peristaltor: (Default)
By now, you've probably heard about the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, a group founded in 1973 that helps conservative legislators with pre-drafted legislation they can handily introduce into their houses and senates. It seems ALEC drafted the anti-collective bargaining bills in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio, and had a hand in the 2010 anti-immigration law in Arizona. This is exactly the kind of organization I described in Confused on the Left, Blinded by the Right (Part II, Blinded) over a year and a half ago, and contains many of the same characters. ALEC was, after all, founded by Paul Weyrich, the same fellow that founded the Heritage Foundation (and in the same year).

I mention ALEC because ALEC's little droogies in office in Wisconsin are unhappy about Professor Cronon's guide to the organization and his New York Times history of conservative politics through the ages. In response -- and most likely in retaliation -- they have started legal proceedings to obtain all of his (pertinent) emails that happen to use his UW-Madison email address. The professor explains:

My little ALEC study guide succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Within two days, the blog had received over half a million hits, had been read by tens of thousands of people, had been linked by newspapers all over the United States, and had been visited by people from more than two dozen foreign countries. . . .

What I did not anticipate—though I guess I should have seen it coming, given everything else that has happened in Wisconsin over the past couple months—was the communication that the University of Wisconsin-Madison received on Thursday afternoon, March 17—less than two days after I posted my blog—formally requesting under the state’s Open Records Law copies of all emails sent from or received by my University of Wisconsin—Madison email address pertaining to matters raised in my blog.


The professor has good reasons not to release everything the Wisconsin Republican Party wants, reasons like student and professional confidentiality. The courts should definitely weigh in on which emails seem even pertinent to the file request . . . or even whether the file request is a legitimate use of the Open Records Law. He points out, though, that this is not really the main point:

It doesn’t take a great leap of logic to infer that Mr. Thompson and his colleagues aren’t particularly eager to have a state university professor asking awkward questions about the dealings of state Republicans with the American Legislative Exchange Council. This open records request apparently seemed to Mr. Thompson to be a good way to discourage me from sticking my nose in places he doesn’t think it belongs.

I confess that I’m surprised to find myself in this strange position, since (as I said in my earlier blog post) my professional interest as a historian has always been to research and understand the full spectrum of American political opinion. I often spend as much time defending Republican and conservative points of view to my liberal friends as vice versa. (For what it’s worth, I have never belonged to either party.) But Mr. Thompson obviously read my blog post as an all-out attack on the interests of his party, and his open records request seems designed to give him what he hopes will be ammunition he can use to embarrass, undermine, and ultimately silence me.

One obvious conclusion I draw is that my study guide about the role of ALEC in Wisconsin politics must come pretty close to hitting a bull’s-eye. Why else would the Republican Party of Wisconsin feel the need to single out a lone university professor for such uncomfortable attention?


The professor's posts are long, but well worth the read. I hope to read or hear of this in my local main-stream media news, but in the meantime I'll not be holding my breath.


Kerfuffle via Pharyngula.
peristaltor: (Default)
God helps those
who help themselves.


- Benjamin Franklin



I just finished Thomas Geoghegan's Were You Born on the Wrong Continent? and found, tucked away as an almost parenthetical observation, something absolutely not a part of his narrative thesis yet so crucial, something so obvious that I should have seen it years ago, something that helps explain so much about life here in the United States. ExpandIt's a big deal! Really! )
peristaltor: (Default)
By now, everyone has heard about what is happening seemingly all at once in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio. Republican governors are trying to ram "emergency" legislation through their senates and houses that would strip the most robust union demographic, public employees, of their collective bargaining rights.

Here's a question: Why now?

I haven't seen this point raised by anyone, but I think it has everything -- and I mean everything -- to do with the baby boom generation.

ExpandHear me out. )


X-posted to [livejournal.com profile] the_recession.
peristaltor: (Default)
I mentioned the Koch Brothers only briefly in the past. To get caught up, you really need to do some background reading. These two are becoming more and more active with their fortune.

