Obama fails again. Hot on the heels of utterly tanking healthcare and financial reforms, we see Obama fail yet again on the closely related issues of energy and environmental protection. Reform? I'd be happy to see even real incremental change instead of the ongoing plutocracy cock-sucking.
Always remember that Obama was so busy achieving nothing at all that he also failed to aggressively push a more environmentally friendly agenda as a matter of public policy. The fucker actually argued for more offshore drilling! That's right, the oil industry's fluff boy is Obama.
Head slap.
Here's some David Sirota for you:
--------
http://www.creators.com/opinion/david-sirota.html
We know that before the disaster, President Obama recklessly pushed to expand offshore drilling. We also know that his Interior Department gave British Petroleum's rig a "categorical exclusion" from environmental scrutiny and, according to The New York Times, "gave permission to BP and dozens of other oil companies to drill in the Gulf without first getting required (environmental) permits." Worse, we know that after the spill, the same Interior Department kept issuing "categorical exclusions" for new Gulf oil operations, and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still refuses "to rule out continued use of categorical exclusions," as the Denver Post reported (heckuva job, Kenny!).
Undoubtedly, had this been the behavior of a Republican administration, "The Left's" big environmental organizations would be scheduling D.C. protests and calling for firings, if not criminal charges. Yet, somehow, there are no protests. Somehow, there have been almost no calls for the resignation of Salazar, who oversaw this disaster and who, before that, took $323,000 in campaign contributions from energy interests and backed more offshore drilling as a U.S. senator. Somehow, facing environmental apocalypse, there has been mostly silence from "The Left."
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Politics is Pro Wrestling
I'm seeing a lot of people on the info-pipes analogize politics to professional wrestling. I guess the point is this: there's lots of bullshitting, meaningless posturing, endless boasting, pretend skirmishes, big fucking cage matches, etc. - but ultimately all of the outcomes are known well in advance. The whole thing is theater for the average American voter who might as well be a tea-bagger given how little they understand about most things generally.
That sounds about right to me. And remember, it's not fake just scripted. There is a difference.
The winners and losers are all very real.
That sounds about right to me. And remember, it's not fake just scripted. There is a difference.
The winners and losers are all very real.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Health-Care Lawsuits "Unlikely to Succeed"
Read about it here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6v6tBADeB3k&pos=9
"This claim of power by Congress under the commerce clause goes beyond any claim that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past," Barnett said in a phone interview. "Congress has never mandated that private individuals enter into a contract with a private company."
Barnett drew a distinction between the health-insurance mandate and laws compelling the purchase of auto insurance. Such regulations are enacted by states, not the federal government, and regulate the act of choosing to drive, he said.
------
I just wanted to note that I am not alone in recognizing that there is something very odd about this new mandate. What I find kind of funny is that I am on the side of the naysayers in this regard even though I actually support health care reform that would ultimately be even more far-reaching than anything they could ideologically tolerate.
I support at minimum a public option. I would prefer a single payer system. When I dream of things that will never happen I truly want a national health service.
But this particular issue puts me on the side of the GOP naysayers because I think this supposed "health care reform" that we've been given is actually just a big fucking corporate giveaway. Cost containment is nowhere to be found. Millions will continue to go uncovered altogether.
This bill is still a sham.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6v6tBADeB3k&pos=9
"This claim of power by Congress under the commerce clause goes beyond any claim that has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the past," Barnett said in a phone interview. "Congress has never mandated that private individuals enter into a contract with a private company."
Barnett drew a distinction between the health-insurance mandate and laws compelling the purchase of auto insurance. Such regulations are enacted by states, not the federal government, and regulate the act of choosing to drive, he said.
------
I just wanted to note that I am not alone in recognizing that there is something very odd about this new mandate. What I find kind of funny is that I am on the side of the naysayers in this regard even though I actually support health care reform that would ultimately be even more far-reaching than anything they could ideologically tolerate.
I support at minimum a public option. I would prefer a single payer system. When I dream of things that will never happen I truly want a national health service.
But this particular issue puts me on the side of the GOP naysayers because I think this supposed "health care reform" that we've been given is actually just a big fucking corporate giveaway. Cost containment is nowhere to be found. Millions will continue to go uncovered altogether.
This bill is still a sham.
Monday, March 22, 2010
We Supposedly Have "Health Care Reform"
(a.k.a. More Corporate Giveaways!)
Jane Hamsher has become one of the more studied and thoughtful voices on all things political, and especially on "health care reform." Here's a small quote:
------
FDL Statement on the Passage of the Health Care Bill
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/22/fdl-statement-on-the-passage-of-the-health-care-bill/
But this is not health care reform, and the task of providing health care that Americans can afford is still before us. Too much was sacrificed to corporate interests in the sausage-making process. Rather than address the fundamental flaws in our health care system, we applied a giant band-aid. This health care bill does not come close to doing all that needs to be done to meet the needs of our citizens and our businesses as we retool our economy for the 21st century.
...(skipped bit)...Never before has the government mandated that its citizens pay directly to private corporations almost as much as they do in federal taxes, especially when those corporations have been granted unregulated monopolies.
------
Her whole statement is worthy of a deep reading.
One fundamental thing that has to be observed is that Obama, and the whole Democratic party with him, have utterly caved to corporate interests. As it now stands, this "health care reform" is possibly the biggest corporate giveaway in U.S. history! "Health care reform" now competes with the other historic corporate giveaway that was recently called TARP and a whole host of other things when we bailed out the banks and Wall Street. Don't our public servants ever tire of giving money away to corporate welfare queens?
"Heath care reform" must now be placed in quotes because it is so far from the ordinary meaning of that phrase.
But I have a very slender hope for "health care reform." I believe that this kind of legal requirement to contract with a private health insurance company may very well not pass Constitutional scrutiny. Why not?
