Some Veteran's Day 2019 drive bys:
* This op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times may be the closest someone gets to say in corporate owned media why people like me have mixed emotions on Veteran's Day and especially Memorial Day, the latter which honors those soldiers killed in wars in which our nation has engaged. As citizens, when considering our nation's soldiers, our first duty is to know when our nation is truly in peril so as to justify sending our soldiers to a war. For most of American history, our fellow citizens have failed in that duty. When we consider most wars, there is no good case to be made that any of our wars besides the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII, and maybe the War of 1812, were wars to fight for our freedom. The rest have been wars of choice, grounded in imperialism and, in the so-called "smaller" wars, grounded in genocide of the Native Americans in the 19th Century, and colonialism in the 20th Century. The second duty citizens owe to our soldiers is to care for our veterans after they return. We have a better understanding of how badly we have failed as citizens in that regard, but to the extent one votes for Republican politicians, one finds Republican politicians much less eager to support veterans' benefits and protections (see here and this snapshot from 2013). I am not saying Democrats, in the main, are great for veterans' benefits, but it is noteworthy how Bernie Sanders is almost always in the forefront of protecting veterans' benefits. So, maybe this Veteran's Day, we should save the parades and flag waving and maybe consider those two duties outlined here today. And maybe, too, save the "Thank you for your service" bromides and say to Vietnam War, Iraq War, Afghan War vets, "Sorry for sending you to wars we did not need to send you to, and for not taking better care of you after you came home."
* Grifters gotta grift: When wading into this sleuth type article from Salon.com and one of Giuliani's crony world, one sees again how Republican politicians learned from Sarah Palin how to milk the Republican white evangelical base and beyond and not even have to run for office.
* I am seeing much hand-wringing over the upcoming British parliamentary elections. Labourites who hate Corbyn are legion in second guessing, backbiting, and throwing mud at Corbyn. My prediction is this will be trumpeted in corporate media and even BBC presentations in the next weeks. We will see panic-style written articles, as in the past, saying Corbyn will disarm Britain's military, will promote anti-Semitism, will undermine Britain's economy, and generally lead Britain into drift and eventual anarchy. Corporate media and the BBC will tell Britons who are rational that they must show decorum, and leave the populism to Boris Johnson. Of course, this is a strategic mistake of major proportions, but I find rational voters in Great Britain more and more resemble Democratic Party voters in the United States, meaning they are too trusting of the strategic bromides corporate media pundits throw at us day after day. What gives me hope for Corbyn and Labour is the steep rise in 18-34 year olds to register to vote after the December election date was declared. The kids are healthily wary of corporate media propaganda, and know Corbyn stands with them. The question is how much damage the older people in Great Britain, who bought into the lies that led to Brexit in the first place, will do again, and how much damage Tony Blair supporters in the Labour Party will do in sabotaging Labour. Just as I think there are a number of corporate Democrats who would welcome a Trump re-election rather than have Bernie Sanders win the party's presidential nomination, there are Blairites who will support re-election of the Tories if it means the end of Corbyn's leadership in the Labour Party. It remains a frustrating pity to me how Corbyn may be the only political leader in Great Britain who understands what Yanis Varoufakis is saying about the European Union. There is one commentator from Great Britain who I deeply trust, and that is Bernard Porter, who operates a little blog himself. My advice is to check his blog over the next weeks especially as the madness of Britain's election season continues to unfold.
* Speaking of right wing populism in the United States, I guess maybe we have finally found a reason for right-wingers, who so often see things through a racist lens, to favor free public college tuition--so, for example, the University of California system is not left trolling for dollars from foreign families wanting to send their children to school in America.
* Back in my CA lawyer days, I would sometimes have to travel to Murietta, CA's courthouse for a couple of cases I had pending there. While there, I would see how clogged the courts were with lawsuits credit card companies, and their factors, filed against people for unpaid credit card debts. It was disgusting to me, particularly because I knew these people were in this predicament from the 2005 Bankruptcy law reforms, which the Republicans, along with their handmaiden, Joe Biden (D-MBNA/Delaware) passed. This article from the NY Times by way of Yahoo! News shows how this is now occurring with respect to medical bills. My outrage grows with respect to Democrats who buy into the Mayor Pete, Klobuchar, Biden, corporate media spin about public options and choice. Those arguments ignore cost issues, both in terms of overall costs and how choice does not in the least cut doctors' offices' administrative bills, and how public options only create another high risk pool for doctors to reject. The payments from individuals who are struggling and sick, ill, or have a debilitating condition, continues.
* I admit I totally missed what has been happening in Bolivia for the past months, and even weeks. Evo Morales, who I had thought was much better than Hugo Chavez and Mauduro in Venezuela, has suddenly resigned, amidst what smells like a semi-fast moving military coup. I first read this article from the Miami Herald, but my corporate media radar was up as was my deep understanding of US foreign policy towards Latin America and Central America. Then, I read Mark Weisbot at The Nation who, in an article from a few days ago, and before Morales' sudden resignation, helpfully explained why the Bolivia situation is more complicated. The article showed what the mainstream media will not admit, which is the unofficial voting count was stopped to avoid violent protests, as the unofficial tallies were not fully tracking with actual counting of votes. With Weisbot, I also am somewhat wary of the Organization of American States, particularly at moments when the US is putting its finger on the scale. I remember well the debacle with Aristide and Haiti in the early 1990s, for example.
I found the comments against Weisbot at the end of the Nation article enlightening, but, I must admit, in my old age, I am wary about how we Americans so quickly agree and conclude leaders in other nations are corrupt because, for example, the Supreme Court in those nations are chosen by them and rule in their favor. I wonder if those who think Morales is corrupt would reach the same conclusion if the current US Supreme Court, with Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts, backs Trump on subpoenas, etc. The idea that Morales has "cronies" in his administration is a bit ripe when one considers the history of Latin and Central American nations over the past 170 years, and continued US intervention to undermine most norms for any rationally based open governments to develop. If one applied the type of "cronyism" argument used against Morales to American politicians throughout much of US history, one should have welcomed military coups against the US government, too. I mean, really, Boss politics, spoils politics, and now the gerrymandering that allows for a minority of voters to act as if they are the majority, not to mention other forms of modern voter suppression, are readily identifiable examples of US election corruption.
The anger against Morales from the corporate media and the US government is not about democratic norms, since the US likes to support dictators around the globe who do "our" bidding. The reason they hate Morales is because Morales is not in favor of giving big favors to International corporations, and, instead, Morales tends to side with peasants' feelings and interests. Most American politicians only care about whether other nations' leaders allow global, American based corporations to exploit the people in those other nations. Hence, the love affair between American-based corporations and China from the moment Premier Deng initiated the Chinese plan, which was to keep the Chinese Communist political dictatorship while moving in the direction of state-sanctioned "capitalism," and having Communist cadres reaping major economic benefits for themselves and their families and friends. And of course the love affair with Saudi Arabia, with countless Latin American and Central American dictatorships, with Suharto in Indonesia, etc.
Human beings are in a three hundred year experiment in trying to establish open government norms, and the results so far are mixed at best. I believe there remains a danger that technology, combined with capitalists and militarists, will work in tandem with fascists to end the experiment and return us to feudal forms.
