A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Liberals Love War

By BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley | Created 03/30/2011

Americans are warlike – as long as they think they can be victorious. These nominal Democrats and Republicans “differ only on who they want to see doing the dominating.” Today, a Black Democrat is the head killer in charge, allowing the likes of Ed Schultz, Bill Maher and Juan Cole to endorse the criminal assault on Libya. When the chips are down, fraudulent anti-war liberals show their true racist, Manifest Destiny-loving colors. “The true anti-war movement must reawaken itself and hit the streets in the hundreds of thousands.”

“The desire for America to dominate the rest of the world is prevalent among most of its citizens, regardless of party affiliation.”

Peace loving Americans are few and far between. The vast majority of our citizens see nothing wrong with their government killing masses of people as long as the rationale sounds high minded and noble.

The love of bloodshed is generally connected with the right wing in this country, but nothing could be further from the truth. The desire for America to dominate the rest of the world is prevalent among most of its citizens, regardless of party affiliation. Those citizens differ only on who they want to see doing the dominating. Republicans are ecstatic when a Republican president drops bombs, sends drones on killing missions or occupies other nations. Democrats are equally enthusiastic when one of their own does the same.

Democratic party reaction to President Obama’s military intervention in Libya is but the latest example of the American propensity to exult over government sponsored violence. Obama, like George W. Bush before him, claims that his intervention, no-fly zone, peace mission (take your pick) is being conducted only for the most humanitarian of purposes. The dead bodies belie the claims of dogooderism but those words have a distinct power for people in this country and will always be used as a pretext for someone dying somewhere on the planet.

“The belief in white American superiority affects and infects every policy discussion in this nation.”

The legacy of Manifest Destiny and the belief in white American superiority affects and infects every policy discussion in this nation. The equation of goodness and rightness with white America holds sway very strongly and sadly not just for white people either. The willingness to see white behavior as normative means that foreign policy decisions get a pass precisely at the moment when resistance and skepticism are needed.

No, Barack Obama isn’t white, but he may as well be. He is president precisely because he assured voters that he would not change the complexion of their belief systems. If he didn’t fulfill the deeply ingrained belief that might makes right as long as America, a country thought of as white, is in charge of world affairs, he would never have become the president.

The United States attack on Libya has brought out the worst in this phenomenon. Liberals are gleeful that conservative icon Newt Gingrich backtracked on supporting intervention until the Democratic president actually intervened, but Gingrich is no different than they are.

We now have MSNBC television host Ed Schultz [10] proclaiming “Support for Obama’s Invasion of Libya.” Never mind that Obama has taken great pains to claim that the bombing will be of limited duration and that ground troops will not have a presence there. Schultz seems to be ahead of the president on this one, but his show of support is telling in revealing the true support for American motivations in its interventions abroad. Likewise Juan Cole [11] in an “Open Letter to the Left on Libya” dismisses criticism of the intervention thusly. “I would like to urge the Left to learn to chew gum and walk at the same time,” and adds, “We should avoid making ‘foreign intervention’ an absolute taboo . . .”

“Barack Obama isn’t white, but he may as well be.”

Foreign interventions conducted by the United States should be taboo. Our system is not designed to be in any way humanitarian. Its motives are to say the least suspect and no matter how evil its enemies are made out to be, the evidence of past history should make us suspicious of the arguments in favor of war.

The liberal hawks, like Obama, have no concern for Libyan civilians who are enduring bombing, and exposure to depleted uranium shells which create cancers and birth defects for years to come. This is not conjecture, but has been seen in Iraq and ought to be a reason for anyone who claims to be on the “left” to oppose the actions which bring it to pass.

The true anti-war activist, not just anti-Republican activist, has to raise its voice. The true anti-war movement must reawaken itself and hit the streets in the hundreds of thousands, just as they did in 2003 before the invasion of Iraq. That moment can be recreated, and in a deeper, more honest way, now that a Democrat is the head killer in charge.

http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. [12] Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgandaReport.com.

[13]

Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/content/freedom-rider-attack-cruise-missile-liberals

Links:
[1] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/cruise-missile-liberals
[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/r2p
[3] http://blackagendareport.com/category/media-media-justice-and-media-reform/corporate-news-media
[4] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/bill-maher
[5] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/democrats
[6] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/ed-schultz
[7] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/juan-cole
[8] http://blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/new-democrats
[9] http://blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/attack_of_the_cruise_missile_liberals.jpg
[10] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-schultz/why-i-support-president-o_b_839800.html
[11] http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html
[12] http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/
[13] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fblackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Ffreedom-rider-attack-cruise-missile-liberals&linkname=Freedom%20Rider%3A%20Attack%20of%20the%20Cruise%20Missile%20Liberals

By J.A. Myerson. Republished from FPIF.