For example, consider that they, being not only Birchers but sons of one of the founders of the John Birch Society, hate unions. Now consider that the unrest in Wisconsin is getting downright interesting:

This afternoon, Marty Beil, executive director of the Wisconsin Public Workers Union, sent a message to the Governor’s office agreeing to the cuts to pension & welfare benefits sought by Walker in his bill. The governor’s response was “nothing doing.” He wants the whole kit and kaboodle – the end of the collective bargaining rights of the public unions.


Oh, but it gets even better. Folks all over the country have been pouring over Gov. Walker's Budget Repair Bill, and guess what they found? A provision that would allow public assets to be sold . . . without any competitive bidding! I kept the emboldening from the link's author emboldened:

16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).


Let's remember that the Koch brothers have extensive holdings in Wisconsin, including timber, coal and pipelines. If this privatization strategy works, soon Governor Walker's second-largest campaign contributors will add millions to their portfolio and cut the fat do away with those pesky unions and their darned collective bargaining.

Make no mistake: This is Fascism at work.


UPDATE: Someone named Murphy at the Buffalo Beast successfully called Gov. Walker claiming to be David Koch. Listen to the Gov spill his guts outlining the strategy for getting this bill passed.





What is it about fucking Reagan? These righties invoke his goddamned name every 5 seconds lest his ghost abandon the country or something. (The Gov waxes eloquently about Der Gipper in Part II.)
peristaltor: (Default)
Take a look at this image:



Just about everyone who took intro courses in psychology knows this is the chief image used in the famous Asch conformity experiments. Long time readers of this LJ know I've mentioned this before. In a nutshell, if you want a significant number of people to say that the line in the left-most box is the same length as lines A or B in the right-most box, all you have to do is have four people agree that this is the case. It doesn't matter that C is clearly of equal length; a significant amount of social persuasion will make a significant number of people conform.

So, why am I rehashing this? Simple. I just read what might be the scariest thing I've read in months, if not years: Software is currently being used to enable one person to put their opinions into up to 50 individual on-line personas at once.

From the link:

According to an embedded MS Word document found in one of the HB Gary emails, it involves creating an army of sockpuppets, with sophisticated "persona management" software that allows a small team of only a few people to appear to be many, while keeping the personas from accidentally cross-contaminating each other. Then, to top it off, the team can actually automate some functions so one persona can appear to be an entire Brooks Brothers riot online.


For everyone not living in a cave cowering under a cot, this little bit of reality completely changes the nature of reality itself. For months now, friends and I have been speculating about how the political/corporate situation in the United States has gotten so completely untenable. Really, who in their right mind would vote for some of the idiots currently wielding power like a revving chainsaw in a roomful of oxy-acetylene filled balloons? What thinking person would allow the mindless brandishing of corporate power from notable groups of business masters? Now that private interests need only pay to buy this software to get fifty people ditto-heading whatever opinion makes the most money or builds support for the right power coalition, these same interests need not hire talking heads to do the same. (I'm not saying they won't hire the Becks, Goldbergs, Limbaughs and the rest of the opinion marionettes; I'm just saying they now have -- and have had for some time -- cheaper alternatives.)

This might also explain the bizarre spam attacks my LJ has been getting lately. Could someone be using this software with, say, a beginner's understanding of the English language? That might explain the content of those wacky replies. (I'm at work now, but will post a few wacky examples when I get some time tomorrow.)

The public sphere has been compromised. Without honest exchanges of opinion, it is impossible to gauge the public zeitgeist on any given issue. We have no protection from infection without outlawing the internet during campaigns; and we all know that ain't gonna happen.
peristaltor: (Default)
I met Lenny for lunch today. Our work schedules have been out of whack for a few months, so he has had to sit on yet another journey through The Redneck Chronicles. (If you haven't, do check out his tales in my tag Lenny!.) Year ago, he discovered he was financially secure. When that discovery was made, he wisely liquidated just about all of his debt. This included paying off his various vehicles in full.

