Maher on Reagan, the Big Phony

••••

Despite all this, beggars can’t be choosers and in this information desert we call the American media Maher is one of the few who, in the Carlin tradition, has the gonads to say, from time to time, some truly irreverent things about the system. Things that NEED to be said. Last night he went after Reagan—a target long overdue—but I suppose with even Obama and the rest of the whorecracy genuflecting before the “legacy” of the “Great Communicator,” Maher had had just about enough. He took some pretty good shots, in his usual sarcastic way, to paint Reagan for what he was: one of the most infamous pieces of excrement to inhabit the White House. I think he succeeded. Judge for yourselves.—P. Greanville

Noam Chomsky: Are We on the Verge of Total Self-Destruction?

TomDispatch [1] / By Noam Chomsky [2]

TomDispatch.com here [3].

What is the future likely to bring? A reasonable stance might be to try to look at the human species from the outside. So imagine that you’re an extraterrestrial observer who is trying to figure out what’s happening here or, for that matter, imagine you’re an historian 100 years from now — assuming there are any historians 100 years from now, which is not obvious — and you’re looking back at what’s happening today. You’d see something quite remarkable.

For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That’s been true since 1945. It’s now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.

And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.

[pullquote] So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we — and only we — have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others — and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does. [/pullquote]

How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying

The question is: What are people doing about it? None of this is a secret. It’s all perfectly open. In fact, you have to make an effort not to see it.

There have been a range of reactions. There are those who are trying hard to do something about these threats, and others who are acting to escalate them. If you look at who they are, this future historian or extraterrestrial observer would see something strange indeed. Trying to mitigate or overcome these threats are the least developed societies, the indigenous populations, or the remnants of them, tribal societies and first nations in Canada. They’re not talking about nuclear war but environmental disaster, and they’re really trying to do something about it.

In fact, all over the world — Australia, India, South America — there are battles going on, sometimes wars. In India, it’s a major war over direct environmental destruction, with tribal societies trying to resist resource extraction operations that are extremely harmful locally, but also in their general consequences. In societies where indigenous populations have an influence, many are taking a strong stand. The strongest of any country with regard to global warming is in Bolivia, which has an indigenous majority and constitutional requirements that protect the “rights of nature.”

Ecuador, which also has a large indigenous population, is the only oil exporter I know of where the government is seeking aid to help keep that oil in the ground, instead of producing and exporting it — and the ground is where it ought to be.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who died recently and was the object of mockery, insult, and hatred throughout the Western world, attended a session of the U.N. General Assembly a few years ago where he elicited all sorts of ridicule for calling George W. Bush a devil. He also gave a speech there that was quite interesting. Of course, Venezuela is a major oil producer. Oil is practically their whole gross domestic product. In that speech, he warned of the dangers of the overuse of fossil fuels and urged producer and consumer countries to get together and try to work out ways to reduce fossil fuel use. That was pretty amazing on the part of an oil producer. You know, he was part Indian, of indigenous background. Unlike the funny things he did, this aspect of his actions at the U.N. was never even reported.

So, at one extreme you have indigenous, tribal societies trying to stem the race to disaster. At the other extreme, the richest, most powerful societies in world history, like the United States and Canada, are racing full-speed ahead to destroy the environment as quickly as possible. Unlike Ecuador, and indigenous societies throughout the world, they want to extract every drop of hydrocarbons from the ground with all possible speed.

Both political parties, President Obama, the media, and the international press seem to be looking forward with great enthusiasm to what they call “a century of energy independence” for the United States. Energy independence is an almost meaningless concept, but put that aside. What they mean is: we’ll have a century in which to maximize the use of fossil fuels and contribute to destroying the world.

And that’s pretty much the case everywhere. Admittedly, when it comes to alternative energy development, Europe is doing something. Meanwhile, the United States, the richest and most powerful country in world history, is the only nation among perhaps 100 relevant ones that doesn’t have a national policy for restricting the use of fossil fuels, that doesn’t even have renewable energy targets. It’s not because the population doesn’t want it. Americans are pretty close to the international norm in their concern about global warming. It’s institutional structures that block change. Business interests don’t want it and they’re overwhelmingly powerful in determining policy, so you get a big gap between opinion and policy on lots of issues, including this one.

So that’s what the future historian — if there is one — would see. He might also read today’s scientific journals. Just about every one you open has a more dire prediction than the last.

“The Most Dangerous Moment in History”

The other issue is nuclear war. It’s been known for a long time that if there were to be a first strike by a major power, even with no retaliation, it would probably destroy civilization just because of the nuclear-winter consequences that would follow. You can read about it in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. It’s well understood. So the danger has always been a lot worse than we thought it was.

We’ve just passed the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was called “the most dangerous moment in history” by historian Arthur Schlesinger, President John F. Kennedy’s advisor. Which it was. It was a very close call, and not the only time either. In some ways, however, the worst aspect of these grim events is that the lessons haven’t been learned.

[4]What happened in the missile crisis in October 1962 has been prettified to make it look as if acts of courage and thoughtfulness abounded. The truth is that the whole episode was almost insane. There was a point, as the missile crisis was reaching its peak, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev wrote to Kennedy offering to settle it by a public announcement of a withdrawal of Russian missiles from Cuba and U.S. missiles from Turkey. Actually, Kennedy hadn’t even known that the U.S. had missiles in Turkey at the time. They were being withdrawn anyway, because they were being replaced by more lethal Polaris nuclear submarines, which were invulnerable.

