This isn't a new development by any means. Back in the 1980s, doctors ceased inoculations due to reimbursement issues, which is deemed a major reason for the measles outbreak of 1989-91 that caused 123 deaths and hospitalized 11,000 others. Measles is generally a childhood disease, and most parents aren't going to be very happy if they discover that their child got sick or died because some functionary in some insurance cubicle decided that it isn't cost effective to actually pay doctors for the health care we buy from them. There is no law that mandates any actual coverage for our policies. This is only one example of how our government, mostly under Republican influence if not outright control for a generation, has undermined the public health in the name of private wealth. There are many other examples, but I'll spare you the litany as you will be getting hammered with it in the very near future by more mainstream sources.
The real issue at the moment is all of the booby traps being left behind by the Bush maladministration. Added to the massive debt being created to rescue the wealthy from the folly of their own misguided deeds, there is nothing left to care for the people's needs. Nor is there going to be the political authority to take action without a severe repudiation of the laws of this land. Without a functioning system of laws, only chaos can ensue.
We already know that the law has been corrupted. The courts are packed with conservative ideologues who only apply the law to political opponents. When a non-radical court rules that the "conservatives" in power submit to the law, these miscreants declare in some fashion that the law doesn't apply to them. With such an example, how can any authority expect that the people will observe the law if their leaders do not?
That may well be the plan. The Washington Post reports more soldiers being detailed to quelling domestic "catastrophe". While this is officially explained as adding to those who will respond to possible terrorist attacks in the nation, there are deep concerns raised as to the reasoning behind this move across the political spectrum. The liberal ACLU describes this as an "expansion in presidential and military authority" while the libertarian Cato Institute calls it "a creeping militarization" which is contrary to "being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace".
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I love the title, but although you've been on a streak of good articles recently, I have to say that this is a return to form as a kind of purely reactive and not very well thought-out hit piece which falls back on your old technique of blaming Bush rather than thinking things through.
Bush didn't create the military or its appeal to the working class. He hasn't sent recruiters out to brainwash kids into joining and the military is not being specially redirected against civilians. All of that is just a bunch of Alex Jones-style fearmongering.
Many of your links don't even support your claims. The article you link to to substantiate your claim that doctors are going to stop giving innoculations specifically says that only 1 in 10 doctors are even considering this, and says "Experts say there's no evidence that significant numbers of doctors are quitting the vaccination business yet because of financial concerns." So, in fact, it really doesn't support your assertion at all.
The article you link to on the ROTC is incredibly biased and one-sided. It doesn't explain at all the fact that ROTC programs which receive federal funding are one of the few physical conditioning programs which some of these schools can afford when their school districts cut funds for gym and intramural athletics. This is a failure of the education system, not some sort of conspiracy to railroad poor kids into the military. It also references only a few examples, overlooking the dominant nationwide trend for schools to do away with and deemphasize ROTC programs, not enhance or expand them as the tiny number of schools they cite have done.
But your crowning achievement in irrelevancy is your link to CitiGroup buying a Spanish Highway construction company. CitiGroup buys things. That's what they do. The bailout money wasn't given to them to NOT carry on their business of investing money. And as they see it, this Spanish company is a reasonable investment. You overlook the fact that the way the deal is structured, CitiGroup will immediately resell some of the assets and make an immediate profit. That seems like a positive way to use our bailout cash.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.
Dave
2 - Brunelleschi
Realist raises a good point about turning today's youth into state stormtroopers, regardless of the real motivation or mechanism behind it-it's still a bad trend.
Overall, it's too early to predict mass unrest due to long term Wall Street panic and collapse. I don't see a reason to expect the crisis to last so long that things fall apart before they fall back together. Wall Street got what it could out of the treasury, and the US is going to keep pumping money in. Throw enough money at it, it will right itself. That bugs just about everyone, but it's a reality and the rest of the world's advanced economies are doing the same thing.
A year from now I doubt there will be panic. It's just going to be a bumpy ride.
3 - Dave Nalle
Realist raises a good point about turning today's youth into state stormtroopers, regardless of the real motivation or mechanism behind it-it's still a bad trend.
Only if you reflexively consider the military to be state stormtroopers. Experiene suggests the contrary. The military has a strong independent streak, and when put in a position of enforcing the will of a despotic state I think they're much more likely to turn against the state and act on behalf of the people.
Dave
4 - Baritone
Dave,
You say:
"All of that is just a bunch of Alex Jones-style fearmongering."
I don't agree with much of Realist's article, but it doesn't go that much further out than your already stated fears concerning Obama's coming assault on gun rights.
B
5 - bliffle
Bush is just the most recent and most witless of a long series of presidents who have taken it as their Holy Duty to suppress inflation while increasing federal spending. That old anti-government reagan was one of the biggest.
They wanted to spend more fiscal money on their friends, but they didn't want to pay the price of raising taxes, nor did they want to allow inflation to do it's job and devalue debt: rich people HATE inflation because it dilutes their money and that forces them to try to do something useful like invest or build companies, and that's too much like work.
So, wanting to spend more and hating inflation they try to control inflation with monetary policy, and it can actually work. For awhile. But then the dam bursts, like in the 70s-80s, and people get hurt.
So the idea is to push 'risk' down to the lowest levels so that the high levels don't have to face it and find solutions. Thus, you privatize profits and socialize risks, as we see.
So there's a lot of pent-up inflation in our economy which will explode sometime. this is especially dreadful for the poor souls who tried to get on the American Dream home ownership escalator by overextending themselves with bad home loans at 7 or 10 to 1 multiples of annual income (instead of a modest traditional ratio of 2.5 to 1) and soon found themselves foreclosed and homeless. Soon, when inflation hits, they will further suffer at being unable to own anything because of the devaluation of their meager income.
Bottled-up inflation will cause suicides, and eventually societal revolution.
6 - Dave Nalle
Gun rights is a comparatively small issue, and there's good evidence to support the left's hostility towards those rights.
On the other hand, what Realist brings up here is poorly supported by any evidence and really just gratuitous fearmongering.
Dave
7 - Baritone
Dave, Your reading of the tea leaves concerning gun rights is no less bogus, and consequently, no less fearmongering than Realist's.
B
8 - Dave Nalle
Baritone, read his links. I can at least point to examples in past legislation from the left and in the actions of Eric Holder to back up my concern on guns. Realists links don't even begin to support the arguments he attempts to make from them.
Dave