Although Blair has long been derided as "Bush's Poodle," it is apparently verboten for mere comment-writers to expand upon this apt metaphor as he strives to make some sort of political comeback, along with even more money. Or, maybe I was censored for mentioning the scary words "Jeremy Corbyn". Who really knows when it comes to the stqndards of the Times, which had no real qualms about quoting verbatim the foul-mouthed rant of that other Tony, name of Scaramucci.
Seeing as how Dowd's column was, for once, not devoted to either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, this piece doesn't seem to be gleaning the usual vast number of clicks or comments. As best as I can remember (didn't think to make a copy) this is what I wrote:
Nice scathing take-down of Tony Blair. Good to know that he remains properly paper-trained enough to adorn his office walls with his master's (this was a reference to George Bush, who remains a pal) bathroom kitsch. (many paintings were actually composed in the luxe Bush soaking tub or just outside the shower stall).
But why did Dowd make no attempt to contact the current Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, before jetting off to Brussels to soak up the wit and wisdom of Nigel Farage?
Silly question, I know. The corporate media views the leftist Corbyn much as it views Bernie Sanders: anathema, and a clear and present danger to the sensitive elites for whom "bipartisan" politics must always remain within an artificially narrow safe space. When Corbyn achieved his unexpected upset, Blair snarled to the desperate victims of decades of cruel austerity policies: "If your heart's with Corbyn, get a transplant!"
It could have been worse. Because despite the best efforts of neoliberal politicians spanning a 40-year straight line all the way from Thatcher to May, the National Health Service still exists, and even the poorest heart patients are still able to avoid the debt collector should they ever require such drastic surgery.
Blair insisting to Dowd that he abhors right-wing strongmen like Trump and Farage and Putin is really quite hilarious, given that he recently agreed with Donald Trump that the "left media" has criticized Trump unfairly.
After all, it seems like only yesterday when Blair was partying hearty with Silvio Berlusconi, who on one memorable night lit up the Sardinian sky with fireworks spelling out "Viva Tony!"
Bunga Bunga might be naught but a fond memory, but who's to say that there's not a Mar-a-Lago invite in Blair's future? With any luck and groveling finesse, perhaps he can score a big hunk of amazing chocolate cake, or at least a Beggin Strip.What do you think - too harsh?
After all, a poodle's gotta eat.
If there's one thing that Donald Trump has accomplished, it has been making this dog-eat-dog world safe for a whole slew of lesser jerks.
Anyway, I had much better luck with the Times censors with my riposte to Paul Krugman, who compared the political promises of Donald Trump with the political promises of Bernie "Medicare for All" Sanders - while smarmily and dishonestly insisting that he meant to do no such thing. His column (Politicians, Promises, and Getting Real) is one more lazy rehash of his many pieces deriding single payer health insurance as ideal in a perfect world, but undo-able because its pie-in-the-sky unicorniness would create a "backlash," and also inconvenience the millions of lucky proles who simply adore the employment-based insurance which they now pay for in myriad ways, both hidden and unhidden. Krugman doesn't even bother pretending any more. The fallacies in his logic are too myriad to address in just one 1500-character Times comment.
Nevertheless, I persisted.Here's my published comment as it (for now anyway) still appears online:
I'm tired of hearing the same tired old tropes to explain to us non-wonks that we just can't have such nice things as a bankrupt-free healthy life because of some dreaded "backlash."
Let's get really real here. The richest country on earth doesn't have Single Payer because the corporations and oligarchs running the place don't want it. This has little to do with people now insured through work becoming too "inconvenienced" if they have to change plans and simplify things. Nearly two-thirds of us want Medicare for All. Does Krugman mean to imply that most people either don't work, or that their insurance has no stupid limits attached?
Ditto for the political "litmus test" so allegedly feared by politicians loath to quit taking bribes from the predatory insurance industry. Why protect these people? So that our health care system remains the most expensive on the planet, and our mortality and morbidity rates stay some of the worst?
Right now, there are millions of people suffering the mental and physical and financial trauma of two massive hurricanes. So what better time than right now to start incessantly demanding true universal coverage for them, and for all of us?So, what do you think - not up to my usual standards of harshness?