So that was the offer. Kennedy and his advisors considered it — and rejected it. At the time, Kennedy himself was estimating the likelihood of nuclear war at a third to a half. So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we — and only we — have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others — and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does.

Kennedy did, however, accept a secret agreement to withdraw the missiles the U.S. was already withdrawing, as long as it was never made public. Khrushchev, in other words, had to openly withdraw the Russian missiles while the U.S. secretly withdrew its obsolete ones; that is, Khrushchev had to be humiliated and Kennedy had to maintain his macho image. He’s greatly praised for this: courage and coolness under threat, and so on. The horror of his decisions is not even mentioned — try to find it on the record.

And to add a little more, a couple of months before the crisis blew up the United States had sent missiles with nuclear warheads to Okinawa. These were aimed at China during a period of great regional tension.

Well, who cares? We have the right to do anything we want anywhere in the world. That was one grim lesson from that era, but there were others to come.

Ten years after that, in 1973, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called a high-level nuclear alert. It was his way of warning the Russians not to interfere in the ongoing Israel-Arab war and, in particular, not to interfere after he had informed the Israelis that they could violate a ceasefire the U.S. and Russia had just agreed upon. Fortunately, nothing happened.

Ten years later, President Ronald Reagan was in office. Soon after he entered the White House, he and his advisors had the Air Force start penetrating Russian air space to try to elicit information about Russian warning systems, Operation Able Archer. Essentially, these were mock attacks. The Russians were uncertain, some high-level officials fearing that this was a step towards a real first strike. Fortunately, they didn’t react, though it was a close call. And it goes on like that.

What to Make of the Iranian and North Korean Nuclear Crises

At the moment, the nuclear issue is regularly on front pages in the cases of North Korea and Iran. There are ways to deal with these ongoing crises. Maybe they wouldn’t work, but at least you could try. They are, however, not even being considered, not even reported.

Take the case of Iran, which is considered in the West — not in the Arab world, not in Asia — the gravest threat to world peace. It’s a Western obsession, and it’s interesting to look into the reasons for it, but I’ll put that aside here. Is there a way to deal with the supposed gravest threat to world peace? Actually there are quite a few. One way, a pretty sensible one, was proposed a couple of months ago at a meeting of the non-aligned countries in Tehran. In fact, they were just reiterating a proposal that’s been around for decades, pressed particularly by Egypt, and has been approved by the U.N. General Assembly.

The proposal is to move toward establishing a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the region. That wouldn’t be the answer to everything, but it would be a pretty significant step forward. And there were ways to proceed. Under U.N. auspices, there was to be an international conference in Finland last December to try to implement plans to move toward this. What happened?

You won’t read about it in the newspapers because it wasn’t reported — only in specialist journals. In early November, Iran agreed to attend the meeting. A couple of days later Obama cancelled the meeting, saying the time wasn’t right. The European Parliament issued a statement calling for it to continue, as did the Arab states. Nothing resulted. So we’ll move toward ever-harsher sanctions against the Iranian population — it doesn’t hurt the regime — and maybe war. Who knows what will happen?

In Northeast Asia, it’s the same sort of thing. North Korea may be the craziest country in the world. It’s certainly a good competitor for that title. But it does make sense to try to figure out what’s in the minds of people when they’re acting in crazy ways. Why would they behave the way they do? Just imagine ourselves in their situation. Imagine what it meant in the Korean War years of the early 1950s for your country to be totally leveled, everything destroyed by a huge superpower, which furthermore was gloating about what it was doing. Imagine the imprint that would leave behind.

Bear in mind that the North Korean leadership is likely to have read the public military journals of this superpower at that time explaining that, since everything else in North Korea had been destroyed, the air force was sent to destroy North Korea’s dams, huge dams that controlled the water supply — a war crime, by the way, for which people were hanged in Nuremberg. And these official journals were talking excitedly about how wonderful it was to see the water pouring down, digging out the valleys, and the Asians scurrying around trying to survive. The journals were exulting in what this meant to those “Asians,” horrors beyond our imagination. It meant the destruction of their rice crop, which in turn meant starvation and death. How magnificent! It’s not in our memory, but it’s in their memory.

Let’s turn to the present. There’s an interesting recent history. In 1993, Israel and North Korea were moving towards an agreement in which North Korea would stop sending any missiles or military technology to the Middle East and Israel would recognize that country. President Clinton intervened and blocked it. Shortly after that, in retaliation, North Korea carried out a minor missile test. The U.S. and North Korea did then reach a framework agreement in 1994 that halted its nuclear work and was more or less honored by both sides. When George W. Bush came into office, North Korea had maybe one nuclear weapon and verifiably wasn’t producing any more.

Bush immediately launched his aggressive militarism, threatening North Korea — “axis of evil” and all that — so North Korea got back to work on its nuclear program. By the time Bush left office, they had eight to 10 nuclear weapons and a missile system, another great neocon achievement. In between, other things happened. In 2005, the U.S. and North Korea actually reached an agreement in which North Korea was to end all nuclear weapons and missile development. In return, the West, but mainly the United States, was to provide a light-water reactor for its medical needs and end aggressive statements. They would then form a nonaggression pact and move toward accommodation.

It was pretty promising, but almost immediately Bush undermined it. He withdrew the offer of the light-water reactor and initiated programs to compel banks to stop handling any North Korean transactions, even perfectly legal ones. The North Koreans reacted by reviving their nuclear weapons program. And that’s the way it’s been going.

It’s well known. You can read it in straight, mainstream American scholarship. What they say is: it’s a pretty crazy regime, but it’s also following a kind of tit-for-tat policy. You make a hostile gesture and we’ll respond with some crazy gesture of our own. You make an accommodating gesture and we’ll reciprocate in some way.

