in the henhouses.
A report will be published when the audit is finished.
Update No. 2
There are independent courts of great integrity in at least one western democracy: the United Kingdom.
After long months of a function called due process, which once existed also in the late United States of America, the highest court in the U.K. has reversed itself on making public information in a torture case that has aroused international indignation.
Binyam Mohamed, a British citizen, alleges in a suit against the United States and in statements by his lawyers on his behalf, that he was tortured at the hands of the CIA while in custody in Pakistan and in other countries to which he was "rendered" by the Bushies, a practice the Obamaniacs continue to defend.
Because the CIA told British intelligence agents exactly what was done to Mohamed while he was in custody, he asked the British courts to release those documents to him to prove that anything he told the CIA was coerced.
The High Court's original ruling in Mohamed's favor contained seven paragraphs which described the torture to which Mohamed was subjected. In its original decision in favor of Mohamed, the High Court redacted those seven paragraphs at the request of the British government, because the Bushies threatened -- the court's verb -- to cut off intelligence flow to Britain that was deemed essential to the national security of the U.K .
The Obamaniacs stood behind the Bush threats, but in a new decision, the British High Court ruled that it considered the threats to be mainly blue smoke, and in any event, the U.K. public interest in the seven paragraphs overrules any national security questions.
In short: Truth trumps government bullshit.
There's one more appeal to be heard before the stuff hits the fan. (Hint: Reports in England, where many reporters still practice journalism, indicate that the most lenient of what was done to the prisoner was waterboarding.)
Friday, October 16, 2009
Panic's first cousin
Today's Wall Street Journal tells me that the Tea Party gang -- they don't mention "birthers," Palinites, Limbaugh lovers or Fox "News" faithful -- are creating problems for the Republican Party in its efforts to rehabilitate itself and retake Congress in 2010.
I don't believe a word of it.
The Republican base IS the Tea Party Gang -- and the birthers, Christicans, Foxies and their ilk. Among the assets they bring to their party, besides a zealot's passion and a lemming's mob mentality, is an uncanny ability to use the internet to turn blatant lies into widely accepted "truth."
Breathes there a soul who did not receive the e-mail about how Ollie North, testifying in the Iran-Contra hearings, warned the country about Osama bin Laden and put a Senate questioner, John Kerry, in his place while doing so? There were two little flaws in this: North, long enshrined in the litany of right-wing saints, never said any such thing; and Kerry was not a member of the Senate committee that questioned St. Ollie.
What's now going around is an e-mail purported to have been written by David Kaiser, a reputable historian and member of the faculty of the Naval War College.
It's a screed, pure and simple, sounding very much like a list of talking points from Limbaugh and Michael Steele. The friend who forwarded it to me asked, "What if he's right?"
"He" is not right and "he" is not David E. Kaiser, who posted the following on his website, "History Unfolding:"
"People are still arriving here because they have received an email attributed to myself comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler. They are also still calling my home, contacting the public affairs office of the Naval War College, and deluging another David Kaiser with emails. I did not write, and do not agree with, that fraudulent email."
There was the Jane Fonda lie intended to add heroic dimension to John McCain's stoicism as a Prisoner of War. The fellow POW to whom it was attributed denied having written it.
The birth certificate lie got its first legs through internet forwarding of messages often attributed to reputable sources who had to issue denials.
I can't count the number of internet forwards -- not all of them political in nature -- that I've checked out and found to be fraudulent. Most of the political frauds come from the far right and they have been inordinately effective -- "death panels," forced enrollment in government-run health plans, Obama as socialist, Obama as Muslim, Obama and the birth certificate.
The Base disttributes these lies and The Base believes them. A recent poll conducted in rural, fundamentalist Tennessee disclosed pluralities who believed the socialist, Muslim and birther lies.
