Left I on the News  

Yesterday, U.S. military bases across the world observed moments of silence for those killed yesterday at Fort Hood. Today, flags there and at government buildings are at half staff. All perfectly appropriate, I'm sure. But there are American soldiers killed virtually every day in Iraq and Afghanistan? How come their deaths don't get the same treatment?

And while I'm asking questions, why is it that those who don't want the government to pay for abortions get their way, but objecting to other things the government spends its money on, like war and occupation (and subsidizing the purchase of SUVs, just to name one more), gets you nowhere?

Everyone saw, I'm sure, that the official U.S. unemployment rate today went over 10%, with the increasingly-acknowledged "real" unemployment rate, which includes the underemployed and those who have given up looking for work, at 17.5% (and even that, as I recall, doesn't include many others, including prisoners). But as scary as those statistics are, there's this one: the average length without a job is now 26.9 weeks - nearly seven months. And make sure to note two things. First, that's the average, which means there are many, many people who have been unemployed for much longer than that. And second, that's the average among the "officially" unemployed (the 10.2%). Just imagine how much higher that number it would be if it included all the unemployed.

Is there anything that demonstrates how bankrupt the very concept of health "insurance" is more than the debate over insurance companies denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? It's true that insurance companies carry their determination of pre-existing conditions to ridiculous extremes, and those are always the stories you read about - the person who had acne, or the baby who was too fat. But there are very real pre-existing conditions. How about someone with AIDS who is using $10,000 worth of drugs every year who loses their job and needs to purchase insurance? As long as health care is run on a profit basis using the insurance model, why on earth would a company want to sell coverage to such a person for $3000, knowing it's going to cost them $10,000? It makes no sense whatsoever for them to do that.

There are cases where companies do sell products at a loss - loss leaders, for example, where a company sells you one product at a low price hoping you'll buy more products for them to profit from. "Branding" is another case. But those cases have nothing in common with health insurance, and a company selling health insurance has absolutely nothing to gain from selling its product to even a single person at a loss, or even a likely loss (and of course that's why they demand that the government deliver presumably healthy "customers" to them in return, to make up for their anticipated losses with even greater profit).

Health care is what Americans (and everyone else) needs, and health care reform is what Americans need. Not health insurance reform. Not only don't we need health insurance reform, we don't need health insurance. Period.

People like myself decry the concept of "American exceptionalism" (unlike Barack Obama, who proclaims his belief in it), but the U.S. really is an "exceptional" country. In how many other countries are there not one but two epidemics taking place? No, not H1N1. These:

Epidemic one - People going bankrupt and killing themselves, their families, or, as in yesterday's case, their ex-coworkers.

Epidemic two - People with medical expenses they can't possible pay, having to resort to inviting their friends to fund-raising events to help them pay. To quote a variant of the old bumper sticker, "What if the government funded health care and the military had to hold bake sales?"

To quote the Bard (Bob Dylan),

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, 'n' how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

"Muhammad Ali also had a way with words, but it helped enormously that he could also punch guys in the face."

- Bill Maher, quoted by Dave Zirin in a column on yesterday's election and Obama's (and the Democrats') role in it, specifically his/their failure to accomplish any significant goals and hence to inspire their supporters to vote

An Italian court on Wednesday convicted 22 CIA operatives and a U.S. Air Force colonel of orchestrating the kidnapping of a Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003 and flying him to Egypt, where he said he was later tortured. (Source)

I found this equally interesting:

The judge in the case, Oscar Magi, said three other Americans, including the former Rome station chief for the CIA, were covered by diplomatic immunity.

So if you're a "diplomat," even a CIA agent posing as a diplomat, it's ok if you kidnap someone? How about murder? I mean, being exempt from parking tickets is one thing, but isn't this carrying it a bit too far?

And, just asking, did it really take 26 people to kidnap someone? No wonder government budgets are so bloated!

With a large hat tip to WIIIAI, I take note of President Obama's message on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Iran. Obama incorrectly asserts that that "event helped set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation," as if the U.S.-sponsored coup which installed the Shah 26 years earlier hadn't done precisely that. (He also claims, arrogantly, and equally incorrectly, that "We have heard for thirty years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for." Well, for starters, it's for a future that employs nuclear power. Suck on that, Barack.)

Iranians have a different take on both what happened 30 years ago and what is still happening today, the commonality being that the U.S. is trying for "regime change" every bit as much now as it was then. And here's what the students who occupied the U.S. Embassy 30 years ago found out about that:

Documents found at the former embassy showed that Washington had tested 26 different strategies to overthrow the Revolution in the first few months that followed its victory.

According to Rahimpour-Azghadi, some of the strategies that the US had employed included attempts to create sectarian unrest, a campaign to recruit religious minorities with Zionist inclinations, and plan to fuel labor strikes and food shortages.

He also mentioned terrorism, encouraging student protests in universities and schools, and providing financial and media back-up to opposing political groups, as other tactics adopted by the US had.

