The great $12 trillion Bank Robbery, in which unscrupulous bankers and financiers were deregulated and given free rein to create worthless derivatives, sell impossible mortgages to uninformed marks who could not understand their complicated terms, and then to roll this garbage up into securities re-sold like the Cheshire cat, with a big visible smile of asserted value hanging in the air even as their actual worth disappeared into thin air. Having allowed the one-percent oligarchs to capture most of the increase of the country's wealth in recent decades, Bush and Paulsen now initiated the surrender to them of nearly a further entire year's gross domestic product of the US, stealing it from the rest of us by deficit budget financing that will have the effect of deflating our savings and property values and relative value of our currency against other world currencies. That is, we are to be further beggared for sake of the super-rich. And while the banks and bankers are held harmless, the hardworking Americans who have lost and will lose their homes are extended virtually no help. While 500,000 American children will go hungry at least some of the time this year, the Oligarchs at Goldman, Sachs, will get millions in bonuses, on the backs of the ordinary taxpayers. It seems likely to me that the creation of a pool of vast excess liquidity for the super-rich by the Reagan-Cheney tax cuts was what impelled them to develop the derivatives, since they had too much capital for ordinary investment purposes and were restlessly seeking new gaming tables. The conclusion is that until we get our gini coefficient back into some sort of synch, we are likely at risk for further such meltdowns.
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Padilla and American justice
Jose Padilla
Here’s the problem: Many important issues are dropped from the news or commentary because there is a lack of public outcry. In other words, if an issue does not interest the public enough to get them to respond with letters to the editors,( in enough volume to convince an editor it is important), or phone calls, or some other type of response to an issue, then the people who make the decisions to air or print news about that subject will disregard it. Its intrinisic value as critical to , say, American freedoms, policy, constitutional issues, even life and death are secondary to whether or not a “pubic outcry” exists large enough to justify continuing the story, or even disclosing it in the first place. A case in point is the Jose Padilla arrest, detention and trial. No legal experts, constitutional scholars, or historians would deny the importance of this case to not just the “war on terror”, but to the very basic and fundamental bedrock concepts that make America what it claims to be: a nation unique in its love and respect for human individuality, human rights, human privacy, human dignity and the law. These basic concepts are stated quite clearly and bluntly in America’s constitution, the final say, the highest law of the land. The founders stated, and history and Supreme Courts have agreed through the years that no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process. That if you are accused of a crime you must be presented the evidence against you and be confronted by your accusers; that there can be no cruel or unusual punishment; and that you can not be thrown in a dungeon until the authorities decide, if ever, that you may receive a hearing, or a trial, or even a lawyer. These seminal and well thought out tenets did not appear in black and white in the Constitution as mere after thoughts, or simple panderings to the left- they evolved out of the minds of men who knew history, understood the abuses of the power of a state, a king, or a cabal, and from their experience and awareness of how easy the power of the state can override the rights of individuals and what evils that can produce, they decided to enumerate and spell out the specific rights so that there would be no grey area, no misinterpretation of intent, no confusion about what rights American citizens would enjoy. Hence the Bill of Rights.
No one would doubt or question the importance of these issues, but we find, in the main stream media- the national newspapers, the networks, the major cable stations- no coverage of this important issue. Jose Padilla, possibly a criminal intent on doing harm to his fellow citizens, is nevertheless an American citizen. He deserves, as you and I do, to be treated with the fairness that even the lowest common criminal in all of American history has received- to wit: no cruel and unusual punishment, no deprivation of representation, not being thrown into a dungeon and disappeared. Yet this is exactly what happened. I won’t recite all the details of his cruel and unusual punishment other than to remind us all that solitary confinement for years with no human contact except an infrequent government interrogator, being housed in a 24-7 lights on 9by 7 cell in a brig on a military base with a metal cot might qualify as torture. What is torture? There are legal definitions, but I suggest that anything done to others that we would not want done to ourselves might be a benchmark. If you are innocent until proven guilty of a crime, not suspected, then under what authority can you be mistreated to try and make you appear guilty?