The First Amendment right to free speech must not be weakened, although, as the Supreme Court ruled in Schenk v. United States, it is not absolute. In his majority ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., wrote:
". . .the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
In my view, the right-wing internet liars are shouting fire in a very crowded public place. Are they causing a panic? They're sowing fear, which is panic's first cousin.
I don't believe a word of it.
The Republican base IS the Tea Party Gang -- and the birthers, Christicans, Foxies and their ilk. Among the assets they bring to their party, besides a zealot's passion and a lemming's mob mentality, is an uncanny ability to use the internet to turn blatant lies into widely accepted "truth."
Breathes there a soul who did not receive the e-mail about how Ollie North, testifying in the Iran-Contra hearings, warned the country about Osama bin Laden and put a Senate questioner, John Kerry, in his place while doing so? There were two little flaws in this: North, long enshrined in the litany of right-wing saints, never said any such thing; and Kerry was not a member of the Senate committee that questioned St. Ollie.
What's now going around is an e-mail purported to have been written by David Kaiser, a reputable historian and member of the faculty of the Naval War College.
It's a screed, pure and simple, sounding very much like a list of talking points from Limbaugh and Michael Steele. The friend who forwarded it to me asked, "What if he's right?"
"He" is not right and "he" is not David E. Kaiser, who posted the following on his website, "History Unfolding:"
"People are still arriving here because they have received an email attributed to myself comparing President Obama to Adolf Hitler. They are also still calling my home, contacting the public affairs office of the Naval War College, and deluging another David Kaiser with emails. I did not write, and do not agree with, that fraudulent email."
There was the Jane Fonda lie intended to add heroic dimension to John McCain's stoicism as a Prisoner of War. The fellow POW to whom it was attributed denied having written it.
The birth certificate lie got its first legs through internet forwarding of messages often attributed to reputable sources who had to issue denials.
I can't count the number of internet forwards -- not all of them political in nature -- that I've checked out and found to be fraudulent. Most of the political frauds come from the far right and they have been inordinately effective -- "death panels," forced enrollment in government-run health plans, Obama as socialist, Obama as Muslim, Obama and the birth certificate.
The Base disttributes these lies and The Base believes them. A recent poll conducted in rural, fundamentalist Tennessee disclosed pluralities who believed the socialist, Muslim and birther lies.
The First Amendment right to free speech must not be weakened, although, as the Supreme Court ruled in Schenk v. United States, it is not absolute. In his majority ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., wrote:
". . .the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."
In my view, the right-wing internet liars are shouting fire in a very crowded public place. Are they causing a panic? They're sowing fear, which is panic's first cousin.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Toward Corporatocracy
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
–W.B Yeats
Instead of a discourse on corporate healthcare rationing and the impending bankruptcy of the middle class, teabaggers and rabble-rousers scream incendiary rhetoric: socialism, Hitler, Maobama. The debate is deflected from the merits of fixing our broken healthcare system to a vitriolic assault on all things Democrat that leaves progressives and moderates alike in helpless confusion at this unexpected lack of civility from the right. Gosh, could there be violence?
Congress as usual is gridlocked, with all the power residing in the corporate puppetmasters who pull the strings backstage while Max Baucus does his little tapdance. The Democrats, having already compromised with themselves, are poignantly begging for one Republican vote to get the most diluted of bills moving in the Senate. Also stalled are meaningful climate-change and financial-industry reform. The economy may be inching out of recession, but home foreclosures and unemployment rage on. The ice shelf keeps crumbling into the sea. Everybody knows what the problems are, but no one can accomplish a solution.
It’s a good thing Americans are optimistic people because things are about to get a whole lot worse. Our glaring socioeconomic inequities and ongoing national paralysis are perhaps a few months away from taking a mortal body blow from the third branch of government – the Supreme Court. While the mainstream media have frothed over healthcare legislation, a SCOTUS case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was reheard by the Roberts court in September, and the smart money says the conservative majority will overturn more provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, allowing special interests to pour money more freely into campaign advertising, just in time for the 2010 elections and the 2012 presidential campaign (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26843.html).