Lately, for instance, there have been South Korean-U.S. military exercises on the Korean peninsula which, from the North’s point of view, have got to look threatening. We’d think they were threatening if they were going on in Canada and aimed at us. In the course of these, the most advanced bombers in history, Stealth B-2s and B-52s, are carrying out simulated nuclear bombing attacks right on North Korea’s borders.

This surely sets off alarm bells from the past. They remember that past, so they’re reacting in a very aggressive, extreme way. Well, what comes to the West from all this is how crazy and how awful the North Korean leaders are. Yes, they are. But that’s hardly the whole story, and this is the way the world is going.

It’s not that there are no alternatives. The alternatives just aren’t being taken. That’s dangerous. So if you ask what the world is going to look like, it’s not a pretty picture. Unless people do something about it. We always can.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular [5], he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including Hopes and Prospects [6], Making the Future [7], and most recently (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire [4] (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).

[Note: This piece was adapted (with the help of Noam Chomsky) from anonline video interview [8] that Javier Naranjo, a Colombian poet and professor, did for the website What [9], which is dedicated to integrating knowledge from different fields with the aim of encouraging the balance between the individual, society, and the environment.]

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook [10] or Tumblr [11]. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare. [12]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-nuclear

Links:
[1] http://www.tomdispatch.com/
[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/noam-chomsky
[3] http://tomdispatch.us2.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=6cb39ff0b1f670c349f828c73&id=1e41682ade
[4] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0805096159/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[5] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175645/noam_chomsky_the_paranoia_of_the_superrich_and_superpowerful
[6] http://www.amazon.com/dp/1931859965/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[7] http://www.amazon.com/dp/0872865371/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20
[8] http://whatonline.org/en/s/what-about-the-future-noam-chomsky/
[9] http://whatonline.org/en/
[10] http://www.facebook.com/tomdispatch
[11] http://tomdispatch.tumblr.com/
[12] http://www.amazon.com/The-Changing-Face-Empire-Cyberwarfare/dp/1608463109/
[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/noam-chomsky
[14] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

US and Israel Lobby Reels from Hezbollah al-Qusayr Victory

Special—

By Franklin Lamb

••••

Army in Al-Qusayr

••••

Beirut — Although al-Qusayr may not be the decisive battle for Syria, it is irrefutably an important turning point in the crisis which has given the regime much sought military momentum. Plenty of adjectives and some clichés are being bandied about from Washington to Beirut to describe the al-Qusayr battle results and significance. Among them are “game-changer,” “mother of all battles,” “altered balance of power,” critical “turning point in the civil war,” and so on.It does appear that the victory of the Syrian government forces at al-Qusayr is a strategic achievement, if also a humanitarian disaster for the civilian population still waiting for the ICRC and SARCS, (Syrian Arab Red Crescent Society) emergency help. Al Qusayr is located in Homs province, an area central to the success of the Syrian government’s military strategy. It is situated just west of the shortest route from Damascus to the coast, at a juncture where regime forces have struggled to maintain control. Rebel control of al-Qusayr had disrupted the regime’s supply lines from the port of Tartus and was open for the cross-border movement of Gulf arms to rebels via Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.Government control of al-Qusayr also provides a ground base for the Assad government to move to retake control of the north and east of Syria. This cross-roads city just 6 miles from the Lebanese border has many strategic ramifications: breaking the opposition’s 18 month control of much of Homs province, facilitating government forces momentum generally across Syria, and psychological, by raising the morale of exhausted Syrian forces while energizing the Assad government and its allies to finish the conflict and focus on long-promised reforms and try to relieve Syria from the nearly 27 months of hell for its people.Perhaps less appreciated here in Beirut are al-Qusayr’s effects on the Zionist occupiers of Palestine and their currently traumatized US lobby.

From conversations and emails with former colleagues at the Democratic National Committee (on which this observer served during the Carter administration) as well as with Congressional insiders, a picture emerges of nearly debilitating angst among those committed to propping up the apartheid state in the face of truly historic changes in this region that have only just begun to re-shape the region.

The reactions from various elements of the pro-Israel lobby range from the Arabphobic Daniel Pipes’ fantasy essay in the Washington Times this week entitled “Happy Israel” to Netanyahu’s increased threats issued from Tel Aviv about what Israel might do if his three cartoon “red lines” are breached, to more pressure on the White House by Israel’s agents in Congress who are demanding that Obama act immediately to undo “the major damage done at Qusayr”.

Several aspects of “the Qusayr rules and results” are being discussed at the HQ of the racist anti-Defamation League (ADL) which has summoned an emergency gathering of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to craft a solution to the problem. The tentative agenda reportedly includes for discussion and action the following:

The twin defeats at al-Qusayr and at Burgas, Bulgaria — the latter should not be underestimated, according to one AIPAC activist who works on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, given that it substantially knocks out the props from the lobby’s project to get the European Union to list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, thus interfering with the Islamic party’s fundraising. The lobby is reacting angrily to Austria’s Chancellor Werner Faymann and Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger’s statement about that country’s decision to withdraw its 380 peacekeeping troops, more than one-third of the 1000 United Nations Disengagement Observer Force, (UNDOF) contingent, from the Golan Heights.

The lobby is claiming that Austrian move constituents an existential threat to Israel because it opens the Quneitra crossing, the door to the Golan, for the Syrian civil war to spill over the border into Israel. At the same time it is being argued that al Qusayr lifts pressure off Hezbollah, Iran and Syria as well as the Palestinian resistance and gain all more fighters who sense victory for the current regime and major gains for all in the political dynamics of the region.