Imagine his surprise, then, when about 2 am the dogs woke him to a tow truck hitching to his own truck, paid off in full years ago. Step One: Loose the hounds. Once the Rottweiler pair has the driver backed against his rig, Step Two: Exit the house -- no reason to hurry -- in a robe carrying a sixteen gauge shotgun and a .45 Colt. Step Three: With the Colt pointed between the man's eyes, ask politely but firmly what the hell he thought he was doing.

The driver had repossession papers for the truck. A shout to the house brought Lenny's wife down with the payoff papers. In the interim, the driver noted that a truck wasn't worth anyone's life. (Funny thing, when he got to this point in the story I voiced exactly the same thought Lenny did: "It's my truck." The following "And I don't know you" seems unnecessary to the thinking observer.) Once the legalities were cleared up, the driver left alone and unharmed.

There has been a rash of bank screw-ups like this, where notes are lost, where payoffs are misplaced, where the wrong house/truck/asset has been foreclosed upon or repossessed. Our national reaction, for some reason, has been to assist the banks, never mind the rule of law (another reason to hate Chase, it seems).

This can't end well. Especially if you drive a repo truck.
peristaltor: (Default)
In my last post I made a mistake. I referred to an enhanced sponsorship spot as one dealing with "tax". I was wrong. In my fury sparked by Morning Edition's "news" I conflated the stories on taxes with the actual agency providing NPR with money.

As I noted in the addenda, this morning I got an email from a KUOW employee correcting my misunderstanding:

I think you may be looking for this:

Public Notice, an independent organization dedicated to reducing
government spending. Learn more at The Public Notice dot org;


So The Public Notice doesn't deal with taxes at all. They deal with spending. That's so very different.

What happens when we dive a bit into this agency? What, for example, would we learn from their Mission Statement?

Our goal is to provide Americans with clear, unbiased, and useful information about key economic and fiscal issues. Because America's future should rest in the capable hands of a knowledgeable people.


How laudable. And who are the people behind such a fine mission? From their About page, we learn:

Public Notice is an independent non-profit dedicated to providing facts and insight on the economy and how government policy affects Americans’ financial well-being.

Through education and awareness projects, Public Notice engages Americans on today’s policies, to avoid tomorrow’s problems.

Americans, empowered with the facts, can lead Washington to be better stewards of the nation’s economic and fiscal future.


When I stumble on words like "unbiased" and "independent", I immediately look for the bias and control. I've seen far too many of these non-profits to assume otherwise. They are almost all fronts for some very biased and control-oriented people. So I went to a site on DailyKos that step-by-step shows how to find the funders. Sadly, the instructions outline how to follow the money of a specific type of organization somewhat unlike The Public Notice.

Burrowing into the Press Releases The Public Notice offered, though, I learn that "Gretchen Hamel, Executive Director of Public Notice, said the following:". Now we have a name. Google should provide the rest.


The Overlordess Herself


Talking Points Memo delivers:

A former Bush administration PR specialist has launched a new non-profit designed to raise the alarm about what it sees as "over-spending" in Washington -- but is staying mum on how the group is being funded. . . .

Public Notice's funding source remains obscure. In an interview with TPMmuckraker, Hamel -- who served as the Bush administration's top spokesperson on trade issues, and as press secretary for the House Republican Conference -- said Public Notice had "dozens of donors across the U.S.," but declined to identify them. "We will not be disclosing our donors," she said. "We want to protect the anonymity of our donors," she added, noting that other organizations of all political stripes take a similar stance.


So "dozens of donors" are able to pony up anonymous cash for a slick PR foundation to release press pieces and produce videos all bemoaning the behemoth that has become the federal government . . . and force NPR -- an agency partially funded by the federal government -- to promote this activity.

That September 8 Morning Edition spot might as well have said:

Funding for this public radio programming comes from The Public Notice, an agency that would like to kill and bury public radio.


The Public Notice is, folks, just another right-wing Overton Window shifty agency following Lewis Powell's now infamous script. Had they been truly non-partisan, they would have been formed back when federal spending got truly egregious and out of control . . . under Reagan.

Furthermore, let's face the most obvious problem with The Public Notice's tactics: They completely ignore the alternative to cutting federal spending; raising taxes to levels that can sustain the spending. Funny thing, so did that pair of stories on Morning Edition.

