If you still were not quite sure who President Obama really holds closest to his heart, banksters or working folk, then this little bit of news should clear it up for you. The AP is announcing that Obama will soon reappoint Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second four year term. While the appointment requires Senate confirmation, does anyone out there really think the Senate cares for working folk more than banksters? Thus, you can rest assured that "Bailout Ben" will remain at the tiller of the Fed, dishing out taxpayer cash to his bankster buddies for the forseeable future. I don't know about you, but I'll be sleeping easy tonight, as apparently so will lots of bankers and Wall-Streeters that Obama was again so keen to appease.
I urge you to give Philip Elliott's piece a read. It's a paragon of the "professional journalism" that dominates main stream corporate media nowadays, and whose sole purpose would appear to be the servicing of the rich and powerful. After stating that Bernanke will be reappointed, Elliott then describes Bernanke's apparent accomplishments with the following glowing text, all in the first two short paragraphs, "...as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position from which he guided the economy away from its worst recession since the 1930s and, the White House hopes, toward an economic recovery critical to its legacy. Widely credited with taking aggressive action to avert an economic catastrophe after the financial meltdown last year..." Well, you get the point. If you had slept through the last few years and found yourself reading this piece you might think Ben Bernanke didn't share any of the blame for bringing on a financial disaster of epic proportions. That he wasn't "asleep at the wheel" while ostensibly Fed-regulated banks over-exposed themselves to risky economic weapons of mass destruction, like credit default swaps and other toxic mortgage-backed securities. That he didn't stand by, watch it all happen, do little, but then commit trillions of dollars of taxpayer funds to try and clean up the mess. Oh, and as for the economy being "guided" away from recession, the jury still seems to be out on that one.
As for whom is "widely crediting" Bernanke with rescuing the financial system, and from whom he "received heaps of praise..., for his handling of the crisis," well, Elliott is a little less specific on that. But fear not, Elliott assures us that Bernanke is not "without his detractors," but if you were looking for any more specific criticism, maybe even just a smidgen of the many column inches detailing Bernanke's malfeasance, then you were sure to be disappointed. So, here are a few sanguine comments from Bernanke critic Dean Baker just for fun. I guess it's just more of the "Change We Need."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
A Democracy in Name Only
The American political system is completely broken. Democracy has long since been usurped by plutocracy. If you're one of those who still thinks your vote matters or that the system can still function for the average American, then you are either; 1) hopelessly uninformed. 2) completely brainwashed. 3) brain dead.
While the signs of the death of American democracy have been evident for some time, they have come into glaring focus in the last few months as the health care reform debate has taken center stage. The problems are clear to anyone with eyes to see. The United States spends much more on health care than any nation with which it likes to compare itself. Let's call these our peer nations for lack of a better term. Amongst these industrialized peers the US is virtually near the bottom in most indicators of the efficiency and efficacy of its health care system. Upwards of 50 million citizens have no access to health care. Take note, lest you think this is some irrelevant group of fellow citizens, it would be as if an entire nation somewhere between the size of France or Spain, had no access to health care. If you still remain unmoved, and, like Rush Limbaugh, would rather blame the ill or needy for their own plight, then consider the recent report on Bill Moyer's Journal about what it means to have no access to health care. In a word, it is appalling, and a national disgrace.
Spiraling health care costs are also threatening America's economic future. Indeed, health care costs have been growing at well above the inflation rate for some time, and now threaten the competitiveness of American employers, large and small. Every other of our peer nations has long since decided that all their citizens have a right to good medical care, and that this is consistent with health care being a right that accrues to all people, by virtue of their humanity, and nothing else. A comfortable majority of Americans also believe this, and wish to see a change in the way health care is delivered in this country. And yet, facing this problem for which there is near universal agreement that a change in the status quo is essential, the elected government appears powerless in the face of the minority corporate interests who are the only ones who benefit from perpetuation of the status quo. If the government cannot even adequately address an issue of such importance to all it's citizens, then what problems could it possibly solve?
The primary crisis facing American democracy is that the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) have long since stopped representing the interests of average citizens, rather, they almost exclusively govern at the whim of monied, corporate interests. There are numerous reasons for this, but several of the most relevant include; 1) These same interests fill the campaign coffers of both Parties, enabling the funding of the expensive public relations exercises that pass for political campaigns in this country. 2) A large fraction of candidates are drawn from groups of people that largely share the same interests as these corporate and wealthy constituencies. While this is especially true of Republican candidates, it is also largely true of Democrats as well. Not convinced, simply consider the US Senate, about half of whose members are millionaires, and which has an average net worth of between 8 and 9 million dollars. 3) The vast majority of media outlets that "inform" and shape American opinion are owned and controlled by corporate interests that share the same goals and ideology. This is the same corporate-owned media that "manufactures consent," and makes sure that corporate aims are always positively represented in their content. Indeed, you've probably never heard the term "manufacturing consent," one of the concepts ellucidated in the many writings of Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely cited intellectual in the world, but whose voice fellow Americans are systematically deprived of because he speaks truths which are in direct opposition to the corporate status quo. In fact, the exclusion of Chomsky from American media outlets is perhaps no better proof of his very critique of American corporate media.
Once in office the major party candidates overwhelming support a corporate agenda, but--at least this part hasn't changed yet--they still have to get elected. So how do they do it? Well, put simply, they try to talk a good game, and no one has been better at it in recent memory than our current President Barack Obama. Obama's soaring rhetoric was geared to capitalize on the deep, and justified, dissatisfaction with the Bush years. Among his principle campaign points were his promises around ending involvement in the Iraq war, as well as pushing a health care reform agenda. However, once in office it appears increasingly clear that the actions of the Obama administration do not match, or even come close, to the campaign rhetoric. And nowhere is this more clear than in his, and the Democratic Party's, efforts around health care reform.
Almost from the beginning the administration's actions have been one of attempting at all costs to placate their corporate clients in the health care and insurance industries. Obama has met with CEO's of all these entities, and on numerous occasions, and then sought to keep the records of whom was visiting the White House from public view. So much for transparency, which was supposedly going to be another hallmark of his presidency. Then came word of the "deal" reached between the White House and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, ostensibly giving them the "windfall" that the Government would not use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate the best (read lowest) price for it's consumers, that is, we the taxpayers! Funny, I thought price negotiation was a core principle of a Capitalist free market system. From the outset, the "Obama plan," as much as we know about it, was seemingly geared to take care of corporate concerns before the health care concerns of most Americans. As in, let's reform health care so as to further increase the profit margins of insurance and drug companies!
No doubt there is a wing of the Democratic Party that does not act reflexively at the beck and call of corporate interests, but this minority group has routinely been played for suckers, promised that their concerns would be acted on, but then eventually rolled by the Party "pragmatists," epitomized by Obama's choice for White House chief of staff, fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel. The same story is now playing out in the health care reform debacle, but with more devastating consequences. See the spot-on discussion by Glenn Greenwald. Indeed, it appears that the Party is more interested in appeasing Republican whack-jobs like unrepentant "deather" Chuck Grassley, who famously warned his constituents that they had every right to fear Sarah Palin's imagined "death panels," than the very people responsible for electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention returning the White House to a Democrat.