We Are All Neocons Now

Or the Perils of Trusting a Duplicitous President Too Much

Schultz: Blind adherence to the Democratic Party always made him suspect of being an Obamaniac of the worst sort.

As American bombs rain down death and destruction on an Arab nation, a prominent cable news host proclaims, “The president of the United States…deserves the benefit of the doubt and our support in his decision to use military force” because “this is all about democracy.” Readers would be forgiven for faintly hearing those words in the voice of Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly, but would be wrong: it’s MSNBC’s Ed Shultz, writing for the Huffington Post.

The deficiencies are manifold and obvious.

already admitted to having punked Schultz, confessing that this will be a longer engagement than previously announced.

Reuters’ that “Gaddafi tanks move in again on besieged Libyan city,” his readers are left to wonder. One possibility is that Schultz hasn’t encountered such reports, which implicates him in lousy journalism and irresponsible writing. Another is that he has but won’t say so, which implicates him in conscious mendacity and irresponsible writing.

Rather than presenting a case for the invasion, Schultz takes the opportunity to ridicule the Republicans’ critique of it. “Why?” he invites us to ask, “Because he didn’t do it their way? He didn’t go far enough? He actually had a coalition?” It should be said from the outset that, even if the Republicans’ complaints were the stupidest imaginable, that still would not constitute an argument for the wisdom and righteousness of the policy. As it happens, however, they are anything but.

Speaker Boehner, in his letter to the President (PDF), echoes Schultz’ sentiments about the moral defensibility of the action, writing, “The United States has long stood with those who seek freedom from oppression through self-government and an underlying structure of basic human rights.” But among his concerns, Boehner cites his anxiety that “military resources were committed to war without clearly defining for the American people, the Congress and our troops what the mission in Libya is and what America’s role is in achieving that mission.”

Now, perhaps Schultz knows whether Obama wants regime change, a properly observed ceasefire, a partition of the country or merely a change in the Libyan revolution’s momentum in favor of the revolutionaries, but I don’t, and I don’t see how Mr. Boehner’s concern is illegitimate. He asks Obama to detail the mission, the command structure, the policy goals, the length of America’s engagement in the coalition, the projected cost, etc. Which of these does Schultz find Boehner – and the rest of us – unworthy of knowing? That these are the words of an obvious hypocrite (who cares not a whit for these answers in the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan) does not make them wrong or not worth addressing.

No more does the fact that there is a more fulsome coalition attending to the Libyan intervention than did the Iraq one testify to the policy’s rectitude, and as Schultz surely knows being in the minority of many issues, appeals to consensus almost always conceal a sloppy analysis. What but a sloppy analysis would allow Schultz to criticize the GOP, apparently unironically, for having “steamrolled America into two wars” in the same breath as he defends the president who has steamrolled America into a third – readers with a keen memory may recall that the first war was unanimously approved by both congressional houses apart from Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) and the second one on an only slightly less bipartisan basis. So much for a steamroll. By contrast, there hasn’t even been a vote on the Libya matter. Not even a debate.

Schultz already concedes too much by affirming the right of the U.S. to make war in a sovereign nation, claiming humanitarian grounds. Empires always cloak themselves in noble language when moving to attack other countries – the invasion is for civilization or freedom or democracy or human rights. If Schultz can be suckered into supporting a war by the empty promises of a deceitful president, what can’t he be made to do?

The answer seems like it’s: agree with Republicans. Even when they’re right.

J.A. Myerson, Executive Editor, is the Artistic Director of Full of Noises and a teaching artist with Urban Arts Partnership. He writes primarily on American Politics and Human Rights. Follow him on Twitter.

Jim Hightower | Wednesday 23 March 2011

And wait. And wait. And keep waiting.

Workers in our country have been dramatically increasing their productivity since the highly ballyhooed economic recovery began about 20 months ago, generating billions of dollars in new wealth. Yet wages have stayed stagnant. Practically none of the increased wealth from worker productivity gains has gone to the workers.

Instead, 94 percent of the money has been siphoned off by the corporate powers for such things as fattening profits at a record pace and jacking up CEO pay to exorbitant levels. Also, nearly $2 trillion of the gains have simply been stashed in the corporate vaults, rather than using it for wage hikes or new job creation.