The Israel embassy in Washington has chimed in with a statement that the Austrian withdrawal threatened the role of the UN Security Council in any future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, while at the same time encouraging Hezbollah to move into the Golan.

Israel stalwart, Eric Cantor (R-Va) told a “brown bag” lunch gathering in the House Rayburn Building cafeteria late this week that the “fall of al Qusayr, will facilitate the Assad regimes advance on areas north of Homs province and will likely return to Damascus control of important rebel-held areas in the north and the east. Cantor claims that the Assad regime victory effectively cuts off an important supply route to the rebels which will leave the armed opposition even more weakened and scattered. Israel is demanding an immediate US supported counter-offensive consistent with the demands made by US Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham.

The apartheid state also is demanding that the White House scrap Geneva II, claiming that Assad is now too strong for the US/Israel to benefit from such a dialogue. “If the international community is serious about seeking to enforce a negotiated settlement, they will first have to do something to decisively change the balance of power on the ground ahead of any serious negotiations,” he added.

When asked about giving US aid to Lebanon, Cantor reportedly sneered, as he expressed his shock that Hezbollah had so many troops and, without US boots on the ground, would be very difficult for Israel to defeat, he reportedly replied, “Forget about Lebanon, it never was a real country anyway, just call the whole place over there Hezbollah and let’s send in the marines to finish the job.”

One congressional staffer who attended the meeting winced at the thought of US marines again being sent to Lebanon given their previous experience there nearly 30 years ago.

The Lobby is also concerned about the fact that the Arab League and the Gulf countries might be softening in their ardor to confront Syria and Hezbollah, who they view as now being full partners in this crisis. A media source at the Saudi Embassy in Washington has complained that the six member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has spent more than a billion dollars on the opposition and have, to date, little to show for their “investment.” Nor does Israel have much to show to date for its deepening role in the crisis given that its air strikes are widely viewed in Washington and internationally as being counterproductive and helping to unite Muslims and Arabs in the face of their common global enemy.

The ADL reportedly wants the White House to act fast “to do something” in light of a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released on Wednesday, the day of the Syrian government’s victory at al Qusayr, showing that only 15% of Americans polled advocated taking military action, and only 11% supported providing the rebels with arms. A quarter of respondents, 24%, favored taking no action, similar to the White House current position.

Abe Foxman, ADL’s President for Life, and inveterate anti-Semite tracker, myopically sees anti-Semitism, and surely not Israel’s decades of crimes against humanity as the cause for other “anti-Semitic” polls released this week. Those included the recent one commissioned by the BBC which confirmed that Israel is not only ranked second from the bottom of 197 favorably viewed countries, including as a danger to world peace, and just about the world’s most negatively viewed country, but its support globally continues to evaporate. Views of Israel in Canada and in Australia remain very negative with 57 and 69 per cent of their citizens holding unfavorable views. In the EU countries surveyed, views of Israeli influence are all strongly negative with the UK topping the list with 72 per cent of the population viewing Israel negatively.

As Ali Abunimah noted this week, “The persistent association of Israel with the world’s most negatively viewed countries will come as a disappointment to Israeli government and other hasbara officials who have invested millions of dollars in recent years to greenwash and pinkwash Israel as an enlightened, democratic and technological ‘Western’ country.”*

With Wednesday’s National Lebanese Resistance (Hezbollah) victory at al-Qusayr, coming as it does 97 years to the month after the Triple Entente’s (UK, France & Russia) May 1916 secret Asia Minor Agreement, generally known as Sykes-Picot, the scheme to control the Middle East following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire has furthered crumbled. Its “Rosemary’s Baby” progeny, the colonial Zionist occupation of Palestine, is increasingly being condemned by history to an identical fate.

According to a growing number of US and European officials and Middle East analysts as well as public opinion polls, it is solely a matter of time until, like al-Qusayr, Palestine is returned to her rightful, indigenous inhabitants.

*
“Israel one of world’s most unpopular countries and it’s getting worse: BBC survey,” Ali Abunimah, Electronic Intifada, June 6, 2013

http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israel-one-worlds-most-unpopular-countries-and-its-getting-worse-bbc-survey

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Franklin Lamb, a former Assistant Counsel of the US House Judiciary Committee at the US Congress and Professor of International Law at Northwestern College of Law in Oregon, earned his Law Degree at Boston University and his LLM, M.Phil, and PhD degrees at the London School of Economics. Following three summers at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Lamb was a visiting fellow at the Harvard Law School’s East Asian Legal Studies Center where he specialized in Chinese Law. He was the first westerner allowed by the government of China to visit the notorious “Ward Street” Prison in Shanghai.

Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and works with the Palestine Civil Rights Campaign-Lebanon and the Sabra-Shatila Foundation. His new book, The Case for Palestinian Civil Rights in Lebanon, is due out shortly.

Franklin Lamb can be reached c/ofplamb@gmail.com

Barack Obama’s health care counterrevolution

Kate Randall, wsws.org

Believe none of what he says.

With the deadline for the full implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) set for January 1, 2014, it is becoming increasingly clear that what has been promoted as a progressive reform in fact constitutes a sweeping attack on health care for the vast majority of the American people.

On March 21, 2010, two days before signing the health care bill into law, Barack Obama declared that it represented “another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American Dream.” More than two years later, this statement has been exposed as a cynical lie. From the beginning, the legislation has been crafted to serve the interests of private insurers, pharmaceuticals and giant health care chains, while cutting costs for corporations and the government, all at the expense of working families and the poor.