And I have yet to hear about restoring that NPR Planet Money piece where just about everyone asks about taxes in Denmark says they are a good thing. Strange that almost all of it should so conveniently disappear, isn't it? I'll give the national ombudsman a few days to catch up on what is probably a deluge of letters just like mine . . . perhaps generated for the same reasons.
peristaltor: (Default)
NPR, you've done it again.

Just this morning, Morning Edition ran two stories back to back. The first examined Democrats in the electoral cross hairs because the President wants to roll let Bush's tax cut expire only for the richest payers:

A full-blown congressional debate on the expiring 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is expected this fall, but some lawmakers have already weighed in on the most controversial issue: whether it makes sense, at a time of huge budget deficits, to extend those tax cuts for household income that exceeds $250,000.


Excuse me, "makes sense"? Here we are facing an unprecedented deficit, a crushing and growing debt, and turning down revenue from the only Americans who can afford it doesn't make sense?!? Oh, and just to top off the craptastic reporting with a cherry and a heaping dollop of Fuck You, they follow that bit of pandering treacle by adding up exactly how much in taxes a wealthy couple spends. "Milkove is one of those people who carefully tracks just about every dollar spent, so we're able to get a good picture of how much sales tax they pay in a year." Well, la-de-fucking-da. Then the story leaves the yuppies for a moment to get a quote from one of those think tank flunkies, this one from something called The Tax Foundation:

"People get very frustrated at taxes that are relatively small compared to big taxes," says Gerald Prante, an economist at the Tax Foundation, a Washington-based tax-tracking think tank.

"I mean, if you look at this list," he says, looking at the tax tally that Milkove came up with, "everything is chump change compared to the federal income tax.


I decided after something happened to look into this foundation. Look what I found on their "About Us" page:

The year was 1937, the heart of the Great Depression. During the previous decade, first under Herbert Hoover, then under Franklin Roosevelt, federal spending had climbed 170 percent; over the previous five years internal revenue collections had risen 198 percent.

Concerned about the effect such expansion might have on private sector growth, a small group of business executives gathered in New York City to discuss how they could monitor fiscal activities at all levels of government and convey the information to the general public. They decided to launch an organization which, through research and analysis, could inform and educate Americans using objective, reliable data on government finance.

In the subsequent seven decades, the Tax Foundation has been a national leader in promoting a sense of "tax consciousness" in the public.

(Yeah, I emphasized.)


On the surface, this dissemination of "tax consciousness" seems laudable, right? Who could argue about that? Ah, but let's remember what happens when the news is too one-sided. If the only news about taxes comes from those with a direct financial interest in lower taxes, no one gets the whole story. Furthermore, this kind of foundation is one of those whose funding could fuel itself. The more they prove able to lower taxes through "education," the more they will undoubtedly receive from people who, well, saved when taxes were lowered.

I digress, though. What was it that prompted my trip into Rage Town? After these stories, two of those "enhanced sponsorships" popped up near the 6:30 mark, just before the 5 minute national and local news recaps. One (IIRC) was for Progressive Insurance . . . and the other . . . (drum roll, please) . . . was for The Tax Foundation!!!* Here, they described themselves as a group dedicated to lowering the size of government.

Motherfuckers. No, not you, Tax Foundation. You're only doing what everyone would expect from a scorpion. It's your nature, after all, to lie, lie, lie. I'm looking right at the turtle carrying you across this pond, those Nice Polite Republicans who have hijacked what used to be Public Radio.

Hey, NPR: Somewhere in your reporting, why don't you mention that income taxes today are lower than they have been in eighty years?!? Really. And don't just take my word for it. Look it up. It used to be that the top tax rate was 91%. I remember those times. They were pretty okay. Now, there's debate in raising the top tax to less than half of its historic high, and people can only talk on the radio about how high taxes are? How about a little historical perspective?