If Great Britain could establish its national health service after the Nazi blitz, surely we can do the same in the face of the even deadlier assault of man-made climate change.
"Pay-fors?" For starters, we can slash the Pentagon budget, and stop bombing people to death.
18 comments:
I was hoping for more harshness, Karen, but you know me. I imagine you must have to check every word as you write to get by the censors. What a drag. They're really putting a damper on debate.
I'm glad you mentioned the military budget. The Democrats are missing a big teachable moment to help put BernieCare costs in perspective. If only they'd inform voters about just how much is being spent on the entire war/defense/security budget solely for the purpose of preserving, protecting, and promoting Capitalism at home and abroad. Most Americans have no idea they are paying for a global empire. Of course costs will have to be estimated since the Pentagon resists audits.
Trump himself outlined that trillions wasted in the Middle East could have been used here, so the public has been primed. Now Dems should fill in the details and really open eyes. How many voters know about the presence of 1000 military bases in over 100 countries? Their empire is YUGE.
Of course Democrats can't and won't tell the full story because they are a wing of the War and Money Party, but I can dream can't I?
So I'm not buying all the enthusiasm by Democrats that they're behind BernieCare. It's easy for them to say so when there's no chance of passage. For another it's a great get-out-the-vote ploy which will end up stifling the opportunity of third parties. "You must vote for a Democrat to pass BernieCare. Don't risk your vote on a third party candidate", then if/when Dems get back in power, they'll renege and their corporate donors will reward them.
Another reason I don't trust them is they were/are almost entirely Clinton Democrats. You know, the "never ever" candidate who still holds a lot of power. She might also still hold whatever that 'leverage' was (per Wikileaks) against Bernie, and she's obviously on the warpath against him.
"Harshness" is an ambiguous term for the Compleate Commenter, especially when responding to the SOS from Blair and Krugman in the NY Times. Let's go through the entire check off procedure for both comments.
Topical? ... check. Clear? ... check. Spirited? ... check. Witty? ... check. Exasperated? ... check. Disdainful? ... check. Harsh? ... Meh, they had it coming. Furthermore, 'harsh' is a tricky term on their checklist.
At an early age elites efface the word 'honest' from their vocabulary. The word itself makes them and the people they gather around them uncomfortable. Their substitute term for 'honest' is 'harsh.' 'Harsh' takes the heat off their consciences and turns it against their antagonists.
Yes, your view of the work of Blair and Krugman was too harsh, that is, too honest.
Be grateful you are not under the thumb of a Stalin. He would efface you or send you to a camp in Siberia. In Amerika your words will merely be shunted down the memory hole, and you will be banished to a pedestal in deserts where Third Parties and other losers thrive.
"The Democrats are missing a big teachable moment to help put BernieCare costs in perspective. If only they'd inform voters about just how much is being spent on the entire war/defense/security budget solely for the purpose of preserving, protecting, and promoting Capitalism at home and abroad. "
Not they're not. The Dems don't actually want single payer. What they want is bragging rights for the midterms and maybe 2020. When Sanders's bill does not pass, they will say, "We tried, but I guess it's really not possible unless you elect more Dems." Then they will tell us to bend over, lower our expectations, and learn to love RomneyBamaCare. In other words, they'll manufacture an excuse to go back to doing the bidding of their real constituents: the "health" "insurance" "industry" and big pharma.
Your comment had to be scrubbed because there was too much truth in it. I really wish that you would save and re-submit them. Many of the poor saps who are still reading The Times cannot even fathom another way of thinking. And as such, they desperately need to hear what you have to say.
Pay for?
If single payer works as intended, it would drop the % of US GDP spent on health care from 17% down to the norm for the advanced world that has single payer, about 1/3 less.
So who gets all that money? Roughly 6% of GDP saved and available is about a trillion dollars per year, more than the defense budget by a wide margin.
We need not question how to pay for this. We need to question what to do with all that money.
@Mark,
Excellent point. I remember the good old days when Krugman used to make fun of deficits and "pay-fors" and suggest that the government could easily borrow money to fund programs at little to no interest. I haven't read the word "Keynesian" in his columns for a very long while.