As states and the federal government begin to establish the insurance exchanges where individuals and families without employer or government-provided insurance will be required to purchase coverage from private carriers, the Obama administration’s claims that the Affordable Care Act would expand access to quality health care for millions are being refuted on virtually a daily basis. (See “US health reform to slash care, leave millions uninsured”)

A brutal assault on Medicare has always been a central component of the ACA, which will reduce reimbursements to the government-run program by more than $700 billion over 10 years, severely limiting access to medical services for close to 50 million seniors and the disabled.

A reform that was touted by Obama and the Democrats as providing “near universal health care coverage” will leave an estimated 30 million people uninsured in 2016, according to a study released Thursday by a research team from Harvard Medical School and the City University of New York School of Public Health.

This will be the case for some 5.7 million people in the 26 US states that are refusing to expand Medicaid coverage under the ACA. Most states do not provide Medicaid for the entire poor population, and this will remain the case in those states where the program is not being expanded. In a cruel twist, due to the way the law is written, some of the very poorest of the uninsured will also be denied government subsidies to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

For those with employer-sponsored coverage or who purchase insurance on the exchanges, numerous studies show that private insurers intend to hike premiums to boost their profits. The aim of the companies will be to offset any costs they may incur due to ACA rules that bar them from denying coverage due to preexisting conditions or charging more based on age. One congressional report estimates that individuals buying coverage on the individual market could face average premium increases of 100 percent up to as much as 400 percent.

Obama’s promise that “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it” is being debunked in a multitude of ways. Businesses are scheming on how best to remain within the already pro-corporate framework of the legislation, while making sure these regulations do not impede upon the bottom line.

The law requires companies with 50 or more employees to provide “affordable” insurance to their full-time employees working 30 hours a week or more, or be penalized with an excise tax. Some employers have already responded by reducing workers’ hours, thereby skirting the requirement. Many workers in local government, retail, health care and other sectors can expect to face the dual attack of having their hours cut and being denied insurance through their employer.

Some businesses are considering not offering coverage at all and paying the $2,000 per employee per year penalty—far less than the cost of providing decent insurance. An increasing number of employers will offer bare-bones “skinny plans,” which offer some preventative services and office visits, but no coverage for hospitalizations and surgeries. White House officials have acknowledged that such plans are perfectly acceptable under the law.

One of the most despicable provisions of the legislation is one that penalizes companies that offer higher-priced insurance that could be considered more comprehensive in the current insurance market. Dubbed “Cadillac plans,” such insurance is valued at over $10,200 a year for individual coverage or $27,500 for a family. Companies or health insurers that continue to offer these plans will face a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding this threshold.

The aim of this provision is clear: to encourage employers to junk these plans and replace them with cut-rate insurance with higher deductibles and co-pays and drastically reduced benefits. To refer to such coverage—currently held by a significant section of unionized workers, professionals and others—as luxury “Cadillac plans” is obscene, coming from the well-heeled political establishment and its corporate and media backers who are the biggest supporters of health care “reform.”

The punitive attack on these plans—which have been won, in many cases, in bitter contract struggles—is in line with the central thrust of the Obama administration’s health care agenda. Medical care for the working class is to be gutted so that corporations can increase their profits by reducing heath care outlays. The envisioned result is a class-based system of care in which the vast majority of workers and their families receive inferior, cut-rate services, while the wealthy continue to receive the best care money can buy.

The unfolding of the health care debacle is the outcome of the policy of the US ruling elite, particularly in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, which has sought to place the full burden of the economic crisis on the backs of the working class, while bailing out financial elite with tens of trillions of dollars. This has been accompanied by a wave of job cuts, wage-cutting and attacks on the basic social conditions of workers and youth.

The Obama administration insists that the slashing of health care costs is one of the key requirements for reducing the budget deficit. Absolutely ruled out is any cut to military spending, the interest payments to the banks on the national debt, or any measures that cut into the wealth of the ruling class. As the World Socialist Web Site stated following the passage of the health care legislation, “All of Obama’s policies have been geared toward increasing social inequality… The claim that the health care overhaul is an oasis of progress in this desert of social reaction is simply a lie.” Backers of the health care overhaul—in the unions, among Democratic Party hangers-on and the pseudo left—have desperately sought to promote the illusion that there must be something progressive in the law. In fact, it is thoroughly reactionary.

Two years after the passage of the bill, one of the biggest cheerleaders of the legislation, the ostensibly liberal New York Times, continues to produce article after article calling for an end to “needless” procedures and railing against “overtreatment” and “overtesting” for a wide range of medical conditions. The intent of such arguments is clear: despite the advances in medical techniques, the present profit-driven health care set-up cannot allow ordinary workers and their families access to decent medical services.

Passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ushered in a new stage in an offensive on the working class, and is the first volley in an assault on the great social programs wrenched from the ruling class in the wake of the Great Depression—Social Security and Medicare, which this same ruling elite is targeting to dismantle and ultimately privatize.

The details of the implementation of the ACA demonstrate the incompatibility of private ownership of the means of production with the basic social rights of the working class. Universal, quality health care requires taking profit out of the provision of medical care and placing the health care system on socialist (society-wide) foundations. The entire health care industry—insurance firms, pharmaceutical companies and the health care chains—must be nationalized and transformed into public utilities under the democratic control of working people.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 49 percent of Americans believe the Affordable Care Act is a bad idea, the highest number recorded on this question since the poll began measuring it in 2009. When the ACA goes into full operation, millions will begin to recognize that the assault on health care is part of a massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich, creating the conditions for immense social upheavals throughout the country. The only alternative to a corporate-controlled health care system is socialized medicine, a system based on human needs rather than corporate profit.