Jose Padilla, according to the Christian Science Monitor, one of the few papers to cover this story, was a street kid in Chicago who found Islam while incarcerated and began a study of the religion which led him to travel to Afghanistan and other countries. In another time and circumstance this might be construed as a gangbanger turning his life around and trying to make something of himself. But now it appears he was joining the radical fundalmentalists who aimed to fight America. But if that was the case why would he hestitate to go to Afghanistan and fight for the Taliban when we invaded that country? Instead he came up with an idea to try and get out of that part of the world and go home. He suggested, according to the Monitor, that a dirty bomb be used and that he would go back home and work on it. How do we know this? According to the Monitor, KSM, Khalled Sheik Mohammed told his interrogators about this. He also said that it was doubted at the time that Padilla had the knowledge or ability to accomplish this. Many problems arise from both Padilla’s alleged plot and KSM’s information. Since KSM was affiliated with Pakistan’s ISI, the security agency with close connections to our CIA, and which had sent 100,000 dollars to Mohammned Atta, one of the alleged hijackers, and since KSM was subjected to the same if not worse treatment as Padilla, how reliable is his story? At the least, Padilla should have been afforded legal representation to counter any charges arising from this allegation. But instead he was held for 43 months, mostly in isolation, until, as psychiatrists have stated, he was damaged mentally. What a travesty of justice to us all.
Here’s the problem: Many important issues are dropped from the news or commentary because there is a lack of public outcry. In other words, if an issue does not interest the public enough to get them to respond with letters to the editors,( in enough volume to convince an editor it is important), or phone calls, or some other type of response to an issue, then the people who make the decisions to air or print news about that subject will disregard it. Its intrinisic value as critical to , say, American freedoms, policy, constitutional issues, even life and death are secondary to whether or not a “pubic outcry” exists large enough to justify continuing the story, or even disclosing it in the first place. A case in point is the Jose Padilla arrest, detention and trial. No legal experts, constitutional scholars, or historians would deny the importance of this case to not just the “war on terror”, but to the very basic and fundamental bedrock concepts that make America what it claims to be: a nation unique in its love and respect for human individuality, human rights, human privacy, human dignity and the law. These basic concepts are stated quite clearly and bluntly in America’s constitution, the final say, the highest law of the land. The founders stated, and history and Supreme Courts have agreed through the years that no one can be deprived of life or liberty without due process. That if you are accused of a crime you must be presented the evidence against you and be confronted by your accusers; that there can be no cruel or unusual punishment; and that you can not be thrown in a dungeon until the authorities decide, if ever, that you may receive a hearing, or a trial, or even a lawyer. These seminal and well thought out tenets did not appear in black and white in the Constitution as mere after thoughts, or simple panderings to the left- they evolved out of the minds of men who knew history, understood the abuses of the power of a state, a king, or a cabal, and from their experience and awareness of how easy the power of the state can override the rights of individuals and what evils that can produce, they decided to enumerate and spell out the specific rights so that there would be no grey area, no misinterpretation of intent, no confusion about what rights American citizens would enjoy. Hence the Bill of Rights.
No one would doubt or question the importance of these issues, but we find, in the main stream media- the national newspapers, the networks, the major cable stations- no coverage of this important issue. Jose Padilla, possibly a criminal intent on doing harm to his fellow citizens, is nevertheless an American citizen. He deserves, as you and I do, to be treated with the fairness that even the lowest common criminal in all of American history has received- to wit: no cruel and unusual punishment, no deprivation of representation, not being thrown into a dungeon and disappeared. Yet this is exactly what happened. I won’t recite all the details of his cruel and unusual punishment other than to remind us all that solitary confinement for years with no human contact except an infrequent government interrogator, being housed in a 24-7 lights on 9by 7 cell in a brig on a military base with a metal cot might qualify as torture. What is torture? There are legal definitions, but I suggest that anything done to others that we would not want done to ourselves might be a benchmark. If you are innocent until proven guilty of a crime, not suspected, then under what authority can you be mistreated to try and make you appear guilty?
Jose Padilla, according to the Christian Science Monitor, one of the few papers to cover this story, was a street kid in Chicago who found Islam while incarcerated and began a study of the religion which led him to travel to Afghanistan and other countries. In another time and circumstance this might be construed as a gangbanger turning his life around and trying to make something of himself. But now it appears he was joining the radical fundalmentalists who aimed to fight America. But if that was the case why would he hestitate to go to Afghanistan and fight for the Taliban when we invaded that country? Instead he came up with an idea to try and get out of that part of the world and go home. He suggested, according to the Monitor, that a dirty bomb be used and that he would go back home and work on it. How do we know this? According to the Monitor, KSM, Khalled Sheik Mohammed told his interrogators about this. He also said that it was doubted at the time that Padilla had the knowledge or ability to accomplish this. Many problems arise from both Padilla’s alleged plot and KSM’s information. Since KSM was affiliated with Pakistan’s ISI, the security agency with close connections to our CIA, and which had sent 100,000 dollars to Mohammned Atta, one of the alleged hijackers, and since KSM was subjected to the same if not worse treatment as Padilla, how reliable is his story? At the least, Padilla should have been afforded legal representation to counter any charges arising from this allegation. But instead he was held for 43 months, mostly in isolation, until, as psychiatrists have stated, he was damaged mentally. What a travesty of justice to us all.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who tried to save JFK
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/#post-insidethearrb-2370
The link above is to an article by Doug Horne, a member of the Assassinations Records Review Board set up By George H. Bush and Bill Clinton to study and release as much of the documetation and information about the assassination in 1963 of President John F. Kennedy as they could. Millions of pages were released.
