More Corrupt or Just Seems More Corrupt and Is The Same Old Thing?

Ok, so I'm thinking. Perhaps this HCR thing is more like Medicare Part D than anything else (and no that is not original with me). A Frankenstein's Monster of a bill the major purpose of which was to syphon money into the pockets of the Pharmaceutical Industry. In passing it also kind of helped people on Medicare. Although it wasn't designed to really help people, but that was the way it was sold. Essentially Medicare recipients were the conduit to funnel the money into the industry. Now it did help people to an extent, but it also has up to this point been a disaster for Medicare funding. It does give people on Medicare about 80% of what they need to cover the costs of their medications in the most convoluted and expensive way possible.

Is it better than nothing? Maybe. But on the other hand it has been nothing to build on and it hasn't been changed although everyone recognizes it as a give a way to drug companies. It was also designed to prevent any competition for the drug companies and to permit them to rape the tax payer. Sound familiar.

The excessive costs permit conservatives to argue that we cannot help people because we just can't afford it, don't you see. So perhaps in the long run maybe it is worse to have that program. The argument on the other side is if we do not have this kind of program then we will prevent any program and people will die. Or it will be so long before you get any program that people will die. The fault of the deaths of these people are always on the shoulders of the people who are pushing for social programs, never on the shoulders of those who are preventing reasonable programs from being implemented, for some strange reason.

So here is the way it is presented: Is it better to have a program to help people with their medications rather than give them nothing? It is better to provide people with private insurance rather than provide them with no coverage for their medical needs? Are those the only choices? Is an elephant shit sandwich better than a cat shit sandwich for dinner? Well elephants only digest about 40% or the food they eat and cats all most all of it. So if you have to pick through shit to get to some kind of sustenance then I guess elephant shit is better than cat shit. Although, I'm not sure that's how I want my bread buttered.

We Hate You We Hate You We Hate You

So I'm thinking of writing a post about what is going on with the HCR debate (some surprise). There are a couple of issues that intrigue me (in the sense that I am just barley able to prevent myself from screaming hysterically and pulling an Oedipus).

Greenwald tackles one aspect in detail and touches on another. His main point is the fact that everybody knew that liberals/progressives in congress wouldn't hold out for anything and so could be completely ignored. Even Dennis caved and got nothing for it other than a ride on Air Force One. The second half of is that those in the liberal blogging community have turned on those of us who continue to oppose a bill that has nothing in it that almost all liberals insisted had to be in it a few months ago in order to support it. As Greenwald says now people like me and those at Firedoglake "are being treated as though they are Pol Pot."

This bill must be passed because because because. As I said before, one points out the real problems with the bill and the serious issues, including questioning whether or not the bill will cover those it's supporters claim it will cover and there is not a refutation of that criticism or even a discussion of the issues, but rather just attacks, including being challenged as being a mere troll out to destroy the community.

Certainly those who are backing the bill have been rewarded by the near insanity of the right wing attacks on the bill. They do look good in comparison, but of course nearly every crazy complaint by the right wing gets the bill changed to accommodate that complaint: Death Panels: we will get rid of counseling concerning living wills. Illegal Aliens: we will also certainly make sure that no illegal immigrants get any health care even though that can harm the health of all the rest of us, if someone who has an infectious disease doesn't go to the E.R.

Not a single one of the issues raised by the liberals have been addressed not a single one of the concerns has been fixed, but still we are told that we must support that bill. Not only that but we have got to keep our peace and not complain else Obama may be harmed. Kucinich said specifically "We have to be very careful that the potential of President Obama's presidency not be destroyed by this debate." Wow just wow, we have got to vote for this bill which literally yesterday I said I couldn't vote for because it had nothing in it that I said it had to have. We have to vote for the bill because the president needs it, not because we need it. Or it will do what it is supposed to do.

We are being told that the bill is the most important piece of social legislation in a generation. Well in a way it may just be, it will have socially engineered our society so that individually we are required to pay a minimum of 20% or so of our GDP for health insurance (I almost wrote health care, but that is a misnomer, it is money paid to insurance companies) and it is at least double what the rest of the world pays.

Remember the Sir Robin in The Holy Grail who always shouts "Run Away, Run Away" at the battle scenes. You know:




I suspect that is closer to what all the liberals in congress are than anything. So once you have invested in these cowards, or are yourself one of them then you are going to be pretty mad at anyone who points that out. Also, in a couple of years you are going to be pretty pissed off at people who tell you "I told you so, you should have listened to me back when there was the possibility of getting something good."

I suspect that will really irritate people. I know I know it is not a very satisfying explanation, but it is all I've got.

Still, I am unable to understand why no liberal has a back bone. Perhaps if I were given incredible power and wealth I might be able to understand why I was unable and unwilling to put it on the line for any principle at all.

Oh yes, I forgot I am apparently one of the 3% of liberals who believe that this bill sucks. Hmmmm. I am awaiting being shown that I am wrong, just like with the WMDs.

More Nihilism for Nothing

So should I change the blogs color for St. Paddy's day? Nah, fuck it.

