Enough is enough, I say. I will not stand idly by as the uncultured puritanical prudes of Les Etats-Unis and their mad inspector Javerts hound another hero of the French nation as they did Roman Polanski, Woody Allen, Ira Einhorn, and Theodore Bundy for the mere sin of intellectual virility, and listening to the "oui" in a woman's eyes instead of the "non" in her screams of ecstasy.
J'Accuse America - with your filthy cheeseburgers, and your stupid tailfins, and your unnuanced medieval notions of "rape." Until, and unless, my friend Dominique Strauss-Kahn is freed from his political bondage, I refuse to provide you another paragraph of philosophy.
Bye-Bye, Miss Americaine-Pie. You can drive your Chevy to this Levy, but this Levy is dry.
IowaHawk for the defense [ed note: Found! Under a hors d'oeuvres tray at a Tina Brown cocktail party, the first draft of Bernard Henri-Levy's Daily Beast cri de coeur on behalf of his ami Dominique Strauss-Kahn]
Monday morning.
I do not know what actually happened Saturday, the day before yesterday, in the room of the now famous Hotel Sofitel in New York.
I do not know no one knows because can there or cannot there be such a knowing? I do not know. All is but existential abyss. For who is to know this mocking mime which taunts us by its cruel appellation, "reality"? Even reality itself cannot know, because have been no leaks regarding the declarations of the man in question, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. We have only the leaks regarding the leaks of his so-called "DNA." Was he was guilty of the acts he is accused of committing there, or if, or at which why, as was stated, he was having a mud bath in Baden-Baden with his daughter? Reality, you are a cruel mistress.
I do not knowbut, on the other hand, it would be nice to know, if knowing were indeed a matter of conceptual possibilityhow a mere proletarian chambermaid could have walked in alone, contrary to the habitual practice of most of New Yorks grand hotels of sending a cleaning brigade to remove to the myriad of empty Dom Perignon bottles and half-smoked Gauloise crushed into beignets they should have expected from one of the most closely watched figures on the planet. In protest I have written to the Michelin guide and demanded they be demoted to 3 stars.
And I do not want to entertain the considerations of dime-store psychology that claims to penetrate the mind of the subject, thrusting remorselessly and without consent into his libido, observing, for example, that the number of the room (2806) corresponds to the date of the coming liberation of France by the Socialist Party (06.28), in which he is the uncontested favorite to storm the Normandy beaches, march triumphantly into Paris, free it from its Sarkozian captors, seduce to the grateful lovesick coquettes with his Hershey bars, and thereby concluding that this is all a Freudian slip, a subconsciously erotic role-play, and blah blah blah. Sometimes a baguette is only a baguette.
What I do know is that nothing in the world can justify a man being thus thrown to a ravenous pack of dogs, a breed of which has neither been obedience trained nor clipped in the proper poofs.
[Iran Press TV] The Nation's ...Weekly journal of lefty opinion, featuring half-assed analysis on politics and culture. Founded in 1865. Hasn't had an original idea since... Political Correspondent John Nichols spoke to Press TV's U.S. Desk on Wednesday about the debate in Washington over Medicare and Medicaid.
"The debate in the United States has been very focused on our Medicare and Medicaid programs and these programs provide basic healthcare for the elderly as well as for people with disabilities and low income folk," Nichols said.
He continued, that the Republicans in the U.S. have been proposing deep cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the cuts would make those programs dysfunctional.
Nichols concluded that there may be a real debate in the U.S. and that the battle lines will be drawn in fascinating ways raising the possibilities that in 2012, "we might have a genuine election fight in this country between the Republicans who propose cutting back dramatically on our existing health care programs and the progressives who suggest that it is time actually to expand those programs."
The following is Nichols article about the same issue published by Common Dreams:
House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan ...U.S. Representative for Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, serving since 1999. He is a member of the Republican Party. He proposed an alternative to President B.O.'s 2011 budget and made himself the target of both Democrat and Republican verbal pies... proposes to undermine the integrity of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, with an eye toward enriching the insurance companies that so generously fund his campaigns.
The American people are not amused. They have sent clear signals that they want to maintain Medicare and Medicaid.
Ryan's town hall meetings in April featured noisy opposition in communities such as Milton and Kenosha, and tough questioning even in the most conservative communities of Walworth County. Likewise, Republican House members from Pennsylvania, Florida and other states got earfuls at their town meetings.
The protests at the meetings were just the tip of the iceberg of objection to the plan championed by Ryan, R-Janesville.
Polls show that roughly 80 percent of voters think it is a bad idea to try to balance the budget by gutting Medicare and Medicaid as Ryan proposes -- with a scheme to force seniors to buy coverage from private, for-profit insurance companies that happen to be major contributors to his campaign fund. Overwhelming majorities say that they would prefer that Congress end tax cuts for wealthy Americans and reduce Pentagon spending before making any changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
And rightly so. Despite the battering they have taken from misguided and malicious policymakers, the Medicare and Medicaid programs still provide the rough outlines for a single-payer health care program that keep costs down while expanding access to prevention and treatment for millions of Americans.
So, instead of gutting Medicare, as Ryan proposes, why not expand on what works?
That's what Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders ...The only openly Socialist member of the U.S. Senate. Sanders was Representative-for-Life from Vermont until moving to the Senate for the rest of his life in 2006, assuming the seat vacated by Jim Jeffords... is proposing.
"The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people. Meanwhile, ...back at the secret hideout, Scarface Al sneeringly put his proposition to little Nell... we spend about twice as much per capita on health care with worse results than others that spend far less," Sanders explained recently as he announced plans to introduce the American Health Security Act of 2011, which would provide federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs. "It is time that we bring about a fundamental transformation of the American health care system. It is time for us to end private, for-profit participation in delivering basic coverage. It is time for the United States to provide a Medicare-for-all single-payer health coverage program."
Sanders' plan is the right response to the health care crisis in America -- and any country where tens of millions of citizens lack health care coverage, where tends of millions more lack adequate coverage, and where costs are skyrocketing because of insurance company profiteering.
Don't get the independent senator wrong. He voted for the health care reform legislation that passed Congress last year and was signed by President B.O.. He even improved that legislation by fighting to include funding for public health programs and community clinics.
But Sanders also recognizes flaws in the 2010 reform -- which, reformers note, keeps the for-profit private health insurance industry at the center of the U.S. health system. And the senator argues that the ultimate cure for what ails American health care is a "Medicare for all" approach that ends the profiteering and focuses on prevention and treatment of disease.
And he is not alone.
Congressman Jim McDermott ...Representative-for-Life from Washington state. McDermott is noted for his 2002 trip to Baghdad in support of Saddam Hussein and for tapping Newt Gingrich's cell phone in 1997. He is consistly returned to office with Stalinesque majorities from his district, which seems to be populated by hippies and community organizers... , the Washington Democrat who has for two decades been one of the House's steadiest backers of real health care reform, will introduce a parallel bill in that chamber. Says McDermott: "The (2010) health care law made big progress toward covering many more people and finding ways to lower cost. However, The contradictory However... I think the best way to reduce costs and guarantee coverage for all is through a single-payer system like Medicare. This bill does just that -- it builds on the new health care law by giving states the flexibility they need to go to a single-payer system of their own. It will also reduce costs, and Americans will be healthier."
The Sanders-McDermott initiative in Washington comes as the Vermont legislature has taken steps to make the senator's home state the first in the nation to develop what advocates describe as a state-based variation on the single-payer approach. Sanders applauds the move, and thinks it could serve as a national model. Others agree, while noting that Medicare provides another model.
Sanders and McDermott were joined at the announcement of their new "Medicare for all" push by Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO; Jean Ross, co-president of National Nurses United; Looks like an astroturf nurses organization: "NNU was founded in 2009 unifying three of the most active, progressive organizations in the U.S.--and the major voices of unionized nurses--in the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, United American Nurses, and Massachusetts Nurses Association." They've got pictures of cops and firefighters and guys with hard hats on their website and pics of a protest that has Sean Penn in attendance.
and Greg Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. All three groups are encouraging this fight for real reform.
"Providing a single standard of high-quality care for all is a priority for registered nurses, who have seen their abilities to act as patient advocates made more difficult as for-profit interests control more patient care decisions," says Ross, whose union has been in the forefront of the fight for single-payer. "We commend Senator Sanders and Representative McDermott for their vision and passion to help registered nurses create a more just health care system through the American Health Security Act and applaud our brothers and sisters in labor for their support."
Physicians for a National Health Program, Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 18,000 members and chapters across the United States. Since 1987, we've advocated for reform in the U.S. health care system. We educate physicians and other health professionals about the benefits of a single-payer system--including fewer administrative costs and affording health insurance for the 50.7 million Americans who have none.
the movement of doctors and medical students for real reform, welcomed the national legislation.
"At a time when the airwaves are filled with talk about cutting or even ending Medicare," said Dr. Garrett Adams, PNHP president, "Senator Sanders has boldly stepped forward with the seemingly paradoxical proposition that the best way to financially strengthen the Medicare program is to upgrade it and expand it to cover everyone."
This article starring:
Arlene Holt Baker
Common Dreams
Dr. Garrett Adam
Greg Junemann
International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers
Jean Ross
National Nurses United
Physicians for a National Health Program
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The United States is the only major nation in the industrialized world that does not guarantee health care as a right to its people
Please cite the applicable Article and Section or Amendment to the Constitution that authorizes such 'right' and empowers the national government to impose it upon the citizenry. BTW, when you go making it up to justify your invalid assumption of powers, remember in the last few seconds when your head's on the chopping block the little warning about removing the safe guards of the Constitution as written.
The Ryan plan is the most comprehensive, fair, and sane plan presented in that Congress in a very, very long time. Pass it or everyone will live in squander when everyone is broke (cept for the politicians who will fly to other countries to retire).
#3
Because GPs (or taxpayers) should be slaves....
Treatment can never be a "right" (unless the right means the government won't stop you choosing whatever treatment you can afford).
Treatment entitlement would make a bad situation worse for the states, as the population would have NO financial incentive to look after their own health.
This was the sort of split-the-difference address that the president is now famous for long on Icarus-like soaring phraseology, very short on down-to-earth realities.
The first third of the presidents speech was a good summary of prior (dare we say it?) neoconservative analyses: Middle East autocracies blame Israel and the U.S., and often manipulate terrorism as a way to divert attention from their own failures to provide freedom and economic security to their people.
Evidently, they are unwilling to address their societies endemic cultural, economic, and social problems: tribalism, religious intolerance, gender apartheid, statism, authoritarian government, and on and on.
Yesterday, that was a neocon fantasy of Wolfowitz, Perle, and Bush; today, it is apparently part of a landmark new diplomacy. And yet, in this comprehensive speech on the Middle East, the word Islam was never mentioned.
Then, in the second third of his speech, Obama constructed a false narrative that his modest efforts over the last 27 months on the diplomatic front marked a watershed in the history of American policy. In truth, Obama embraced democratic reform only belatedly (recall his advice not to meddle when Iranians protested Iranian theocracy in the streets, or the characterization of the creepy Bashar Assad as a reformer, or Joe Bidens assertion that Mubarak was not a dictator), a fact well known in the Middle East.
It is curious that Iraq serves as a success in this new narrative, given Barack Obamas five-year rhetorical assault on the effort e.g., his demands to pull out all troops by March 2008 and declare the incipient surge that saved democracy a failure.
And given the manifest historical fallacies and inaccuracies in the Cairo speech, was it wise for Obama to reference it as a sort of didactic example?
Obama expressed little concern about reports that many of the movements that threw out the illiberal pro-American autocracies are illiberal themselves and he offered no explanation as to why Qaddafi deserved bombs and the other tyrants of the region, such as Assad, do not. European proximity and concern about future oil contracts?
The omission was glaring in a speech touting the supposedly across-the-board new American idealism (e.g., It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy). Indeed, the most important country in the Middle East Saudi Arabia was not mentioned by Obama a single time. I think we know why, especially in the context of the new Saudi oil chill.
The president proposed giving new billions to some Middle East governments and jawboning others to pump more oil. Meanwhile, here at home at a time of an annual $1.6 trillion deficit he has not only failed to grant new drilling leases, but proclaimed that more drilling will not result in more oil.
On still another note: As the flooding Mississippi destroys billions of dollars of U.S. property and ruins American lives, a broke U.S. is to give more money to Middle East governments that so far have been not shy about their disdain for America?
The IsraeliPalestinian issue is a black hole for any president, and Obama deserves empathy for thinking he can find a solution, despite the recent resignation of his special Middle East envoy. His statements were balanced enough, but few will see anything there reflective of the fact that Hamas, which is sworn to destroy Israel, is about to be a part of a Palestinian government and thus will soon be an indirect recipient of U.S. aid.
The president made predictions about what would happen if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection but why the if?
Is there any reason to believe that another Israel pullout in the fashion of Lebanon and Gaza would bring results any different from the violence that followed those two withdrawals? The problem is not the 1967 border but the failure of the Palestinians to craft a stable, prosperous constitutional government, and then negotiate about borders later.
The presidents last paragraph about freedom as a universal value in the context of the Middle East was almost a verbatim synopsis of George W. Bushs constant orations and yet the president can rest assured that his democracy promotion will be praised by the media as idealistic and needed as much as Bushs identical prose was damned as naïve and irrelevant.
In short, like the Cairo speech, this Middle East address will soon be as much forgotten by most observers as it is referenced by Obama himself.
#1
But..b..bb..but I was told he was The One. Obama was for Hope and Change...and Bush was a chimp and Cheney was Dracula and all the fighting in Iraq was for nothing.
Obama standing among the Greek Columns was ELOQUENT (every time) and his words were like Lincoln. His words were those of greatness and profound...enduring wisdom.. lasting. (can anyone quote me a single line or phrase from his Cairo Speech?) Has he ever said anything truly memorable?
What IS his deep moral foundation...from which springs his world inspiring strategy of thought?
Do you ever get the impression that the majority of Americans who elected this assclown were suckers? Do you begin to comprehend how lost and stupid perhaps a majority of Americans really are? Drooling witless and without value?
This is the BEST America has to uplift the world and act as a beacon of the depth of American wisdom?
Its right up there with profound men like John Kerry and paragons like Edwards? Yeah. That good, eh?
You can expect great things from America with the character we see in American leadership today.
And just WHO will lead us in 2012 ? There is so much to look forward to in the FUTURE of the United States, isnt there?
The entire Nation of the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave is staggering around in the dark in its underwear looking for a cheap smoke.
What exactly does the United States have to OFFER the world? How are we superior to the monkeys like Khadaffy and Assad?
Take a good look at Obama. What do you see? an expensive suit and a brass cymbal on a wind up mechanism in a cheap toy.
And in 2012....Donald Trump...an egotistical opportunist who will buy you...or Romney with a dead brain and lots of money...or Palin who wants the glitter of celebrity and doesnt really want to lead because it would require depth and vision.
Golly gee.
They are all glib fools. And you ....what are you? You couldnt lead eight men in a straight line to the toilet. You wouldnt know a Leader if you met one. And you know WHY? because you dont believe in anything. Its all going nowhere because the soul of America is blind. Noises.Katy Couric and Las Vegas rationalizations.
What is the benefit to any of us between an Assad or a Khadaffy if we only have a skinny worthless clueless leader who is no better than OURSELVES.
Obama struts his stuff and it goes nowhere to anyones inspiration or benefit. because there is nothing there.
You raised this pile of crap up. Now you will have another election in 2012. You poor lost souls standing there naked in the dark listening to the water drip.
Posted by: de Medici3489 ||
05/19/2011 22:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
the home of the Brave is staggering around in the dark in its underwear looking for a cheap smoke.
Well, I hadn't really considered it like that, but now that you put it that way, yes, our nation's soul is in grave danger. I think we're staggering looking for a good cable TV bundle, though.
This weekend's border-crossing demonstrators believe, like Hamas, that the Jewish State has no right to any territory from the river to the sea.
The fiction that is typically offered about the refugees by devotees of the peace process is that Palestinian leaders see them as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Israel, perhaps in exchange for the re-division of Jerusalem. But listen in on the internal dialogue of Palestinians and you will hear that the "right of return" is an inviolable, inalienable and individual right of every refugee. In other words, a right that can never (and never safely) be bargained away by Palestinian leaders for the sake of a settlement with Israel.
Other things could be mentioned. But the roots of the problem are beside the point. The real point is that a grievance that has been nursed for 63 years and that can move people to acts like those witnessed on Sunday is never going to allow a political accommodation with Israel and would never be satisfied by one anyway.
No wonder Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas's prime minister, can say he would be prepared to accept the 1967 bordersbut that establishing those borders will never mean an end to the conflict. The same goes for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who praised Sunday's slain protesters as martyrs who "died for the Palestinian people's rights and freedom." This from the "moderate" who is supposed to acquaint his people with the reality and purpose of a two-state solution.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due in the U.S. soon to deliver what is being billed as a major policy address. What should he say? I would counsel the same wisdom that sailors of yore used to tattoo to their knuckles as a reminder of what not to forget on the yardarms of tall ships in stormy seas. Eight easy letters:
H-O-L-D F-A-S-T.
If the link does not go to the entire piece, try googling the title.
This weekend's border-crossing demonstrators believe, like Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason,, that the Jewish State has no right to any territory from the river to the sea.
The fiction that is typically offered about the refugees by devotees of the grinding of the peace processor is that Paleostinian leaders see them as a bargaining chip in their negotiations with Israel, perhaps in exchange for the re-division of Jerusalem. But listen in on the internal dialogue of Paleostinians and you will hear that the "right of return" is an inviolable, inalienable and individual right of every refugee. In other words, a right that can never (and never safely) be bargained away by Paleostinian leaders for the sake of a settlement with Israel.
Other things could be mentioned. But the roots of the problem are beside the point. The real point is that a grievance that has been nursed for 63 years and that can move people to acts like those witnessed on Sunday is never going to allow a political accommodation with Israel and would never be satisfied by one anyway.
No wonder Ismail Haniyeh ...became Prime Minister after the legislative elections of 2006 which Hamas won. President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Haniyeh from office on 14 June 2007 at the height of the Fatah-Hamas festivities, but Haniyeh did not acknowledge the decree and continues as the PM of Gazoo while Abbas maintains a separate PM in the West Bank... , Hamas's prime minister, can say he would be prepared to accept the 1967 borders--but that establishing those borders will never mean an end to the conflict. The same goes for Paleostinian President the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas ... a graduate of the prestigious unaccredited Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow with a doctorate in Holocaust Denial... , who praised Sunday's slain protesters as deaders who "died for the Paleostinian people's rights and freedom." This from the "moderate" who is supposed to acquaint his people with the reality and purpose of a two-state solution.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due in the U.S. soon to deliver what is being billed as a major policy address. What should he say? I would counsel the same wisdom that sailors of yore used to tattoo to their knuckles as a reminder of what not to forget on the yardarms of tall ships in stormy seas. Eight easy letters:
H-O-L-D F-A-S-T.
If the link does not go to the entire piece, try googling the title.
Fifteen years have passed, and millions of dollars have been spent on studies since the state first passed a law creating a high-speed rail program. Yet after all that, no one really knows whether its worth doing. If no one has come up with a convincing rationale by now, maybe there isnt one.
#3
Everyone wants to go fast to someplace. Are they willing to pay? Then there is this nasty problem of getting capital funding from a bankrupt state and federal govt. It would be cheaper to have electric cars and periodic quick chargers on existing freeways than build a bazillion dollar high speed 19th century rail line. Just sayin'.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/19/2011 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yet after all that, no one really knows whether it's worth doing.
Everyone knows it's not worth doing. The studies are attempts to justify the unjustifiable.
#5
If no one has come up with a convincing rationale by now, maybe there isnt one.
Of course there is a convincing rationale. Just depends on who needs convincing. Right now those that need convincing are the pols that are probably getting kick-backs (aka campaign funds) from the various "studiers" and prospective contractors and all the unions that figure to make a mint.
Oh, you meant a rationale that would show it was good for the economy and the taxpayers? There, not so much.
#6
Everyone wants to go fast to someplace. Problem is that someplace is a differentplace for nearly every one. Which is way Cars are better than Rails in non high density areas.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
05/19/2011 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Seems we could do a lot with that money, other than build a rail line that would be too expensive to ride anyway.
I suspect regular rail would carry a lot more passengers if the price were half what air fare costs.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/19/2011 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Time to hire a committee to analize the study.
I know a guy, yeah he's a relative, but college isn't challenging enough, see?, thats why the grades are bad. He's good on the phone, and can draw a train like nobody else.
#9
I suspect regular rail would carry a lot more passengers if the price were half what air fare costs.
Not exactly, currently for instance Amtrak is subsidized by taxpayers to reduce fares. Problem is it runs on the same lines as normal freight trains (which have higher profit margins for their respective rail companies) and hence its schedule is limited to the freight trains schedules.
The real problem with rail traffic is that its not profitable. You are only running revenue so long as there is a train on the track with people moving along on it. Whenever that track does not have a train on it, its basically idle eating up maintenance costs. To further exacerbate the dilemma a study was done showing that when train travel distances exceed 1 to 2 hours people start preferring planes (this alone pretty much wrecks the whole high speed transit idea to LA unless you can get that train to do the distance in under 3 hours).
As a final nail in the coffin is land purchasing price. In order to build the rail line the state or whoever the hell is going to run the line needs to own the track (see above for maintenance costs on this) which means buying up the land its on, which in turns means when land owner find out their land is wanted they will charge an arm and a leg for it. You can basically expect $40 billion to just pay for the land itself.
#10
The Attorney fess will cost more than the land.
Eminent Domain - Partial Takings
Often, the government needs only a portion of a particular property, such as a strip of land needed for street widening. In those cases, just compensation is determined not only by the value of the part taken, but also by the damage to the remaining property. Such damages are called severance damages, i.e., damages caused by severance of the remainder from the part taken. Severance damage as a general proposition, is the amount of damage to the remaining portion of the parcel which is caused by the severance of the remainder from the part taken, or by the construction and operation of the project for which the property is taken.
Severance damages may be minimal or non-existent in some cases. In others, they can be quite high sometimes approaching the value of the entire property.
#11
The whole thing is idiotic. How are you going to provide security for 300 miles of track? What happens to passengers going 200 mph when the train hits a cement truck parked on the tracks? What kind of security can you provide that will prevent that? How much is that security going to cost?
At least with an airplane you only have to provide security at each end point - not the entire trip.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