Malcolm Perry recently passed away at age 80. For many years he maintained the Warren Commission was correct in alleging Oswald killed Kennedy, despite his comments and answers to questions within an hour of Kennedy's death in Nov. 1963 that the shot to Kennedy's throat, through which Dr. Perry had performed a careful tracheostomy in an attempt to help Kennedy breathe, was an entrance wound. Secret Service and FBI personnel have admitted in recent years to putting a lot of pressure on him to accept the official story that the wound was an exit wound.
The link above is to an article by Doug Horne, a member of the Assassinations Records Review Board set up By George H. Bush and Bill Clinton to study and release as much of the documetation and information about the assassination in 1963 of President John F. Kennedy as they could. Millions of pages were released.
Malcolm Perry recently passed away at age 80. For many years he maintained the Warren Commission was correct in alleging Oswald killed Kennedy, despite his comments and answers to questions within an hour of Kennedy's death in Nov. 1963 that the shot to Kennedy's throat, through which Dr. Perry had performed a careful tracheostomy in an attempt to help Kennedy breathe, was an entrance wound. Secret Service and FBI personnel have admitted in recent years to putting a lot of pressure on him to accept the official story that the wound was an exit wound.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Health Care Debate:
Though I lean toward the progressives in wanting universal health care, no precondition exclusions, and even a Single Payer system, I recognize the complexities in funding, administrating, organizing and executing such a system. It seems to me that most western countries handle this with a simple concept: all people should have access to essentially "free" health care. No one misunderstands that this is paid for by taxes. We rank 37th, according to a 2000 survey, maybe lower now, in quality and availability of health care, but we have excellent medical services. But, of course, we avail ourselves of this fine service only if we can pay for it. So health care in America is not free, and there is no sentiment to make it a "right", vs a commodity. Consequently the horror stories abound of people being denied insurance coverage, bankruptcies, and sometimes death- deaths and tragedies that could have been avoided with universal coverage.
My understanding is that the AMA backs reform, maybe even Single Payer, but not "government run" health care. This is based on the assumption and conventional wisdom that the government will be wasteful, inefficient, unresponsive and insensitive to patients true needs- maybe even usurping a doctor's advice in order to fit some pre-etermined method of treatment. Well, for most of us, that is the system we now have, except we have no recourse but through appeal letters and I suppose litigation, if we are still alive and can afford it, in the event of a dispute.
It seems logical to me, to cut to the chase so to speak, that we use the entire population as a base and insure everyone. It would be interesting to see how the arithmetic works out. If health care is costing $12,000 a year now for most individuals, (I'm assuming no deductibles here), what would it cost if everyone was in the pool? The basic actuarial insurance tables ,I suspect, with everyone in the risk pool, would spread the costs considerably. Of course this is how western countries do it: a tax (or premium) on everyone to cover those that really need it- a true insurance model, since we are all at risk.
Even though western countries struggle with their own budgetary problems in meeting the needs of their citizens under their "free" health care programs, those systems do in fact work. Poor economic conditions as we are experiencing now exacerbate the problem of lack of tax dollars, but this is a temporary situation. Things will get better, funds for health care will be more available. But the bottom line is they are able to fund their universal health care systems through a tax system, similar to the way we fund Medicare, and most tax systems are not anymore burdensome than our own.