Kucinich weaseled out and now he realizes how difficult Obama has it and is going to support the bill. I have a question: Where the fuck has he been? Obama made this fucking bill more difficult from the git by promising the moon to the various industries involved with "secret" deals that didn't remain secret. So there is no savings, but the cost is theoretically passed on the the government, which of course is everybody and that money is siphoned directly to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Tbogg has a particularly silly post up which has brought out a large number of Obama people to parrot the ............... actually I was wondering what to call them, but they are merely slogans. "This is the last best chance." "We will be able to build on this." "Thirty-one million more will be covered."

No one explains why this is the last best chance, why Medicare wasn't able to be built on, or how well in reality those 31,000,000 will be covered. But it has got to happen now and it has to happen with this bill and apparently we've got to pull Obama's bacon out of the fire.

There is nothing secret here, no matter how much Obama and Emanuel wanted to keep it secret. Pouring money into the health care industries (other than the nurses of course, but then they aren't an industry, now are they?).

It is now a kind of proof that you are indeed a good democrat. You've got to back this or you are dissing the president and the party leaders. Obama needs your support because he has put his reputation on the line. I seem to remember something very similar with NAFTA. Support the president or ............... he won't win and then it will be his Waterloo, and that will be bad for the rest of us. There is no explanation as to why a defeat of this kind of bill will be bad for anything but Obama's ego. Like NAFTA the end result will be disaster for the democrats and anything even remotely resembling a liberal program. Next up lets regulate the banking industry by giving more power to the bankers. And happy St. Patrick's Day.

BSHCRSANDWICH

So now the Veal Pen is down to demanding that liberal/progressives in congress pass this abortion of a HCR, which does not have single payer or any public option at all. It does however require us all to buy health insurance from private companies or be fined through the IRS. It essentially fines people who have been able to negotiate good benefits through their employers by taxing those benefits, and in this way punishes unions for getting these benefits for their members. It also promises (in addition to promising the insurance companies 31 million new customers) the pharmaceutical industry uncontrolled profits unlike they see in any other country in the world.

Now if you are found to be poor enough (although I'm not sure what "enough" means here) the government will pay your insurance or at maybe just a portion of your insurance. Want to bet me that portion will be under 100%? In the end of course the middle class will pay through taxes, or perhaps those subsidizes will be "borrowed" from Social Security to help the undeserving poor. There is no control over the insurance (or pharmaceutical) costs. There is no real regulatory agency and there is no ability for the individual states to try their own version of single payer.

What do we get? We get the promise that sometime later on because we have gotten HCR right now, which isn't anything but a pay off to the various industries who control health care in this country, that later we will be able to come back and to fight again. Now this fight will be easier because we have gotten this bill which provides us with literally nothing, you see.

There is no explanation as to why or how this bill which the entire democratic power structure and their veal pens say is reform, but isn't, will make the next round easier. There is only the old "camel's nose in the tent" argument. There is no explanation as to why Medicare isn't the camel's nose in the tent so that this should be so much easier this time. Just that we've got to do this because now is the best chance we will have. Well if this is the best chance we will have then it will not get better and it will not be improved upon.

Krugman argues that we should not support Dodd's bill to re-regulate the financial industry because that bill is nothing but smoke and mirrors and once it is passed then no real reform will happen. Do you believe his explanation of the difference between that and HCR.

I am also sick and tired of the argument that this bill is "the good," as in the phrase: "The best is the enemy of good enough." If this bill is "good enough" (and I think that I accurately described it up above) then I'd be interested in seeing what would be bad enough to make the veal pen and fake liberals oppose it. Or maybe not.

Finally, all these people in congress signed a pledge not to vote for HCR that didn't include a public option. Now all but a few (thanks Dennis) are backing out on their pledge. But would you like to guess who is getting the flack (that would be you again Dennis) for opposing it. Full court press being put on against Kucinich by the lefty blogs and the WH. Now when Leiberman opposed all sorts of things the lefty blogs threw a fit, but the WH was noticeable for it's reticence as was the leadership of the senate. Lieberman apparently opposed just what the WH and leadership wanted, but he still has his chairmanships and power.

The really crazy thing is that it appears that there are enough votes to pass some kind of public option, but the WH and all the leadership made sure that wouldn't happen. So where does that leave us right now? Looks like we (and by we I mean the people who are the workers and middle class in this country) are going to get to eat another shit sandwich, much like NAFTA. We are going to end up more marginalized and more powerless and the wealthy are going to get to control more and more (not that they don't control most of every thing now).

Spelling for Dummies

Ok, so the last post was published without spell checking. That was not my desire, but because I couldn't get the damn spell checker to spell check. when I realized that I had forgotten something and added it as an Update, I was able to spell check. Oh boy, am I a bad speller.

I blame my third grade teacher Mrs. Westenhimer (which is spelled correctly because we had to spell her name right before we moved on to fourth grade). (Incidentally, we did not graduate until we got to high school and then only part of us. We were tougher then, not because we wanted to be, but because we were not given any choice. On the other hand we were not thrown into jail for carving on our desks either. The gym teacher would just snap us in two.) At any rate she (Mrs. Westenhimer, not the gym teacher who I am not sure knew how to read) was the one who introduced us to the concept of see and spell. Just memorize the damned word, do not try to sound it out you little twerps. She was also the chubby one, I had her daughter in the fifth grade and she was really cute, just having graduate from college, which might be another reason I don't really remember much from the fifth grade.