To put it succinctly, the Court is leaning heavily toward a ruling that puts the First Amendment protection of corporations on the same footing as that of individuals, rolling back some tight restraints on political spending by special interests. Instead of having to channel money through PACs to “soft-issue” advertising, corporations (and labor unions, among others) would be able to spend money on ads directly backing or opposing candidates. If the Court doesn’t just further loosen restraints but opens the floodgates, the millions now filtering into the healthcare debate from Big Pharma and Big Insurance would be a trickle compared to the frontal assault unleashed to help Republicans regain Congress and oust Obama.
Forget public campaign financing, the sensible alternative practiced in most other advanced western nations, along with universal health care. (Do we see a pattern here?). Like single payer, that’s off the table in this country. Instead, we seem to be in a losing fight to hold onto what’s left of McCain-Feingold. If you think it’s frustrating right now that our leaders won’t do the people’s bidding on financial or healthcare reform, just wait and see what kind of “elected” government we have in a few years.
Isn’t it ironic that so many humanoids who pass for citizens of American Dreamland are getting their panties in a knot calling Obama and the Democrats totalitarians? They will have a rude awakening when the fecal waste of their populist rhetoric hits the blades of the approaching corporate propeller.
(Steve Klinger conducts and writes regularly on http://www.grass-roots-press.com/blog/ and is the founder of both the print and online versions of New Mexico's outstanding alternative information source, The Grassroots Press.
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
–W.B Yeats
By Steve Klinger
The summer was all about what happens when a country is run by a greed-driven oligarchy that is able to tap into populist fear, anger and racism to advance its agenda – and block reform. Although polls have shown up to 75 percent of Americans support universal health care, it’s the other 25 percent, largely funded by moneyed special interests, who grab all the headlines with their hysterical obstructionism and wild accusations.Instead of a discourse on corporate healthcare rationing and the impending bankruptcy of the middle class, teabaggers and rabble-rousers scream incendiary rhetoric: socialism, Hitler, Maobama. The debate is deflected from the merits of fixing our broken healthcare system to a vitriolic assault on all things Democrat that leaves progressives and moderates alike in helpless confusion at this unexpected lack of civility from the right. Gosh, could there be violence?
Congress as usual is gridlocked, with all the power residing in the corporate puppetmasters who pull the strings backstage while Max Baucus does his little tapdance. The Democrats, having already compromised with themselves, are poignantly begging for one Republican vote to get the most diluted of bills moving in the Senate. Also stalled are meaningful climate-change and financial-industry reform. The economy may be inching out of recession, but home foreclosures and unemployment rage on. The ice shelf keeps crumbling into the sea. Everybody knows what the problems are, but no one can accomplish a solution.
It’s a good thing Americans are optimistic people because things are about to get a whole lot worse. Our glaring socioeconomic inequities and ongoing national paralysis are perhaps a few months away from taking a mortal body blow from the third branch of government – the Supreme Court. While the mainstream media have frothed over healthcare legislation, a SCOTUS case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, was reheard by the Roberts court in September, and the smart money says the conservative majority will overturn more provisions of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, allowing special interests to pour money more freely into campaign advertising, just in time for the 2010 elections and the 2012 presidential campaign (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26843.html).
To put it succinctly, the Court is leaning heavily toward a ruling that puts the First Amendment protection of corporations on the same footing as that of individuals, rolling back some tight restraints on political spending by special interests. Instead of having to channel money through PACs to “soft-issue” advertising, corporations (and labor unions, among others) would be able to spend money on ads directly backing or opposing candidates. If the Court doesn’t just further loosen restraints but opens the floodgates, the millions now filtering into the healthcare debate from Big Pharma and Big Insurance would be a trickle compared to the frontal assault unleashed to help Republicans regain Congress and oust Obama.