Kate Randall is a senior political analyst with wsws.org, a socialist information resource.
All information sources should be graded according to how well they reflect and prognosticate history.

Bilderberg Conference Convenes

by Stephen Lendman

Heery Kravis, head of KKR, an "equity acquisition firm," and king of the LBO game. Few can represent the capitalist disease as well as Kravis.

Heery Kravis, head of KKR, an “equity acquisition firm,” and king of the LBO game. Few represent the capitalist disease as well as Kravis.

On June 5, the London Evening Standard headlined “No minutes, no press conferences – just the world’s power brokers chewing the fat on the issues of the day. It’s the Bilderberg conference – and it’s coming to a suburb near you.”

On June 6, it convened. It continues through June 9. It’s a rite of spring. A previous article said British political economist Will Hutton calls attendees the “high priests of globalization.” Powerful movers and shakers have their own agenda. They’re up to no good. They meet annually face-to-face. They conspire, collude and collaborate against populist interests. Their’s alone matter.

According to Bilderberg Meetings.org:

“Founded in 1954, Bilderberg is an annual conference designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America.”

“Every year, between 120 -150 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, academia and the media are invited to take part in the conference.”

“About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields.”

“The conference is a forum for informal, off-the-record discussions about megatrends and the major issues facing the world.”

“Thanks to the private nature of the conference, the participants are not bound by the conventions of office or by pre-agreed positions.”

“As such, they can take time to listen, reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”

“The 61st Bilderberg meeting will take place at the beginning of June 2013 in the UK.”

Earlier articles discussed their agenda. Their ideal world isn’t fit to live in. Democracy is verboten. They want one world government. They want unchallenged global dominance. Their wish list includes universal rules they set, centralized global control, perpetual crises and wars, NATO operating worldwide, abolishing the middle class, establishing ruler-serf societies, and having unchallenged wealth and power in their hands.

They want what they say goes enforced as policy. Obedient serfs can expect subsistence crumbs at best. Non-believers will be eliminated. New world order priorities alone matter.

Bilderberg’s Steering Committee includes a dozen prominent Americans. David Rockefeller’s called an Advisory Group member. It’s uncertain if he’s attending. A published list excludes his name. He’s called the master spider for good reason. He’s been dominant for decades. On June 12, he turns 98. He’s fading. Who’ll replace him isn’t clear.

In her book “Web of Debt,” Ellen Brown quoted economist/geopolitical analyst Hans Schicht saying:

“What has been good for Rockefeller, has been a curse for the United States. Its citizens, government and country indebted to the hilt, enslaved to his banks.”

“The country’s industrial force lost to overseas in consequence of strong dollar policies (pursued for bankers not the country.”

Rockefeller’s no longer the force he once was. “(S)ixty years of dollar imperialism (is ending). The day of financial reckoning is not far off any longer.”

“With Rockefeller’s strong hand losing its grip and the old established order fading, the world has entered a most dangerous transition period, where anything could happen.”

Bilderberg rogues plan a world unfit to live in. They may end up destroying it in the process. It’s hard imagining a more malevolent force. US members reflect the worst of what it stands for. More on some prominent ones attending below.

They’re meeting at Britain’s five-star Grove Hotel. It’s 18 miles from London. It’s ideal for secluded meetings. While ongoing, police state security’s enforced. Operations go on round-the-clock. Area residents have to show police passports, drivers licenses, or other accepted photo IDs to go home, to work, or attend to other personal business.

Civil liberties are suspended. De facto martial law’s in force. What Bilderberg rogues want they get. They want the worst of all possible worlds spread globally.

Prominent American attendees in alphabetical order include:

Roger Altman:

He’s a former Lehman Brothers partner. He left before its dissolution. Perhaps he helped push it over the edge. He was Clinton’s Deputy Treasury Secretary. He’s a Bilderberg Steering Committee member.

He’s founder and executive chairman of Evercore Partners. It’s a prominent predatory investment banking advisory firm. It specializes in mergers, acquisition, divestitures, restructurings, financings and other strategic transactions.

It operates the old-fashioned way. It recommends leveraged buyouts, asset-stripping targeted companies, and leaving thousands of employees high and dry on their own.

Jeff Bezos:

He’s Amazon’s founder and CEO. It’s the world’s largest online retailer. Earlier he worked on Wall Street and for a New York-based hedge fund. In March 2013, Forbes estimated his net worth at $25.2 billion.

Martin Feldstein:

He’s Harvard University Professor of Economics. From 1982 – 1984, he was Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors chairman and chief economic advisor. He’s National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) president emeritus. It’s an elitist organization.

Many of its members have been conservative Nobel economics laureates. Others served as White House chairmen of the Council of Economic Advisors. It’s well known for announcing when recessions begin and end. It does so inaccurately. It ignores an ongoing protracted Main Street Depression.

In 2006, Feldstein was on Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In 2009, he served Obama in a likewise capacity. His other affiliations include the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and American Enterprise Group among others. He been a board member of several major corporations.

Timothy Geithner:

A previous article discussed his legacy of shame. His rap sheet includes various Treasury posts, IMF Policy Development and Review director, New York Fed president, vice chairman of the Fed’s Open Market Committee (FOMC), and Obama’s Treasury Secretary.

He partnered with former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. They planned the grandest of grand thefts. They implemented banker bailouts.

They looted the federal treasury. They stuck taxpayers with the bill. They debased the currency. They transformed America into an unprecedented money making racket.