The second teacher and the one who finally broke my spelling spirit and caused me to say what the fuck, was a sixth grade teacher who gave me a failing grade on the first spelling test I had actually studied for and I knew all the words. Her feeling was that I was never any good in spelling and would never be any good therefore if I got a perfect score I must have been cheating. She should have been a cop. At any rate I understand that she died a horrible death later, not I'm sure, related to her abuse of me.

Now where was I, oh yes. I was attempting to explain why the last post had so many miss-spelled words in it when it was first posted and why it has so few now. It is all the fault of my childhood.

A Couple of Bits and Pieces

This isn't meant as a completely coherent argument, but rather some thoughts in response to ideas in favor of HCR that I've seen argued at other places and quite frankly I wasn't quick enough to get the response in the thread.

First, get it passed and then they will fix it. I remember when NAFTA was being argued and exactly the same argument was made, by many of the same people (Emanuel for instance). How did that work? I really do not recall any fixes being put in place after it was passed. No do not argue that it was different because it was a treaty, they SAID they would fix it, they didn't an they didn't try to.

Second, look at those right wing nut cases who oppose it, their reasons are just crazy, they can't be right. Well, I'm reminded of the massive change in the bankruptcy law that was pushed by, once again, many who are pushing HCR. It was the most progressive and the far right that prevented it from becoming a law for a year. The specific criticism's from the right were not accurate, but they were right the law itself is a disaster for the average American and it was our most centrist democratic leaders who pushed it (Hoyer for instance) and finally got it through. They were more than happy to screw the people they supposedly represent.

Third, you don't trust them to fix it, but you do trust them to run a [public option/single payer] whatever. This just shows an sad inconsistency in your thought. Actually, it doesn't and it is a cheap high school debaters game. I trust them to administer a program be it Social Security or Legal Aid. Sometimes better and sometimes worse, but to still run a program under the law that happens to be in existence. As for trusting them to fix it, see First above.

UPDATE: Fourth, you are just a purist and you really are insisting or the "perfect which we all know is the enemy of good enough. That is complete B.S. no one in congress and most out of congress are not insisting on real socialized medicine. Not even single payer. No simply some form of an insurance that the government has that one can buy to compete with the insurance companies, the public option. The alternative seems to be a requirement to buy insurance from insurance companies at whatever they want to charge with a subsidy of 80% to 90%.

Originally run without spell check.

We're Fucked

Back at relentlessly avoiding work again. I plan on being here until later tonight, about 6 or 7 or thereabouts.

I've commented on Balloon-Juice where I go to just get my fair share of abuse when I come out opposed to the current in any possible form that could be passed by the current (or any possibly imagined) federal legislature within (unfortunately and apparently) my life time (even given the fact that my grandmother lived to be 101) Health Care Reform (which is incidentally really Pharmaceutical, Insurance, and Private Hospital bonuses).

Then I go by Hullabaloo and Sadly No to read about the push for the new bankster (not really) controls being proposed by the administration and democrats.

After that, a swing by Greenwald for a depressing discussion of our very own Hope and Change Guys complete kind of defense of what he is doing with the underpants bomber 'cause it really isn't any worse than what the last Torturer in Chief did with the shoe bomber anyway, but no principal involved (on the other hand it does have some nice videos).

It think that I have to get over this kind of feeling I am having concerning the fact that I am unable to quite get my mind around the complete 180 this guy has done since taking office.
The other part of that is that it is really difficult to figure out how he isn't about to figure out just how people are responding to him. Yes, I know that the people at Balloon-Juice are desperately fighting to get the votes to pass this abortion (which has no abortion rights for the poor or even lower middle class in it, incidentally). It is an amazing flip concerning that he is completely going out there giving the various industries just what they want without any protection for the working or middle classes or women and the other people who really went all out for him.

On the other hand, it does appear that there are enough people who supported him who will simply back him because they believe him (I suspect that there are a number of them who are a little too embarrassed to publicly come out against him at this point, but I would guess that most of him believe him).

Well how about a little Dennis to take us out?

Just Whining I Guess

I've been trying to get into the writing thingy again and have been having the same problems. That is now that my (2nd or perhaps 3rd choice) guy is in and I see how incompetent and/or corrupt he is and the rest of the party is I am kind of overwhelmed and just sit and do nothing.

I guess I should really try more. I am at this point convinced that "Not as bad as the other guy" is not a viable campaign promise. The "I guess I'll vote for him anyway" no longer works either. The concept of "I didn't expect him to be a flaming liberal" also doesn't get it for me. I did expect him to kind of live up to some of his campaign promises. I really do think that the closest anyone in American history has come, is Wilson and it took him until his second term to accomplish that.

I am trying to think of one promise that he has followed through on, with the exception of increasing our war in Afghanistan. The things that he has done, stimulus, etc. have been too little too late and not much more than McCain would have been forced to do. Then today I read that he has thought it a good idea to fire all the teachers at a school that didn't make the test scores necessary, this after defending banskters who are getting millions after tanking the economy (it does turn out that it is kind of delicious in a sick sort of way that he demands accountability for the teachers, but not so much for the banksters). Tonight I will read the WH proposal on Health Care, finally put up and see what horrors he is trying to foist on us right now.

