I keep seeing the Gulf oil spill referred to in those terms. But, since the oceans are all interconnected and, since the clean-up effort itself is causing additional pollution -- both in the water and in the air -- which itself is likely to spread far and wide, shouldn't we be calling it the worst oil spill in the history of the world?
Or are we afraid that, if we acknowledge the broader effects of the disaster, we might get sued by Mexico, Europe, and God-knows who else when our oil washes up on their shores, when our plume of smoke from burning off the oil reaches their air space?
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
N. Korea - the convenient bad guy
I am not defending what appears to have been another pointless and destructive action by N. Korea, but, as usual, the discussions in the popular press, and the pronouncements by politicians underscore the hypocrisy with which American foreign policy is riddled. Thus, it is worth pointing out a few things:
First, there is the treatment of the sinking of the So. Korean warship by a No. Korean torpedo as though it were some sort of crime against humanity. I'm not minimizing the deaths of the sailors on board the So. Korean ship, but it was a military vessel, not a cruise-ship. It's crew were military men and therefore had an understanding of the possibility of military engagement. Contrast this with the death we the USA regularly rain down upon Afghanistan using unmanned aircraft (so we don't have to look at the people we're killing). How many civilians have we killed thus far in our attempt to bring "peace and freedom" to Afghanistan? Not to mention the virtual destruction of Iraq?
Second, the Korean War is technically not even over, thus any hostile act between the belligerants comes under the rubric of that war. And, of course, the So. Korean ship was right at the disputed boundary between the territorial waters of the two countries.
It is also worth noting that there are additional strategic factors in the US' predictably sanctimonious response to the event. First, we'd like to continue to keep a base on Okinawa, despite the fact that WW II has been over for 65 years, despite the fact that the base has been the source of several ugly crimes committed by US military personnel against the local population and despite the fact that the Japanese consider the base to be an affront to Japanese sovereignty. Coincidentally, the Korean affair comes at a time when the USA is re-negotiating the terms of the Okinawa base agreement and Sec. of State Clinton has lost no time reminding the Japanese of our alliance and the importance for their security of having us remain in the area in light of the Korean affair.
Not unrelated to this is our generally waning influence and the general ascendancy of Chinese influence, both in Asia and in the world. We don't like it in general and we don't like it in Asia, which, after all, belongs to us (just as the Middle East does). Thus, every event in Asia requires our intervention, just to remind everyone of who is still in charge.
First, there is the treatment of the sinking of the So. Korean warship by a No. Korean torpedo as though it were some sort of crime against humanity. I'm not minimizing the deaths of the sailors on board the So. Korean ship, but it was a military vessel, not a cruise-ship. It's crew were military men and therefore had an understanding of the possibility of military engagement. Contrast this with the death we the USA regularly rain down upon Afghanistan using unmanned aircraft (so we don't have to look at the people we're killing). How many civilians have we killed thus far in our attempt to bring "peace and freedom" to Afghanistan? Not to mention the virtual destruction of Iraq?
Second, the Korean War is technically not even over, thus any hostile act between the belligerants comes under the rubric of that war. And, of course, the So. Korean ship was right at the disputed boundary between the territorial waters of the two countries.
It is also worth noting that there are additional strategic factors in the US' predictably sanctimonious response to the event. First, we'd like to continue to keep a base on Okinawa, despite the fact that WW II has been over for 65 years, despite the fact that the base has been the source of several ugly crimes committed by US military personnel against the local population and despite the fact that the Japanese consider the base to be an affront to Japanese sovereignty. Coincidentally, the Korean affair comes at a time when the USA is re-negotiating the terms of the Okinawa base agreement and Sec. of State Clinton has lost no time reminding the Japanese of our alliance and the importance for their security of having us remain in the area in light of the Korean affair.
Not unrelated to this is our generally waning influence and the general ascendancy of Chinese influence, both in Asia and in the world. We don't like it in general and we don't like it in Asia, which, after all, belongs to us (just as the Middle East does). Thus, every event in Asia requires our intervention, just to remind everyone of who is still in charge.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
The Devil is in the GOP
So the healthcare bill has finally passed, after a year of wrangling, public lies by the GOP and their fellow travelers, and every effort - parliamentary or otherwise -- to derail it. Any feelings of victory at its passage will be short-lived, because the Rethuglicans and their minions have already declared their intention to challenge it any way they can and to use it in the midterm congressional elections as something with which to beat the Democrats up.
Funny how trying to do something to help ordinary Americans would engender anger and hatred against the Democrats. (Not that I love the Democrats, but that's another story.) Funny how the healthcare bill is considered a budget buster, while the two wars Bush started -- and which continue to this day -- are apparently not viewed as having made any contribution to our deficits, despite the $1 Trillion+ we have spent on them so far. Not to mention his budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy.
Odd that gun ownership is viewed as some sort of sacred right, but access to affordable healthcare is not.
Odd that abortion is an abomination, but allowing -- nay, encouraging -- people to bring up children in poverty and ignorance and with little access to healthcare is a good thing.
Odd that spending massive amounts of money to kill people in the Middle East is "good for America," but improvements to the healthcare system here at home constitutes the worst thing that has ever happened to America, as some Rethuglicans have pronounced it.
Odd that private control of healthcare decision-making and costs by big insurance is a priori a good thing, but public control by government is a bad thing. What would be the rationale for this view? Is there information to back up the superiority of the private sector over the public sector in managing anything? No, but there is a simple perception, reinforced by the right, that big business is your friend and government is your enemy. It is based on nothing defensible, but is a widely-held notion, nonetheless.
This belief flies in the face of the fact that Medicaid, for instance, has lower administrative costs than private insurance. It also runs counter to the underlying facts of our current financial crisis, which are the result of conniving by the financial sector to defraud the American people. (Is government to blame? Yes, but only to the extent that its regulators were convinced by the same connivers that regulation was unnecessary or actually bad.) And what about the poor performance of GM and Chrysler? What does that say about the competence of big biz?
I could go on, but why bother? The atmosphere for intelligent argument in this country is so ruined -- so poisoned by lies and manipulation -- that no amount of reasonableness can penetrate the cloud of inanity.
Funny how trying to do something to help ordinary Americans would engender anger and hatred against the Democrats. (Not that I love the Democrats, but that's another story.) Funny how the healthcare bill is considered a budget buster, while the two wars Bush started -- and which continue to this day -- are apparently not viewed as having made any contribution to our deficits, despite the $1 Trillion+ we have spent on them so far. Not to mention his budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy.
Odd that gun ownership is viewed as some sort of sacred right, but access to affordable healthcare is not.
Odd that abortion is an abomination, but allowing -- nay, encouraging -- people to bring up children in poverty and ignorance and with little access to healthcare is a good thing.
Odd that spending massive amounts of money to kill people in the Middle East is "good for America," but improvements to the healthcare system here at home constitutes the worst thing that has ever happened to America, as some Rethuglicans have pronounced it.
Odd that private control of healthcare decision-making and costs by big insurance is a priori a good thing, but public control by government is a bad thing. What would be the rationale for this view? Is there information to back up the superiority of the private sector over the public sector in managing anything? No, but there is a simple perception, reinforced by the right, that big business is your friend and government is your enemy. It is based on nothing defensible, but is a widely-held notion, nonetheless.
This belief flies in the face of the fact that Medicaid, for instance, has lower administrative costs than private insurance. It also runs counter to the underlying facts of our current financial crisis, which are the result of conniving by the financial sector to defraud the American people. (Is government to blame? Yes, but only to the extent that its regulators were convinced by the same connivers that regulation was unnecessary or actually bad.) And what about the poor performance of GM and Chrysler? What does that say about the competence of big biz?
I could go on, but why bother? The atmosphere for intelligent argument in this country is so ruined -- so poisoned by lies and manipulation -- that no amount of reasonableness can penetrate the cloud of inanity.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
More US Hypocrisy on Israel
In a March 9 AP story on MSNBC entitled "Biden Slams Jerusalem Housing Plan", one might have expected to read that Biden was criticizing the Israelis for their obstinate expansionism and for the racist content of their Jerusalem housing quotas, which seem designed to ensure that Israelis outnumber Arabs in the city.
One would be wrong; the whole flap was actually over some Israeli functionary's announcement of further housing development, not over the actual fact of that development. The VP was angry because (a) the announcement, coming as it did during his visit to Israel, was a personal embarrassment for him and (b) because it threatens to derail his efforts at salesmanship of the never-ending peace process circus.
If there's one thing we know about the new world order it is that it's the triumph of form over substance. Biden is trying with his visit to undo the perception that our president doesn't think much of Netanyahu nor of Israeli expansionism and to assure the Israelis that they are our friends and allies no matter what vile things they get up to.
After all, some 50% of the Jews in the world live in the USA and, of those that voted for Obama, many did so only because of a large propaganda ploy during the campaign to convince them that he would continue America's role as a "friend to Israel." Thus, we are told we must hold our noses and let Israel do whatever it wants. And, what our politicians don't need is for the Israelis to do something blatant during a state visit by our VP, thus revealing, once again, the actual substance of Israel's commitment to peace, which is nil.
One would be wrong; the whole flap was actually over some Israeli functionary's announcement of further housing development, not over the actual fact of that development. The VP was angry because (a) the announcement, coming as it did during his visit to Israel, was a personal embarrassment for him and (b) because it threatens to derail his efforts at salesmanship of the never-ending peace process circus.
If there's one thing we know about the new world order it is that it's the triumph of form over substance. Biden is trying with his visit to undo the perception that our president doesn't think much of Netanyahu nor of Israeli expansionism and to assure the Israelis that they are our friends and allies no matter what vile things they get up to.
After all, some 50% of the Jews in the world live in the USA and, of those that voted for Obama, many did so only because of a large propaganda ploy during the campaign to convince them that he would continue America's role as a "friend to Israel." Thus, we are told we must hold our noses and let Israel do whatever it wants. And, what our politicians don't need is for the Israelis to do something blatant during a state visit by our VP, thus revealing, once again, the actual substance of Israel's commitment to peace, which is nil.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Yes, we ARE due for a revolution
Thank you Sarah Palin for saying what many of us have been thinking for some time: the good ole USA needs a revolution (or "another" revolution, if you believe the war of independance qualifies as a revolution). Unfortunately for SP, she would not be likely to come out on top of such an upheaval -- at least not if I were in charge.
It's easy to throw around words like "revolution," especially when you are someone who doesn't have much respect for either deep thought or the meaning of words, but I suspect that, if SP were to really contemplate what a revolution might entail -- especially if I were running it -- she might be less sanguine in calling for one.
No, in my revolution, she, along with a great deal of her fellow travellers in the anti-worker-but-pro-big-biz, anti-deficit-but-pro-taxcuts-for-the-rich, anti-civil-liberties-but-pro-big-war, anti-science-but-pro-big-religion, anti-intellectual-but-pro-demagogue part of the population would be signed up for a mandatory visit to a citizenship retraining camp, AKA the guillotine.
In an ideal world, I'd like to remain on cordial terms with them all and share the country with them. In an ideal world, I could utter the usual platitudes about how all voices should be heard in a democracy. Unfortunately, in this world, where 1% of the population control 50% of the wealth -- and, along with it, the Congress and the media, to mention just two -- we have a situation that more closely resembles pre-revolutionary France than pre-revolutionary America, and which, therefore, more properly calls for the remedy employed by the former.
It's easy to throw around words like "revolution," especially when you are someone who doesn't have much respect for either deep thought or the meaning of words, but I suspect that, if SP were to really contemplate what a revolution might entail -- especially if I were running it -- she might be less sanguine in calling for one.