While the Democrats hold the White House and both houses of Congress with comfortable majorities, they appear remarkably "weak" in attempting to pass reform on an issue with such broad public support and importance. How can this be in a supposed democracy? Again, the "weakness" is that the interests of corporations and money carry much more weight on Capitol Hill and in the White House than the interests of average Americans. Democrats can equivocate, offering no end of laughable excuses for why they can't seem to do the people's business, but in the end the only reason that doesn't illicit chuckles is the fact that they are just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. Indeed, the present leadership in the Democratic Party appears set on maintaining political control by becoming more like the Republican Party than by expanding its appeal amongst working class and progressive constituencies. Another corrosive dynamic is that each Party seeks above all else to simply maintain its political hold on power. While such political calculating is to be expected at some level, it has completely trumped any service to the nation as a whole. Is it any wonder then that people feel completely cut off from their own government?
There is a minority that benefit from the status quo, these are the insurance and health care corporations and their clients who have made a killing out of denying care to Americans and turning treatment of the sick and infirm into a for-profit business. While they represent a minority of voters, their influence is greatly amplified by the power their money purchases on Capitol Hill, and the influence of media campaigns and exposure that they are able to fund and which corporate media allies gladly promulgate. Much of these media campaigns rely on myths and distortions regarding health care that are repeated endlessly. No doubt the support for reform and universal coverage would be greater still if not for the success of these propaganda campaigns.
So, is there any way to breach the corporate gridlock which is presently suffocating American democracy? There is no hope in the Republican Party. For many years they have been completely at the service of wealth and power. The only way they have been able to achieve occasional electoral successes is by mobilizing sufficient social conservative (think God, Guns and Gays) constituencies (themselves a minority), while politically suppressing their opponents at all turns. Even so, time, and the changing demographics of America seem set to continue to force Republicans (thankfully) into the minority. This leaves the Democratic Party or some alternative. Unless the present Party leadership can be retired or replaced with more progressive representatives, it does not appear that this dead-lock will be relieved any time soon. The elimination of corporate and special interest money from elections would be a useful step, but the well-heeled have always found a way to make their resources tell, and there is no reason to think this would not continue. The only real solution will be pressure from popular movements and demands. As Frederick Douglas famously stated, "power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will." We must never stop demanding.
While the signs of the death of American democracy have been evident for some time, they have come into glaring focus in the last few months as the health care reform debate has taken center stage. The problems are clear to anyone with eyes to see. The United States spends much more on health care than any nation with which it likes to compare itself. Let's call these our peer nations for lack of a better term. Amongst these industrialized peers the US is virtually near the bottom in most indicators of the efficiency and efficacy of its health care system. Upwards of 50 million citizens have no access to health care. Take note, lest you think this is some irrelevant group of fellow citizens, it would be as if an entire nation somewhere between the size of France or Spain, had no access to health care. If you still remain unmoved, and, like Rush Limbaugh, would rather blame the ill or needy for their own plight, then consider the recent report on Bill Moyer's Journal about what it means to have no access to health care. In a word, it is appalling, and a national disgrace.
Spiraling health care costs are also threatening America's economic future. Indeed, health care costs have been growing at well above the inflation rate for some time, and now threaten the competitiveness of American employers, large and small. Every other of our peer nations has long since decided that all their citizens have a right to good medical care, and that this is consistent with health care being a right that accrues to all people, by virtue of their humanity, and nothing else. A comfortable majority of Americans also believe this, and wish to see a change in the way health care is delivered in this country. And yet, facing this problem for which there is near universal agreement that a change in the status quo is essential, the elected government appears powerless in the face of the minority corporate interests who are the only ones who benefit from perpetuation of the status quo. If the government cannot even adequately address an issue of such importance to all it's citizens, then what problems could it possibly solve?
The primary crisis facing American democracy is that the two major parties (Democrat and Republican) have long since stopped representing the interests of average citizens, rather, they almost exclusively govern at the whim of monied, corporate interests. There are numerous reasons for this, but several of the most relevant include; 1) These same interests fill the campaign coffers of both Parties, enabling the funding of the expensive public relations exercises that pass for political campaigns in this country. 2) A large fraction of candidates are drawn from groups of people that largely share the same interests as these corporate and wealthy constituencies. While this is especially true of Republican candidates, it is also largely true of Democrats as well. Not convinced, simply consider the US Senate, about half of whose members are millionaires, and which has an average net worth of between 8 and 9 million dollars. 3) The vast majority of media outlets that "inform" and shape American opinion are owned and controlled by corporate interests that share the same goals and ideology. This is the same corporate-owned media that "manufactures consent," and makes sure that corporate aims are always positively represented in their content. Indeed, you've probably never heard the term "manufacturing consent," one of the concepts ellucidated in the many writings of Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most widely cited intellectual in the world, but whose voice fellow Americans are systematically deprived of because he speaks truths which are in direct opposition to the corporate status quo. In fact, the exclusion of Chomsky from American media outlets is perhaps no better proof of his very critique of American corporate media.
Once in office the major party candidates overwhelming support a corporate agenda, but--at least this part hasn't changed yet--they still have to get elected. So how do they do it? Well, put simply, they try to talk a good game, and no one has been better at it in recent memory than our current President Barack Obama. Obama's soaring rhetoric was geared to capitalize on the deep, and justified, dissatisfaction with the Bush years. Among his principle campaign points were his promises around ending involvement in the Iraq war, as well as pushing a health care reform agenda. However, once in office it appears increasingly clear that the actions of the Obama administration do not match, or even come close, to the campaign rhetoric. And nowhere is this more clear than in his, and the Democratic Party's, efforts around health care reform.
Almost from the beginning the administration's actions have been one of attempting at all costs to placate their corporate clients in the health care and insurance industries. Obama has met with CEO's of all these entities, and on numerous occasions, and then sought to keep the records of whom was visiting the White House from public view. So much for transparency, which was supposedly going to be another hallmark of his presidency. Then came word of the "deal" reached between the White House and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, ostensibly giving them the "windfall" that the Government would not use it's bulk purchasing power to negotiate the best (read lowest) price for it's consumers, that is, we the taxpayers! Funny, I thought price negotiation was a core principle of a Capitalist free market system. From the outset, the "Obama plan," as much as we know about it, was seemingly geared to take care of corporate concerns before the health care concerns of most Americans. As in, let's reform health care so as to further increase the profit margins of insurance and drug companies!
No doubt there is a wing of the Democratic Party that does not act reflexively at the beck and call of corporate interests, but this minority group has routinely been played for suckers, promised that their concerns would be acted on, but then eventually rolled by the Party "pragmatists," epitomized by Obama's choice for White House chief of staff, fellow Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel. The same story is now playing out in the health care reform debacle, but with more devastating consequences. See the spot-on discussion by Glenn Greenwald. Indeed, it appears that the Party is more interested in appeasing Republican whack-jobs like unrepentant "deather" Chuck Grassley, who famously warned his constituents that they had every right to fear Sarah Palin's imagined "death panels," than the very people responsible for electing Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, not to mention returning the White House to a Democrat.
While the Democrats hold the White House and both houses of Congress with comfortable majorities, they appear remarkably "weak" in attempting to pass reform on an issue with such broad public support and importance. How can this be in a supposed democracy? Again, the "weakness" is that the interests of corporations and money carry much more weight on Capitol Hill and in the White House than the interests of average Americans. Democrats can equivocate, offering no end of laughable excuses for why they can't seem to do the people's business, but in the end the only reason that doesn't illicit chuckles is the fact that they are just as beholden to corporate interests as Republicans. Indeed, the present leadership in the Democratic Party appears set on maintaining political control by becoming more like the Republican Party than by expanding its appeal amongst working class and progressive constituencies. Another corrosive dynamic is that each Party seeks above all else to simply maintain its political hold on power. While such political calculating is to be expected at some level, it has completely trumped any service to the nation as a whole. Is it any wonder then that people feel completely cut off from their own government?
There is a minority that benefit from the status quo, these are the insurance and health care corporations and their clients who have made a killing out of denying care to Americans and turning treatment of the sick and infirm into a for-profit business. While they represent a minority of voters, their influence is greatly amplified by the power their money purchases on Capitol Hill, and the influence of media campaigns and exposure that they are able to fund and which corporate media allies gladly promulgate. Much of these media campaigns rely on myths and distortions regarding health care that are repeated endlessly. No doubt the support for reform and universal coverage would be greater still if not for the success of these propaganda campaigns.
So, is there any way to breach the corporate gridlock which is presently suffocating American democracy? There is no hope in the Republican Party. For many years they have been completely at the service of wealth and power. The only way they have been able to achieve occasional electoral successes is by mobilizing sufficient social conservative (think God, Guns and Gays) constituencies (themselves a minority), while politically suppressing their opponents at all turns. Even so, time, and the changing demographics of America seem set to continue to force Republicans (thankfully) into the minority. This leaves the Democratic Party or some alternative. Unless the present Party leadership can be retired or replaced with more progressive representatives, it does not appear that this dead-lock will be relieved any time soon. The elimination of corporate and special interest money from elections would be a useful step, but the well-heeled have always found a way to make their resources tell, and there is no reason to think this would not continue. The only real solution will be pressure from popular movements and demands. As Frederick Douglas famously stated, "power concedes nothing without a demand, it never did, and it never will." We must never stop demanding.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Welcome to Idiot America
Well, they are back. You may recall some months ago the whole "teabagger" phenomenon, a set of small-scale protests around President Obama's stimulus spending legislation and Tax Day (April 15). Groups of conservative protesters were apparently channeling the spirits of Boston's original Tea Party revolutionaries, determined to free America, from well, it' own government. Trouble was these modern day teabaggers apparently had no clue as to what the original Boston Tea Party was all about. The teabagging events were pumped up way beyond their actual impact, judging from the number of individuals actually involved. Several right wing conservative media outlets, principally Fox News, were largely to blame for the overblown media attention devoted to the whole disingenuous spectacle. For a quick review have a look at this informative and hilarious segment from the Rachel Maddow show.
Now, the teabagger "movement" appears to be coming back for round two, this time "organized" around the debate on health care reform. Protesters have disrupted several "town hall" meetings organized by Democratic members of Congress, and as with some of the teabagger events, these health care protests have quickly taken on an aggressive, threatening, and in some instances, a downright ugly tone (note the protester with swastika-emblazoned sign). As to what bringing health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it has to do with nazism, well, I'll have to leave that to the fertile imagination of readers.
And similarly with the teabaggers, this new round of conservative protests, ostensibly representing true grass roots organizing, appears to be partly spearheaded by several right wing front groups, including FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader, and newly minted global warming expert, Richard (Dick) Armey. The modus operandi of these "astro-turf" groups is to funnel conservative money into favorite right wing causes while attempting to give a veneer of grass roots respectability to the effort. In most cases the veneer turns out to be razor thin indeed.
Another unifying theme in these right wing efforts to turn back the clock is an almost unbelievable lack of substance combined with simple fabrication of facts and evidence. Put simply, these "protesters" seemingly don't have a clue about what they are actually protesting. In my previous post I discussed several classic examples of right wing dissembling on health care reform, but here is another recent example from none other than conservative darling and newly unemployed governor Sarah Palin. Remarking on her facebook page about the President's reform efforts, Palin had the following contribution to informed debate about health care;
This statement is simply despicable for its level of falsehood, idiocy and demagoguery. No one in the Administration, or anywhere else for that matter, has suggested that government bureaucrats would have anything to do with medical decisions. Indeed, the government funded Medicare program, a form of national health insurance, is amongst the most popular of government programs. There are no "death panels," arbitrating health care decisions for Medicare, only doctors. A similar circumstance exists in the national health programs of many other Nations, where only doctors are involved in patient's health care decisions. Ironically, the only place where putative "death panels" exist are in the boardrooms of private insurance companies, where corporate bureaucrats actually do make life and death decisions about health care.
No, the America that Sarah Palin apparently loves is the one where 50 million people have no easy access to health care and where people have to fight tooth and nail against corporate bureaucrats to get the care they need. The America that Sarah Palin loves is the one where almost 20,000 people die annually because of a lack of access to health care. Apparently, Sarah Palin has already passed judgment, and decided that these unfortunate souls do not have the requisite "level of productivity in society," to warrant her support. How ironic that Palin should talk about such evil when the truth is that the real evil is a for-profit health care system. Why is it that we never hear right wing mouthpieces talking about the real, documented "evils" of the present system?
Another revealing example of the tortured "logic" around some of the health care protests was provided by events at a town hall sponsored by Representative Gene Green (D-Tex). The assembled group of protesters indicated they were opposed to “... any form of socialized or government-run health care.” When subsequently asked by Representative Green how many of them were on Medicare a large fraction of hands shot up, apparently with no indication of the irony. As a friend explained it to me, "It's like they're living zombies. They are protesting the very teat they are suckling on!" If one expected more rational arguments from some Republicans in Congress then I am sorry to disappoint you. Their most recent contribution being the complete fabrication of an argument that reform would lead to euthanasia of the elderly. Talk about seeking the high ground.
So, since facts are so notably absent in any of these arguments, then what is the real basis for the opposition to health care reform, and more generally, apparently anything that President Obama has proposed? As with most things, the answers concern power and control. Privileged, wealthy, and reactionary interests--including corporate elites--see their power and position challenged and waning, and so they are fighting back with everything they can muster. The primary fuels for these right wing attacks are fear, ignorance and hate. And unfortunately, they feed upon the racism and xenophobia that is still present in America, despite right wing claims about a post-racial era.
An unfortunate and significant component in this ongoing assault on democracy is the almost complete demonization of rational thinking. Conservative talking heads, with significant corporate media support, have managed to create the now widespread cultural perception that to be smart, and indeed competent, is a bad thing, think "liberal elitist." This disturbing and dangerous state of affairs is described in Charles Pierce's recent book, "Idiot America." PZ Myers (pharyngula) has a nice review if you want to decide to give it a read. This situation is so dire that a major political party--do I need to identify it?--has essentially jettisoned the notion that it's politicians and representatives should be able to think rationally. As proof just consider that Party's recent candidate for the 2nd highest office in the land. Any Party that would work to elect a candidate with the lack of substance of a Sarah Palin does not deserve the support of rational voters. If this trend of the "dumbing down" of America is not reversed, the future will only be bleaker than the present.
Now, the teabagger "movement" appears to be coming back for round two, this time "organized" around the debate on health care reform. Protesters have disrupted several "town hall" meetings organized by Democratic members of Congress, and as with some of the teabagger events, these health care protests have quickly taken on an aggressive, threatening, and in some instances, a downright ugly tone (note the protester with swastika-emblazoned sign). As to what bringing health care to the 50 million Americans who don't have it has to do with nazism, well, I'll have to leave that to the fertile imagination of readers.
And similarly with the teabaggers, this new round of conservative protests, ostensibly representing true grass roots organizing, appears to be partly spearheaded by several right wing front groups, including FreedomWorks, which is run by the former House majority leader, and newly minted global warming expert, Richard (Dick) Armey. The modus operandi of these "astro-turf" groups is to funnel conservative money into favorite right wing causes while attempting to give a veneer of grass roots respectability to the effort. In most cases the veneer turns out to be razor thin indeed.
Another unifying theme in these right wing efforts to turn back the clock is an almost unbelievable lack of substance combined with simple fabrication of facts and evidence. Put simply, these "protesters" seemingly don't have a clue about what they are actually protesting. In my previous post I discussed several classic examples of right wing dissembling on health care reform, but here is another recent example from none other than conservative darling and newly unemployed governor Sarah Palin. Remarking on her facebook page about the President's reform efforts, Palin had the following contribution to informed debate about health care;
"The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."
This statement is simply despicable for its level of falsehood, idiocy and demagoguery. No one in the Administration, or anywhere else for that matter, has suggested that government bureaucrats would have anything to do with medical decisions. Indeed, the government funded Medicare program, a form of national health insurance, is amongst the most popular of government programs. There are no "death panels," arbitrating health care decisions for Medicare, only doctors. A similar circumstance exists in the national health programs of many other Nations, where only doctors are involved in patient's health care decisions. Ironically, the only place where putative "death panels" exist are in the boardrooms of private insurance companies, where corporate bureaucrats actually do make life and death decisions about health care.
No, the America that Sarah Palin apparently loves is the one where 50 million people have no easy access to health care and where people have to fight tooth and nail against corporate bureaucrats to get the care they need. The America that Sarah Palin loves is the one where almost 20,000 people die annually because of a lack of access to health care. Apparently, Sarah Palin has already passed judgment, and decided that these unfortunate souls do not have the requisite "level of productivity in society," to warrant her support. How ironic that Palin should talk about such evil when the truth is that the real evil is a for-profit health care system. Why is it that we never hear right wing mouthpieces talking about the real, documented "evils" of the present system?
Another revealing example of the tortured "logic" around some of the health care protests was provided by events at a town hall sponsored by Representative Gene Green (D-Tex). The assembled group of protesters indicated they were opposed to “... any form of socialized or government-run health care.” When subsequently asked by Representative Green how many of them were on Medicare a large fraction of hands shot up, apparently with no indication of the irony. As a friend explained it to me, "It's like they're living zombies. They are protesting the very teat they are suckling on!" If one expected more rational arguments from some Republicans in Congress then I am sorry to disappoint you. Their most recent contribution being the complete fabrication of an argument that reform would lead to euthanasia of the elderly. Talk about seeking the high ground.
So, since facts are so notably absent in any of these arguments, then what is the real basis for the opposition to health care reform, and more generally, apparently anything that President Obama has proposed? As with most things, the answers concern power and control. Privileged, wealthy, and reactionary interests--including corporate elites--see their power and position challenged and waning, and so they are fighting back with everything they can muster. The primary fuels for these right wing attacks are fear, ignorance and hate. And unfortunately, they feed upon the racism and xenophobia that is still present in America, despite right wing claims about a post-racial era.
An unfortunate and significant component in this ongoing assault on democracy is the almost complete demonization of rational thinking. Conservative talking heads, with significant corporate media support, have managed to create the now widespread cultural perception that to be smart, and indeed competent, is a bad thing, think "liberal elitist." This disturbing and dangerous state of affairs is described in Charles Pierce's recent book, "Idiot America." PZ Myers (pharyngula) has a nice review if you want to decide to give it a read. This situation is so dire that a major political party--do I need to identify it?--has essentially jettisoned the notion that it's politicians and representatives should be able to think rationally. As proof just consider that Party's recent candidate for the 2nd highest office in the land. Any Party that would work to elect a candidate with the lack of substance of a Sarah Palin does not deserve the support of rational voters. If this trend of the "dumbing down" of America is not reversed, the future will only be bleaker than the present.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Knuckle-scrapers in the House
In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's probably a safe bet that many (most?) Americans have never read this document, and that some are even completely unaware of its existence. If you haven't, I would urge you to take a few minutes to read its 30 Articles. I would also be willing to bet that having read it few people would find anything objectionable in the Declaration and that, indeed, it describes exactly what all people wish for their children. In particular, Article 25 describes the right to "... housing, and medical care and necessary social services..." Other Articles in the Declaration describe the right of all to the benefits provided by human advancement, such as scientific benefits, which would include medical discoveries and developments. The document urges all UN member States to strive towards the realization of these rights.
In the years and decades following the 2nd World War essentially all the industrialized democracies reached the conclusion, in agreement with the Universal Declaration, that all their citizens have the right to health care; that no one should be denied medical care because of an inability to pay for it. Thus, the norm amongst the Western democracies is a system of national health programs that enrolls all citizens, and that excludes no one because of economic circumstances. The details vary as to how such systems are implemented and paid for, but they all reflect the universal right to health care expressed in the UN Declaration. While polling indicates that a comfortable majority of Americans favor such a national health program that covers all citizens, the United States remains the extremist, alone among the Western democracies in having a for-profit health care system. Indeed, upwards of 60 million Americans have no health insurance, and perhaps as many as 100 million are under-insured, and vulnerable to catastrophic financial ruin if they should become seriously ill. If democratic government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, then how can this be?
I'm one of the lucky ones. Through my employer I have access to what would probably be considered a "good" health insurance plan. I recently had my most significant encounter with the US health care system. My five year old son had to have open-heart surgery to correct a congenital heart defect. He received fantastic care from all the doctors and nurses, and is doing great, but I couldn't help but think what a parent without health coverage would have to go through if their child were in a similar circumstance. But even with a "good" insurance plan, one is expected to make out of pocket payments at virtually every visit to a doctor or care giver. A visit to my primary care physician now requires a $25 co-payment, for example.
The present fight over health care reform reveals much about the sorry state of American democracy. Indeed, it highlights the fact that the institutions, such as the Congress, which are supposed to be instruments of the public good, are in fact controlled by powerful, private economic interests. Perhaps nothing exemplifies the endemic corruption in Congress around the health care issue as the key position that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) occupies within the process. Baucus is well known as a beneficiary of extensive campaign largesse in the form of millions of dollars from the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Any legislation significantly effecting health care reform will have to go straight through his committee. If this is not a conflict of interest, then the term has no meaning. In my field it would be as if one had the ability to peer review ones own scientific papers. Only in the US Congress could such circumstances be passed off as business as usual.
Even if reform can elude the entrenched corporate interests that routinely prowl Capitol Hill, then there is still no shortage of conservative ideological buffoonery to overcome. Witness the following contributions from two "luminaries" of the House Republican caucus during recent floor debate on health care, courtesy of the folks at Democracy Now!;
These comments reveal a number of outright lies and fabrications that the health care industry lobby and the Right in general likes to promulgate about health care reform. So, let's dispense with a number of these right now.
1) The "rationing" myth. This one is so ludicrous it's almost funny. The argument goes along the lines of Representative King's statements above. By going to a "socialized" system the government will decide who gets care and who doesn't, and you'll have to wait in long lines to see your doctor, and worse yet, there might even be a government bureaucrat making health care decisions! Often the argument is accompanied with comparisons to other country's
systems, with Canada and France often being used to illicit the desired fear response. This one is pure falsehood. The truth is that there are no "long lines" in countries with "socialized" medicine. People see their doctors in much the same way as with private insurance plans in the US. Indeed, polling shows that citizens of France and Canada have higher satisfaction rates with their health care systems than in the United States. As is often the case with deceitful right-wing propaganda, the truth is usually the opposite of the claim, and in this case even more so. The truth is that rationing is endemic to the private, for profit system in the US, not to "socialized" systems. Talk about rationing, how about excluding 1/5 of the population! Now that's serious rationing. Moreover, how do you think that private insurance providers make profits? They make money by rationing care! Indeed, amongst the industrialized democracies, the only nation where bureaucrats are routinely making health care decisions is in the for profit system in the United States. Here, insurance company bureaucrats make life and death decisions about who gets care and who doesn't. The truth is that only doctors make such decisions in countries like Canada.
2) The "we have the best health care system in the world" myth. This one is encapsulated in Representative Gohmert's ridiculous statement. Apparently Gohmert's ignorance of math is only eclipsed by his ignorance of the health care systems of other nations. Here again the truth is the exact opposite of the claim. The truth is that countries with "socialized" medicine actually get better health care, and unfortunately, the United States ranks well below most of the Western democracies with national health programs in many indicators of public health. As one example, the US ranks below Cuba and Cyprus in infant mortality, just ahead of Croatia. This is not to say that good health care can not be obtained in the US, indeed, America does have some of the best medical institutions in the world, but it is precisely the way that the care is rationed, ultimately only to those who can pay, that is so destructive. Because of the prohibitive costs many people defer preventive care and thus when they are treated it is at more advanced stages of disease, which is more costly to treat and results in poorer outcomes. Not surprisingly, the lack of health care, and its deleterious effects on public health, falls disproportionately on the poor.
3) The "slippery slope to socialism" myth. This one is also a rip. Anytime you hear some wing-nut frothing at the mouth against health care reform you can be sure that soon to follow is the charge that soon we'll all be wearing red and singing The Internationale. Of course the truth is rather different. Indeed, much of the US health care system is already "socialized." Two large examples include the Medicare program, which is essentially national health insurance for those over 65, and the Veterans Administration's programs providing health care to veterans. Indeed, Medicare is a good example, and one the private insurance companies greatly fear. The government administers the Medicare program with a 3-4% overhead, this compares with a more typical 25% (or worse) value for private plans. Here we see exactly why private insurance companies are desperate to keep public plans off the table. When you take the profit, the multi-million dollar corporate compensation packages, and the corporate jets out of the health care business, and just care for people, then it becomes impossible for the private insurers to compete.
While President Obama and most Democrats seem sincere in there desire to pass legislation that will provide coverage to all Americans, it also seems clear that their inclination is to try and do this by tinkering with the existing private insurance system. They may succeed in extending coverage to more people, but this path is almost certainly doomed to failure in terms of curbing costs. Other countries have already figured this out. How long will it take for America to wake up and finally fulfill the promise of health care for all enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Until the corporate control of Congress is lessened, then I fear the wait is not yet over.
In the years and decades following the 2nd World War essentially all the industrialized democracies reached the conclusion, in agreement with the Universal Declaration, that all their citizens have the right to health care; that no one should be denied medical care because of an inability to pay for it. Thus, the norm amongst the Western democracies is a system of national health programs that enrolls all citizens, and that excludes no one because of economic circumstances. The details vary as to how such systems are implemented and paid for, but they all reflect the universal right to health care expressed in the UN Declaration. While polling indicates that a comfortable majority of Americans favor such a national health program that covers all citizens, the United States remains the extremist, alone among the Western democracies in having a for-profit health care system. Indeed, upwards of 60 million Americans have no health insurance, and perhaps as many as 100 million are under-insured, and vulnerable to catastrophic financial ruin if they should become seriously ill. If democratic government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, then how can this be?
I'm one of the lucky ones. Through my employer I have access to what would probably be considered a "good" health insurance plan. I recently had my most significant encounter with the US health care system. My five year old son had to have open-heart surgery to correct a congenital heart defect. He received fantastic care from all the doctors and nurses, and is doing great, but I couldn't help but think what a parent without health coverage would have to go through if their child were in a similar circumstance. But even with a "good" insurance plan, one is expected to make out of pocket payments at virtually every visit to a doctor or care giver. A visit to my primary care physician now requires a $25 co-payment, for example.
The present fight over health care reform reveals much about the sorry state of American democracy. Indeed, it highlights the fact that the institutions, such as the Congress, which are supposed to be instruments of the public good, are in fact controlled by powerful, private economic interests. Perhaps nothing exemplifies the endemic corruption in Congress around the health care issue as the key position that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana) occupies within the process. Baucus is well known as a beneficiary of extensive campaign largesse in the form of millions of dollars from the health care and pharmaceutical industries. Any legislation significantly effecting health care reform will have to go straight through his committee. If this is not a conflict of interest, then the term has no meaning. In my field it would be as if one had the ability to peer review ones own scientific papers. Only in the US Congress could such circumstances be passed off as business as usual.
Even if reform can elude the entrenched corporate interests that routinely prowl Capitol Hill, then there is still no shortage of conservative ideological buffoonery to overcome. Witness the following contributions from two "luminaries" of the House Republican caucus during recent floor debate on health care, courtesy of the folks at Democracy Now!;
REP. STEVE KING (R-Iowa): Here’s another place where they think they’re going to save. They’re going to save money by rationing care, getting you in a long line. Places like Canada, United Kingdom and Europe, people die when they’re in line.
REP. LOUIS GOHMERT (R-Texas): Well, if you go to the socialized medicine countries, you find about 20 percent worse results. You get it? One in five people have to die because they went to socialized medicine! Now, I’ve got three daughters and a wife. I would hate to think that, among five women, one of them is going to die because we go to socialized care, and we have to have these long lists.
These comments reveal a number of outright lies and fabrications that the health care industry lobby and the Right in general likes to promulgate about health care reform. So, let's dispense with a number of these right now.
1) The "rationing" myth. This one is so ludicrous it's almost funny. The argument goes along the lines of Representative King's statements above. By going to a "socialized" system the government will decide who gets care and who doesn't, and you'll have to wait in long lines to see your doctor, and worse yet, there might even be a government bureaucrat making health care decisions! Often the argument is accompanied with comparisons to other country's
systems, with Canada and France often being used to illicit the desired fear response. This one is pure falsehood. The truth is that there are no "long lines" in countries with "socialized" medicine. People see their doctors in much the same way as with private insurance plans in the US. Indeed, polling shows that citizens of France and Canada have higher satisfaction rates with their health care systems than in the United States. As is often the case with deceitful right-wing propaganda, the truth is usually the opposite of the claim, and in this case even more so. The truth is that rationing is endemic to the private, for profit system in the US, not to "socialized" systems. Talk about rationing, how about excluding 1/5 of the population! Now that's serious rationing. Moreover, how do you think that private insurance providers make profits? They make money by rationing care! Indeed, amongst the industrialized democracies, the only nation where bureaucrats are routinely making health care decisions is in the for profit system in the United States. Here, insurance company bureaucrats make life and death decisions about who gets care and who doesn't. The truth is that only doctors make such decisions in countries like Canada.
2) The "we have the best health care system in the world" myth. This one is encapsulated in Representative Gohmert's ridiculous statement. Apparently Gohmert's ignorance of math is only eclipsed by his ignorance of the health care systems of other nations. Here again the truth is the exact opposite of the claim. The truth is that countries with "socialized" medicine actually get better health care, and unfortunately, the United States ranks well below most of the Western democracies with national health programs in many indicators of public health. As one example, the US ranks below Cuba and Cyprus in infant mortality, just ahead of Croatia. This is not to say that good health care can not be obtained in the US, indeed, America does have some of the best medical institutions in the world, but it is precisely the way that the care is rationed, ultimately only to those who can pay, that is so destructive. Because of the prohibitive costs many people defer preventive care and thus when they are treated it is at more advanced stages of disease, which is more costly to treat and results in poorer outcomes. Not surprisingly, the lack of health care, and its deleterious effects on public health, falls disproportionately on the poor.
3) The "slippery slope to socialism" myth. This one is also a rip. Anytime you hear some wing-nut frothing at the mouth against health care reform you can be sure that soon to follow is the charge that soon we'll all be wearing red and singing The Internationale. Of course the truth is rather different. Indeed, much of the US health care system is already "socialized." Two large examples include the Medicare program, which is essentially national health insurance for those over 65, and the Veterans Administration's programs providing health care to veterans. Indeed, Medicare is a good example, and one the private insurance companies greatly fear. The government administers the Medicare program with a 3-4% overhead, this compares with a more typical 25% (or worse) value for private plans. Here we see exactly why private insurance companies are desperate to keep public plans off the table. When you take the profit, the multi-million dollar corporate compensation packages, and the corporate jets out of the health care business, and just care for people, then it becomes impossible for the private insurers to compete.
While President Obama and most Democrats seem sincere in there desire to pass legislation that will provide coverage to all Americans, it also seems clear that their inclination is to try and do this by tinkering with the existing private insurance system. They may succeed in extending coverage to more people, but this path is almost certainly doomed to failure in terms of curbing costs. Other countries have already figured this out. How long will it take for America to wake up and finally fulfill the promise of health care for all enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Until the corporate control of Congress is lessened, then I fear the wait is not yet over.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Torturing the Truth
Last week I attended a scientific meeting in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Such trips usually are an occasion to catch up on some reading on the flights. In this case it was also an opportunity to gorge myself on as much green chile as possible, having obtained a serious chile addiction when I lived there. I managed to get through the bulk of Jane Mayer's, "The Dark Side," an unflinching look at how the Bush administration betrayed America's commitment to decency and the rule of law, and in its place implemented a criminal policy of torture and abuse of terror suspects, or even innocents caught up in its unbounded "war on terror."
Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;
1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.
2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.
3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.
4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.
Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.
It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.
Mayer documents the suffocating paranoia around the Bush inner circle in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. In particular, there seemed to be a deeply held fear that subsequent attacks were imminent, and that these could somehow topple the Nation. Tinged with this fear for the Nation within the administration was also a dread that a substantial fraction of the blame would, rightly, fall on those in power, and thus derail their already sputtering agenda. This paranoia led the administration to construct its response largely as a military exercise, purposefully choosing not to solve the problem of terror in the context of law enforcement. This choice would eventually lead to disastrous consequences both for citizens at home and countless innocents in places as far reaching as Afghanistan and Iraq.
Out of this environment of fear those around Vice President Cheney saw an opportunity to finally reclaim executive power that had been relinquished in the aftermath of the disastrous war in Vietnam and the abuses of the Nixon administration. Indeed, Cheney and those around him sought to establish the "unitary executive," essentially the notion that the President is a law unto himself. While Mayer describes no end of illegal and unethical behavior within the administration, several disturbing themes become apparent. These include;
1) Absolute contempt for the law. Time and again when faced with possible legal impediments to their desired goals administration apparatchiks simply disregarded the law, or worse, presumed the power to interpret or re-write laws as they saw fit. The leading example of this was the "overthrow" of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) by a small handful of administration lawyers--including the now infamous John Yoo and Jay Bybee-- who would essentially presume the power to write legislation. Time and again the administration would cut-off debate or dissent by simply having its OLC junta craft an appropriate memo (edict might be a more accurate term), many of which would essentially argue that 2+2=5, the famous "torture memo" being the most well-known example. This use of an ostensibly independent agency (the Justice Department) as a de-facto internal legislative body effectively short-circuited the Constitution. As such, these machinations represented gross violations of the President's duties and oath to defend the Constitution and by themselves would constitute impeachable offenses, or worse.
2) Absolute contempt for the democratic process. It was remarkable the extent to which political appointees in relatively low-level positions were essentially making and implementing national policy, often in areas for which their positions had no official portfolio. The most egregious example of this behavior was within the Vice President's office, where David Addington, Cheney's legal counsel, wielded enormous influence on national security issues, an area in which he had no formal portfolio. Indeed, more than once had Addington driven other administration members to fits of rage by usurping their positions in the national security hierarchy. In particular, Addington, because of his closeness to Cheney, was able to influence policy surrounding detainee interrogation and disposition to an almost unbelievable extent. This became possible also because Cheney would apparently always have the last word with President Bush, essentially getting him to agree to anything the Vice President desired. While American democracy can only truly function within a partnership of the different branches of government, this notion of partnership was anathema to the Bushites. They sought to and did exclude any and all, in any branch of the government, who might be perceived as cool to their radical ideas. Often this was done with deception and dishonesty, or, more commonly, through intimidation and threats. So much for whistle-blower legal protections, oh, that's right, see 1) above.
3) An absolute commitment to secrecy and the impunity that it enables. The Bush administration expanded exponentially the use of the secret classification, and attempted to hide from public view almost anything that it perceived as controversial, which, as it turned it was most of their "war on terror" programs. Indeed, it can be argued that the Bush administration lowered the "state secret" defense to new levels of abuse. It becoming necessary to declare anything and everything a state secret that might reflect badly on the administration. Deeply troubling was the desire by some in the administration to empower secret special forces with the "authorization" to kill whomever was deemed necessary to eliminate, no matter where they may be. Sounds a lot like a "death squad" to my ears. Such secrecy and indeed, a devotion to it, are incompatible with a functioning democracy. It remains troubling that even under President Obama the Justice Department appears intent on defending much of the Bush administration's arguments concerning so-called state secrets. This is even more disconcerting in that it is now pretty clear that much of this secrecy was enacted to shield illegal conduct from public scrutiny.
4) Honorable Americans tried to do the right thing at almost every turn. One of the hopeful themes from "Dark Side" is that in most of the situations described, one or several agents within the government were committed to working within the framework of the law, and attempted to prevent the implementation of disastrous and illegal policies. A sobering realization, and which has crucial implications for future accountability, is how, invariably, they were unable to stop the Bush train. Indeed, a number of FBI agents were appalled by the nature of "enhanced" interrogation policies being implemented by the CIA. In several cases FBI agents had first begun interrogations of suspects using smart and legal methods of interrogation, and with much initial success, only for the CIA to subsequently be granted custody, and for the "gloves to come off." An invariable outcome of this was that the detainees would actually be less responsive with information. Also, with such tactics, it becomes impossible to gain information over the long term, and moreover, it becomes almost impossible for such coerced evidence to be used at trial.
Meanwhile, it's been remarkable to watch the recent torture "debate" in the corporate media. On the one hand it's rather astonishing to see the extent to which so-called mainstream outlets are willing to give former administration officials, most notably Cheney, a pulpit from which to proclaim the efficacy of "enhanced" techniques. On the other hand, one would have to search far and wide for even a brief discussion of the actual law and facts surrounding torture, which is actually quite clear and easily understood. I would argue that several factors contribute to this willingness. First, the conservative, right-wing, reactionary viewpoint of Cheney and his ilk is well represented in the corporate world of big media. For this fascist crowd the law is just a self-serving tool. Laws are for the other guy, we'll just do whatever we perceive to be in our interests, emphasis on the "our." Another angle is that corporate media loves a confrontation. The torture good or bad debate fits nicely into this framework. "Conservative" viewpoints, by definition one of the acceptable opinions, are always given a hearing, no matter how extreme, to perhaps be countered by the "liberal" viewpoint. No matter the laws broken, or the long-term, extensive damage done to American security and America's standing in the world, those who authored the torture policies and should, rightly, be facing prosecutions, can be paraded as patriots on America's corporate airwaves.
It is in such an environment that the new administration, and Democrats in general appear remarkably weak and unwilling to directly confront and oppose the question of "enhanced" interrogations. Democrats are unable, or perhaps simply unwilling, to articulate the fact based narrative of how Republican policies around the war on terror have left America much less secure. This is evidenced in Obama's willingness to adopt much of the Bush administrations framing of the global war on terror. Obama talks a good game, but when we look at the policy choices that have been made with regard to detainee treatment and the so-called war on terror in general, the pace of any change has been either depressingly slow or simply non-existent. Particularly troubling is the Obama administration's apparent unwillingness to seek investigations and prosecutions of former Bush administration officials for engineering a torture policy in clear violation of American and International law. If the rule of law means anything, then Obama needs to support a criminal investigation. If he does not, then those so inclined will draw the obvious conclusion, that they too can break the law as they see fit. It is indeed ironic that after a century of American leadership on human rights we may now have to wait for universal jurisdiction proceedings in a Spanish court to see some accountability for America's torturers.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The "Bow" Situation
Wolf Blitzer must be the highest paid buffoon in the history of media buffoonery. Wolf hosts, among other things, CNN's "The Situation Room." Think generals huddled around a map contemplating movements of their military formations that could result in the end of the world as we know it. That's what CNN, and most of the rest of America's corporate media, would like us to think, that every "story" they report is of the utmost importance to the security of Americans, that even a simple greeting of a head of state could result in the "fall" of America. Thus, we are to think that Wolf, and his peers at other networks, are the epitome of seriousness, that they are perhaps amongst the most sanguine Americans, having been entrusted to such important positions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.
By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.
Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.
The most recent episode underlining the complete bankruptcy of main-stream American "journalism" is the kerfuffle regarding President Obama's ostensible handshake and "bow" to the Saudi King. Obama, apparently meeting the king for the first time, leaned over and grasped his hands in greeting. Not an uncommon practice, but after the fact a stream of wing-nut conservatives grasped at this "subjugation" of ostensible American dominance to argue that Obama was one step from selling the country over to the Saudis. This, a non-story is ever there was one, became a lead item in the 24 hour news-cycle-driven lunacy that has become American corporate media. This would not be possible if not for "journalists" like Blitzer who will happily run with whatever ridiculousness is uttered by right-wing wack-jobs like Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, etc, etc, (add your favorite). Blitzer can, with a straight face, query his hand-picked guests, invariably someone with at least a tenuous connection with reality (the "liberal"), and a "conservative" for balance, in this particular case the former Bush White House press secretary, the hopelessly imbecilic Dana Perino, who was more than happy to argue that Obama was close to relinquishing the sovereignty of the United States. And they go back and forth, one side attempting to make some connection with reality, and the other completely off the rails. But, crucially, each is treated on an equal footing. The ridiculous assertions of Perino and the right wing echo chamber are granted de facto legitimacy, regardless of the factual content--or lack thereof-- of their assertions. This is what American media has become.
By definition there are two viewpoints that are allowed access, the "liberal," and "conservative," none others need apply. Both of these form the mainstream consensus. To large extent they support similar political viewpoints. Most importantly, both are subservient to private, corporate constituencies. Each side is allowed to express their opinions, and that is the "news." To large extent what each side says is, by definition, the news, and the primary function of American corporate media is to present the statements of each side, without any attempt to determine what might be factual and what might not. For the most part, the corporate media reflect the viewpoints of their owners and peers, which perhaps explains their willingness to present even the most laughable and ludicrous claims of the right as "news," "bow-gate" simply being the most recent example.
Our corporate media outlets have ceased to function as news agencies, rather, they are largely conveyors of propaganda, often hate-filled and dangerous, the most egregious recent examples coming from the tortured mind of Fox News' Glenn Beck. At a time of economic turmoil, with millions of people struggling to stay afloat, and anxious and uncertain about the future, this is a potentially explosive situation.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Kickin' Up
The payment of upwards of $200 million in bonuses to employees of one-time insurance giant AIG, after said company was bailed out to the tune of $180 billion with hard-earned taxpayer money, has rightly led to a firestorm of indignation from the public and clearly vulnerable politicians and administration officials, including President Obama, with their fingerprints all over the odious bailout legislation and policies. Apparently, AIG execs paid out "retention" bonuses, some to the tune of more than $5 million, to individuals in its financial products unit, the very division responsible for bringing the company to its knees. The ostensible argument given by AIG generalissimo Edward Liddy was that these employees needed to be persuaded to stay with the company because they were the only ones with sufficient knowledge of all the murky "deals"--bets would be a more honest description--to allow the company to "unwind" the deals and extricate itself with a minimum of additional losses. That the AIG execs felt this was a proper decision shows us the depths to which our so called financial masters and their defenders and supporters in the government have fallen. And, go figure, a significant fraction of the "bonused" just took the money and ran. While a herd of politicians and current and former administration officials had initially sworn they had no prior knowledge of the bonuses, it is now clear that both the relevant Congressional leaders and Treasury officials knew that the payments would be made and acquiesced. Read, for example, the eloquent summary of current affairs by Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch.
Let's get a few numbers out in the open that will let us gauge the level of greed and corruption which is now being evidenced. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States for 2007 was just about $50,000. That is, half of all households made less than this, and the other half made more. Since about the mid '70s average incomes for most American workers have remained flat or actually fallen. The only reason median household incomes have risen modestly is because more people are working per household, and generally working longer. Now, consider that some of the bonuses paid by AIG execs were in excess of $5,000,000, a sum 100 times greater than half the families in the US earn in a whole year. Next, consider that these sums were paid AFTER the company was near failure and was rescued by 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the tacit approval of government officials, and one begins to see that Americans have a right to be boiling mad over this intolerable state of affairs.
I've often wondered what it is that a corporate CEO does in each 8 hour day that would justify the incredible sums they are paid in compensation, often in the region of many millions of dollars per year, not even considering so-called bonuses! From recent events one can only conclude that the ability to run a company into the ground doesn't come cheap. Ironic how a chief argument of many corporate and Wall Street apologists has been the professed need to maintain exorbitant compensation and bonuses in order to keep the "best and brightest" at these firms. With talent like that Wall Street could afford some mediocrity, or better yet, downright incompetence! One of the more "creative" recent arguments put forth in support of the bonus payments has to be that of CNBC anchor Mark Haines who suggested that, "It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them." Like I said, creative. Insane, but creative.
While mainstream media attention on "bonus-gate" has shed some important light on the issue, as usual the more important story lies elsewhere, and serves to show the truly massive scale of the corruption on Wall Street and in the government as well. While AIG was "bailed-out" with more than $100 billion in public funds it now appears clear that a large fraction of this money was then funneled to the very same financial institutions--most notoriously Goldman Sachs, which received almost $13 billion--and that have been at the heart of the financial scandal and who themselves had to be rescued with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Democracy Now has an excellent story on this so-called "back-door bailout."
The dealing around Goldman in particular reeks of corruption. As Robert Scheer has ably discussed, the decision to save AIG, only days after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to fail, was reached after a meeting that included a host of former Goldman execs and proteges as well as the CEO of Goldman, the only CEO at the meeting. Participants at the meeting included then head of the NY Federal Reserve bank, and current Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner; and former CEO of Goldman and then Treasury secretary (in the Bush administration) Hank Paulson. All of these parties need to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, if not a court of law, to answer some very serious questions. Principle among these is why the CEO of Goldman would even be permitted at such a meeting, with the company having upwards of $20 billion in toxic "bets" insured by AIG? If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, the fact that President Obama has moved a number of these people into his administration, including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the protege of one-time Goldman CEO and Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, is deeply troubling. Recall that is was Rubin who led the Clinton administration's support for the Financial Services Modernization and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts, both of which became law and did anything but modernize the financial industry, and in fact paved the way to unregulated credit default swaps and other financial instruments of mass destruction, in the prophetic words of Warren Buffet. Given the magnitude of the plunder, and the degree of public outrage it is hard to see how Obama can continue to support Geithner. Indeed, if Obama wishes to maintain support from working people, then he should do an about-face and start fresh with a new economic team comprised of reputable Main-street economists and not a pack of Wall Street re-treads.
Or perhaps the whole scandal is simply revealing who is really in charge of our economy and government. Wall Street financial institutions, and other corporate interests generally, have been among the largest contributors to both major political parties for decades now. Moreover, the revolving door from government to Wall Street has been operating at full speed during this time. Little wonder then that government decisions on financial deregulation and the use of public money, have so often favored these financial robber barons.
In the world of organized crime the boss has the last say, and his lieutenants and foot soldiers have to go "upstairs" to get tacit approval for their deals and to keep the boss up to speed on what's going down. Or, at least, that's how the bosses would like it to go. OK, I confess to having watched a certain trilogy of Francis Ford Coppola films more than a few times! Another key aspect of the criminal underworld is that the junior guys have to "kick up" a decent percentage of proceeds from their dealing, and of course, everybody eventually kicks up to the boss. Maybe we're just seeing the "foot soldiers," our own elected representatives, kicking up to the real bosses, the financial oligarchs who seem increasingly to have the final say in decisions which impact all Americans. Moreover, the boss always holds the fear of reprisal over the heads of his underlings. Don't let the boss find out you've been holding out on a particular deal, that's a good way to get yourself whacked. It would seem that our real economic masters are now holding the whole country hostage with a similar kind of fear, "better pay up or we'll just whack the whole economy." While undoubtedly these analogies are not perfect, they seem to hold more than a grain of truth. Chiefly, that corruption is much more endemic to "free market" capitalism than is ever admitted in our supposedly free corporate media. We love to talk about the corruption present in other countries economies and governments, but nothing can compare to the levels of corruption we have seen on Wall Street recently, and which have had devastating consequences here and around the world.
Let's get a few numbers out in the open that will let us gauge the level of greed and corruption which is now being evidenced. According to the Census Bureau, the median household income in the United States for 2007 was just about $50,000. That is, half of all households made less than this, and the other half made more. Since about the mid '70s average incomes for most American workers have remained flat or actually fallen. The only reason median household incomes have risen modestly is because more people are working per household, and generally working longer. Now, consider that some of the bonuses paid by AIG execs were in excess of $5,000,000, a sum 100 times greater than half the families in the US earn in a whole year. Next, consider that these sums were paid AFTER the company was near failure and was rescued by 10's of billions of taxpayer dollars, and with the tacit approval of government officials, and one begins to see that Americans have a right to be boiling mad over this intolerable state of affairs.
I've often wondered what it is that a corporate CEO does in each 8 hour day that would justify the incredible sums they are paid in compensation, often in the region of many millions of dollars per year, not even considering so-called bonuses! From recent events one can only conclude that the ability to run a company into the ground doesn't come cheap. Ironic how a chief argument of many corporate and Wall Street apologists has been the professed need to maintain exorbitant compensation and bonuses in order to keep the "best and brightest" at these firms. With talent like that Wall Street could afford some mediocrity, or better yet, downright incompetence! One of the more "creative" recent arguments put forth in support of the bonus payments has to be that of CNBC anchor Mark Haines who suggested that, "It’s just like when the Allies were victorious over Nazi Germany in World War II, when we occupied the country, we left a lot of Nazis in place because they were the ones who made the trains run on time and the bureaucracy function properly, etc. And it was distasteful, but you needed them." Like I said, creative. Insane, but creative.
While mainstream media attention on "bonus-gate" has shed some important light on the issue, as usual the more important story lies elsewhere, and serves to show the truly massive scale of the corruption on Wall Street and in the government as well. While AIG was "bailed-out" with more than $100 billion in public funds it now appears clear that a large fraction of this money was then funneled to the very same financial institutions--most notoriously Goldman Sachs, which received almost $13 billion--and that have been at the heart of the financial scandal and who themselves had to be rescued with billions of dollars of taxpayer funds. Democracy Now has an excellent story on this so-called "back-door bailout."
The dealing around Goldman in particular reeks of corruption. As Robert Scheer has ably discussed, the decision to save AIG, only days after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to fail, was reached after a meeting that included a host of former Goldman execs and proteges as well as the CEO of Goldman, the only CEO at the meeting. Participants at the meeting included then head of the NY Federal Reserve bank, and current Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner; and former CEO of Goldman and then Treasury secretary (in the Bush administration) Hank Paulson. All of these parties need to be subpoenaed to testify before Congress, if not a court of law, to answer some very serious questions. Principle among these is why the CEO of Goldman would even be permitted at such a meeting, with the company having upwards of $20 billion in toxic "bets" insured by AIG? If that's not a conflict of interest then I don't know the meaning of the phrase. Moreover, the fact that President Obama has moved a number of these people into his administration, including Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the protege of one-time Goldman CEO and Clinton administration Treasury secretary Robert Rubin, is deeply troubling. Recall that is was Rubin who led the Clinton administration's support for the Financial Services Modernization and Commodity Futures Modernization Acts, both of which became law and did anything but modernize the financial industry, and in fact paved the way to unregulated credit default swaps and other financial instruments of mass destruction, in the prophetic words of Warren Buffet. Given the magnitude of the plunder, and the degree of public outrage it is hard to see how Obama can continue to support Geithner. Indeed, if Obama wishes to maintain support from working people, then he should do an about-face and start fresh with a new economic team comprised of reputable Main-street economists and not a pack of Wall Street re-treads.
Or perhaps the whole scandal is simply revealing who is really in charge of our economy and government. Wall Street financial institutions, and other corporate interests generally, have been among the largest contributors to both major political parties for decades now. Moreover, the revolving door from government to Wall Street has been operating at full speed during this time. Little wonder then that government decisions on financial deregulation and the use of public money, have so often favored these financial robber barons.
In the world of organized crime the boss has the last say, and his lieutenants and foot soldiers have to go "upstairs" to get tacit approval for their deals and to keep the boss up to speed on what's going down. Or, at least, that's how the bosses would like it to go. OK, I confess to having watched a certain trilogy of Francis Ford Coppola films more than a few times! Another key aspect of the criminal underworld is that the junior guys have to "kick up" a decent percentage of proceeds from their dealing, and of course, everybody eventually kicks up to the boss. Maybe we're just seeing the "foot soldiers," our own elected representatives, kicking up to the real bosses, the financial oligarchs who seem increasingly to have the final say in decisions which impact all Americans. Moreover, the boss always holds the fear of reprisal over the heads of his underlings. Don't let the boss find out you've been holding out on a particular deal, that's a good way to get yourself whacked. It would seem that our real economic masters are now holding the whole country hostage with a similar kind of fear, "better pay up or we'll just whack the whole economy." While undoubtedly these analogies are not perfect, they seem to hold more than a grain of truth. Chiefly, that corruption is much more endemic to "free market" capitalism than is ever admitted in our supposedly free corporate media. We love to talk about the corruption present in other countries economies and governments, but nothing can compare to the levels of corruption we have seen on Wall Street recently, and which have had devastating consequences here and around the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)