Rahimpour-Azghadi said that the US had even tried to make use of cultural activities, such as English language classes, scientific gatherings and artistic circles to topple the Islamic Republic.

The analyst said Washington sought to influence the country's top political figures, its religious leadership and moderate Islamic intellectuals.

Same as it ever was.

Both Al Jazeera and AP today demonstrate wishful thinking (at least in the case of Al Jazeera; in the case of AP, it may be deliberate obfuscation) in claiming that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank "illegitimate." What exactly did she say?

"We do not accept the legitimacy of settlement activity. Ending all settlement activity current and future would be preferable."

Notably missing from that second sentence is the word "past." Clinton isn't calling the settlements "illegitimate," she's saying that building new ones is illegitimate. Quite a difference.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, Israel's (and the U.S.' and U.K.'s and Germany's and France's and Egypt's) very real, continuing, and utterly repugnant war against the people of Gaza continues:

The number of Palestinians who have died as a result of the Israeli siege on Gaza has passed 360, a statement released by the health ministry of the deposed Palestinian government in Gaza has said.

The statement followed the death of a Palestinian man on Tuesday, who was denied approval to leave the Strip to receive medical treatment abroad.

Asaad Ibrahim Mohammad Asfour, 51, who had lung cancer and cancer of the bronchial tubes, is the latest victim of Israel's siege on Gaza which began in 2007.

Just in case there is the slightest confusion - these aren't deaths from bombs or missiles or bullets. These aren't deaths of people who the Israelis and the Western media can pass off as "militants." These are deaths of ordinary people, killed by Israel and its allies in the siege of Gaza in the "civilized way." Condemn that, U.S. House of Representatives. Call for some "positive movement forward" on that, Secretary Clinton.

Congress doesn't want any health care plan they pass to pay for abortions. "Prayer treatments," however, that's another story...

I have to admit I'm quite unclear on exactly what expenses would be incurred when utilizing such treatments.

Exactly 36 members of the House of Representatives have the courage to vote against a resolution calling on the U.S. government to oppose the Goldstone report (vs. 344 voting for this piece of, pardon my Yiddish, dreck). And I'm willing to bet a considerable number, if not all, of those 344 (and maybe even some of the 36 and the others voting "present") would still describe the United States as an "honest broker."

As Gideon Levy wrote yesterday, "The United States begs for a settlement freeze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no consequences for Israel's inaction."

Source

The real problem is that the guy in the chair isn't Obama, it's the "alcoholic" U.S. ruling class, addicted to the substance being offered. Only detox (in the form of a revolution) can cure the disease.

To my surprise, listening today to Rick Sanchez on CNN (not one of my favorite people), I hear him touting Scott Ritter as "the man who got it right on Iraq" and then interviewing Ritter (here and here) talking about such things as how Gen. McChrystal needs to be fired for insubordination (for making public speeches challenging his Commander-in-Chief) and how the U.S. should stop fighting the Taliban because the Taliban are not Al Qaeda and have no interest in "fighting us over here" if we stop "fighting them over there." Was Ritter ever on CNN (or any other corporate media outlet) before the invasion of Iraq? If he was (and I'm not sure he was), it was a rare day indeed, although those of us who get our news from alternative media certainly heard him loud and clear.

Ritter makes a clear distinction (as this blog has, many times) between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, noting that "the Taliban is the legitimate outgrowth of frustration of the Afghan people over the corruption, the rape, the pillage of the warlords that thrived in Afghanistan once the Soviets left...The reality is the Taliban are closer to the Afghan people than, in many cases, Hamid Karzai, America's anointed President of Afghanistan, is."

Update: Lest I give Sanchez too many props, I add that part of his introduction claims that "Ritter was all but kicked out of [Iraq] by Saddam Hussein," repeating the old lie that the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq, rather than having left in advance of U.S. bombing.

Yesterday, we had a State Department spokesperson unable to identify Israel as one of the two countries (using the word "country" loosely in the case of Palau) to vote with the U.S. in support of the U.S. blockade of Cuba. And today, we have the Secretary herself, Hilary Clinton, with not one but two almost unbelievable statements.

First, her observations on the likelihood of one of the two candidates in the upcoming Afghanistan runoff election withdrawing:

""I don't think it has anything to do with the legitimacy of the election."

Really, Hilary? Nothing? Not even given the fact that the candidate who may be withdrawing is doing so because the other guy stole at least 30% of the votes in the first round, and the identical election mechanisms are still in place? Clinton also claims "We see that happen in our own country where, for whatever combination of reasons, one of the candidates decides not to go forward." Really? Exactly how many times can you recall that that happened?

And then, she moves on to Israel, where it gets even more preposterous:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday that Israel is making "unprecedented" concessions on West Bank settlement construction.

"What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements ... is unprecedented."

And just what did the prime minister offer in terms of "specifics on restraints" (restraints on the Israeli policy of flaunting international law)? As near as I can tell, not a damn thing. It was Clinton who told the Palestinians that they should accept Israel's building of 3,000 more units on the West Bank along with the construction of public buildings residentes in east Jerusalem.

Unprecedented? All too precedented, unfortunately.

If you're one of those people who dismiss the "effectiveness" of the U.S. blockade of Cuba because, after all, you can buy Coca-Cola in Cuba, the speech by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla will disabuse you of that mistaken notion. A must-read (even if you aren't in the category described above).

In very large type at the top of Huffington Post right now:

Obama Looking To Lower Troop Levels In Afghanistan

"Wow," I thought. "Hard to believe he'd really do that, but maybe he's just putting out a trial balloon to ease pressure from those opposed to the war, to make them think he's listening to them."

Not:

President Obama has asked the Pentagon's top generals to provide him with more options for troop levels in Afghanistan, two U.S. officials said late Friday, with one adding that some of the alternatives would allow Obama to send fewer new troops than the roughly 40,000 requested by his top commander.

As with "decreases" in the military budget, we're supposed to believe that a smaller increase is actually a decrease. As if.

Out now! All out!

"This yearly exercise at the UN obscures the fact that the United States is a leading source of food and humanitarian relief to Cuba. In 2008, the United States exported $717 million in agricultural products, medical devices, medicine, wood, and humanitarian items to Cuba."

- Ian Kelly, State Department press spokesperson

Mr. Kelly is apparently laboring under the misconception that items sold to Cuba, all paid for in advance in cash by Cuba, constitute "humanitarian aid." Or, more likely, he'd like to mislead the American people (and uninformed American reporters) about the nature of U.S. "aid" to Cuba.

On second thought, he's just an idiot. As indicated by this exchange:

QUESTION: Speaking of the UN, the General Assembly had its annual vote today on the Cuba embargo. You got two people to join you, two countries. Can you remind – (a) remind of what those two countries are, and (b) tell us what you think of the vote?

MR. KELLY: I think one was Palau, Matt. Who was the other one?

QUESTION: I don’t know. I think it – it’s usually, generally, the Solomon Islands.

QUESTION: I thought it was Micronesia.

QUESTION: Or Micronesia.

Well, it's also possible he knew very well that it was Israel, but didn't want to help publicly expose Israel as the U.S. lackey it is.

Update: By the way, maybe the transcript just doesn't reflect what happened, but was there really not a single reporter in the room capable (and willing) of shouting out, "It's Israel, you moron!"?

"Today I'm pleased to say that we have proved that change is possible."

- President Barack Obama, signing a $680 billion "defense" budget including $170 billion for war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'd like to get some "change" from that bill. $680 billion worth.

It might have seemed impossible last year, when the U.N. already voted 185-3 with 2 abstentions to condemn the U.S. blockade of Cuba, but this year the vote edged up yet again, to a resounding 187-3.

The three opposed, as last year, were the U.S., its politically, militarily, and economically dependent lackey Israel, and its economically dependent former territory Palau. But it turns out there's even more to that Palau vote than you might think:

The only country that joined, once again, team USA-Israel against the overwhelming majority of countries that recently pushed back against the U.S. blockade against Cuba at the U.N., has as its ambassador in that institution Stuart Beck, an American with Israeli citizenship, Long Island lawyer, friend of John Bolton. [Translated online with some improvement by me]

It's not even a big enough country to have its own actual ambassador!

And, irony alert! Rising to defend the U.S.' Cold War policy, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice calling the Cuban Ambassador's statements "hostile" and "straight out of the Cold War era." You might want to rethink that name-calling, Susan.

The U.S. continues its arrogant policy of saying Cuba must "change" before the U.S. removes the blockade. Really an almost unbelievable statement considering that the blockade (and the entire U.S.-Cuba relationship) is an entirely one-way street, Cuba never having done a single thing to the U.S. (other than existing) while the U.S. has waged an unrelenting 50-year war against the Cuban Revolution.

An interesting example of that arrived in my mail the other day. There are new postal regulations involving Cuba, which allow people to mail gifts to Cuba more frequently. Well, to some Cubans anyway. Excluded from receiving anything (other than simple letters) in the mail from the U.S. are "certain government officials and Cuban Communist Party members." Talk about interfering in the affairs of another country!

Now that economists and the media are telling us that the recession is practically over (oh, except for that pesky unemployment statistic), have you noticed that all of a sudden we're seeing references to what happened (and, not that they admit it, is still happening) as the "Great Recession"?

I guess it sounds better than "Depression."

In San Jose, an unarmed student was beaten and tasered by cops in the latest incident of police brutality. The San Jose Mercury News runs the story under a (no doubt unintentionally) true headline: "4 cops put on leave over video" (online version similar but slightly different). Not over the beating itself, which was witnessed by the victim (obviously) and at least one other person, only over the fact that they were unlucky enough to have someone record it on video.

All praise to the inventor of the cell phone camera!