He and other Bilderberg rogues want spread globally what they did to America. They conspired with their EU partners doing the same thing to Western Europe.

They bear full responsibility for today’s global economic crisis. They planned it for greater wealth and power control.

Donald Graham:

He’s Washington Post Company chairman and CEO. His holdings include TV stations, municipal cable systems, and Kaplan, Inc. It provides higher education testing, training, and professional courses. It’s ethically and legally challenged.

It specializes in ripping off students. It does so for profit. It features scams and other fraudulent schemes. It sacrifices education for bottom line priorities.

It’s faced numerous lawsuits. In 2007, a class-action one on overcharging was settled. It shows no signs of changing its ways. Doing business the old fashioned way matters most.

Robert D. Kaplan

His articles are featured in numerous scoundrel media publications. Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed him to the Defense Policy Board. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush reportedly sought his counsel.

In 2011, Foreign Policy magazine called him one of the world’s “top global thinkers.” He’s Stratfor Global Intelligence chief geopolitical analyst. According to Professor Daniel Drezner:

“What Kaplan and George Friedman share is a sense of geographical determinism that allows them to claim predictive powers.”

They and likeminded ideologues advance amoral national interest priorities. Resource control weighs heavily.

Professor Robert Farley added:

“Kaplan’s talent is to tell the powerful what they want to hear with the veneer of both theoretical insight and empirical knowledge, while possessing neither.”

His book “Balkan Ghosts” allegedly influenced Clinton’s thinking on Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Its dark side analysis characterized Yugoslav people as primitive and violent.

He calls Iran a potential regional hegemon. He says “Iranians do respond to pressure, but it has to be extreme.”

At an earlier Davos World Economic Forum meeting, Stratfor’s George Friedman addressed Iran saying, “There is a solution to (weapons) proliferation, and this is bombing them.” Perhaps Kaplan’s view is likeminded.

Henry Kissinger:

Previous articles discussed him. He was an early architect of new world order harshness.

He’s a notorious war criminal. His rap sheet includes three to four million Southeast Asian war deaths.

He was instrumental in overthrowing Chile’s democratic government. Augusto Pinochet replaced Salvador Allende. Reign of terror arrests, killings, torture and neoliberal harshness followed.

He backed Suharto’s brutal dictatorship. His Kopassus special forces terrorized Indonesians. Their record includes kidnappings, rape, torture, targeted killings, sweeping violence, mass murder, and other atrocities against anyone challenging his authority.

He supported his West Papua takeover. He OK’d his East Timor invasion. Over two hundred thousand East Timorese died. Around half a million more were displaced.

In two months, 10% of the population was annihilated. It was prelude for what followed.

Kissinger supported the Khmer Rouge’s rise to power and reign of terror. He encouraged a Kurdish revolt against Saddam Hussein. He then abandoned them. He advised Bush and Cheney on Iraq policy.

He backed a 1974 Cypriot fascist coup. He defended Turkey’s brutal invasion. He was complicit in Operation Condor. Pinochet and other Latin American despots reigned terror against alleged communists and political opponents. Tens of thousands perished.

He supported Pakistan’s “delicacy and tact” in overthrowing Bangladesh’s democratically elected government. Half a million deaths followed.

In 1974, his secret National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) called for drastic global depopulation. Developing nations are resource rich, he said. They’re vital to US growth. He wanted useless eaters eliminated. He said “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World.”

He supported involuntary mass sterilizations. He wanted birth control made a prerequisite for US aid. He wanted hundreds of millions eliminated by 2000.

He endorsed the worst of Israeli crimes. He deplores peace. He supports war and state terror. He symbolizes the worst of imperial lawlessness.

Henry Kravis:

He’s co-chairman and co-CEO of Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (KKR). It calls itself “a leading global investment firm with deep roots in private equity, diversified capabilities, decades of financial and operational experience, broad industry knowledge, and a powerful network of global relationships.”

It specializes in leveraged buyouts. It asset-strips companies for profit. It dumps thousands of employees doing so. It makes money the old fashioned way. Bottom line ones alone matter.

Forbes estimates his net worth at $4.5 billion. Balzac once said behind every great fortune lies a great crime.

Jessica T. Mathews:

She’s a Bilderberg Steering Committee member. She’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace president. From 1977 – 1979, she was National Security Council Office of Global Issues director. She held various other executive and legislative government posts. From 1980 – 1982, she was a Washington Post editorial board member.

Her husband is retired four-star Air Force General Charles G. Boyd. He’s a Council on Foreign Relations program director. He’s Business Executives for National Security president. He’s a prominent Project on National Security Reform member.

Richard Perle:

He’s a Bilderberg Steering Committee member. He’s known as “the prince of darkness.” He’s a prominent uberhawk. He favors conflict over diplomacy. He served as Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense and Global Strategic Affairs. He was GW Bush’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee chairman.

He’s associated with the Project for the New American Century and American Enterprise Institute. Both organizations figured prominently in post-9/11 wars.

His other affiliations include the Hudson Institute, pro-Israeli front group Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (WINEP), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and Center for Security Policy among others.

David Petraeus

He gained prominence as US Central Command head, International Security Assistance Force commander, and CIA director. Defrocking followed Petraeusgate. A previous article said forget resignation over extramarital sex. Lots of elected and appointed Washington officials had affairs. Many likely have current ones. Numerous former presidents had them. Defrocking never forced any from office.

Competence didn’t earn Petraeus four stars. Former peers accused him of brown-nosing his way to the top. It made him a brand as much as general.