On top of this is the truly bizarre attacks from the opposition (not just the fringe) calling him a socialist for proposing something more than we have right now in terms of health care, but less than any other country in the industrialized world. Less, I think than Bismark provided the Germans in the 19th Century, if I am right (and I am). There are clear problems with the HCR as proposed mass amounts of money promised to the pharmacy and insurance industries and punishments for the middle class if we don't pony up the transfers of wealth to the wealthiest, but that isn't what the opposition is shouting about. Nor for that matter is that what the TV and "News" Media are screaming about, no they are talking about shit that doesn't matter or in a reality based world would be simply laughed away. Very difficult to get a handle on just what is going on and to continuously comment on it on a daily basis.

Not so difficult to stand out there screaming WTF, WTF, but to try to figure out what is going on beyond this, it is hard. Tacitus could see the problems he couldn't much figure out what to do about them. On the other hand Tacitus was a better writer than I am. Although when faced with massive stupidity or insanity from the ologarchs who rule us, I'm not sure what there is to do.

Another Nixon or Johnson, I think not.

So I was listening to Daniel Ellsberg on Gritt TV from Firedoglake. He was talking about how it was possible to drive first Johnson and then Nixon from power and I started to think that those who really pushed the whole thing, the Post and the NYT were and are all members of the power elite and were the pretty people the people who swung with the power and the other pretty people in D.C. The people the Daily Howler calls the Heathers. The school click except translated from ruling high school class to ruling in Washington. In just the same way.

Look at Johnson and Nixon. What were their real crimes? They were not as pretty or photogenic as the Kennedys or later the Reagans, now were they. I am wondering if our country hasn't been ruled since the middle 60s at least by a petty puerile little group of people whose favorite song would be I'm In With the In Crowd. So perhaps we have a new National Anthem?

UPDATE: I'd forgotten this.

We're Doomed

I was going to post about this book I just finished: The Black Death by John Hatcher and how some aspects of the period immediately after the first incidence of the Death in England seems uncomfortably like today. Mainly the inability of the ruling class to see past their preconceived ideas. The idea that the cause of the Death was the sinfulness of the people. Or the desires of the poor for more (which amounted to sinfulness in the minds of the clergy and wealthy), but more at a later time.

At any rate perhaps classic comedy is where we are at right now or at least that is the way it seems, except you know, for all the deaths and bankruptcies.

I've been sick for the last week and when I'm not feeling really bad I'm just feeling really tired. I've been to the doctor and gotten some meds and if they don't start working better soon, I'm going to go back. The last time I felt like this for an extended time I had pneumonia.

However, I just wanted to mention Obama and Emanual's HCRm which from what I see at Firedoglake among other places seems to increase the penalty for not buying insurance, keep the massive institutional supports for Big PhHRMA and the insurance companies and attempt to completely do away with a public option.

I know what they are accomplishing, but what I wonder is what they think they are accomplishing. With that thought I am out of here for the day or night, nite nite.

Trial Decision

OK, so the judge did make a decision and it is resoundingly guilty on all four counts. As an aside he said that he would probably not have found my guy guilty if it weren't for his confession. What a pisser.

Actually, without the confession they don't have much or anything. The 3 year old was caught masturbating by grandma and mom. However, no one else saw him doing anything like that including a baby sitter who watched him several times during the month of August.

The defendant and a different friend of the parents have the same name. The boy calls the friend [name] and the defendant uncle [name]. The kid told the nurse in the E.R. that [name] messed around with him. Very specifically not uncle [name]. The nurse then testified that the kid was very talkative and not shy at all when talking with her. The mother testified that the kid always calls the defendant uncle [name] and this other guy [name].

All great stuff then we get to my client's confession (or statement as I prefer). He goes into detail and admits everything. He says he was tired after 30 hours and just thought they'd let him go home.

Sentencing is in about three weeks.

Criminal Trial

Exhausted. Sinus infection, and the second half of that trial tomorrow concerning the client who is accused of fondling his 3 year old nephew. Finally got the subpoena served (the deputy sheriff was really helpful).

I will probably have 5 questions to ask the witness, none of which will be dispositive, but a witness my client desperately desires. The witness doesn't want to come, this should be fun. She hates him (they used to go out) and by this point she probably hates me. She wouldn't come without a subpoena, even when I told her he might go to prison for 10 years if she didn't testify.

Interesting family dynamics in this case. His entire family and all his [former] friends seem to hate him. I haven't figured out why since he does deny the crime, so you would think that at least some of the people would give him the benefit of the doubt. None of them will. His mother drives down from Canton just to watch the various hearings. She won't talk to the kid while she's here. He lies she tells me. About what, I ask? He told me he'd quit smoking, but he hadn't and he said he had insurance when he didn't she says. ?????????????????

He confessed, but he claims that was because he was up for 30 hours and held by the cops for 8 of those hours and just confessed to get it over with. The cops the children's services worker and his own father say that he wasn't up that long, but rather about 20 to 24 hours. Further he says the cops told him he could go home if he just confessed. A couple of things bother me. He'd been in some trouble before and been removed from the home as a 15 year old for 3 years. How he thought he could go home if he confessed is beyond me. That is irrespective of whether or not he did it.

I do think that he is the family scape goat, in the clinical sense of the word, someting along the lines of Shirley Jackson's The Lottery . Or at least that is all I'm able to come up with and it isn't a very satisfying answer. But I got nothing else.

