20 March 2011

BBC

Reuters, "Some states consider cutting 2012 primaries to save money"

Bob Somerby:

You live inside a plutocrat war—a war being waged by the top one percent. (Well—by the top one-tenth of the top one percent.) This war has been underway for thirty-five years; the plutocrats clearly are winning. In the process, all average people are getting looted—those who voted for Bachmann, those who voted for her opponent. But guess what? The plutocrats will continue to win as long as we slow-witted liberals keep taking the bait from cynics like [Lawrence] O’Donnell—as long as we keep getting conned into heightening our tribal wars.

Two from Slate,

Christopher Beam, "Why so little looting in Japan? The explanation is legal as much as cultural"

Bethany McLean, "Infrastructure privatization: Can banks be trusted?"

commenter Peter D writes:

Privatization of state roads just highlights the inefficiencies and waste of state government. Here in Pennsylvania they debated privatizing the Pennsylvania Turnpike (which they gave up on). If the new owner was going to be able to operate and maintain the roadway AND turn a profit for less than the state is currently paying just to operate and maintain the road (since they don't necessarily have to turn a profit), that just shows how much waste there is in the state system.

Instead of selling off public assets for a one time injection of money, run the state-owned property more efficiently and let the public reap the rewards in lower fees/tolls and/or lower taxes. What is inevitably going to happen when that one time shot of money runs out is that you will end up with no more public assets AND high fees and taxes from the lack of income producing assets. Then what are you going to do?

Naked Capitalism, "Everything you need to know about torture"

"Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages"
(Apparently CNBC counts social security payments as a 'handout', ignoring the years of payments you have to put into the system to be eligible.)

Thomas Daulton, American Crackpot,"Risking other people's money":

The supposedly 'for-profit' nuclear industry is completely a creature of government subsidies.

Rob Payne, "The Libyan question"


And yes, it seems we are at war with Libya, Kosovo-intervention style. I want to preface my remarks by noting that I don't for a moment doubt that Khaddafy is indeed brutalizing his people, and that large numbers of them want him gone. All the same I can't help but be reminded of that old photo from the Vietnam conflict of a soldier's helmet that read "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Inevitably, the idea of a 'humanitarian intervention' is attractive to people, the good guys coming to the aid of the virtuous freedom fighters trying to overthrow a brutal oppressor. I imagine the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan also regard themselves as virtuous freedom fighters trying to get rid of an oppressor. I also imagine the protesters in Yemen and Bahrain feel they are being brutally oppressed, what with the massacres and such. So how are all these things different, and why do we not come to the aid of the people of Yemen and Bahrain?

Of course if we did come to the aid of Yemen and Bahrain, we would do it knowing that we weren't going to destabilize the region, and any deaths were modest, acceptable losses. We can know what are 'acceptable' losses in Libya, I guess, because Khaddafy has a long history of dressing up in fanciful garb, so any announcement regarding casualties in Libya is probably a lie that can be dismissed. Khaddafy also nationalized Libya's oil in the 70s, so a mean-spirited person might wonder if a strong man will emerge among the rebels who means to cut a deal to privatize them after the revolution.

14 November 2010

from The Real News, "Austerity: Road to 19th Century"
James Crotty: Right-wing billionaires use crisis to weaken social safety net

Matt Taibbi and the 'Rocket docket': Courts Helping Banks Screw Over Homeowners

Robert Gardner, National Post (via Diane.):

While the rate at which incumbents were re-elected was relatively low, it was still, in absolute terms, astonishingly high: 85.6%. And it was only a little lower than the mid-terms of 1994 and 1982: in both those years, the rate of re-election was 90%. And notice what hasn’t been mentioned so far: the Senate. Incumbents were re-elected in 84.4% of Senate races, which is actually a little higher than the rate of return for incumbents in the last midterm in 2006. What’s remarkable about these results, and the results of every congressional election in modern American history, isn’t how much changes. It’s how much doesn’t.

Gates: US open to request from Iraq to stay
U.S. doctors still too cozy with drug industry: survey
Bush on post-presidency: 'I miss being pampered'(also here)

And, for when you are feeling counterpunchy:

Slavoj Žižek, What is the Left to Do?

Paul Craig Roberts, Phantom Jobs

Uri Avnery, Obama's Defeat

Ralph Nader, When Betrayed Voters Go to the Polls

the real news: Matt Welch discusses European style healthcare

My computer at home is acting up and for once I don't seem to be able to fix it without outside help. As always I am grateful for Rob Payne for more than holding up his end of the horse, as it were. the above is an interview that Paul Jay did recently with Matt Welch of Reason magazine.