For shame. Really, for shame. NPR could report on taxes fairly. Their Planet Money thing noted that most people in Denmark believed taxes are a good thing. Don't bother following the link to the podcast, though. Only the first minute seems to be there. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose. It seems the entire NPR agency is bent on squelching any data that would support increased taxes, as per apparent marching orders from their supporters like The Tax Foundation and their Koch overlords.

Haven't heard about the Koch brothers, have you? Well, do some reading. That Charles especially has his paws in everything, including NPR and PBS. In fact, quoted in the article is a man who knows the brothers Koch personally, a Bruce Bartlett, an economist . . . who has been featured on Planet Money. More and more, my letter to Adam Davidson reveals not how much he needs to learn about finance and monetary policy, but how much he knows about these topics, but is probably paid to obfuscate them.

I am simultaneously enraged and deflated. Enraged, because of the obvious shenanigans someone is playing at NPR headquarters. Deflated, because I feel I can do nothing about it. I am watching fascism in its literal form, and know that crying out about it, if only to warn others, will do nothing. It's like watching an oncoming train while tied to the tracks.

No, that's not it. More accurately, it's like watching a beautiful house burn, and noting that a group dressed as firefighters are squirting the flames with a hose charged with gasoline. NPR is part of that process, but instead of delivering the propellant through a hose, they are merely part of the gasoline bucket brigade. They don't fuel the fire as much as Fox and others, since they aren't heard by nearly as many and their spin isn't nearly as obvious; but fuel the fire of lies they do.

I can't do this anymore. I can't in good conscious give money to an organization seemingly bent not only on infusing commercial advertising into supposedly public radio, but furthermore does so while being nakedly brazen about the editorial control this advertising has on its news content. This has to stop, but I fear the edifice of our constitutional democracy will burn beyond recognition before it does.

*Oops. It was another group, not The Tax Foundation, but still one whose motives I would question. See addenda after the cut for more details, or this post for even more. Even though I got the name of the organization wrong, I kept the Tax Foundation rant in simply because both organizations, I'm quite sure, exist for the same reason. There are many different subspecies of scorpion.

ExpandThis is turning out to be an ongoing investigation. Click here for continuing updates! )
peristaltor: (Default)
(T)he great advances of civilization,
in industry or agriculture,
have never come from centralized government.


-- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom,
published in 1962, five years after
the Soviets launched Sputnik.



When it comes to analysis of current events in the news, I've discovered that one must enter every reading with a critical eye to what the ideologically faithful have altered, caused to be altered, or caused to be omitted altogether. And, oh boy, when it comes to blinders on and fixed, there's one group of professionals out there who are becoming a particularly nasty source of assumptions and pronouncements. I'm talking here, of course, about Uncle Miltie's Minions, Expandthe laissez faire economists. )
peristaltor: (Default)
In Part I of this series, I noted that our stories, the conversations we have with ourselves and use to frame the world around us in a fashion we can understand, are being hijacked. Yes, I said "hijacked," as in forced to go where they would not otherwise go. While this should be no surprise to any longer term readers out there, allow me to explain once again what I mean and provide some recent examples to back my argument.

I first quickly mentioned the Overton Window over three years ago. To review, Overton is a political strategist who during campaigns floods the airwaves and print media with opinions far to the right of the conservative position he supports. This way, people reading and listening are given the mistaken impression that the views being expressed have some how become more mainstream, and adjust their own views accordingly. Overton's media blitzes get people talking about issues; thanks to Source Amnesia and the Repetition Effect (aspects of the Overton Window effect I covered more carefully in The Whispers and the Early Screams), the mean average political opinion shifts closer to the one desired by Overton's team.



To interpret the image, the opinion pieces and bias inserted by Overton's team during an election shifts the actual political center marked by the 0 (as determined by a survey of opinion before the campaigning begins) a couple of points to the right of that center simply by dint of repetition and paying for some to espouse far-right beliefs for the record in ways that fail to question how wide-spread those beliefs really are.

Got that?

Once you're aware that this is happening, it's really quite easy to find examples. All you have to do is follow the Long Green (to use my favorite euphemism for money from the movie Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!). I'll give you just a few examples you might not have heard about for illustration, but which may in the very near future affect us all. Let's start with the media with which we're all familiar, Expandthe news. )
peristaltor: (Default)
I'd like to introduce everyone to David Brock, author of Blinded by the Right and The Republican Noise Machine. In Blinded, he introduces himself as a progressive and idealistic young lad who had a rude awakening during his college days in Berkeley. He went to cover Jeane Kirkpatrick's speech to the college, and was deeply disturbed when protesters interrupted her until she was forced to leave the stage:

The scene shook me deeply: Was the harassment of an unpopular speaker the legacy of the Berkeley-campus Free Speech Movement, when students demanded the right to canvass for any and all political causes on the campus's Sproul Plaza? Wasn't free speech a liberal value? How, I wondered, could this thought police call itself liberal?. . . . The few outspoken conservatives on the faculty, and the Reagan regents, raised their voices in support of Kirkpatrick's free speech rights. The liberals seemed to me to be defending censorship.

(David Brock, Blinded by the Right, Three Rivers Press, 2002, p. 4.)


This and other incidents burned in his mind, Brock turned from liberal and progressive issues and became a cheerleader for the Other Side. ExpandHe rose in prominence, changing the course of American history as he ascended. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Decades ago I dated a chess player, a very good chess player, one who trained with chess masters and knew first hand many of the names in competition at that time. One day in the smokey basement pub where chess players meet to play, she came back from a game downright pissed off.

She had lost. Now, she was very good, but people win and lose all the time. I asked her why she was so upset. Her explanation stumped me: "He played like a fish," she said.

Huh?

I had her describe what it meant to play "like a fish." She explained that fish make wild, unpredictable moves, that their play doesn't fit any recognizable pattern.

"But he won," I said. I suppose comments like this are one of the big reasons we haven't seen each other in almost 20 years; but I was honestly then trying to understand the difference between a truly great player who wins and a "fish" who wins. To me, they both win, so what's the difference? After all, if a master sat me down and schooled me in the ways of the board, I wouldn't know if I was undone by a lost Fibunacci Bishop or a Pawn's Gambit or the Flirty Queen. I would only know that I lost. Checkmate.

Out on a walk last night, I finally reasoned why the term "fish" might be used. Hook a fish and drag it out of the water, and it flops about madly on the deck or the dock without getting anywhere. A chess "fish," therefore, might be someone whose play seems erratic and pointless. They don't seem to be getting anywhere, or going anywhere. Ah, but the schooled opponent of the fish is judging the fish's moves on a learned pattern, the movement of one who walks on dry land.

Let's take this fish analogy a bit further and suppose that the fish player is actually playing by rules applicable in the water. Those spastic arches and flops across the board make no sense to us dry-landers; but put us in the drink and we shall see the fish's twitches move it across great distances with an admirable economy of effort. We walkers, on the other hand, slap and kick and flap about and barely get anywhere in the water. (I have a video of myself scuba diving in Hawaii, if anyone needs images of an amateur diver for comic relief.)

All this led me to reconsider a word upon which I've been stumbling quite a bit lately: ExpandHeuristics. )
peristaltor: (Default)
I've just heard a pair of interviews on the Skepticality podcast that illustrate for me very clearly what might be happening here in the United States, something that seems to be all but absent elsewhere. We here in the States can't miss it without forgoing any and all media reporting. There's a frenzy of folks up in arms to resist the "socialization" of health care (like we did to fire and police protection generations ago) by (as they confusingly put it) a Nazi President, one who may or may not have been born in Kenya, one who many of those same protesters are sure is either an closet Muslim or (worse) an atheist. Just about all of the most vocal are convinced he is a racist.

I am convinced this is not happening in a vacuum. Phenomena this wide-spread never do. They are helped along by people who know what they are doing, who know exactly what buttons to push and how often. Don't be fooled: This is a power struggle backed by millions of dollars with many more billions of dollars at stake. On that most can agree.

What is less clear is how this is happening.

To illustrate what I feel is happening now, I'd like to mention a few facts about the Columbine High School incident ten years ago, facts I found startling and surprising. Did you know:

-- Bombs were supposed to be the main killing weapons, not guns.