Did he do it. I have no idea. He is old to have just started molesting children, but...............

We will let the judge figure it out tomorrow.

Aw Nuts

Thinking about the beginning of Yeats The Second Coming:

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

This and then the beginning of Auden's September 1, 1939

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:

and wonder just how we got here. Those of us in the good ole USofA, seem unable to pull ourselves out of this tail spinl. Hell as a group we seem totally unable to even recognized what is happening and what reasonable steps should be taken.

New Post

I'd been thinking of writing another post about a writer, but this caught my attention. If 80% of self identified democrats think that Obama is doing a good job, then I now understand why we have such bad politicians. Particularly alleged liberal/progressive politicians.

UPDATE: Then of course there is this. The concept of liberal congress members giving large amounts of money to Blue Dogs, when real progressives are running against them is disgusting. They even have money raising events for them for god sakes. I could see if they didn't help outsiders who were trying to take incumbents' seats, but going out of their way to help the very people who are against everything they supposedly stand for, boggles the imagination. And not in the good sense.

I have been wondering for some time how we got here and how we get out and I really do not think that at this point any of the national progressive organizations are capable of doing much if anything.

NARAL has a believing Catholic as it's president. How is that possible? A woman who thinks that abortion is a sin is the head of the largest pro-choice organization in this country. And let us not forget that they (the national) backed Lieberman who is not really pro-choice against Lamont who was definitely pro-choice. Their goal is apparently to keep abortion safe and legal for wealthy women.

Now it appears as though HRC has to be prodded to take a position on DADT. How sad.

The unions keep their criticism of the guy muted because, why? They think that they will get good people on the NLRB? It seems that Obama is more than willing to trade those people away to whom? His bankster friends, I suspect. So the unions hold their collective breaths, well whats left of them at any rate. Hoping against hope that they will get card check through the congress along with a couple of pro-labor people on the NLRB. How's that working out for them after a year?

Unemployment at 10% at least, foreclosures proceed at a record pace with no bankruptcy protection for the home "owners," lots of money for the banksters and kind words from our president for the massive bonuses. And 80% of democrats are happy with his performance. I had always thought that advertising was more or less wasted money, but I'm beginning to think that perhaps I was wrong.

Obama puts the hammer down early in his presidency and ensures that the money dries up to the liberals groups who oppose his corporatist buddies and conservative democrats. And 80% of democrats think he is doing a good job.

I have never felt quite so hopeless. Of course that may just be the fact that I am coming down with a sinus infection, so I am a bit loopie, but I think that when I get better Obama will still be the incompetent (or incompetent and corrupt) butt head I think he is right now.

More LIterary Stuff

So I've been reading about Byah deciding not to run and hearing him described as a "moderate" or a "centrist." Which of course led me to think about George Orwell's essay on the misuse of the English language, Politics and the English Language.

The constant screams from the right calling Obama who is a conservative or at the most slightly moderate president a socialist are a perfect example of this. Of course, that language is being used by his political enemies. However, the idea that a person (Byah) who is by any objective definition conservative is called a moderate or centrist, (Google the news stories, I'm not in the mood), by the mainstream media, is a real corruption of the language by those who are employed by the so call objective media.

This has always been a problem, but in the past there have been media (newspapers mostly) that were owned by the unions, and which had truly progressive and others, like it should be remembered the New York Times which were not progressive at all, but rather quite conservative.

I suspect that these large northern dailys got their liberal rep when they were busy backing the civil rights movement against the cracker red necks who were just not nice enough to invite into your home don't you know. This continued, of course, with Nixon the president nobody liked and who certainly wasn't of their class.

The oligarchs have always understood that they should be the rulers, no matter how much they've screwed up int the past. They will go to what ever lengths necessary to continue to rule. Right now they are more than willing enough to bend the language to this need. I'm sure they would stop at that.

Strong and Tough vs. Brutal and Violent

One of my favorite American novelists from the second half of the twentieth century is James Jones. A great writer about men in combat and in situations of danger. Not so good when it comes to women and more mundane times. Although, I guess the latter criticism isn't completely fair since a lot of From Here to Eternity is about the day to day life of the pre-war Army and there is nothing but mundane in a peace time garrison army. The point for this thought game is that Jones was a man who knew what strong was and what brutal was and knew that they were not the same thing.

I've been thinking about one of his lesser works, which is I think called Go To The Widowmaker. Not, (as I remember it and it has been a long time since I read it) one of his better books, but one part, I remember from the book involves a character, a writer. This character has gone back to this writer's colony where he had spent time crafting his first novel, to try to get some help with his new novel. He is trying to make his main character strong and tough, but all that he is able to do is make him more brutal and violent. He knows this is not what he is trying for and he can't get the character to show this strength, just the brutality. The other people at the writer's colony didn't see or understand the problem and can't help with it. Well that is a minor sub-plot, if I remember correctly. But Jones is interested in this issue and recognizes the difference. Oh well, I guess it is only a plot in a novel after all.

On the other hand our current conservative leaders and commentators and tough men like Chaney, Emanual, Bush, Obama and a host of others. They think they are being strong and tough, and all they are, are brutal and violent. And there doesn't seem to be anyone in a position importance to point out the problem or to show a way to correct it.

This is an interesting post. Followed up by this one, if you have the time and stomach for it. Well not actually this post, but the links to it.

One of the things I've been trying to do is to really understand economics, a little late perhaps, but better late than never to coin a phrase? So anyway these are a couple of things that are shall we say-------------------verrrrry interesting.

Incidentally, I wrote most of this yesterday, but I am posting this today, I have no idea how to make the date today.

WTF Obama

Well I guess that will be where we will all end up.

I've been trying to get beyond posts that are simply repetitious or a variation on WTF Obama? Or WTF democrats in general? Alternative titles: Obama Corrupt or Incompetent or both Incompetent and Corrupt?

How Obama and the democrats have acted since the election has simply amazed me. Of course, Obama started from before the election with his vote for renewing the Patriot Act and pushing TARP, with no controls over the banksters. The we're doomed cries from Bush and Berneckie, but we will fight any new controls over our excesses, kind of rang hollow and still does. I did actually withdrew and argued with some of his people who tried to get me out there working. I did end up working for him simply because of two words: Sarah Palin.

Obama has been incredibly lucky in his opponents. Anybody remember who ran against him for Senator? Clinton was a little more of a challenge, but let's face it when you have your major campaign advisor thinking that the democratic primaries distribute delegates the same way the Electoral College does, you ain't got the brightest bulbs in the world running your campaign.

Then you finish up with the republican following the most incompetent (and one of the most dis-liked) presidents in history. And he runs by doubling down on the failed policies of his predecessor, and Obama still wins by single digits.

I've read that in order to have a victory like Cannae, it is not only necessary to have a Hannibal on the winning side, it is also necessary to have a Terentious Verro on the other side. Of course this election was no Cannae, it was a narrow win. There were a lot of explanations (I suspect racism had something to do with it, but that isn't the only explanation, I watched the campaign).

From the beginning Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use the language of progressives/liberals, but then he will not follow through. I thought originally that it was an inability to confront people, but now I think that he is simply a liar. And not a very good one at that. He does have an inability to confront people who are powerful conservatives, but not liberals, certainly.

What I have a problem understanding is I thought that politicans liked to win elections, but apparently not. Of course, Obama still seems to be popular, much like Clinton, on the other hand that didn't seem to help the other democrats. It won't this time either.

A Brain Transplant

Well the H.P laptop required a brain transplant and so now we are starting over. I'm trying to figure out how to make things work and to down load some stuff. Right now Open Office is coming in so, and then I guess I'll do CCleaner. I'm also trying to figure out how to put the bookmarks back in the order I want.

Well I guess it will keep me busy ignoring my trial for tomorrow. Down in flames we go.

Hitchens vs. Vidal

This is only moderately interesting. I have thought that Hitchens was a very good polemicist for a long time, he did go completely off the rails after 9/11. Of course he did climb back on once it became clear that Bush and co. were torturers.

This however, really has nothing to do with that. He is attacking Vidal for some of his conspiracy theories. Ones that I have to say I find hard to swallow. Still it does seem to give a lot of people an opportunity to call Vidal an anti-Semite and an old queen, among other things. The worst thing Vidal seems to have done is to have consistently and accurately criticized America and its neo-colonial empire for the last half-century.

Those I find most interesting (in the same way one finds public exhibitionist interesting) are the commentators who jump in by first admitting that they haven't read anything by Vidal, or maybe only one thing many years ago and then go on to slag him for not being creative or not being original. That takes more nerve or stupidity than I have.

He was certainly the the most perfect American prose stylist of the twentieth century and perhaps ever. He was also one of the most widely publish and accurate critics of our empire.

Plutocrats Be Them

The web is all atwitter with the Bernankey vote coming up and the possibility that he might not be confirmed for another term as head of the Fed. Although the administration now appears to be pulling out all the stops to make sure he's confirmed. Much like they did with Coakley (although I would suspect that the Senate is more easily swayed than Massachusetts). It is interesting that they are more than willing to spend political capital on a guy who was oblivious to the disaster that was Wall Street and the American economy in 2007 and 08, than to a person who might in fact be a competent leader of Homeland security or various real regulators that they can't seem to get through the confirmation process.

Of course the guy also made clear that he is more interested in keeping inflation down now than encouraging job creation now. This would of course be the very guy a democrat would want as head of the Fed in the face of massive unemployment.

HCR is another issue that makes me mostly incoherent much like torture. The issue here (like torture) is that I cannot for the life of me figure out what the people in power are thinking. Now they are apparently floating yet another trial balloon that if they cut the benefits even more (in this case making sure only children's pre-existing conditions are covered) and perhaps somewhat fewer than half of the originally stated 31 million will be covered, that will make the bill more palatable. Too who do you think?

What a concept: Make it worse so that even fewer people like it and it helps even fewer people --- that's the ticket!

Who would have thought that we were voting between a republican and a republican lite in the last election (although to be honest, I no longer know which one the "lite" was. To go a little farther, I can't believe that I can only hope that a guy I actually worked for (a little) and voted for fails in all his major legislative endeavors. Before his first State of the Union he has shown himself to be in the pocket of the plutocrats who it turns out really do rule this country no matter what the majority of us want.

Time For Dinner

So I posted earlier, but I completely deleted it because it was nearly incoherent. It's my blog and I can do what I want, so there.

