Who planted that bomb?
A bomb exploded on a bus in Bulgaria, killing six seven Israeli teenagers and wounding many more. No one has claimed ‘credit” but Israel is busy charging that Iran is behind the attack.
It bears watching. One thing I know – it was not Iran, nor Hezbollah. Contrary to various demonization campaigns, neither is in the business of deliberately blowing up civilians, much less children. That is an American/Israeli calling card. Beyond that, Iran’s leadership is not insane, nor is it suicidal. An act of no strategic value done at a time when the US is showing the flag and rattling sabers would be insanity.
I have my suspicions, if indeed this is an act of terrorism. I would immediately suspect either American or Israeli intelligence agents/provocateurs/terrorists. The reason is as old as time itself – when there is a need for war, there is a need for provocation. That’s why Hitler did Reichstag, and why the US attacked itself at Tonkin. If the reader might think that Americans and Israelis don’t kill children, millions of people would beg to differ. Start in Iraq.
Watch what follows: If the US resists the call to attack Iran, then it is Israel acting alone, trying to provoke the US. If the US jumps at the opportunity to attack Iran, using the bus explosion as casus belli, then it was likely American agents that planted (or authorized Israel to plant) the bomb.
Which reminds me – there was a suicide bombing yesterday in Syria, and several high-ranking officials were killed, including the defense minister. What I am looking for now are any American news sources who refer to this incident as “terrorism.” Glenn Greenwald did reproduce the tweet on the left from Keith Urbahn, Donald Rumsfeld’s chief of staff at the Pentagon.
As I’ve said many times before, I’d be content if the US would limit itself to mere double standards. Three, four, five standards are too hard to track.
British judge censors documentary
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either. (Mark Twain, Following the Equator, Pudd’nhead Wilson’s New Calendar)
The BBC has pulled a film about the experiences of rioters during last summer’s disturbances just hours before it was due to be broadcast after a ruling from a judge. The film, due to be broadcast on BBC2 at 9pm on Monday, was a dramatisation based on the testimony of interviews conducted for the Guardian and London School of Economics research into the disorder.
The British public is not allowed to know the “nature of the order or the identity of the judge who handed down the ruling.”
Contrast this with the United States, where we have had uprisings and even some rioting, and where we have a first amendment. We have large corporate-owned broadcasting outlets free of government censorship. These corporations are staffed by highly trained journalists and fronted by pretty faces who emphasize selected news with great sincerity and ignore other selected news with a high measure of opacity.
These organizations have the good sense never to make documentaries that are such an affront power. We don’t need no stinking court to tell us that.
Canadian exceptionalism
TORONTO, June 26 /CNW/ – Like the perpetual little brother, Canadians have always lived in the shadow of our American neighbours. But it turns out that while America was out conquering the world, Canada has been quietly working away at building better lives. Now we’re the ones on top: Compared to the U.S., we work less, live longer, enjoy better health and have more sex – and believe it or not, we’re now wealthier.
No surprises here: Set up an equation. One one side, take the gross income of a typical Canadian household, and subtract from that taxes at all levels, federal, provincial, and local.
On the other side, take a typical American’s household, assuming he is employed, and subtract from income not only federal and state taxes, but also health care and education costs, including student loans.
Who is better off? I’ve not seen any studies, but the article above is evidence, at least, that Canadians are better off than Americans.
President claims medieval right of kings
Bill Kristol, founder and editor to the Weekly Standard, denounced the move. “This president has surely gotten upper tier in terms of power grabbing,” said Kristol. While he said that he understood the lack of interest in Idahoan maidens, he also suggested that if the president is going to exercise the right, he ought to be democratic about it and include all states.
Democrats were more circumspect. Edward Gresser, head of the Democratic Leadership Council, mentioned to supporters in a weekly newsletter that the President would probably not use the right to excess, and anyway would surely use protection.
Democrats overwhelmingly support the president on this matter. In an overnight Gallup poll, 77% of Democrats expressed “go-for-it-man” approval, while an additional 16% expressed mild envy. 4% expressed uncertainty about anything involving the French, but said that they would vote for the president in November anyway. 1% disapproved but felt the president might be “overdue” and said that they would vote for the president in November anyway, as Romney could not be trusted. 1% had no opinion but said that they would vote for the president in November anyway. The remaining 1%, said Gallup, is a rounding error, but that it too would vote for the president in November.
It was not clear at time of this writing how the president would interpret droit du seigneur in light of his recent statement in support of gay marriage.
The darkest of all psychological secrets
If you are given a choice, you believe you’ve acted freely. This is one of the darkest of all psychological secrets. This idea of having a two-party system is much like having fifty-two cards using the same three cards.
I transcribed the above quote, by Teller (of Penn and Teller), from a podcast called “Stuff to Blow Your mind.” Oddly enough, despite the name, the podcast is indeed interesting. The one I listened to is about the art of magicology, which is almost entirely based on psychological manipulation of audiences.
It reminded me of the 2000 election where we were given a “choice” of Gore or Bush, with a real choice, Nader. Democrats screamed bloody murder. Why? It probably had to do with the darkest of all secrets, that by limiting us to two (virtually identical) choices, we imagine we are acting freely.
That, then, is the purpose of elections, and why we even have them. I suggest to the reader that if you want to understand our choice in the 2012 election, do not look for differences between Obama and Romney. Look for similarities. It is far more illuminating.
Death panels
The above photo could only happen in this country – a family member is stricken by cancer, health insurance was either not affordable or available prior to diagnosis, and the family having to resort to selling off possessions and begging for charity to pay for treatment. After treatment, successful or not, the hospitals and doctors will come after them and take what they have, saddling them with overwhelming debt and forcing them into bankruptcy.
The concept of “death panels” was invented by some PR agency back in 2009 for the benefit of Tea Party sloganeering. It’s classic PR – short, emotional and memorable. It was mindlessly repeated to demonize the people who actually open up access to health care: government agencies. The real “death panels” are the people who roped off our health care system in order to charge exorbitant fees for admission – health insurance companies. Deep within their bowels are the faceless people who passed judgment on the poor schmuck for whose benefit the above family is having a garage sale.
Continue reading “Death panels”
On to Single Payer!
I took a brief trip to town today, and passed a sign that said “Garage Sale for cancer” along with the address. They are not raising funds for the Cancer Society. A family member has it, and they are selling off possessions to pay bills. Only in America do you see that! (I’ll grab a photo of the sign tomorrow if it is still there.)
The following are notes I took of an interview with Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Care Plan, from the Counterspin 7/6/12 broadcast:
Massachusetts passed a statewide health care plan in 2006, nicknamed “Romneycare.” It was basically a laboratory trial for what would later become “Obamacare,” or ACA. While widely held to be successful and popular, the numbers are not that impressive. It did cut the uninsured population in the state from 10% to 5% of the population. More about that later.*
Even as Romneycare is in year six now, by a 2:1 margin, members of the Massachusetts State Medical Society still favor single payer over it.
Continue reading “On to Single Payer!”
An unfortunate incident
I was cooking sausage in a frying pan. The heat from the fires underneath apparently weakens the steel they use to make burners so that it begins to bend. Even though the burners, partially made of tungsten, do not melt until they reach a temperature of 3,100 degrees, the fire marshall explained that the weight of the fry pan caused parts of it to slowly give way. The sausage had inexplicably collected on the NE side of the pan, and as I walked by, I dropped a knife I was using to cut up green pepper and onions, and it hit that side of the pan.
Continue reading “An unfortunate incident”
The rules explained
It has to do with age. Kevin is 58, and so the rule for him is no socks with sandals ever, under any circumstances. I am 62, and so the rules are eased. I am allowed to wear anklet socks, preferably dark colored or flesh-toned, so as not to call attention to them.
That rule holds in place until age 70, at which time we are allowed to wear white socks with sandals. Shorter is better. At age 75, any length of white sock is OK.
At age 80, we are allowed to wear socks and sandals in any combination we desire, including argyle, surgical, hosiery, and even black or red socks. Indeed, this is a common sight. Young people think that old people don’t know how to dress. What young people do not grasp is the freedom of not caring how one dresses. Who is looking anyway?
85 is a tough transition, but my wife explained to me that if I am still around at that age, I’ll be wearing ‘onesies’ once more. There will be no more need for either socks or sandals.
Piece of Mindful 