No, in my revolution, she, along with a great deal of her fellow travellers in the anti-worker-but-pro-big-biz, anti-deficit-but-pro-taxcuts-for-the-rich, anti-civil-liberties-but-pro-big-war, anti-science-but-pro-big-religion, anti-intellectual-but-pro-demagogue part of the population would be signed up for a mandatory visit to a citizenship retraining camp, AKA the guillotine.
In an ideal world, I'd like to remain on cordial terms with them all and share the country with them. In an ideal world, I could utter the usual platitudes about how all voices should be heard in a democracy. Unfortunately, in this world, where 1% of the population control 50% of the wealth -- and, along with it, the Congress and the media, to mention just two -- we have a situation that more closely resembles pre-revolutionary France than pre-revolutionary America, and which, therefore, more properly calls for the remedy employed by the former.
Monday, August 3, 2009
A Trillion Dollars Over 10 Years is Chump Change
One claim that keeps surfacing in the debate over national healthcare is that it "could cost as much as a trillion dollars over the next decade." This has been uttered for weeks now by everyone from GOP senators to pro-reform liberals. And it is always uttered with a certain hushed emphasis that seems to imply that this is a gargantuan amount of money, an amount of money so large that Americans dare not contemplate it.
What gets me is that no one on the receiving end of this claim ever questions whether "a trillion dollars over 10 years" is actually a lot of money, taken in context. Look at the Defense Dept. appropriations request for the upcoming year -- some $640 billion, which includes, by the way, systems both the Secretary of Defense and the President say they don't want, but which our national legislature insists on including.
Now suppose we expressed the defense budget using the "over the next 10 years" accounting method. We would be looking at Six and a half trillion dollars (!) assuming that the defense budget stays the same for that entire period. And whom does the defense budget benefit? Well, obviously it provides a certain amount of direct employment as well as generating jobs in the private sector for behemoths like Boeing and Raytheon. But do its benefits reach every American, as universal healthcare would do?
Or let's look at the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- these will have cost well over the trillion dollar mark by the time their 10 years of fame are up. Who have those benefited? I would argue that they have been almost entirely a net negative in every way that matters: politically, strategically, fiscally, and most of all to the people who have died in those 2 countries since Bush started the wars.
Compared to the amounts of money squandered on killing just in my lifetime, the cost of healthcare reform is chump change.
What gets me is that no one on the receiving end of this claim ever questions whether "a trillion dollars over 10 years" is actually a lot of money, taken in context. Look at the Defense Dept. appropriations request for the upcoming year -- some $640 billion, which includes, by the way, systems both the Secretary of Defense and the President say they don't want, but which our national legislature insists on including.
Now suppose we expressed the defense budget using the "over the next 10 years" accounting method. We would be looking at Six and a half trillion dollars (!) assuming that the defense budget stays the same for that entire period. And whom does the defense budget benefit? Well, obviously it provides a certain amount of direct employment as well as generating jobs in the private sector for behemoths like Boeing and Raytheon. But do its benefits reach every American, as universal healthcare would do?
Or let's look at the Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- these will have cost well over the trillion dollar mark by the time their 10 years of fame are up. Who have those benefited? I would argue that they have been almost entirely a net negative in every way that matters: politically, strategically, fiscally, and most of all to the people who have died in those 2 countries since Bush started the wars.
Compared to the amounts of money squandered on killing just in my lifetime, the cost of healthcare reform is chump change.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Gov. Sanford
Isn't he the GOP asshole who wanted to have his state refuse stimulus funds? And wasn't he also a(nother) 2012 GOP prez hopeful? Gee, too bad he self-destructed on the only thing the Repubs hate (other than liberals, of course. And gays. And blacks (other than house negroes). And women (other than Phyliis Schlafly and Sarah Palin). And people who don't own guns. And unions. And Obama. And Darwin. And intelligent people. And Obama. And working people. And Obama. )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)