It was on the HCR push to force the House to pass the Senate version with no changes. I got it from Firdeoglake. The stuff from FDL is pretty depressing. I'm not sure what to do about it. I read an interview with Obama where he seems to be oblivious to what he has done to the progressive coalition that elected him, and seems to be oblivious to what happened he says we needed TARP and the Stimulus (yes I know he was "just" a senator when the first monies were shovelled to the banks, but he was the democratic leader at that time and he could have insisted on oversight with the bill as the price for his vote and he didn't. They were all passed with no oversight or control at all. In large part because of his efforts.

All over the web today on the left are arguments about whether or not to pass the Senate bill and fix it later. The ability of some people (even the great Krugman, I'm not in the mood to link) to kid themselves and pretend that the bill will be "fixed" later amazes. I guess not having any kind of reputation that relies on my political or economic predictions kind of makes it easier for me to back off my earlier positions. Although after backing off the prediction that Obama would be better than the alternatives, I've pretty much got to say I was right about most everything else.

Let me not go very far out on a limb and suggest that the democrats are screwed no matter what they do at this point. Not because it isn't possible (in some imagined world) to change course and accomplish things that will both help people and appear to help people, but because the bozos in charge will simply be unable (and more to the point probably unwilling) to do it. I would think that a competent embezzler should be able to graft the money from the dumb poor and shift it to his big buck buddies while making the rubes think that it is golden for them. Obama can't seem to do that.

I suspect that it would be better at this point that nothing at all be passed because by now the only thing that is going to come will place a patina of gilt gloss of a heaping pile of dog shit. And unfortunately for our democratic would be overlords people can currently see through this enough to blame them. In addition, I suspect that it will appear enough to prevent any real reform happening for quite some time.

So there you have it. A shit bill now and no real reform for some time because those in power will be able to convince enough people that that is all the reform you should get or have. Or no bill at all now and those in power will be able to convene enough people that reform is not wanted or needed.

So get ready to chow down cause that's all you're gonna get.

What Are We Ever To Do?

I've been thinking a lot about the recent dust up in Massachusetts.

I wonder about the concept that because us lefties attacked the preznit because we thought he hasn't been much but a shill for the various corporations we are to blame for losing the election there. I wonder who got that idea and how they got it. Which seems to be where No More Mister Nice Blog is (as usual you have to scroll down to Did Pro-HCR Voters Actually Put Brown Over the Top?)

I would respectfully suggest that the people who are making those complaints are full of it. When a candidate in a two and a half month campaign cannot be convinced to go every place she can go to shake hands and talk people up, on twenty hour days, who apparently takes a five day vacation in the middle of it, who makes fun of her opponent for shaking hands, but who can take an evening off to run to D.C. to get money from fat cat insurance and pharmaceutical types, she deserves to lose. Of course it is the rest of us who pay for this shit.

On top of this is the most inept White House national campaign group since Clinton (and which seems to have most of the same losers in it, by the way).

You cannot win elections by telling people that things might be mighty bad, but really you know they aren't as bad as they would be if the other people were in power. On top of that then you go out of your way to screw your base(let's tax previously nontaxable union benefits). You flat out lie and then turn around and grovel to the other side. I suspect that Obama was beat up a lot as a kid and they only way he could protect himself was to give the bullies his lunch money, because that is certainly how he is acting right now.

Finally, the average voter seems (gosh for what reason I don't know perhaps it is because he gives the corporations everything they want with no oversight or controls) to think that Obama cares more about Wall Street than Main Street (I know, I know it is jejune, hackney, and been uses over and over, but it is true). That is how people now look at him.

Look I am not demanding perfection. But a little bit of balls. Make those who oppose real HCR stand up and filibuster. Make 'em talk for 6 weeks. See what happens. But that assumes that Obama wants something that is kind of progressive, doesn't it?

Next Stop Debtors Prison

Gosh I hate to mess up the joint now that I've got it looking spiffy.

However: I see the SCOUS (that's the United States Supreme Court, for those without a computer) has spoken. They appear to agree with the 19th Century French: The law in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Now it is true that in 21 Century America we are a little more creative. In that we permit the rich corporation as well as the poor to give as much as they might want to the political action of their choice. So you just feel good out there that no corporation is denied the right to spend as much as they want on politics, just be assured that so can you.

Obama: Incompetent, Corrupt, or Incompetently Corrupt

Yet another new format, OOH bright colors.

So if the republican wins in Massachusetts today then Obama will not be able to pass his progressive agenda. Hm.

Can someone tell me just what progressive agenda our good buddy has attempted to pass up to this point and what little he has attempted he has larded down with shit for the banksters and for the insurance industry and for big pharma, given the rest of us the crumbs from the rich man's table?

Going beyond that if what Firedoglake reported he has actually tried to prevent independent actions by the so called liberal groups so that he can control it all. That would be why we had a plethora of actions by teabaggers this summer and nothing by the progressive. The veal pen indeed.

Nihilism For Today

Nihilism the word of the day.

I am beginning to think that those Russians who threw bombs at random targets in the aristocracy might not have had such a bad idea.