Copyright 2010 Creators.com

Original Source URL: http://www.truth-out.org/jim-hightower-rich-get-richer-with-new-congress68698

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

The Health Care Crisis Grows While the 2010 Health Reform Shrinks

AT ITS ONE YEAR anniversary the Obama health care law is shrinking while the health care crisis grows . Americans who lack any health coverage still exceeds 50 million, over 45,000 deaths occur annually due to lack of health insurance, and 40 million Americans, including over 10 million children, are underinsured.

waivers granted to the Obama health law broke 1,000 protecting inadequate insurance plans. The expansion of health insurance to the uninsured is becoming a mirage. The Obama administration has told states they could reduce the number of people covered by Medicaid as well as reduce the services provided.   And, the centerpiece of the law is under court challenge — the mandate is the first time ever the federal government has forced Americans to buy a corporate product, private health insurance — is heading to a close Supreme Court decision.

rising premiums and shrinking coverage for many Americans who get their coverage at work as well as on the individual insurance market.

medical bankruptcies have not decreased with the new law.   The lesson — it is not just health insurance, but the quality of the insurance that matters. After deriding merely adequate insurance as Cadillac Plans,” the Obama administration is showing support for high deductibility plans with large out of pocket costs that do not provide financial or health security.

to prevent employers from dropping coverage and insurance companies from leaving markets.   The requirement for a waiver is relatively simple; the applicant must show HHS “a significant increase in premiums or a decrease in access to benefits.” Ninety-four percent of requests for waivers have been granted , the largest area where waivers have been denied has been for unions.   Republicans have asked HHS for in-depth details about every waiver decision and request.

Expanded Numbers of Americans with Insurance Becoming a Mirage

The two largest areas of expansion, Medicaid and the insurance mandate are in jeopardy.   States are cutting the number of people covered by Medicaid and reducing health coverage.   The insurance mandate is under constitutional attack. And, there is little evidence that people are taking advantage of programs that provide coverage for those with pre-existing illness.

The area with the biggest immediate impact on reduced coverage is the roll backs of Medicaid. Medicaid was projected to be the largest area of expansion of medical care under the Obama health care plan, covering 16 million more people, making up half the projected increase in additional Americans covered with some type of insurance under the Obama law. That is now becoming a mirage.

HHS Secretary Sebelius wrote the 50 states letting them know benefits could be cut, poor people could be required to pay a higher share of costs and that federal law allows states to reduce people covered by Medicaid.   Medicaid is health care for the poor and is jointly funded by federal and state governments. Medicaid currently covers 53 million poor children, poor pregnant women and disabled and extremely poor adults. Individuals must make less than $14,500 to be included in Medicaid.

More than half the states want permission to remove hundreds of thousands of people from Medicaid . Arizona alone is planning to reduce Medicaid coverage by 250,000 people and the Obama administration has indicated it will not oppose this reduction in coverage.   In Wisconsin, where Governor Walker has proposed deep cuts to Badgercare (which includes Medicaid and other programs) up to 350,000 could lose health care coverage .   Rather than an increase in the number of people covered, the nation is on a path to reduce total people covered.

the race to the bottom .

The health care law faces a congressional challenge, especially from the Republican controlled House of Representatives which has already voted to repeal the law, but more importantly, promises to use the power of the purse to not fund its implementation.

Single Payer Rising: Why Not Just Improve and Expand Medicare to All?

The imploding health care law is creating an opening which may require a re-consideration of health care reform within the next five years.   Americans consistently favor simply expanding and improving Medicare to cover all Americans.   Terry Dougherty, director of MassHealth, from a state which the model for the Obama law is in place is reaching the obvious conclusion :   “I like the market, but the more and more I stay in it, the more and more I think that maybe a single payer would be better.”   He notes that unlike the insurance industry government costs less, with much lower administrative costs and “We don’t build big buildings. We don’t have high salaries. We don’t have a lot of marketing.”

has remained under 2%. But, the bureaucracy of trying to control the insurance industry is already growing rapidly. The growth of the federal insurance bureaucracy , the federal office that regulates private insurance along with other important duties under the Obama health law, already has 252 employees and a budget of $93 million for 2012 budget requested by the White House.

At the state level Vermont is striving toward single payer.   Governor Shumlin, his technical advisers and Vermonters support a single payer program, and are considering a bill that reduces the number of funding sources and if federal waivers are granted, which Obama reportedly supports , it will evolve into a single payer program.   The current version of the bill falls short of the goals of advocates who want health care treated as a human right as well as of physicians who seek a single payer program.

The “Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act,” H.R. 676, a bill that sets up a single payer system has been introduced. It would provide health care to all and give consumers the most choice, provide strong health coverage as well as save money for government, business and individuals. Unlike the Obama law, improved Medicare for all would also be easier to implement.   Medicare transitioned Americans over 65 from private insurance to Medicare within a year and did so without computers.

The failing Obama reforms shows that the obvious must be faced: confront the health insurance industry which makes coverage of all Americans unaffordable. President Obama knew before running for president that single payer was the solution , but after receiving $20 million in donations from the insurance industry refused to let the only real solution, improved Medicare for all, be considered.   It is time to put in place a single payer health care program that ensures that all U.S. residents have quality health care at less cost than they currently pay.

Kevin Zeese is director of Prosperity Agenda.