-- Harris and Klebold were not members of the Trench Coat Mafia.

-- Harris and Klebold were not quiet "outcasts" picked on by "jocks."

-- The morning they and so many others died at their hands, the two did not go bowling.

Surprised at any of these revelations? I was. It's amazing to note what happened Expandverses what everyone outside of Littleton thinks happened. )
peristaltor: (Default)
Some shit rag called the Investor's Business Daily put themselves on the front page all around the English-speaking world when they suggested that physicist Stephen Hawking probably would have died had he been from the UK, since socialized medicine is, as they write, an exercise in rationing:

The controlling of medical costs in countries such as Britain through rationing, and the health consequences thereof are legendary. The stories of people dying on a waiting list or being denied altogether read like a horror movie script.


That above link, though, has been sanitized by this little introductory tidbit: Editor's Note: This version corrects the original editorial which implied that physicist Stephen Hawking, a professor at the University of Cambridge, did not live in the UK.

Oopsie-daisy. Turns out that iconic Hawking accent is simply due to the fact that his voice synthesizer was built here in the States. Oh, no one was happy about the mistake -- especially Prof. Hawking. "I wouldn’t be here today if it were not for the NHS," Hawking told The Guardian. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."

So with that little dust-up so very fresh in the news, how does our own home-grown media treat the same disease that all but felled the Professor? Why, they avoid the issue altogether. Here we have a local woman whose friends have to put together a non-profit foundation and arrange fund raising activities to help "pay for medical treatment and support."

That's right. People have to raise money themselves or rely on the charity of their family and/or friends if they want to get adequate medical treatment. And what of people who refuse to -- or more likely, simply cannot, due to their relatively unknown status -- whore themselves to the alter of public sympathy? Why, I suppose they can suffer and/or just fucking die.

And, despite the very timely nature of the story's airing, nowhere in the local commercial media do we see even a mention of Prof. Hawking's more civilized medical care brought to him thanks to the more ethical and enlightened policies of his home country. Nope, the coverage is all "rah-rah, let's help Melissa with her bills by eating and drinking" while pointedly ignoring the obvious solution, bringing the US out of the Dirty Dark Ages.

Without good reporting, without the good, accurate and useful information we need to make informed decisions as individuals and as a country, we find ourselves continually fucked harder and deeper and longer. It makes me down-right stabbity angry.


Addendum, September 1, 2009: Though slightly off-topic from the rant, I like this video.

peristaltor: (Default)
I've always wondered why folks have for years been down on Social Security. Everyone who slams the Depression-era social backstop seems to ignore that it only had to exist because the traditional market-based systems failed so dramatically. What gave them the idea that market-based solutions would work after this spectacular fail?

Turns out this has all been an elaborate long-term marketing campaign by the Cato Institute:

In the Summer of 1983, smarting under what they called the "fiasco of the last 18 months", i.e. the Greenspan Commission and subsequent 1983 Reform, the Cato Institute convened a conference in Washington DC and subsequently published the papers in their Fall 1983 Cato Journal under the title Social Security: Continuing Crisis or Real Reform. One of those articles had the intriguing title of Social Security Reform: Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy. In that article was laid out the long term plan alluded to in my comment quoted above, which plan focused in large part on convincing younger workers that Social Security just wouldn't be there for them. Cato not only accepted that plan it institutionalized it in what was then known as the Project on Social Security Privatization but now known as the Project on Social Security Choice. (Note the domain name: http://www.socialsecurity.org/about/index.html - they have staked a claim to Social Security itself)

(Emphasis from the article.)


It's going to be hard to reverse the active marketing work -- read, propaganda -- done quietly over a quarter decade, but that's the only way to fix SS's funding problems without throwing the program out with the bathwater. Otherwise the bastards win. On the evil propagated by Cato, the author well notes: "Even paranoids have real enemies."


X-Posted to [livejournal.com profile] the_recession.

Profile

peristaltor: (Default)
peristaltor

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

Expand All Cut TagsCollapse All Cut Tags
Page generated Aug. 17th, 2025 08:14 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios