By Manifesto Joe
I'm pretty much of a First Amendment purist. No matter how contemptible the speech is, in the good ol' U.S. of A., it's supposed to be free, and protected by law.
But a question now nags me. If Romney had won the presidential election, and someone with the background of, say, Bill Ayres, tweeted something suggesting "revolution," do you think he would be getting a visit from the Department of Homeland Security before long? I think it's quite possible that he would.
Donald Trump has a long history of being hostile to President Obama. He was one of the main instigators of the "birther controversy," and he persists in this behavior even after Obama won re-election.
And a recent tweet from him was reported this way in examiner.com:
Donald Trump has no regrets when it comes to his so-called Election Day Twitter rant in which he claimed the United States was not a democracy and called the election "a sham and a travesty." He later went on to say "More votes equals a loss...revolution!" and "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
Trump says he has no regrets about this. Here's a link to the complete story.
Was Trump genuinely advocating a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. government, because the election didn't go the way he wanted? Only "The Donald" could tell you for sure what was going through that privilege-numbed skull of his. I'm just judging by what he said on Twitter, and he's standing by it.
If he's not backing down, perhaps he ought to be put under Homeland Security surveillance. I wouldn't advocate that he go to jail, at least not now. That would just make a "martyr" of him.
If Romney had won, and it were Bill Ayres tweeting such things, I think there'd be agents staking out his house.
But Trump, being a right-wing billionaire, probably isn't going to have to answer to anyone for his reckless remarks. Stay tuned.
Postscript: Rock guitar has-been Ted Nugent tweeted that Obama's supporters were "pimps whores & welfare brats." Wow. Are there really over 61 million of us? Check out the cartoon at the link.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2016
Saturday, April 20, 2013
I Understand The Strategy, But Obama May Be Making Worst Mistake Of His Career
By Manifesto Joe
I've taken a lot of time to weigh the pros and cons of President Obama's proposal for a "chained CPI" to bring about cuts in Social Security, etc. I've read a piece in defense of it, from the Democratic perspective. And, of course, it's not hard to find plenty of excoriations from the left.
I've decided that my sentiments are more with the left. I can appreciate that Obama is a practitioner of "real politics," but he's already tried that with the Republicans for over four years. They've made clear that they're not interested in actually governing.
Obama now stands on the verge of his worst mistake -- not just of his presidency, but of his entire political career. He is about to alienate his core constituency in one more desperate bid to "compromise."
Social Security is indeed a different program than the one created during the New Deal in 1935. Participation isn't voluntary, and demands on the system are far greater. But it has mostly done what it was intended to do. The poverty rate among elderly Americans was once around 50%. Thanks to a compulsory pension system, it's now down to about 10%.
I understand why Obama is trying, one last time I hope, to compromise here. He hasn't been able to get Republicans who still control the U.S. House to sit down at the table and give something up on their "no new taxes" (i.e., no new taxes on big corporations and the super-rich) pledges. New revenue is clearly needed, and two-thirds of big corporations are paying no federal income taxes. In addition, super-billionaire Warren Buffett has acknowledged that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal personal income tax than does his secretary. And he's far from alone among the richest elite.
Something clearly has to give. But Obama is giving first, as usual. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich phrased it, "The president throws things on the table before the Republicans have even sat down for dinner."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has strong misgivings about the president's strategy. The general feeling among Democrats was expressed well by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey: "If he's trying to do it to show he is forthcoming as a negotiator, then why doesn't he wait until he gets to the negotiating table? There's a lot of talk about the fact that politically this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security."
In America, this is the day of the locust. I spent 27 weeks unemployed just recently, and for a long time was falling through the cracks. Oh, there are plenty of part-time, temporary and contract jobs, if you want them. Having a lot of medical ailments, I don't have the option of taking jobs that don't offer health insurance. And Social Security is a cornerstone of my someday retirement. It's not an option for me, and I've been paying into the system since I was a teenager.
And the same big corporations that are offering these feces-paying jobs with no benefits are the ones getting by paying little or nothing in corporate income tax. Oh, the rates are comparatively high -- for those who don't have tax attorneys good enough to get them out of paying. It just came out that Facebook not only isn't paying any income tax for 2012, on profits of $1 billion, they may actually get a refund worth nearly $430 million.
I've understood why Obama has done much of what he's done in a game of political hardball with Republicans. But as many times as he's felt their spikes, it's time to start digging his in and saying no. Otherwise, he unwisely risks his core Democratic constituency, and it should be clear by now that nothing's going to get done anyway. The Republicans, who are interested only in power, not in governing, are already trying to score political points by turning up their noses at this idea.
The president needs to abandon the idea of the "chained" Consumer Price Index now, while he still can. Then he should take his case directly to the American people. It's been estimated that U.S. senior citizens could lose as much as $112 billion over 10 years if this idea floats. If they know the facts, they'll certainly say no.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I've taken a lot of time to weigh the pros and cons of President Obama's proposal for a "chained CPI" to bring about cuts in Social Security, etc. I've read a piece in defense of it, from the Democratic perspective. And, of course, it's not hard to find plenty of excoriations from the left.
I've decided that my sentiments are more with the left. I can appreciate that Obama is a practitioner of "real politics," but he's already tried that with the Republicans for over four years. They've made clear that they're not interested in actually governing.
Obama now stands on the verge of his worst mistake -- not just of his presidency, but of his entire political career. He is about to alienate his core constituency in one more desperate bid to "compromise."
Social Security is indeed a different program than the one created during the New Deal in 1935. Participation isn't voluntary, and demands on the system are far greater. But it has mostly done what it was intended to do. The poverty rate among elderly Americans was once around 50%. Thanks to a compulsory pension system, it's now down to about 10%.
I understand why Obama is trying, one last time I hope, to compromise here. He hasn't been able to get Republicans who still control the U.S. House to sit down at the table and give something up on their "no new taxes" (i.e., no new taxes on big corporations and the super-rich) pledges. New revenue is clearly needed, and two-thirds of big corporations are paying no federal income taxes. In addition, super-billionaire Warren Buffett has acknowledged that he pays a lower percentage of his income in federal personal income tax than does his secretary. And he's far from alone among the richest elite.
Something clearly has to give. But Obama is giving first, as usual. As former Labor Secretary Robert Reich phrased it, "The president throws things on the table before the Republicans have even sat down for dinner."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has strong misgivings about the president's strategy. The general feeling among Democrats was expressed well by U.S. Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey: "If he's trying to do it to show he is forthcoming as a negotiator, then why doesn't he wait until he gets to the negotiating table? There's a lot of talk about the fact that politically this is not a winner. Our brand is the party that brought you Social Security."
In America, this is the day of the locust. I spent 27 weeks unemployed just recently, and for a long time was falling through the cracks. Oh, there are plenty of part-time, temporary and contract jobs, if you want them. Having a lot of medical ailments, I don't have the option of taking jobs that don't offer health insurance. And Social Security is a cornerstone of my someday retirement. It's not an option for me, and I've been paying into the system since I was a teenager.
And the same big corporations that are offering these feces-paying jobs with no benefits are the ones getting by paying little or nothing in corporate income tax. Oh, the rates are comparatively high -- for those who don't have tax attorneys good enough to get them out of paying. It just came out that Facebook not only isn't paying any income tax for 2012, on profits of $1 billion, they may actually get a refund worth nearly $430 million.