Well, let's consider the most obvious parallel: automobile liability insurance as is demanded of many motorists throughout the union. The main thing to know about automobile liability insurance is that you don't need it if you don't drive. No one can arbitrarily force you to buy it. You trigger the requirement by the intent to drive. So, if you want to drive, you need automobile liability insurance. Some states even offer their own insurance.
The requirement to purchase health care insurance under our new "health care reform" is a simple legal requirement: you do it because it is now required. There is no trigger - you don't have to want something special to require it. You simply have to get it. And right now that means buying it from a private corporate entity. You are now legally required by virtue of being alive and a U.S. citizen to contract with a private, significantly unregulated, monopolistic corporate entity to buy health care insurance.
Yeah, that may not fly.
And therein lies my hope! The fact that it probably won't pass muster means that the legal requirement as it stands will fail. When it fails the most likely remedy is to require you to buy into a government run scheme that will offer the same protection. Something like single payer.
No one has yet won any significant legal challenge to the notion that the government can make you pay a tax for the benefits it provides to everyone as a whole.
So, I don't think they can make you buy it from a corporation, but I do think they can make you buy it from the government itself. They'll just call it a tax.
------
FDL Statement on the Passage of the Health Care Bill
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/22/fdl-statement-on-the-passage-of-the-health-care-bill/
But this is not health care reform, and the task of providing health care that Americans can afford is still before us. Too much was sacrificed to corporate interests in the sausage-making process. Rather than address the fundamental flaws in our health care system, we applied a giant band-aid. This health care bill does not come close to doing all that needs to be done to meet the needs of our citizens and our businesses as we retool our economy for the 21st century.
...(skipped bit)...Never before has the government mandated that its citizens pay directly to private corporations almost as much as they do in federal taxes, especially when those corporations have been granted unregulated monopolies.
------
Her whole statement is worthy of a deep reading.
One fundamental thing that has to be observed is that Obama, and the whole Democratic party with him, have utterly caved to corporate interests. As it now stands, this "health care reform" is possibly the biggest corporate giveaway in U.S. history! "Health care reform" now competes with the other historic corporate giveaway that was recently called TARP and a whole host of other things when we bailed out the banks and Wall Street. Don't our public servants ever tire of giving money away to corporate welfare queens?
"Heath care reform" must now be placed in quotes because it is so far from the ordinary meaning of that phrase.
But I have a very slender hope for "health care reform." I believe that this kind of legal requirement to contract with a private health insurance company may very well not pass Constitutional scrutiny. Why not?
Well, let's consider the most obvious parallel: automobile liability insurance as is demanded of many motorists throughout the union. The main thing to know about automobile liability insurance is that you don't need it if you don't drive. No one can arbitrarily force you to buy it. You trigger the requirement by the intent to drive. So, if you want to drive, you need automobile liability insurance. Some states even offer their own insurance.
The requirement to purchase health care insurance under our new "health care reform" is a simple legal requirement: you do it because it is now required. There is no trigger - you don't have to want something special to require it. You simply have to get it. And right now that means buying it from a private corporate entity. You are now legally required by virtue of being alive and a U.S. citizen to contract with a private, significantly unregulated, monopolistic corporate entity to buy health care insurance.
Yeah, that may not fly.
And therein lies my hope! The fact that it probably won't pass muster means that the legal requirement as it stands will fail. When it fails the most likely remedy is to require you to buy into a government run scheme that will offer the same protection. Something like single payer.
No one has yet won any significant legal challenge to the notion that the government can make you pay a tax for the benefits it provides to everyone as a whole.
So, I don't think they can make you buy it from a corporation, but I do think they can make you buy it from the government itself. They'll just call it a tax.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Health Care Reform Bill Isn't Real Reform
I'm just going to give this link to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake:
Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/
This bill sucks fat cock in hell. I hope it doesn't pass. The Democrats continue on their merry course toward political suicide because they are blissfully unaware of what precisely they were voted into office to accomplish. When they fail to accomplish it, the payback is going to be so severe the sound of the blow will echo down the centuries.
More cynically I have to accept that the Democrats know exactly what they are doing and just don't care. Because...
They got theirs. Fuck You.
Just like the GOP.
Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/
This bill sucks fat cock in hell. I hope it doesn't pass. The Democrats continue on their merry course toward political suicide because they are blissfully unaware of what precisely they were voted into office to accomplish. When they fail to accomplish it, the payback is going to be so severe the sound of the blow will echo down the centuries.
More cynically I have to accept that the Democrats know exactly what they are doing and just don't care. Because...
They got theirs. Fuck You.
Just like the GOP.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Geithner = "Chief Facilitator"
This is all getting fairly ridiculous. When will someone go to jail? Jeez, give us a scapegoat if nothing else. I don't know how they expect anyone to respect the law at this point. The fraud and malfeasance reaches to the very top.
Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism said: "Quite a few observers, including this blogger, have been stunned and frustrated at the refusal to investigate what was almost certain accounting fraud at Lehman." He goes on to note the possibility of "accounting fraud," noting "collusion" on the part of the Fed, ultimately condemning the activities described as the probable "aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations." But we will never know for sure unless the matter is investigated, which it most likely won't be. See:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/03/ny-fed-under-geithner-implicated-in-lehman-accounting-fraud.html
Our government now regularly bends over backwards to suborn criminal activity. And when the wrong-doers are caught, not only do they not go to prison as they should, they get made whole again on the back of everyone else's money.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Ongoing "This Modern World" Content Theft
or visit this link: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/03/15/this_modern_world
If memory serves, Tom Tomorrow is quoting Glenn Greenwald with that "Master tactician" shit. Of course, it's brilliant and I think I have quoted it myself on this very blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