Forget public campaign financing, the sensible alternative practiced in most other advanced western nations, along with universal health care. (Do we see a pattern here?). Like single payer, that’s off the table in this country. Instead, we seem to be in a losing fight to hold onto what’s left of McCain-Feingold. If you think it’s frustrating right now that our leaders won’t do the people’s bidding on financial or healthcare reform, just wait and see what kind of “elected” government we have in a few years.
Isn’t it ironic that so many humanoids who pass for citizens of American Dreamland are getting their panties in a knot calling Obama and the Democrats totalitarians? They will have a rude awakening when the fecal waste of their populist rhetoric hits the blades of the approaching corporate propeller.
(Steve Klinger conducts and writes regularly on http://www.grass-roots-press.com/blog/ and is the founder of both the print and online versions of New Mexico's outstanding alternative information source, The Grassroots Press.
Racist? Me?
Republicans today seem largely incapable of political discussion without resort to vitriol, personal attacks and canned lies -- especially vitriol.
My local paper recently published a letter to the editor from a Republican appropriately named Biles. Biles's bilious blurb of 300 words began with 120 words of sheer personal insults to the writer of a column he disagreed with. "Demagogue" and "drivel" were two of the milder derogations.
The columnist (rightly, in my opinion, as readers of this site already know) had written that much of the Republican hatred of President Obama is race-based. Biles retorted that, as a lifelong, proud Republican, he didn't know of a single racist in the party. It would appear that he's never heard of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Joe Wilson or Michelle Bachmann.
Biles repeated several of the favorite Frank Luntz mantras against the Democrats, then got off on the personal responsibility tack. We believe in helping the truly needy, he asserted, but if "they" aren't willing to work for what "they" get, then "they" can just go pound sand. Why should "we" share "our" hard-earned wealth with "them?"
Is there anyone who doesn't recognize the code?
Ironically, on the very day that I read Biles's bile I learned the story of Michelle, a highly educated (Ph.D. and two MA's) specialist in an esoteric field, who had held a well-paying job at a public agency before the Republican economic disaster.
She'd been laid off in the vast round of budget cuts caused by the failed Republican policies. She had been freelancing projects in her field for anyone who had funds to pay for them. She had lost her health insurance with her job. She didn't have an ort of food in the house. She couldn't afford to buy food until an expected $300 check arrived, her fee for a recent freelance project. IF the check ever arrived.
The compassionate Republicans don't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of Michelles in this country; meanly resist repairs of a broken health care system that might at least enable them to get flu shots; fight viciously to preserve multi-million-dollar bonuses for the bailed out honchos of the failed financial system; and gladly circulate watermelon patch in the Rose Garden jokes on the internet.
May they all choke in their own vitriol.
My local paper recently published a letter to the editor from a Republican appropriately named Biles. Biles's bilious blurb of 300 words began with 120 words of sheer personal insults to the writer of a column he disagreed with. "Demagogue" and "drivel" were two of the milder derogations.
The columnist (rightly, in my opinion, as readers of this site already know) had written that much of the Republican hatred of President Obama is race-based. Biles retorted that, as a lifelong, proud Republican, he didn't know of a single racist in the party. It would appear that he's never heard of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Joe Wilson or Michelle Bachmann.
Biles repeated several of the favorite Frank Luntz mantras against the Democrats, then got off on the personal responsibility tack. We believe in helping the truly needy, he asserted, but if "they" aren't willing to work for what "they" get, then "they" can just go pound sand. Why should "we" share "our" hard-earned wealth with "them?"
Is there anyone who doesn't recognize the code?
Ironically, on the very day that I read Biles's bile I learned the story of Michelle, a highly educated (Ph.D. and two MA's) specialist in an esoteric field, who had held a well-paying job at a public agency before the Republican economic disaster.
She'd been laid off in the vast round of budget cuts caused by the failed Republican policies. She had been freelancing projects in her field for anyone who had funds to pay for them. She had lost her health insurance with her job. She didn't have an ort of food in the house. She couldn't afford to buy food until an expected $300 check arrived, her fee for a recent freelance project. IF the check ever arrived.
The compassionate Republicans don't give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of Michelles in this country; meanly resist repairs of a broken health care system that might at least enable them to get flu shots; fight viciously to preserve multi-million-dollar bonuses for the bailed out honchos of the failed financial system; and gladly circulate watermelon patch in the Rose Garden jokes on the internet.
May they all choke in their own vitriol.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Our Nobelist President
Today I wonder what The Great American Center, whoever and wherever it is, thinks about President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
The instant it became known, the Left and the Right predictably denounced it, continuing their Odd Couple dans macabre to criticize this president for utterly opposing reasons.
Rob Kall, a progressive blogger with whom I agree on most things, was among the front runners on the left. What has the President done to deserve it? He's still conducting two ugly wars, killing civilians with drones and bombs, sending storm troopers into Pittsbiurgh for the G2, refusing to act against torturers, achieving nothing with his Iran policy, being defied by North Korea. . . .
A voice of the other half of the Odd Coupling, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, said: ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished? It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
One might ask if even Mr. Steele, a master of Beckian vitriol and garbage, counts any living Republicans among those who have "made real achievements working toward peace and human rights." Mr. Kall, at least, speaks from the high ground of advocacy for not just human rights and peace, but also health care for all, improved public education, ending the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, curbing the influence of military hawks on foreign policy and the antioxidant values of chocolate.
Well, maybe I'm wrong about the chocolate.
In its announcement, the Nobel committee said: it "has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
Fair enough. I hope "the center," whoever and wherever it is, appreciates the significance of the "new climate."
I sometimes chide myself in my own criticism of Obama for forgetting where we were during the preceding eight years. I think of the Ship of State, under full steam, careering in the wrong direction for those eight years. Is there any force in the ocean strong enough got turn it around 180 degrees in nine short months?
I don't think so.
The instant it became known, the Left and the Right predictably denounced it, continuing their Odd Couple dans macabre to criticize this president for utterly opposing reasons.
Rob Kall, a progressive blogger with whom I agree on most things, was among the front runners on the left. What has the President done to deserve it? He's still conducting two ugly wars, killing civilians with drones and bombs, sending storm troopers into Pittsbiurgh for the G2, refusing to act against torturers, achieving nothing with his Iran policy, being defied by North Korea. . . .
A voice of the other half of the Odd Coupling, Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, said: ‘What has President Obama actually accomplished? It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action.”
One might ask if even Mr. Steele, a master of Beckian vitriol and garbage, counts any living Republicans among those who have "made real achievements working toward peace and human rights." Mr. Kall, at least, speaks from the high ground of advocacy for not just human rights and peace, but also health care for all, improved public education, ending the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, curbing the influence of military hawks on foreign policy and the antioxidant values of chocolate.
Well, maybe I'm wrong about the chocolate.
In its announcement, the Nobel committee said: it "has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the United States is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.”
Fair enough. I hope "the center," whoever and wherever it is, appreciates the significance of the "new climate."
I sometimes chide myself in my own criticism of Obama for forgetting where we were during the preceding eight years. I think of the Ship of State, under full steam, careering in the wrong direction for those eight years. Is there any force in the ocean strong enough got turn it around 180 degrees in nine short months?
I don't think so.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
When Will They Ever Learn?
Despite countless burnings by the lies of Bush administration officials, mainstream journalists still haven't learned to be skeptical of what they're told by government insiders.
The latest case in point is the so-called "secret" nuclear site being built by Iran. Even usually reliable media sources, such as McClatchey newspapers' Washington bureau,
reported without question or qualification the Obama administration's assertion that the facility was "discovered" by western intelligence agents and "revealed" by President Obama on Sept. 25.
The fact is that Iran disclosed its building plans to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sept. 21. According to Marc Vidricaire of the IAEA:
“I can confirm that on 21 September Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.”