Here's the difference: no western countries, eastern, northern or southern ones, either, have taxpayers bearing the burden of the largest Defense budget the world has ever seen. This extra trillion dollars or so, ( including all defense and security related expenditures), is the money we could put toward "free" health care. Of course no one is going to get rid of the Defense Department. But without addressing this elephant in the room, we can not fund any kind of meaningful health care reform. During the 90s we were beginning to get a handle on military spending: Donald Rumsfeld was addressing the problem on September 10th, 2001. We have been sidetracked from this discussion since then and have waged wars, maybe unnecessarily. A reevaluation of our military spending, ten times larger than the next largest spender in the world, is in order. I think only by letting the air out of the bloated elephant in the room will we ever be able to discuss meaningful improvement in health care. There is simply no money to do it otherwise.
Though I lean toward the progressives in wanting universal health care, no precondition exclusions, and even a Single Payer system, I recognize the complexities in funding, administrating, organizing and executing such a system. It seems to me that most western countries handle this with a simple concept: all people should have access to essentially "free" health care. No one misunderstands that this is paid for by taxes. We rank 37th, according to a 2000 survey, maybe lower now, in quality and availability of health care, but we have excellent medical services. But, of course, we avail ourselves of this fine service only if we can pay for it. So health care in America is not free, and there is no sentiment to make it a "right", vs a commodity. Consequently the horror stories abound of people being denied insurance coverage, bankruptcies, and sometimes death- deaths and tragedies that could have been avoided with universal coverage.
My understanding is that the AMA backs reform, maybe even Single Payer, but not "government run" health care. This is based on the assumption and conventional wisdom that the government will be wasteful, inefficient, unresponsive and insensitive to patients true needs- maybe even usurping a doctor's advice in order to fit some pre-etermined method of treatment. Well, for most of us, that is the system we now have, except we have no recourse but through appeal letters and I suppose litigation, if we are still alive and can afford it, in the event of a dispute.
It seems logical to me, to cut to the chase so to speak, that we use the entire population as a base and insure everyone. It would be interesting to see how the arithmetic works out. If health care is costing $12,000 a year now for most individuals, (I'm assuming no deductibles here), what would it cost if everyone was in the pool? The basic actuarial insurance tables ,I suspect, with everyone in the risk pool, would spread the costs considerably. Of course this is how western countries do it: a tax (or premium) on everyone to cover those that really need it- a true insurance model, since we are all at risk.
Even though western countries struggle with their own budgetary problems in meeting the needs of their citizens under their "free" health care programs, those systems do in fact work. Poor economic conditions as we are experiencing now exacerbate the problem of lack of tax dollars, but this is a temporary situation. Things will get better, funds for health care will be more available. But the bottom line is they are able to fund their universal health care systems through a tax system, similar to the way we fund Medicare, and most tax systems are not anymore burdensome than our own.
Here's the difference: no western countries, eastern, northern or southern ones, either, have taxpayers bearing the burden of the largest Defense budget the world has ever seen. This extra trillion dollars or so, ( including all defense and security related expenditures), is the money we could put toward "free" health care. Of course no one is going to get rid of the Defense Department. But without addressing this elephant in the room, we can not fund any kind of meaningful health care reform. During the 90s we were beginning to get a handle on military spending: Donald Rumsfeld was addressing the problem on September 10th, 2001. We have been sidetracked from this discussion since then and have waged wars, maybe unnecessarily. A reevaluation of our military spending, ten times larger than the next largest spender in the world, is in order. I think only by letting the air out of the bloated elephant in the room will we ever be able to discuss meaningful improvement in health care. There is simply no money to do it otherwise.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Israel Palestine
Well
It's a mess and I have to defer to someone who knows what he's talking about and who is Jewish. Philip Weiss, a journalist I know who speaks truth to lies and keeps his head on straight notes that the American press can't seem to criticize Israel in the headlines, but at least prints articles questioning the logic, morality, and good sense of using violence to fight violence here:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/12/if-the-article-says-the-war-is-wrong-6-times-why-is-the-headline-darkness-in-qassamland.html
Some things seem clearer than others, but I am constantly nonplussed by my ex-Bush friends who see the deaths of so many innocents as just a neccessary part of some kind of process.
It's a mess and I have to defer to someone who knows what he's talking about and who is Jewish. Philip Weiss, a journalist I know who speaks truth to lies and keeps his head on straight notes that the American press can't seem to criticize Israel in the headlines, but at least prints articles questioning the logic, morality, and good sense of using violence to fight violence here:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/12/if-the-article-says-the-war-is-wrong-6-times-why-is-the-headline-darkness-in-qassamland.html
Some things seem clearer than others, but I am constantly nonplussed by my ex-Bush friends who see the deaths of so many innocents as just a neccessary part of some kind of process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