Talk earlier surfaced about his presidential aspirations. In 2007, Time magazine made him runner-up Person of the Year.

White House and media spin praised his stellar performance. Before he fell from grace, he was called aggressive in nature, an innovative thinker on counterinsurgency warfare, a talisman, a white knight, a do-or-die competitive legend, and a man able to turn defeat into victory.

His former commander, Admiral William Fallon, called him “a piece of brown-nosing chicken shit.”

He’s more myth than man. His failures were called successes. His career advanced by being super-hawkish, brown-nosing the right superiors, lying to Congress, surviving the scorn of some peers, hiding his failures, hyping a fake Iranian threat, supporting Israel, unjustifiably claiming Iraq success, and boasting how he’d do it throughout the region.

He manufactured successes. He concealed failures. He’s out of the public spotlight but not gone.

In March 2013, he became honorary Office of Strategic Services (OSS) chairman. It was the CIA’ s predecessor organization.

He’s also a City University of New York visiting professor. In May, UCLA named him Judge Widney Professor. He’s Currahee Board of Trustees president. KKR named him KKR Global Institute chairman.

Robert Rubin:

He formerly chaired Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. He served as Clinton’s Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, National Economic Council head and Treasury Secretary. Time magazine once called him, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Deputy Treasury Secretary Larry Summers “The Committee to Save the World.”

They did more wrecking than saving. They helped get Glass-Steagall repealed. They influenced Commodities Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) passage. It legitimized swap agreements and other hybrid instruments. They’re at the core of major financial problems. It prevented regulatory oversight of derivatives and leveraging. CFMA and Glass-Steagall’s repeal made Wall Street a casino operating on only the house wins rules.

CFMA legitimized derivatives scams. Enron took full advantage. It fleeced investors and energy purchasers with impunity. It did so until its house of cards collapsed. At the time, Alan Greenspan endorsed derivatives. He lied calling them a way to share risks. They turned an economic downturn into a protracted Main Street Depression.

Clinton/Rubin/Summers/Greenspan/Bernanke/Paulson/Geithner, and other co-conspirators engineered it.

Eric Schmidt:

He’s Google executive chairman. Forbes estimates his net worth at $7.5 billion. He’s a regular Bilderberg attendee. A previous article discussed his close Bilderberg ties.

Infowars reporters Paul Joseph Watson and Jon Scobie said Google’s “merging” with Bilderberg.

It’s “being recast as ‘Google-Berg’ – partly because of efforts on behalf of activists to tear away the veil of Bilderberg’s much cherished secrecy, and partly as a means of re-branding authoritarian, undemocratic secret gatherings of elites as trendy, liberal, feel-good philanthropic-style forums like Google Zeitgeist and TED.”

Schmidt thinks “privacy is a relic of the past.” He “plans to turn Google into the ultimate Big Brother.”

He and Bilderberg members share common aims. In part, they reflect a “collectivist, permanently networked world (without) individuality and privacy.” They’re partnering for greater global control. Doing so makes Bilderberg’s ideal world unfit to live in.

James Wolfensohn:

He’s Australian born. He became a naturalized US citizen. From 1995 – 2005, he was World Bank president. Along with the IMF and other major international lending agencies, it debt entraps nations.

It wages financial war on humanity. It mandates structural adjustment harshness.

It prioritizes privatization of state enterprises, mass layoffs, deregulation, deep social spending cuts, wage freezes or cuts, corporate-friendly tax cuts, unrestricted Western corporate market access, trade unionism crushed or marginalized, and stiff repression targeting non-believers.

In 2005, Wolfsensohn founded Wolfensohn & Company. It’s a global emerging markets private equity firm. It advises governments and large corporations doing business in emerging market economies.

Since 2006, Wolfensohn’s also been Citigroup International Advisory Board chairman. In 2009, he became a China Investment Corporation International Advisory Council member. In October 2010, he regained his Australian citizenship.

Robert Zoellick:

He’s a prominent neocon. He was a Project for a New American Century member. He advocated post-9/11 wars. Paul Wolfowitz succeeded Wolfensohn as World Bank president. Zoellick succeeded him. He served from 2007 to 2012.

He formerly was a Goldman Sachs managing director, as well as Deputy Secretary of State and US Trade Representative under GW Bush.

Under Reagan, he held various Treasury positions. He was Counselor to James Baker, Executive Secretary of the Department, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy.

He was GHW Bush’s Under Secretary of State for Economic and Agricultural Affairs. He also served as Department Counselor.

In 1991 and 1992, he was Bush’s G7 summit representative. He 1992, he served as White House deputy chief of staff.

From 1993 – 1997, he was Fannie Mae executive vice president. He bears much responsibility for helping to inflate the housing bubble. During George Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, he was one among other self-styled “vulcans.” Others included Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Stephen Hadley, Scooter Libby, and Dov Zakheim. The term alludes to the Roman god of fire and metalworking.

Zoellick’s other past and present affiliations include Enron’s advisory board, Alliance Capital, Said Holdings, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Aspen Institute’s Strategy Group, former Defense Secretary William Cohen’s Defense Policy Board, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies among others.

Other notable Bilderberg attendees include IMF head Christine Lagarde, European President Jose Manuel Barroso, former appointed Italian Prime Minister Mario (three-card) Monti, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, Goldman Sachs International chairman Peter Sutherland, as well as numerous other politicians, corporate bosses, investment firm heads, journalist insiders and others.

They comprise a virtual rogues gallery of scoundrels. An official list excludes likely figures kept private. Rumor suggests Obama and Britain’s David Cameron may attend. Perhaps we’ll know more later on.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour