An Early Harvest for the Death Industry
It isn’t enough to send the troops to frolic and gambol amongst the poppies in the opium fields of Afghanistan. Oh no, you see the Democratic Party isn’t satisfied with a war in Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, covertly in Iran, and of course Afghanistan because the Democrats do it better, they do it right. People have been predicting an invasion of Iran for years. Sometimes it was the U.S. other times it was Israel that was on the verge of igniting a war with Iran. But just because it never happened under Bush does not mean that it won’t happen under Obama. We have already been funding criminal elements in Iran to use terrorist tactics, basically we pay them and turn them loose to do what they will so outright war is not all that farfetched, just the next illogical step.
We have heard Hillary Clinton’s tirades against Iran and perhaps there is more to it than Hillary just trying to prove that she is one hundred percent behind Israel despite the lack-luster and timid protests against the Israeli so-called settlements. Time and again we have heard demands from Obama who once said that nothing is off the table when it came to Iran. And like Iraq Iran is a golden opportunity for the murder industry also called the defense industry. Northrup Grumman, Lockheed, and Boeing are all reportedly working on the MOP (massive ordinance penetrator) bomb, a super bunker buster supposedly able to penetrate 200 feet into the earth before detonating and is the most powerful conventional explosive to date. The DOD has asked for 68 million just to speed up the production of MOP,according to Raw Story. If it takes 68 million to just speed up production you can imagine what the total price tag must be. However that may be the real question is why are they speeding up production of the MOP bunker buster? Seen concurrently with Hillary’s rampaging mouth the MOP program takes on ominous overtones. But who knows.
It could just be time for a little payback to Obama contributors in the defense industry, it wouldn’t surprise me. The Pentagon needs companies like Northrup to build their toys for them and it wouldn’t do if the poor dears weren’t making enough of a profit already so throw a few bones, albeit expensive bones, their way to keep them happy and solvent. And of course this gives the defense industry more money to throw at Congress in the form of kickbacks and bribes otherwise known as campaign contributions. It’s a big happy party for everyone! Where’s my cut? Frankly I suspect these super bombs will never be used which of course is a good thing but it does highlight the insanity of such pastimes.
There’s no money for expanding Medicare to everyone which would also create millions of new jobs that actually help people rather than killing them but there’s plenty of moolah for the death industry. The Pentagon asks “Can you build our bomb?” and the defense industry replies “Yes we can.” All you need to do is hire a few loopy physicists to design the concept, a few engineers to make it work, and it’s off to New Mexico for a test so little boys can play with their toys. When I was twelve years old we used to do the same thing. We put firecrackers in model cars to see what would happen when we blew them up. Yes we can! I recall one Halloween night my friend and I put a cherry bomb in a neighbor’s mail box and ran like hell. I heard the explosion and looking over my shoulder I could see the mail box arcing through the air into the yard across the street. It truly was great fun but we eventually outgrew it. Apparently some never do, sort of like Peter Pan.
For me this is the truly scary part regarding our nation, its run by a bunch of juvenile delinquents with the mentality of a twelve-year-old child.
posted by Unknown @ 11:32 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Juvenile delinquents--yes. That's a perfect description of our so-called leaders. But when will they be arrested, tried, and sent to jail? Let's not hold our breaths waiting for that.
Hi Mimi,
Yes, arrested, tried, and sent to jail would only be justice. Of course there is very little justice to be found. If we did what they did we certainly would end up in jail or worse. For the ruling class no such rules apply, they are above the law.
I don't know, Rob. To call them "juvenile delinquents" seems to apply a set of standards and "game rules" (my phrase there) that they're not using.
Those who have held Federal power in the post-ww2 era know something that it seems most Americans do not know.
The Fed Govt is a cash cow for certain privileged people. That's the point that escapes most.
So while Bush talked about restoring democracy to Iraq, that was actually an inside joke that he and his friends laughed about endlessly behind closed doors, while millions of Americans supported the fiasco because they feared Iraqis and imagined that if American-style "democracy" could be imposed there, we wouldn't have to fear "terrorists."
They're being Machiavellian, not juvenile. And that's a significant and rather large distinction.
As to money for national Medicare, that might sound really sweet on paper, but it would suck donkey balls in practice. So I would suggest a different angle if you want to talk about how The Imperial Project's funding might be better spent. I'd rather have the shit-system we have now, than Medicare. Medicare is a racket that is subsidized by the Government. At least the present system isn't subsidized, so there's less taxpayer dollar waste.
I don't know anyone --the patient, the intermediary, or the doctor-- who prefers Medicare. It's just the latest NPR/PBS sales pitch. And most everything on NPR and PBS is 100% fecal matter these days. So I'd suggest dropping that issue of nationalized Medicare, unless you want to have worse care that costs you EVEN MORE than what present care costs you.
PS to Rob --
We who want real improvements along the lines of making health care a right, not a privilege for the rich, would be best served by agitating constantly and consistently for a French- or Canadian-styled health care system -- AND NOTHING LESS.
Arguing the NPR/PBS line of salesmanship is basically accepting defeat.
Rob, as to Medicare for all...
http://www.counterpunch.org/cramer08052009.html
Charles,
I don’t listen to NPR nor do I watch television so I don’t know or care what their line is. Actually it makes sense to start with Medicare because it already exists. I know there are problems with Medicare which was never meant to be comprehensive coverage but you could begin with that and expand and improve it. Cynthia Mckinney wrote about it some time ago. And actually I believe the Frenc h system would be a better model than the Canadian and British.
In two different studies France came out as the number one nation for best health care while the U.S. came in last of 19 in one and 36th or 37th in another. Everyone in France has health coverage. Public health care is paid for mainly through taxes.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php
The French health system, not too unlike the U.S. health care sytem, is a mixture of public and private the difference being that the French government ensures that every French citizen has coverage. But there is an even bigger difference. In the U.S. when a person comes down with a catastrophic disease like cancer they are often expelled by their insurance company or even if that doesn’t happen and the insurance runs out, as it often does with the high cost of medical care, people suffering from illness end up losing their homes and everything else. This doesn’t happen under the French system. In France if you are a victim of a catostrophic condition your health coverage actually increases.
There is no need to reinvent an approach that works for universal health care. There is no reason on Earth that the U.S. couldn’t adopt a similar version of the French system beginning with the infrastructure that already exists for Medicare. This is only logical. If we weren’t such arrogant assholes we might even ask the French to help us set up a system similar to theirs. Somehow I can’t picture it.
Most people believe that France has socialized medicine which isn’t true. Frankly I don’t believe that socialized medicine like that of England or Candada would ever fly here in the U.S. so a system comprable to the French model might be more popular among the citizenery. It is certainly significant that France was listed as number one in health care in two different reports.
While I agree that the overclass is not a bunch of juvenile delinquents, I also agree with Rob that Medicare's problems have been overstated, and that it actually is a pretty efficient system, with substantially less overhead than your average for-profit private insurance companies.
Likewise, I agree that the French model would probably be the one most workable/doable in the US, although it seems we're headed for a cheaper, corrupted version of the Swiss model, if Obamacare with its individual mandate gets enacted.
(Ironically I think that the democratic/Obama plan will hurt democrats in the long run, Obama apparently planning on having a career like Bill Clinton's in which he leaves no lasting liberal achievement behind, just a series of ad hoc deals designed to get him re-elected while avoiding seeming to stand for anything for 3 and a half more years.)
I have to stick to my original statement about leaders having the mentality of a 12 year old and juvenile delinquents because that is EXACTLY what they are like. I figure at most a maturity level of a high school freshman. And the reason I say this is because our entire nation is made up of juvenile delinquents, in fact all of humanity is childish to the extreme with a few notable exceptions.
There simply are no adults.
And if there aren’t any adults why would leaders be an exception?
In that context, Rob -- humanity is stuck in adolescence -- I would agree. I suppose my point was one of clarification. One of the commonest mistakes in perception I see is the one where someone assumes that those in Fed power are trying to be good stewards, but are simply childish or incompetent. As I often reply to such commentary, incompetence is not the question. They are highly competent at what they want to achieve, the problem is that what they want to achieve is not what most of the rest of us want. If anyone assumes purity of heart or motive in Federal pol power, naivete lurks behind that assumption.
Calling someone juvenile seems to me to excuse a lot of the destructive selfishness. American law and American society give teenagers and youths more flexibility on committing crimes, wrongs, etc than it gives to adults.
That's where I'm coming from on this particular thread's observations.
As to Medicare, I'm not accusing you of reading or listening to or watching public TV or radio. I'm saying that the big push of popularity for Medicare is a result of huge sales pitches given on NPR and PBS. That's why so many "liberals" and "progressives" are now on the Medicare bandwagon.
I disagree that it is a good start. I disagree vehemently. It is no start at all. It is a step backward.
As to French health care, I don't think the detail of how much is private vs how much is public in the funding aspect is where the analytic focus should lay. What should matter are these points:
1) health care is a right
2) there should be no economic or manpower waste in the delivery of health care
3) "waste" as I just used the term would include un-necessary bureaucracy, un-needed middle-man "service providers," and other completely unwarranted mid-stream profiteering. This is where Medicare is a massive problem and why nationalizing Medicare is not a good start point.
The way to fix a problem is not to exacerbate its root origins. Using Medicare is simply another shell game where middle-men continue in their vulgar profiteering. The fact that Dennis Kucinich supports it should tell you all you need to know. He's a scammer, a token "radical" left in the Congress to divert the attentions of those who want to support a supposed "radical" view.
By focusing on what mechanism will provide the nationalized health care program, we allow ourselves to be fractured, divided, and made irrelevant. This seems something you might not have caught.
Jonathan --
Ironically I think that the democratic/Obama plan will hurt democrats in the long run
Hmmm. That's a bit partisan. The underlying assumption seems to be that there is some residual quality of purpose, intent, motive, and agenda in the Democrats.
And I don't see what supports such a view. I see nothing but corruption from BOTH parties. Not just the "rethugs." Not just a few "bad apple" Democrats. Both parties, in their entirety.
Reminiscing fondly about a bygone noble Democrat party is merely a cloud of erroneous judgment hanging over a murky memory.
Hmmm. That's a bit partisan. The underlying assumption seems to be that there is some residual quality of purpose, intent, motive, and agenda in the Democrats.
Charles, sometimes you really go overboard in your quest for anti-partisan purity. The underlying assumption, actually, is that Obama, in his efforts to cobble together a healthcare plan designed to please the elites and keep the democratic "brand" strong, will, ironically hurt the democrats when people realize it's a bad plan.
The irony is that Obama, in his arrogance thinks that his spin and salesmanship always trumps sound policy, but he will likely be proven wrong.
Obama is blind, as far as I can see, to the possibility that, even in our post McLuhan spin-driven age, every once in a while sound policy is the only way to move forward and maintain the people's good will.
Another irony: if he does fail, either to enact a new healthcare plan or to be re-elected(or both), sadly the only "lesson" he is likely to learn is that he didn't sell out enough.
I went too far in assuming that you held that position of underlying partisanship. I apologize. But I do think that underlying partisanship exists in a lot of places where people don't acknowledge it, and this conclusion comes from experience with it in my own views as well as my experience with others I've known for a long time and have watched their views change as well.
I don't know if I'd agree that Obama believes he can oversell something -- that he might not be believed. I recognize that there are people who see through him, but I am not convinced that this percentage of the population has much impact on what sorts of success Obama will realize, both politically in this term and as things move forward in American history. I'd like to believe that history will judge him harshly, but I'm afraid that it will be only a few people, the next generation's William Blum (for one example) or the like, who will be so judging him. See Dennis Perrin's most recent entry for a good explanation on why that is likely true.
As a practical matter I don't see enough dissent and the consequent awareness of how dire things are in America, so therefore I don't see how Obama will fail in his salesmanship. He's got a strong cadre of apologists throughout the mainstream and alternative "news" media, and among bloggers. I don't see him losing support anywhere that matters, really. There's just too little real power in the hands of those who object the strongest.
Post a Comment
<< Home