Now the Grey Lady is more than willing to tell us that the reason that the reason Croakley might lose in Massachusetts is because Obama and the democrats have been too liberal (a source which will soon be behind a firewall apparently, ignoring the fact that they make most of their money from ads, which when one links through one sees). Of course by doing this along with Murdock they will limit the ability of the net to provide access to news stories, and so (they think) increase access to their product. Yet another brilliant business model brought to you by the same people who managed to yada yada yada, you know.

Well, back to the original thought: I have been thinking that this would be the way that this will play out for some time. Rahm was able to finally destroy the democratic majority in congress for almost two decades pushing NAFTA and GATT and help destroy the middle class in the process. To be fair he wasn't able to do it alone, but he does seem to be the go to guy for destruction of democratic majorities. At least in my lifetime.

The current leadership of the democratic party is as conservative as it gets (Teabaggers are not conservative, they are Nazis or fascists). They are simply unable to acknowledge their own limitations or perhaps, since they don't seem to be particularly stupid, (although the decision of Obama to appoint the very people who destroyed the economy in positions of power in his administration does seem to indicate a certain lack of intelligence, or perhaps just a willingness to shovel more money to his friends at the expense of the rest of us) perhaps just particularly unwilling to admit the truth.

The concept of killing the messenger is I think at play here. But then Obama lied and lied and lied as a candidate. I can no longer believe anything else. He and his people are not going to accept that they did anything wrong and they will always believe that what is best for AIG is best for America.

So once I say all that what is there to do? I'll be damned if I know.

OPPS: That's Coakley not Croakley, perhaps that is a Freudian Slip.

Nap Time

Health BS Reform

Maybe it is time to provide a new format so I feel like I'm starting new, or maybe not.

This is something, part of the FDL coverage of the Health Care Reform (Insurance Give-Away) I've been thinking about for some time. Aimai has been going slightly crazy about FDL at No More Mister Nice Blog (for some strange reason you can't link to a specific post, so scroll down to Splinter Group) and I commented on that post of hers yesterday, but to be truthful I didn't say what I really thought, which is that she has become hysterical concerning serious criticism of the bill. Very disappointing, because for the most part I like her style and ability to string words together and politics, but right now she appears to have even lost that.

Criticism of the people who want to kill HRC (IGA) seems to be focused on a couple of points: first, Obama never claimed to be that liberal/progressive so what do you expect, stop being so unreasonable and support what you can get (he wants to give you); second, he couldn't really do anything else because of the mean senate so get behind him and realize that we will improve it some time in the future, no really we will. When I guess the senate isn't all that mean anymore. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the second really does kind of excuse Obama or the first doesn't really blame him, but rather blames me for being so naive and for demanding perfection I guess.

Both positions give Obama a pass either because that is who he is or that is all he can accomplish.

Both suggest that we have to take what is offered and then try to build on that. Although to be honest, what makes anybody think that we will be able to build on a very bad bill that was enacted with overwhelming majorities of democrats in power is beyond me. Particularly when we look at what will probably be happening next year when people simply won't bother to work or vote after being screwed like we have been.

Both positions try to dampen the real, and I feel totally justified, rage people feel about Obama. He ran as something and he lied about what he was. I should I think feel kind of abashed that at my age I believed in his lies, but still they were his lies, not mine.

He twisted arms and makes threats to get his more conservative positions passed (wire tapping, bank bailouts with no oversight, more war) but when it comes to helping the people who actually went out and worked for him, screw us all.

Up next filibuster: What it meant in 1963 and what it means now.

647

Arrgghhhh!!!!!!!!

I have been trying to post here more reliably, but real life keeps getting in the way. In addition, I keep posting little things to Facebook. Oh well.

I've been trying to figure out what to do to accomplish some sort of progressive agenda while Obama and I have finally come up with an answer: Nothing, Nada, Nyet, Nein, Nothing.

It ain't gonna happen. There will be no real progress as long as Obama is president. He and his minions will thwart it. They will always be giving the goodies to the wealthy 1% and brothers and sisters that ain't you or me. Not only that, but when the democratic party gets gutted in the mid-terms it will be us nasty liberals who get blamed. Meanwhile, the people who keep giving him a pass: telling us it's just too difficult, the president just doesn't have that kind of power, and by the way just ignore the deals with the wealthiest behind the curtain will keep supporting him, but they won't work for or vote for those lower down on the party ladder.

So what will happen? The democrats will lose the house and perhaps the senate, but there is a good chance that with the Obama lovers he might be re-elected. To continue Bill Clinton's presidency (and in all important ways Bush's). That is money being transferred to the wealthiest from the middle class at a slightly accelerated rate, but not a lot of difference between the parties really (who ever thought I'd be quoting George Wallace). I even suspect that he will be as personally popular as Clinton, a lot of good that will do the rest of us. As his kids get to marry into the wealthiest families in the country. It will be good for them and screw you.

As long as there is a democrat in the white house, I suspect that the left (such as it is) will be co-opted. Imagine, if Al Smith had won the democratic nomination in 1932 instead of Roosevelt. Well, that is where we are now, with some "safety nets left around from the 30s and the 60s. Watch what happens after the mid-terms though. Watch them finally gut those nets.

So in answer to the original question? Damned if I know, but watch the better and more intelligent "progressive" people keep insisting that it isn't as bad as it might be under a republican so really we must keep supporting this guy cause you know.

Obama What He is Doing and What he Should Do

Wants your

To to give to

When he sould be giving them

So Sad.