I've understood why Obama has done much of what he's done in a game of political hardball with Republicans. But as many times as he's felt their spikes, it's time to start digging his in and saying no. Otherwise, he unwisely risks his core Democratic constituency, and it should be clear by now that nothing's going to get done anyway. The Republicans, who are interested only in power, not in governing, are already trying to score political points by turning up their noses at this idea.
The president needs to abandon the idea of the "chained" Consumer Price Index now, while he still can. Then he should take his case directly to the American people. It's been estimated that U.S. senior citizens could lose as much as $112 billion over 10 years if this idea floats. If they know the facts, they'll certainly say no.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Does Donald Trump Belong In Jail For Suggesting 'Revolution'?
By Manifesto Joe
I'm pretty much of a First Amendment purist. No matter how contemptible the speech is, in the good ol' U.S. of A., it's supposed to be free, and protected by law.
But a question now nags me. If Romney had won the presidential election, and someone with the background of, say, Bill Ayres, tweeted something suggesting "revolution," do you think he would be getting a visit from the Department of Homeland Security before long? I think it's quite possible that he would.
Donald Trump has a long history of being hostile to President Obama. He was one of the main instigators of the "birther controversy," and he persists in this behavior even after Obama won re-election.
And a recent tweet from him was reported this way in examiner.com:
Donald Trump has no regrets when it comes to his so-called Election Day Twitter rant in which he claimed the United States was not a democracy and called the election "a sham and a travesty." He later went on to say "More votes equals a loss...revolution!" and "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
Trump says he has no regrets about this. Here's a link to the complete story.
Was Trump genuinely advocating a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. government, because the election didn't go the way he wanted? Only "The Donald" could tell you for sure what was going through that privilege-numbed skull of his. I'm just judging by what he said on Twitter, and he's standing by it.
If he's not backing down, perhaps he ought to be put under Homeland Security surveillance. I wouldn't advocate that he go to jail, at least not now. That would just make a "martyr" of him.
If Romney had won, and it were Bill Ayres tweeting such things, I think there'd be agents staking out his house.
But Trump, being a right-wing billionaire, probably isn't going to have to answer to anyone for his reckless remarks. Stay tuned.
Postscript: Rock guitar has-been Ted Nugent tweeted that Obama's supporters were "pimps whores & welfare brats." Wow. Are there really over 61 million of us? Check out the cartoon at the link.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I'm pretty much of a First Amendment purist. No matter how contemptible the speech is, in the good ol' U.S. of A., it's supposed to be free, and protected by law.
But a question now nags me. If Romney had won the presidential election, and someone with the background of, say, Bill Ayres, tweeted something suggesting "revolution," do you think he would be getting a visit from the Department of Homeland Security before long? I think it's quite possible that he would.
Donald Trump has a long history of being hostile to President Obama. He was one of the main instigators of the "birther controversy," and he persists in this behavior even after Obama won re-election.
And a recent tweet from him was reported this way in examiner.com:
Donald Trump has no regrets when it comes to his so-called Election Day Twitter rant in which he claimed the United States was not a democracy and called the election "a sham and a travesty." He later went on to say "More votes equals a loss...revolution!" and "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
Trump says he has no regrets about this. Here's a link to the complete story.
Was Trump genuinely advocating a violent revolution to overthrow the U.S. government, because the election didn't go the way he wanted? Only "The Donald" could tell you for sure what was going through that privilege-numbed skull of his. I'm just judging by what he said on Twitter, and he's standing by it.
If he's not backing down, perhaps he ought to be put under Homeland Security surveillance. I wouldn't advocate that he go to jail, at least not now. That would just make a "martyr" of him.
If Romney had won, and it were Bill Ayres tweeting such things, I think there'd be agents staking out his house.
But Trump, being a right-wing billionaire, probably isn't going to have to answer to anyone for his reckless remarks. Stay tuned.
Postscript: Rock guitar has-been Ted Nugent tweeted that Obama's supporters were "pimps whores & welfare brats." Wow. Are there really over 61 million of us? Check out the cartoon at the link.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Third Debate Shows Scumney Isn't Ready For Prime Time
By Manifesto Joe
What seemed to emerge clearly from Monday night's final presidential debate between incumbent Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Scumney -- er, Romney, may have to get used to that if the bozo really gets elected -- is that he doesn't seem ready for prime time.
Oh, he was very well-coached for all three encounters, and did well enough each time. An overscholarly Obama held him to a boring draw in the first debate, then showed a clear edge in the second. In the third, he administered a pretty thorough spanking, exposing some amateurish sides to Scumney that made clear the latter's unpreparedness to hold the world's most powerful office.
What we saw from Obama last night, saw none of in the first debate and not much of in the second, were the "zingers" that make a TV debate performance memorable. It's unfortunate that American politics has been dragged down to the level of sound bites, but the widespread perception that Romney had an edge in the first debate was based on better showmanship.
Leave it to right-wingers, being the cry babies that they are, to whine and shriek over Obama's "fewer horses and bayonets" zinger in response to Scumney's lament that the Navy has fewer ships now than it had in 1917. (They also threw a lot of public tantrums about the hiding Vice President Biden administered to Eddie Munster.)
Far right-wing mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin made much ado about that response, calling it "ignorant." As a point of dry fact, the military has about twice as many bayonets now as it had in 1916 or so, but those who cling to the literal numbers miss the point.
Here's a link to a sane analysis of the issue.
To the point here -- around 1944, it was crucial for a combat soldier to know how to use a bayonet. And the uses could be unorthodox. My old man won five Bronze Stars for service in the Pacific Theater of World War II, one of them for an incident in which a Japanese soldier entered his tent and confronted him with a bayonet. My old man took the bayonet away from him and stabbed him with it. (I don't know what the other four Bronze Stars were for, because my old man didn't like to talk about his war experiences. Killing just doesn't sit well with some people.)
Combat, even at close quarters, has changed a great deal since 1944, so much so that such an incident would be very unlikely to happen today. That's the point Obama was making.
The most telling point Obama made during the exchanges was a description of Scumney's very backward ideas in all policy areas. To paraphrase, Obama said he embraces a foreign policy from the 1980s (the Cold War is over, pal), social policies from the 1950s and economic policies from the 1920s.
I think he just described the Republican Party's platform.
Not everyone with a center-left view is enchanted with Obama. The first debate pretty much encapsulated what's wrong -- "No Drama" Obama is a law professor who doesn't bring forth passion and fight when they are desperately needed. Fortunately, he got better with each debate.
And each debate progressively (pardon the choice of words) exposed Scumney's lack of fitness for office this powerful.
Tyler Perry aptly described Obama as a guy who volunteered to take command of the Titanic after it had already hit the iceberg. He's had less than four years to clean up a mess that was eight years in the making. And he's had little cooperation from congressional Republicans.
I can't muster that much enthusiasm for Obama, but he's all that is standing between us and a tragic reprise of the Il Doofus administration. He's been performing, albeit rather ploddingly, in prime time. Scumney's clearly not ready for the job.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
What seemed to emerge clearly from Monday night's final presidential debate between incumbent Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Scumney -- er, Romney, may have to get used to that if the bozo really gets elected -- is that he doesn't seem ready for prime time.
Oh, he was very well-coached for all three encounters, and did well enough each time. An overscholarly Obama held him to a boring draw in the first debate, then showed a clear edge in the second. In the third, he administered a pretty thorough spanking, exposing some amateurish sides to Scumney that made clear the latter's unpreparedness to hold the world's most powerful office.
What we saw from Obama last night, saw none of in the first debate and not much of in the second, were the "zingers" that make a TV debate performance memorable. It's unfortunate that American politics has been dragged down to the level of sound bites, but the widespread perception that Romney had an edge in the first debate was based on better showmanship.
Leave it to right-wingers, being the cry babies that they are, to whine and shriek over Obama's "fewer horses and bayonets" zinger in response to Scumney's lament that the Navy has fewer ships now than it had in 1917. (They also threw a lot of public tantrums about the hiding Vice President Biden administered to Eddie Munster.)
Far right-wing mouthpieces like Michelle Malkin made much ado about that response, calling it "ignorant." As a point of dry fact, the military has about twice as many bayonets now as it had in 1916 or so, but those who cling to the literal numbers miss the point.
Here's a link to a sane analysis of the issue.
To the point here -- around 1944, it was crucial for a combat soldier to know how to use a bayonet. And the uses could be unorthodox. My old man won five Bronze Stars for service in the Pacific Theater of World War II, one of them for an incident in which a Japanese soldier entered his tent and confronted him with a bayonet. My old man took the bayonet away from him and stabbed him with it. (I don't know what the other four Bronze Stars were for, because my old man didn't like to talk about his war experiences. Killing just doesn't sit well with some people.)
Combat, even at close quarters, has changed a great deal since 1944, so much so that such an incident would be very unlikely to happen today. That's the point Obama was making.
The most telling point Obama made during the exchanges was a description of Scumney's very backward ideas in all policy areas. To paraphrase, Obama said he embraces a foreign policy from the 1980s (the Cold War is over, pal), social policies from the 1950s and economic policies from the 1920s.
I think he just described the Republican Party's platform.
Not everyone with a center-left view is enchanted with Obama. The first debate pretty much encapsulated what's wrong -- "No Drama" Obama is a law professor who doesn't bring forth passion and fight when they are desperately needed. Fortunately, he got better with each debate.
And each debate progressively (pardon the choice of words) exposed Scumney's lack of fitness for office this powerful.
Tyler Perry aptly described Obama as a guy who volunteered to take command of the Titanic after it had already hit the iceberg. He's had less than four years to clean up a mess that was eight years in the making. And he's had little cooperation from congressional Republicans.
I can't muster that much enthusiasm for Obama, but he's all that is standing between us and a tragic reprise of the Il Doofus administration. He's been performing, albeit rather ploddingly, in prime time. Scumney's clearly not ready for the job.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Yes, Mittens, Government Can And Does Create Jobs
By Manifesto Joe
Mitt Scumney lost Tuesday night's encounter with President Obama on points, and Obama showed more fire than he did in their lackluster first debate. Scumney, though, seemed prepared for a more spirited show from Obama and didn't do badly, on the whole. But one "point" he emphasized stuck in my mind because of how dead wrong he is on it.
"Government doesn't create jobs," Scumney said repeatedly, with passion and emphasis.
Scumney didn't live through World War II, nor did I. But if that war effort wasn't powerful, compelling proof that government can and does create jobs, there couldn't be anything more to demonstrate that. Suggesting otherwise has become part of the mindless nonhistory of contemporary America.
A mantra of Republicans in my younger days was that "The New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression; World War II did."
Yes, exactly. And here's why.
The New Deal was a bid to mobilize the U.S. against the Great Depression, but it was often blocked, with a reactionary Supreme Court striking down two of its centerpiece programs, the NRA in 1935 and the first AAA in 1936. Southern Democrats often sided with the Republican minority against the more far-reaching measures, and a double-dip in the business downturn followed FDR's moves toward austerity during 1937-38.
It wasn't until Dec. 7, 1941, when U.S. military forces suffered a direct and devastating attack, that the national government finally got a free hand. Defense industries flourished as direct recipients of government contracts. The Detroit auto industry was literally commandeered for national defense. No new civilian automobiles were built for four years, and the assembly lines became the source of tanks, Jeeps, and other military vehicles. Commodities such as meat and sugar were rationed.
And soon, the U.S. had full employment, with a jobless rate of about 3% in comparison to nearly 25% during the 1932-33 depths of the Depression.
It's a valid point that government isn't a long-term solution to joblessness. The Soviet Union and its imitators were proof of that. But World War II was vivid proof that it can work in the short term as a way of jolting an economy back into motion. The Obama stimulus plan didn't profoundly affect the American workforce, mainly because a stubborn right wing would never have let it go far enough.
Obama can't afford to contest that point too much, because the job-creation myth has become one of economics' sacred cows. He responded to Romney with his own soliloquy about the so-called free enterprise system. Since he's already being labeled a "socialist" by ignorant right-wingers who don't know what that word means, he's got to play it cool.
And the consensus was that he won Debate No. 2. Too bad he's still having to play the game according to "rules" that history belies.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Mitt Scumney lost Tuesday night's encounter with President Obama on points, and Obama showed more fire than he did in their lackluster first debate. Scumney, though, seemed prepared for a more spirited show from Obama and didn't do badly, on the whole. But one "point" he emphasized stuck in my mind because of how dead wrong he is on it.
"Government doesn't create jobs," Scumney said repeatedly, with passion and emphasis.
Scumney didn't live through World War II, nor did I. But if that war effort wasn't powerful, compelling proof that government can and does create jobs, there couldn't be anything more to demonstrate that. Suggesting otherwise has become part of the mindless nonhistory of contemporary America.
A mantra of Republicans in my younger days was that "The New Deal didn't get us out of the Depression; World War II did."
Yes, exactly. And here's why.
The New Deal was a bid to mobilize the U.S. against the Great Depression, but it was often blocked, with a reactionary Supreme Court striking down two of its centerpiece programs, the NRA in 1935 and the first AAA in 1936. Southern Democrats often sided with the Republican minority against the more far-reaching measures, and a double-dip in the business downturn followed FDR's moves toward austerity during 1937-38.
It wasn't until Dec. 7, 1941, when U.S. military forces suffered a direct and devastating attack, that the national government finally got a free hand. Defense industries flourished as direct recipients of government contracts. The Detroit auto industry was literally commandeered for national defense. No new civilian automobiles were built for four years, and the assembly lines became the source of tanks, Jeeps, and other military vehicles. Commodities such as meat and sugar were rationed.
And soon, the U.S. had full employment, with a jobless rate of about 3% in comparison to nearly 25% during the 1932-33 depths of the Depression.
It's a valid point that government isn't a long-term solution to joblessness. The Soviet Union and its imitators were proof of that. But World War II was vivid proof that it can work in the short term as a way of jolting an economy back into motion. The Obama stimulus plan didn't profoundly affect the American workforce, mainly because a stubborn right wing would never have let it go far enough.