“In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible." (Update: The head of IAEA is en route to Iran to schedule the requested inspection.)
“The Agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility.”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said, "The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake."
That he did. And he seems intent on making a bigger and more historic one: the illegal invasion of or attack upon a sovereign state.
Remember the WMDs that weren't there? The yellow cake that was neither yellow nor cake? The aluminum tubes that were only good for the passage of hot air? The al Qaeda meeting that didn't happen?
Get ready for Iraq II. Operation Iraqi Freedom needs only to change one letter to become a noose around Obama's neck.
When will they ever learn?
The latest case in point is the so-called "secret" nuclear site being built by Iran. Even usually reliable media sources, such as McClatchey newspapers' Washington bureau,
reported without question or qualification the Obama administration's assertion that the facility was "discovered" by western intelligence agents and "revealed" by President Obama on Sept. 25.
The fact is that Iran disclosed its building plans to the International Atomic Energy Agency on Sept. 21. According to Marc Vidricaire of the IAEA:
“I can confirm that on 21 September Iran informed the IAEA in a letter that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.”
“In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible." (Update: The head of IAEA is en route to Iran to schedule the requested inspection.)
“The Agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility.”
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said, "The U.S. president made a big and historic mistake."
That he did. And he seems intent on making a bigger and more historic one: the illegal invasion of or attack upon a sovereign state.
Remember the WMDs that weren't there? The yellow cake that was neither yellow nor cake? The aluminum tubes that were only good for the passage of hot air? The al Qaeda meeting that didn't happen?
Get ready for Iraq II. Operation Iraqi Freedom needs only to change one letter to become a noose around Obama's neck.
When will they ever learn?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
George W. Obama
Once again, President George W. Obama has made it clear that he doesn't want nosey reporters poking around the inner workings of his administration.
Not that there are many nosey reporters left in this country. But that's another story.
The New Dubyah, taking essentially the same position as the original, has sent underlings to tell Congress to back off from legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security. Or so at least reports the New York Times, quoting several unnamed leakers.
The congressional bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”
But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, the leakers told the Times.
The main Senate backers of the bill, Chuck Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat from Pennsylvania, waxed wroth over the White House shenanigans. "Totally unacceptable," snorted Mr. Specter. Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback." This suggests that Schumer actually believed the Obama campaign rhetoric about a transparent administration back when he was still Barrack.
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the new Dubyah, called the proposed changes appropriate and argued that the administration was making a significant concession by accepting any judicial review. He even cited the Original Dubyah's position that such review would be an incursion into executive power.
Plus ça change, plus c'est meme chose.
Not that there are many nosey reporters left in this country. But that's another story.
The New Dubyah, taking essentially the same position as the original, has sent underlings to tell Congress to back off from legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security. Or so at least reports the New York Times, quoting several unnamed leakers.
The congressional bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”
But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, the leakers told the Times.
The main Senate backers of the bill, Chuck Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat from Pennsylvania, waxed wroth over the White House shenanigans. "Totally unacceptable," snorted Mr. Specter. Schumer said: “The White House’s opposition to the fundamental essence of this bill is an unexpected and significant setback." This suggests that Schumer actually believed the Obama campaign rhetoric about a transparent administration back when he was still Barrack.
Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the new Dubyah, called the proposed changes appropriate and argued that the administration was making a significant concession by accepting any judicial review. He even cited the Original Dubyah's position that such review would be an incursion into executive power.
Plus ça change, plus c'est meme chose.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Step Aside, Judas
Save your kisses, Judas Iscariot. Stop praising Caesar, Brutus. Make room in your special hell, Benedict Arnold, Axis Sally and all traitors of any age and stripe. Make room for five United States Senators named Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Blanche Lincoln, Bill Nelson and Tom Carper.