Obama can't afford to contest that point too much, because the job-creation myth has become one of economics' sacred cows. He responded to Romney with his own soliloquy about the so-called free enterprise system. Since he's already being labeled a "socialist" by ignorant right-wingers who don't know what that word means, he's got to play it cool.
And the consensus was that he won Debate No. 2. Too bad he's still having to play the game according to "rules" that history belies.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Only Jobless Rate Romney Ever Reduced Was The One In China
By Manifesto Joe
News came out Friday that the U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by nonpartisan sources, had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%, a 44-month low, with the main reason being people moving into new jobs.
No sooner had the news been announced than right-wing Republicans were up to their usual bilge. Most notably, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, infamous for cooking the books at the corporate conglomerate when he was there, was accusing those biased nonpolitical appointees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books right before the election.
Here's a link to an Alternet story on the right-wing response to the loss of one of their big talking points.
One of Scumney's bogus debating points Wednesday night was the notion that he will create 12 million jobs if elected. He neglected to mention that a lot of economists already project that the economy itself will create something like 11.8 million jobs in the U.S. no matter who is elected president next month.
Here's a link to a story on Scumney's assorted inaccuracies at Wednesday night's debate.
Scumney has to distort thusly, because he's got no record of his own to run on. Massachusetts wasn't overly prosperous during his single term as governor there, and as head of Bain Capital he did much more to cut the unemployment rate in places like China than to do anything to help Americans get jobs. The objective of Bain Capital was, in his own words, to "harvest" companies. Lots of U.S. jobs are sent overseas with that kind of harvesting.
But, something it appears we can expect from Republicans for at least another month is this habit: They blame Obama for anything "bad" that ever happened on any day of his watch, even for the calamities he obviously inherited from Il Doofus (Bush 43). But he gets no credit for anything "good" that has happened during the same period. That kind of thing either had to have been done by his hapless predecessor, or in spite of Obama.
Obama was very dry and lackluster for the first debate. I hope he'll be loaded for bear for the second and third ones.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
News came out Friday that the U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by nonpartisan sources, had fallen from 8.1% to 7.8%, a 44-month low, with the main reason being people moving into new jobs.
No sooner had the news been announced than right-wing Republicans were up to their usual bilge. Most notably, former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, infamous for cooking the books at the corporate conglomerate when he was there, was accusing those biased nonpolitical appointees at the Bureau of Labor Statistics of cooking the books right before the election.
Here's a link to an Alternet story on the right-wing response to the loss of one of their big talking points.
One of Scumney's bogus debating points Wednesday night was the notion that he will create 12 million jobs if elected. He neglected to mention that a lot of economists already project that the economy itself will create something like 11.8 million jobs in the U.S. no matter who is elected president next month.
Here's a link to a story on Scumney's assorted inaccuracies at Wednesday night's debate.
Scumney has to distort thusly, because he's got no record of his own to run on. Massachusetts wasn't overly prosperous during his single term as governor there, and as head of Bain Capital he did much more to cut the unemployment rate in places like China than to do anything to help Americans get jobs. The objective of Bain Capital was, in his own words, to "harvest" companies. Lots of U.S. jobs are sent overseas with that kind of harvesting.
But, something it appears we can expect from Republicans for at least another month is this habit: They blame Obama for anything "bad" that ever happened on any day of his watch, even for the calamities he obviously inherited from Il Doofus (Bush 43). But he gets no credit for anything "good" that has happened during the same period. That kind of thing either had to have been done by his hapless predecessor, or in spite of Obama.
Obama was very dry and lackluster for the first debate. I hope he'll be loaded for bear for the second and third ones.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Depressing Letdown: Obama MIA At 1st Debate
By Manifesto Joe
I felt pretty depressed after watching every word of Wednesday night's debate between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Scumney. Oh, it could have been worse for Obama supporters. It looked pretty much like a boring draw, if you'll pardon the boxing analogy. There were no knockdowns.
But this worked very much in Scumney's favor. Expectations for him were pretty low, so this performance actually gave many people the perception that he won. Never mind that the fact-checkers had a field day with all the bogus numbers he was tossing around. TV debates are about telegenic image (ask the ghost of Dick Nixon). He'd been well-coached, and made no major mistakes. He looked sharp -- well, as good as it gets -- and primed for battle.
Obama, in contrast, looked tired, as though he really didn't feel very good and didn't want to be there. His performance was adequate, but very dry and academic, as though he were back at the University of Chicago giving a lecture on constitutional law. He let Scumney get away with a lot of factual liberties, too.
Obama seemed to labor a lot, and with the mummified Jim Lehrer, 78, as the moderator, he ultimately spoke for about 4 minutes longer than Scumney. But he pretty much blew any opportunities he had to score with heavy punches.
Sometimes TV debates don't count for very much. I watched every word of the first 1984 encounter between Reagan and Mondale, and I thought Mondale mopped up the floor with the senile old man. There was a second debate, and a highly coached Reagan was relatively impressive the second time. That seemed to be enough for most of the voters who'd paid any attention -- he won with 59% of the popular vote.
And, I thought John Kerry pretty much pummeled Il Doofus all three times that they met in 2004. But he never quite went for the jugular. The right-wing voters apparently just decided that Kerry was a pointy-headed liberal who had learned how to argue better along the way, and so the debates didn't influence them much, if at all.
On the "strength" of this, Scumney seems to be back in this thing. Obama is probably getting an earful from his staff, and probably from Michelle, too. I pray that he's listening -- he's only got two more debate shots at Scumney this month.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
I felt pretty depressed after watching every word of Wednesday night's debate between President Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Scumney. Oh, it could have been worse for Obama supporters. It looked pretty much like a boring draw, if you'll pardon the boxing analogy. There were no knockdowns.
But this worked very much in Scumney's favor. Expectations for him were pretty low, so this performance actually gave many people the perception that he won. Never mind that the fact-checkers had a field day with all the bogus numbers he was tossing around. TV debates are about telegenic image (ask the ghost of Dick Nixon). He'd been well-coached, and made no major mistakes. He looked sharp -- well, as good as it gets -- and primed for battle.
Obama, in contrast, looked tired, as though he really didn't feel very good and didn't want to be there. His performance was adequate, but very dry and academic, as though he were back at the University of Chicago giving a lecture on constitutional law. He let Scumney get away with a lot of factual liberties, too.
Obama seemed to labor a lot, and with the mummified Jim Lehrer, 78, as the moderator, he ultimately spoke for about 4 minutes longer than Scumney. But he pretty much blew any opportunities he had to score with heavy punches.
Sometimes TV debates don't count for very much. I watched every word of the first 1984 encounter between Reagan and Mondale, and I thought Mondale mopped up the floor with the senile old man. There was a second debate, and a highly coached Reagan was relatively impressive the second time. That seemed to be enough for most of the voters who'd paid any attention -- he won with 59% of the popular vote.
And, I thought John Kerry pretty much pummeled Il Doofus all three times that they met in 2004. But he never quite went for the jugular. The right-wing voters apparently just decided that Kerry was a pointy-headed liberal who had learned how to argue better along the way, and so the debates didn't influence them much, if at all.
On the "strength" of this, Scumney seems to be back in this thing. Obama is probably getting an earful from his staff, and probably from Michelle, too. I pray that he's listening -- he's only got two more debate shots at Scumney this month.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
This Is 'Gone With The Wind' For Birthers
By Manifesto Joe
Someone I know urged me to watch this, so I did, all 76 minutes of it:
The bottom line seems to be the insistence of one Verna Lee, 95, that neither she nor her office could ever have made a mistake on a birth certificate in her official capacity in Hawaii back in 1961 (not 1960, as the investigator repeatedly says).
A number of years back, I had to get a copy of my own birth certificate. I was most surprised to learn that I was born at 3:25 p.m. The doctor recorded it as 3:35 a.m. My mother recalled that the event occurred in the dark of the early morning hours, and I think that she was there. In any case, my Texas birth certificate was screwed up by an incompetent person on the day I was born. So was my mother's -- her name was misspelled on hers.
But in Texas, they make such mistakes all the time. The officials in Hawaii were perfect, every time, even back then.
The person who urged me to watch this said it convinced him that President Obama's long-form birth certificate, as presented to the public in PDF format, is a forgery. It raises a couple of interesting questions, but ultimately, he got me confused with someone who actually gives a shit.
I really, honestly don't care if Obama was born on Jupiter. His opponent has a running mate who's a disciple of hag selfishness cult leader Ayn Rand, and who has proposed to convert Medicare into a voucher system. The "GOP" ticket has me worried about a great deal more than where Obama was born.
The whole "birther" thing seems to me like a diversionary nonissue, the kind that right-wingers just love. They were floating these the full eight years that Bill Clinton was president. Now, with them horrified at the prospect of a second term of President N----r, can we expect any less?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Someone I know urged me to watch this, so I did, all 76 minutes of it:
The bottom line seems to be the insistence of one Verna Lee, 95, that neither she nor her office could ever have made a mistake on a birth certificate in her official capacity in Hawaii back in 1961 (not 1960, as the investigator repeatedly says).
A number of years back, I had to get a copy of my own birth certificate. I was most surprised to learn that I was born at 3:25 p.m. The doctor recorded it as 3:35 a.m. My mother recalled that the event occurred in the dark of the early morning hours, and I think that she was there. In any case, my Texas birth certificate was screwed up by an incompetent person on the day I was born. So was my mother's -- her name was misspelled on hers.
But in Texas, they make such mistakes all the time. The officials in Hawaii were perfect, every time, even back then.
The person who urged me to watch this said it convinced him that President Obama's long-form birth certificate, as presented to the public in PDF format, is a forgery. It raises a couple of interesting questions, but ultimately, he got me confused with someone who actually gives a shit.
I really, honestly don't care if Obama was born on Jupiter. His opponent has a running mate who's a disciple of hag selfishness cult leader Ayn Rand, and who has proposed to convert Medicare into a voucher system. The "GOP" ticket has me worried about a great deal more than where Obama was born.
The whole "birther" thing seems to me like a diversionary nonissue, the kind that right-wingers just love. They were floating these the full eight years that Bill Clinton was president. Now, with them horrified at the prospect of a second term of President N----r, can we expect any less?
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Geekus Doesn't Get Why Dogs Have Become A Big Campaign Issue
By G.M.
Dudes and dude-ettes, don't get me wrong. It's not like I don't love dogs. I have one for breakfast every day! (Just kidding, PETA fanatics!)
But like, now, all of a sudden, dogs are a big deal in this presidential campaign. Mitt Romney apparently strapped one in on the roof of his car when he was on vacation, then freaked out when brown seep started coming down on his windshield. Like, you couldn't have figured on that happening, after 14 hours?
And then, the Republicans found something in Obama's book about his younger life in which he says he ate stuff like dog and grasshoppers and such, at the urging of his Indonesian stepdad. Dog was sort of tough, and he reported that the grasshoppers are a little crunchy.
Please, please, people, get a life. An 8-year-old kid is going to eat anything that Daddy puts in front of him. As for Mitt Romney, that didn't sound too good, but a common thing among rednecks (yes, they have them in the North, too) is that they don't regard animals as similar to people in any way. You know, like, they're just these idiot things with absolutely no feelings. But, it's not like Mitt would be the first presidential hopeful who ever had that attitude about stuff. There must have been plenty of others. How else could you get elected? -- GM
Dudes and dude-ettes, don't get me wrong. It's not like I don't love dogs. I have one for breakfast every day! (Just kidding, PETA fanatics!)
But like, now, all of a sudden, dogs are a big deal in this presidential campaign. Mitt Romney apparently strapped one in on the roof of his car when he was on vacation, then freaked out when brown seep started coming down on his windshield. Like, you couldn't have figured on that happening, after 14 hours?
And then, the Republicans found something in Obama's book about his younger life in which he says he ate stuff like dog and grasshoppers and such, at the urging of his Indonesian stepdad. Dog was sort of tough, and he reported that the grasshoppers are a little crunchy.
Please, please, people, get a life. An 8-year-old kid is going to eat anything that Daddy puts in front of him. As for Mitt Romney, that didn't sound too good, but a common thing among rednecks (yes, they have them in the North, too) is that they don't regard animals as similar to people in any way. You know, like, they're just these idiot things with absolutely no feelings. But, it's not like Mitt would be the first presidential hopeful who ever had that attitude about stuff. There must have been plenty of others. How else could you get elected? -- GM
Monday, September 19, 2011
Republicans: This Is What Happens When Some People Forget To Take Their Medication
By Manifesto Joe
Although it's tempting, I'll refrain here from demonizing all Republicans. My wife appears to be the only Democrat in her large extended family, and some of my in-laws are the salt of the Earth. They just spend too much time watching Fox News.
Republicans appear, at present, to be inhabiting some alternate universe -- one in which prolonged tax breaks for rich people and giant corporations create full employment, one in which 46 million poor Americans are all feasting on junk food while they're not talking on their smart phones, one in which medically uninsured people don't end up costing taxpayers money anyway, one in which perpetual military meddling abroad doesn't end up making us targets at home -- etc., etc.
In other words, they live in an alternate universe that seems to bear no resemblance to the one in which most of the rest of us live.
I'll focus on two points that seem to sum up this phenomenon.
Republican response to Obama's tax plan
If there's one serious problem I have with President Obama, it is with his habit of trying over and over, despite numerous betrayals, to reason and compromise with the mentally disturbed. Until recent days, he's been far, far too nice.
Obama has flatly said that he will veto any deficit-cutting plan that cuts benefits for Medicare recipients yet does not raise taxes for wealthy individuals and big corporations. After about 32 months of trying in vain to work with crazy people, he's finally delineating the difference between us and them. It wasn't us who recklessly did our best to crash the world economy, or who have horded wealth from an economy that doubled in size over 30 years, while wages and salaries were stagnant. It was them.
Yet now, they want us to pay.
Obama's proposal for a minimum tax on rich people is, historically, pretty modest. But I still have yet to hear anyone in the Mainstream Media point out that, about the time I was born in 1956, the U.S. marginal income tax rate was close to 90%, and after JFK-era cuts remained 70% for many years.
It's true that not many high earners ever paid that much, thanks to shelters and loopholes. But even with some of those eliminated, bear in mind that only the most "left-leaning" people are proposing a marginal rate as high as 49%, compared to the 35% where the top rate stands now, with shelters and loopholes included. And it's been pointed out that investment income, the staple of the wealthy, is taxed at only 15%.
Here's a link to the Associated Press story about this.
Predictably, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the ball carrier for the supply-side die-hards, has called Obama's proposal "class warfare." That phrase is sounding more hollow than ever, as we've been watching wealth be horded for three decades only to see an unemployment rate of at least 9% (not counting the many underemployed people, or those who have given up and stopped looking for work).
But that's the Republican mantra, despite abundant evidence that "supply-side" hording has not translated into job creation, and that our current "recovery" is weak because consumers simply don't have much money to spend.
Obama surely knows that his plan has no chance of passage by the current House of Representatives, and Speaker John "Orange Julius" Boehner has told him so. It's a proposal whose purpose is to beat pathologically stubborn Republicans over the head with around this time next year, as the election nears and the economy is expected to remain in the tank.
With a bad economy that may double-dip into recession, rhetoric crafted around this proposal may be the best chance Obama has for re-election, since a lot of people under such conditions will vote against the incumbent no matter whom it is.
Sigh. God must have loved stupid people. He made so many of them.
That said, on to the next Republican spectacle.
Tea Party trolls cheer hypothetical death during televised GOP debate
This is, of course, old news by now. The reason I didn't want to comment on it days ago is that it was too fresh, and I wanted more time to consider what's happening to the Republican Party.
In case you didn't see it or read about it, here's a link to the audience laughing and cheering at the Tea Party debate as CNN's Wolf Blitzer presses Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, about the hypothetical death of an uninsured man.
Granted, even Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that he was taken aback by the audience reaction. And, not all Republicans are Tea Party sympathizers. In the latest poll I've heard about, self-identifying Republicans are just about split up the middle about whether they approve of the Tea Party "movement."
But half of Republicans sympathizing with these sorts of attitudes and values should be a bit disturbing. And although Paul's rhetoric about self-reliance sounds oh-so-noble on its face, he's been around long enough to remember why Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in the first place.
Bills for the uninsured often weren't being picked up by churches, private individuals, etc., nor are they now. What happens now, more often than not, is that uninsured people go to taxpayer-supported charity hospitals for services. Either that, or the hospitals are forced to simply write off unpaid bills, and the taxpayer gets stuck with that in a different way.
Again, I am loath to demonize Republicans. They aren't all crazy. But they appear to be indoctrinated so well as to be impervious to reality, much as in the manner of religious fundamentalists. Ever tried arguing with one of those?
And, it would appear that a certain element among Republicans are indeed disturbed people, embracing cretinous and savage values and attitudes. And the party as a whole seems so frightened of losing elections that it panders to them.
This may not be a recipe for disaster next year. If the economy remains in the tank as it is expected to, any Republican nominee, even a somewhat crazy and/or stupid one, is likely to make next year's presidential election much closer than it should be. History favors them in the short run. But in the long run, this will be a recipe for disaster.
Institutions can go insane as easily as people can. While not all Republicans are crazy, as an institution, the Republican Party seems to have crossed into the territory of institutional insanity. I just hope that some kind of implosion can occur before they end up doing as much damage to the country as they seem to intend.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Although it's tempting, I'll refrain here from demonizing all Republicans. My wife appears to be the only Democrat in her large extended family, and some of my in-laws are the salt of the Earth. They just spend too much time watching Fox News.
Republicans appear, at present, to be inhabiting some alternate universe -- one in which prolonged tax breaks for rich people and giant corporations create full employment, one in which 46 million poor Americans are all feasting on junk food while they're not talking on their smart phones, one in which medically uninsured people don't end up costing taxpayers money anyway, one in which perpetual military meddling abroad doesn't end up making us targets at home -- etc., etc.
In other words, they live in an alternate universe that seems to bear no resemblance to the one in which most of the rest of us live.
I'll focus on two points that seem to sum up this phenomenon.
Republican response to Obama's tax plan
If there's one serious problem I have with President Obama, it is with his habit of trying over and over, despite numerous betrayals, to reason and compromise with the mentally disturbed. Until recent days, he's been far, far too nice.
Obama has flatly said that he will veto any deficit-cutting plan that cuts benefits for Medicare recipients yet does not raise taxes for wealthy individuals and big corporations. After about 32 months of trying in vain to work with crazy people, he's finally delineating the difference between us and them. It wasn't us who recklessly did our best to crash the world economy, or who have horded wealth from an economy that doubled in size over 30 years, while wages and salaries were stagnant. It was them.
Yet now, they want us to pay.
Obama's proposal for a minimum tax on rich people is, historically, pretty modest. But I still have yet to hear anyone in the Mainstream Media point out that, about the time I was born in 1956, the U.S. marginal income tax rate was close to 90%, and after JFK-era cuts remained 70% for many years.
It's true that not many high earners ever paid that much, thanks to shelters and loopholes. But even with some of those eliminated, bear in mind that only the most "left-leaning" people are proposing a marginal rate as high as 49%, compared to the 35% where the top rate stands now, with shelters and loopholes included. And it's been pointed out that investment income, the staple of the wealthy, is taxed at only 15%.
Here's a link to the Associated Press story about this.
Predictably, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the ball carrier for the supply-side die-hards, has called Obama's proposal "class warfare." That phrase is sounding more hollow than ever, as we've been watching wealth be horded for three decades only to see an unemployment rate of at least 9% (not counting the many underemployed people, or those who have given up and stopped looking for work).
But that's the Republican mantra, despite abundant evidence that "supply-side" hording has not translated into job creation, and that our current "recovery" is weak because consumers simply don't have much money to spend.
Obama surely knows that his plan has no chance of passage by the current House of Representatives, and Speaker John "Orange Julius" Boehner has told him so. It's a proposal whose purpose is to beat pathologically stubborn Republicans over the head with around this time next year, as the election nears and the economy is expected to remain in the tank.
With a bad economy that may double-dip into recession, rhetoric crafted around this proposal may be the best chance Obama has for re-election, since a lot of people under such conditions will vote against the incumbent no matter whom it is.
Sigh. God must have loved stupid people. He made so many of them.
That said, on to the next Republican spectacle.
Tea Party trolls cheer hypothetical death during televised GOP debate
This is, of course, old news by now. The reason I didn't want to comment on it days ago is that it was too fresh, and I wanted more time to consider what's happening to the Republican Party.
In case you didn't see it or read about it, here's a link to the audience laughing and cheering at the Tea Party debate as CNN's Wolf Blitzer presses Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, about the hypothetical death of an uninsured man.
Granted, even Texas Gov. Rick Perry said that he was taken aback by the audience reaction. And, not all Republicans are Tea Party sympathizers. In the latest poll I've heard about, self-identifying Republicans are just about split up the middle about whether they approve of the Tea Party "movement."
But half of Republicans sympathizing with these sorts of attitudes and values should be a bit disturbing. And although Paul's rhetoric about self-reliance sounds oh-so-noble on its face, he's been around long enough to remember why Medicare and Medicaid were enacted in the first place.
Bills for the uninsured often weren't being picked up by churches, private individuals, etc., nor are they now. What happens now, more often than not, is that uninsured people go to taxpayer-supported charity hospitals for services. Either that, or the hospitals are forced to simply write off unpaid bills, and the taxpayer gets stuck with that in a different way.
Again, I am loath to demonize Republicans. They aren't all crazy. But they appear to be indoctrinated so well as to be impervious to reality, much as in the manner of religious fundamentalists. Ever tried arguing with one of those?
And, it would appear that a certain element among Republicans are indeed disturbed people, embracing cretinous and savage values and attitudes. And the party as a whole seems so frightened of losing elections that it panders to them.
This may not be a recipe for disaster next year. If the economy remains in the tank as it is expected to, any Republican nominee, even a somewhat crazy and/or stupid one, is likely to make next year's presidential election much closer than it should be. History favors them in the short run. But in the long run, this will be a recipe for disaster.
Institutions can go insane as easily as people can. While not all Republicans are crazy, as an institution, the Republican Party seems to have crossed into the territory of institutional insanity. I just hope that some kind of implosion can occur before they end up doing as much damage to the country as they seem to intend.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Health Care: When Americans Voted For Obama And Democrats, What Were They Voting For?
By Manifesto Joe
A recent (Aug. 3-6) nationwide telephone poll by the Marist Institute of Public Opinion found that 45 percent of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care reform, while 43 percent approved. Here's a link.
Obama won the popular vote last year with 53 percent. This begs the question: What did the "swing" voters, the independents, think they were voting for when they cast ballots for Obama and other Democrats?
And, as for those who are wavering on the issue, did they not expect yet another disinformation barrage, perhaps even worse that the "Harry and Louise" campaign of 1993-94? There are many interest groups -- insurers, pharmaceutical companies, stockholders, doctors and other health care "professionals" -- who have a big stake in the status quo and fear they will lose money if a public option comes to pass. Wasn't a propaganda flood, financed by the vested interests, expected?
My disapproval of Obama's handling of this would be purely idealistic: I favor a single-payer model similar to the ones in Canada and Germany. Even the English, whose National Health Service is often vilified here, are getting highly pissed and coming to the defense of the NHS. Here's another link. No less than renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has asserted that, contrary to U.S. right-wing demagoguery, the NHS saved his life from the longtime ravages of ALS. (Yet another link.)
The idealist in me says, if "socialism" is what they have in Norway and Sweden, where do I sign up? They live longer than Americans do; their babies don't die nearly as often; and their middle class doesn't have to live in fear of bankruptcy if someone comes down with a catastrophic illness.
You don't even have to look at Scandinavian countries with hyperactive welfare states. Australia, perhaps the closest nation to the U.S. ideologically, has something resembling "socialized" medicine.
Among other developed countries in the world, you don't see any of them battling to trade in their government-run programs for the U.S. "Land of the Fee" model, do you?
Their way looks much more like the right path to me.
But -- living in America, and especially in Texas, made me stop being an idealist long ago. It's clear by now that Obama and his "allies" are going to have a hard time just putting over a public option, so single-payer will have to wait, probably until after I'm dead.
Back to the American public -- that 45 percent who disapprove. I'd wager that few of them ever had to actually USE their underperforming health insurance to battle a chronic illness. I have allergies so severe that I depend on multiple medications just to live, and the co-payments and deductibles eat up much of my income. This was not something I did to myself; I was born with allergies.
Let's talk about "death panels." I have the impression that among that 45 percent, their answer for me would be, "Just die and get out of the way." Such people protest loudly at being called Nazilike, but it sounds a lot like eugenics to me.
That 45 percent probably never had to battle cancer, as my wife did in 1992, on one of those swell 80-20 private insurance plans, with a deductible. That experience hurled us into debt that we've never gotten out of to this day. Bankruptcy was actually on the table for us a couple of years ago -- fortunately, we found an alternative.
But we are like many other middle-class Americans in that, even with both of us insured, another major illness could very well plunge us into so much debt that bankruptcy would be certain. And, the insurance companies would have the complete prerogative to drop either or both of us.
That 45 percent: I shudder to think that there are so many profoundly misguided Americans. One can go back to relatively recent history and witness the fickleness of the electorate. In 1992, Clinton pulled off a plurality win, and the Democrats took both houses of Congress solidly. Two years later, the Republicans and their "Contract With America" turned the tables utterly, though not for long.
Back a bit further, in 1974 the Republican Party seemed repudiated and in tatters after Watergate. It only took six years for the Reagan right wing to turn that completely around.
I hope that Obama can stand his ground, and that the electorate doesn't prove to be that fickle in 2010. If my insurance company decides to kick me to the curb, I'd like that public option, or at least something that keeps me from going broke.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Postscript: CNN reports that at 1:03 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, at a presidential event in Phoenix, a reporter saw a man in the anti-Obama camp carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. (Arizona has an open-carry law.) Are those mean-spirited lib'ruls gonna call him a Nazi?
A recent (Aug. 3-6) nationwide telephone poll by the Marist Institute of Public Opinion found that 45 percent of Americans disapprove of President Obama's handling of health care reform, while 43 percent approved. Here's a link.
Obama won the popular vote last year with 53 percent. This begs the question: What did the "swing" voters, the independents, think they were voting for when they cast ballots for Obama and other Democrats?
And, as for those who are wavering on the issue, did they not expect yet another disinformation barrage, perhaps even worse that the "Harry and Louise" campaign of 1993-94? There are many interest groups -- insurers, pharmaceutical companies, stockholders, doctors and other health care "professionals" -- who have a big stake in the status quo and fear they will lose money if a public option comes to pass. Wasn't a propaganda flood, financed by the vested interests, expected?
My disapproval of Obama's handling of this would be purely idealistic: I favor a single-payer model similar to the ones in Canada and Germany. Even the English, whose National Health Service is often vilified here, are getting highly pissed and coming to the defense of the NHS. Here's another link. No less than renowned scientist Stephen Hawking has asserted that, contrary to U.S. right-wing demagoguery, the NHS saved his life from the longtime ravages of ALS. (Yet another link.)
The idealist in me says, if "socialism" is what they have in Norway and Sweden, where do I sign up? They live longer than Americans do; their babies don't die nearly as often; and their middle class doesn't have to live in fear of bankruptcy if someone comes down with a catastrophic illness.
You don't even have to look at Scandinavian countries with hyperactive welfare states. Australia, perhaps the closest nation to the U.S. ideologically, has something resembling "socialized" medicine.
Among other developed countries in the world, you don't see any of them battling to trade in their government-run programs for the U.S. "Land of the Fee" model, do you?
Their way looks much more like the right path to me.
But -- living in America, and especially in Texas, made me stop being an idealist long ago. It's clear by now that Obama and his "allies" are going to have a hard time just putting over a public option, so single-payer will have to wait, probably until after I'm dead.
Back to the American public -- that 45 percent who disapprove. I'd wager that few of them ever had to actually USE their underperforming health insurance to battle a chronic illness. I have allergies so severe that I depend on multiple medications just to live, and the co-payments and deductibles eat up much of my income. This was not something I did to myself; I was born with allergies.
Let's talk about "death panels." I have the impression that among that 45 percent, their answer for me would be, "Just die and get out of the way." Such people protest loudly at being called Nazilike, but it sounds a lot like eugenics to me.
That 45 percent probably never had to battle cancer, as my wife did in 1992, on one of those swell 80-20 private insurance plans, with a deductible. That experience hurled us into debt that we've never gotten out of to this day. Bankruptcy was actually on the table for us a couple of years ago -- fortunately, we found an alternative.
But we are like many other middle-class Americans in that, even with both of us insured, another major illness could very well plunge us into so much debt that bankruptcy would be certain. And, the insurance companies would have the complete prerogative to drop either or both of us.
That 45 percent: I shudder to think that there are so many profoundly misguided Americans. One can go back to relatively recent history and witness the fickleness of the electorate. In 1992, Clinton pulled off a plurality win, and the Democrats took both houses of Congress solidly. Two years later, the Republicans and their "Contract With America" turned the tables utterly, though not for long.
Back a bit further, in 1974 the Republican Party seemed repudiated and in tatters after Watergate. It only took six years for the Reagan right wing to turn that completely around.
I hope that Obama can stand his ground, and that the electorate doesn't prove to be that fickle in 2010. If my insurance company decides to kick me to the curb, I'd like that public option, or at least something that keeps me from going broke.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Postscript: CNN reports that at 1:03 p.m. Mountain Standard Time, at a presidential event in Phoenix, a reporter saw a man in the anti-Obama camp carrying an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle. (Arizona has an open-carry law.) Are those mean-spirited lib'ruls gonna call him a Nazi?
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Slicing Through 'Surge' Propaganda: Haven't We Heard It All Before?
By Manifesto Joe
Full disclosure: I have no military background. I do have 30 years of experience as a professional journalist, and have known enough U.S. history, for long enough, that at 17, I earned 6 hours of college credit in that subject just by taking a test. Take those for whatever they're worth.
My perhaps-risky thesis: The "surge" in Iraq, now being touted as some kind of unequivocal success, is yet another deception in a military campaign that will be remembered as the war that keeps on costing.
Granted, al Qaeda in Iraq has apparently been dealt some crushing blows (for now), and U.S. military casualties are sharply down. These things are being widely reported as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Baghdad to take stock of things.
But, the latter point, about the decline in U.S. casualties, reflects the ethnocentrism with which Americans tend to look at foreign conflicts. Juan Cole, writing on Informed Comment, points out:
Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.
That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.
To read the entire Cole article, click here.
What we seem to be hearing is that when fewer Americans are being killed and maimed as a result of the "surge," that makes it an unequivocal success. When the furrenurs is gettin' whacked a little faster than they wuz two and a half years ago, well, that's their tough luck. It's an A-Murkan world.
And, we've heard all this before, at other times and in other places. And it hasn't been so long since we've heard it. I seem to recall that "we" (in the editorial sense) were supposed to have pretty much routed the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan. Been reading or hearing any news from there lately? It ain't over till it's over. And that one, the war "we" actually have reasonable justification for, is far from over.
I also seem to recall a day in 2003 when, just weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Il Doofus staged a landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared major military operations in Iraq to be over.
The MSM mouthpieces remain very much on the Pentagon bandwagon (not to mention the Straitjacket Express), with a mantra of "Obama was dead wrong" on the outcome of the "surge."
True, Obama didn't call it right in predicting that the "surge" would bring an increase in violence.
But, given the continued toll on Iraqi civilians, reports of success seem greatly exaggerated. I think the "surge" could be pronounced a success on the day that there are no unusual civilian deaths in Iraq, that the millions of refugees can return home safely, and that a stable Iraqi government can be elected without being propped up by a U.S. military presence. Perhaps in 100 years?
I'll venture a possibly risky prediction, but one firmly based on recent U.S. history.
In January 1973, the Nixon administration finally reached that elusive "peace with honor" deal with North Vietnam. The "peace" lasted a while. Then, a couple of years later, communist troops were overrunning South Vietnam. The American people were so sick of that bottomless pit of lives and money that they said a loud and resounding "NO" when the Ford administration had the nerve to propose that "we" go back in there.
The bottom line is that the U.S. is an occupier in a land generally hostile to the occupation. And, it should come as no surprise that the resistance will hide and play possum with every "surge" that our taxpayers can be conned into bankrolling. That's the name of the game in guerrilla warfare.
I'll gamble, and predict an outcome similar to the previously cited ones. For Americans, this will be the war that keeps on costing.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Full disclosure: I have no military background. I do have 30 years of experience as a professional journalist, and have known enough U.S. history, for long enough, that at 17, I earned 6 hours of college credit in that subject just by taking a test. Take those for whatever they're worth.
My perhaps-risky thesis: The "surge" in Iraq, now being touted as some kind of unequivocal success, is yet another deception in a military campaign that will be remembered as the war that keeps on costing.
Granted, al Qaeda in Iraq has apparently been dealt some crushing blows (for now), and U.S. military casualties are sharply down. These things are being widely reported as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is in Baghdad to take stock of things.
But, the latter point, about the decline in U.S. casualties, reflects the ethnocentrism with which Americans tend to look at foreign conflicts. Juan Cole, writing on Informed Comment, points out:
Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.
That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.
To read the entire Cole article, click here.
What we seem to be hearing is that when fewer Americans are being killed and maimed as a result of the "surge," that makes it an unequivocal success. When the furrenurs is gettin' whacked a little faster than they wuz two and a half years ago, well, that's their tough luck. It's an A-Murkan world.
And, we've heard all this before, at other times and in other places. And it hasn't been so long since we've heard it. I seem to recall that "we" (in the editorial sense) were supposed to have pretty much routed the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies in Afghanistan. Been reading or hearing any news from there lately? It ain't over till it's over. And that one, the war "we" actually have reasonable justification for, is far from over.
I also seem to recall a day in 2003 when, just weeks after the invasion of Iraq, Il Doofus staged a landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared major military operations in Iraq to be over.
The MSM mouthpieces remain very much on the Pentagon bandwagon (not to mention the Straitjacket Express), with a mantra of "Obama was dead wrong" on the outcome of the "surge."
True, Obama didn't call it right in predicting that the "surge" would bring an increase in violence.
But, given the continued toll on Iraqi civilians, reports of success seem greatly exaggerated. I think the "surge" could be pronounced a success on the day that there are no unusual civilian deaths in Iraq, that the millions of refugees can return home safely, and that a stable Iraqi government can be elected without being propped up by a U.S. military presence. Perhaps in 100 years?
I'll venture a possibly risky prediction, but one firmly based on recent U.S. history.
In January 1973, the Nixon administration finally reached that elusive "peace with honor" deal with North Vietnam. The "peace" lasted a while. Then, a couple of years later, communist troops were overrunning South Vietnam. The American people were so sick of that bottomless pit of lives and money that they said a loud and resounding "NO" when the Ford administration had the nerve to propose that "we" go back in there.
The bottom line is that the U.S. is an occupier in a land generally hostile to the occupation. And, it should come as no surprise that the resistance will hide and play possum with every "surge" that our taxpayers can be conned into bankrolling. That's the name of the game in guerrilla warfare.
I'll gamble, and predict an outcome similar to the previously cited ones. For Americans, this will be the war that keeps on costing.
Manifesto Joe Is An Underground Writer Living In Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