Today they gave their souls to the insurance industry, tacitly licensing private insurers to withhold health insurance from the sick, the poor and the dying; to amass fortunes on the pain of sick, suffering people; to thumb their noses at the quaint notions of compassion and human decency.
Today those five nominal members of the Democratic party voted to send out from the Senate Finance Committee a so-called health care bill that has no government-run option to compete with the rapacious private insurers.
Rapacious. That's the word Sen Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia rightly used in the debate before the vote. Generous, I suppose, is the term the Traitorous Five would use, because their campaign funds -- which will one day augment their Senatorial pensions -- have been exponentially swollen by donations from the insurers.
Thus the United States of Goldman Sachs proudly admits to its ruling oligarchy the Supreme States of Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, Cigna, Aetna and United Healthcare.
Today, the Infamous Five not only betrayed the best traditions of their party. That betrayal is minor compared to their greater treason: against the 50 million American citizens without health insurance today; against the millions more who have been victimized by loopholes, fine print, lies and bullying of the insurers and now will continue to be so victimized; and against the Constitution they swore allegiance to, whose preamble demands that they promote the general welfare, not the welfare of rapacious corporations.
This is a sad day for the Republic. With representatives like Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson and Carper, its people will suffer many more sad days. Too many more.
Today they gave their souls to the insurance industry, tacitly licensing private insurers to withhold health insurance from the sick, the poor and the dying; to amass fortunes on the pain of sick, suffering people; to thumb their noses at the quaint notions of compassion and human decency.
Today those five nominal members of the Democratic party voted to send out from the Senate Finance Committee a so-called health care bill that has no government-run option to compete with the rapacious private insurers.
Rapacious. That's the word Sen Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia rightly used in the debate before the vote. Generous, I suppose, is the term the Traitorous Five would use, because their campaign funds -- which will one day augment their Senatorial pensions -- have been exponentially swollen by donations from the insurers.
Thus the United States of Goldman Sachs proudly admits to its ruling oligarchy the Supreme States of Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, Cigna, Aetna and United Healthcare.
Today, the Infamous Five not only betrayed the best traditions of their party. That betrayal is minor compared to their greater treason: against the 50 million American citizens without health insurance today; against the millions more who have been victimized by loopholes, fine print, lies and bullying of the insurers and now will continue to be so victimized; and against the Constitution they swore allegiance to, whose preamble demands that they promote the general welfare, not the welfare of rapacious corporations.
This is a sad day for the Republic. With representatives like Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Nelson and Carper, its people will suffer many more sad days. Too many more.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Wave the Flags. Again.
Few of today's journalists were around in the days when lazy editors who wrote wishy-washy editorials on subjects nobody knew or cared about were held guilty of "Afghanistanism."
Of course, few of today's journalists are held to any of the standards that made journalism -- especially newspaper journalism -- a respected craft back then.
One might conclude that mainstream journalism's inadequate, inaccurate or lazy coverage of what once was called "the good war" can be attributed to their perception that most Americans don't know and don't care much about what's happening in Afghanistan.
If that were their perception, it would be only half right. While American citizens are, on the whole, the most poorly-informed and ill-educated among the world's advanced nations, and know little about that part of the world, they do care about the war there. Wherever "there" is. They tell pollsters that they'd like it to be over rather quickly.
For the most part, nobody in government is listening. The military commanders want more troops there, a lot more. The military always wants more of everything. The president is considering another option, but not one that would bring the end of the war appreciably closer. The Congress is divided along party lines, which is meaningless anyway because the Congress is controlled by the vast, private, corporate shadow government that really runs the country. What President Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex" is by far the largest and most powerful component of the shadow government, and it sustains itself by perpetual war.
If not Cold, then hot. If not Korea, then Vietnam. If not Panama, then Granada. If not Iraq, then Afghanistan. If not Afghanistan, then Iran. Or Korea again. Bush left us with a wonderful, cover-all phrase for the perpetual war that sustains our shadow government: war on terror. Perfect! Whatever we bomb, whomever we kill, wherever we establish bases and missiles and aircraft and tanks and troops, we're waging a "war on terror." Wave the flags! Paste ribbon symbols on the SUVs! Support our troops! Round up some ragheads! Torture them, depersonalize them, don't bother charging them with anything, keep them far away from any system of law or justice! Hooray for our side!
It's so easy for the American media to "cover" terror wars. Transcribe what the generals say. Send it to the bosses back home. Hit the bar in the hotel that houses the journalists safely away from the bullets and bombs. Swap gossip and report it as truth -- as long as it reflects "glory" on the troops and their leadership. So it was our own fire that killed the football star? Cover it up, make up a hero story, who'll ever know the difference? So the bad guys simply let the captured woman warrior walk away from the hospital when she was well enough? Make up a hero story about commando raids and a defiant machine-gun toting Amazon riddling al Qaida baddies like swiss cheeses.
The flag-wavers back home lap it up.
But even the flag-wavers will tire of this war in -- where was it? Oh, yes, Afghanistan, wherever that is --as it drags on and on.
That's the exit strategy.
By then everyone inside the Beltway will agree on a reason to move the perpetual war to Iran. And the media will applaud the flawless reasoning behind this invasion. And the flags will wave again.
Always, the flags will wave.
Of course, few of today's journalists are held to any of the standards that made journalism -- especially newspaper journalism -- a respected craft back then.
One might conclude that mainstream journalism's inadequate, inaccurate or lazy coverage of what once was called "the good war" can be attributed to their perception that most Americans don't know and don't care much about what's happening in Afghanistan.
If that were their perception, it would be only half right. While American citizens are, on the whole, the most poorly-informed and ill-educated among the world's advanced nations, and know little about that part of the world, they do care about the war there. Wherever "there" is. They tell pollsters that they'd like it to be over rather quickly.
For the most part, nobody in government is listening. The military commanders want more troops there, a lot more. The military always wants more of everything. The president is considering another option, but not one that would bring the end of the war appreciably closer. The Congress is divided along party lines, which is meaningless anyway because the Congress is controlled by the vast, private, corporate shadow government that really runs the country. What President Eisenhower called "the military-industrial complex" is by far the largest and most powerful component of the shadow government, and it sustains itself by perpetual war.
If not Cold, then hot. If not Korea, then Vietnam. If not Panama, then Granada. If not Iraq, then Afghanistan. If not Afghanistan, then Iran. Or Korea again. Bush left us with a wonderful, cover-all phrase for the perpetual war that sustains our shadow government: war on terror. Perfect! Whatever we bomb, whomever we kill, wherever we establish bases and missiles and aircraft and tanks and troops, we're waging a "war on terror." Wave the flags! Paste ribbon symbols on the SUVs! Support our troops! Round up some ragheads! Torture them, depersonalize them, don't bother charging them with anything, keep them far away from any system of law or justice! Hooray for our side!
It's so easy for the American media to "cover" terror wars. Transcribe what the generals say. Send it to the bosses back home. Hit the bar in the hotel that houses the journalists safely away from the bullets and bombs. Swap gossip and report it as truth -- as long as it reflects "glory" on the troops and their leadership. So it was our own fire that killed the football star? Cover it up, make up a hero story, who'll ever know the difference? So the bad guys simply let the captured woman warrior walk away from the hospital when she was well enough? Make up a hero story about commando raids and a defiant machine-gun toting Amazon riddling al Qaida baddies like swiss cheeses.
The flag-wavers back home lap it up.
But even the flag-wavers will tire of this war in -- where was it? Oh, yes, Afghanistan, wherever that is --as it drags on and on.
That's the exit strategy.
By then everyone inside the Beltway will agree on a reason to move the perpetual war to Iran. And the media will applaud the flawless reasoning behind this invasion. And the flags will wave again.
Always, the flags will wave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)