In his latest dig at Bernie and single payer, he complained that Bernie didn't include specs on funding, which he actually did in an accompanying white paper.
@Nonni,
I had stopped writing Times comments for a long stretch, because life is too short to "engage" with the terrier-like responses to my efforts. For example, several people accused me of saying that the NHS and Medicare for All are the exact same thing and that I am obviously ignorant for saying so. Which I didn't, because I was merely making the point that catastrophes can occasionally bring out the best in our leaders. I am often accused of belonging to the "Bernie Cult" as well, even though I have often criticized Bernie.
@Jay,
Your Compleate Commenter shall hereby be my Bible. Thank you!
@Anne,
Militarism and death are largely ignored by American citizens. RussiaGate propaganda is proving all too effective. Hopefully a lot of people are tuning in to the excellent PBS series on Vietnam. Then again, our remote control drone program and other long distance atrocities are not TV-ready. Out of sight, out of mind.
Terriers bred at the David Brock Puppy Mill, I'm sure. I still can't get over how many of them came out of nowhere to became trusted trolls, I mean commenters, in record time. Or the way some previously reliably leftist top commenters suddenly and inexplicably became establishmentarian apologists. But I'm sure that there was nothing nefarious in that. Just a case of election-year serendipity, right?
@Nonni,
I've noticed the same thing. What really gets my goat is the constant name-calling of the so-called Deplorables. (see top-rated comment from today's Krugman column, for a perfect example of this "punching sideways" genre.)
I've read that the acquisition of "likes" on comment boards actually provides a shot of dopamine to your brain. It is the actual emotional and physical equivalent of a drug or a big money bonus.
In my long career as a once-obsessive and diehard Times commenter, I also discovered that the "red meat" comment directed toward one's own demographic, and against the other demographic and/or establishment party, always get the most recommends. The more colorfully that you can insult the Republicans and the Deplorables, the more popular you will be. You'll be floating on a dopamine high and can never get enough and you comment again and again and again with the identical talking points. Also guaranteed to get top billing is any comment, even the most mindless and petty, that insults Maureen Dowd for insulting Clinton or Obama.
I remember way back in Obama's first term when it was not only acceptable, but really popular, to call him a sell-out and fraud on Times comment threads. That all changed when he ran against Romney in 2012, when anybody critiquing him from the left magically turned into a racist or closet Republican, practically overnight.
Bernie was popular with this crowd, until he wasn't.... although some of the regulars are again cheering him feebly on. After all, if he's good enough to go on all the talk shows, then it must be safe to say you like the guy. He has achieved that all important insider celebrity status, you see.
As I said, life is too short - although it is fun to occasionally irritate and needle the self-satisfied liberal crowd and turn them into a pack of rabid ankle-biters, yipping out such original slogans as "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!"
Reading all the negativity today in today's comments about how our remarks go in the ashcan, is not productive. Get the facts, throw them out, and aim them at the widest number of people available. Regardless of how you view Bernie, some of his message, especially about changing the basic system seems to be having some impact. I think it is timely now to offer alternatives so use any method of communication available. And nothing is more harsh than the continual lies we are inundated with.
Fight fire with fire and ignore the insults.
You are perfectly right, Pearl, in your advice to ignore the terriers.
But the harsh truth is that there's a hell of a lot of censorship going on, a deliberate campaign by the media-political complex to stifle dissent. So going negative on the negatories and the naysayers and the censors is also a useful pursuit, if only to allow for the occasional healthy psychological venting.
I'm not a stickler for all seriousness all the time by any means, and I don't think that everything has to be "productive."
On the bright side, the tired old neoliberal market-intensive tropes are losing steam by the minute.
And since universal health care is actually on the cusp of success, I for one will continue agitating for it on Times threads, where let's face it, the audience is much larger than at this little blog. I even wrote a couple of comments on Krugman's latest column today. I'll be working them into an upcoming post.
For more on the orchestrated censorship, see Chris Hedges today over at Truthdig (link on blogroll.)
"it is fun to occasionally irritate and needle the self-satisfied liberal crowd and turn them into a pack of rabid ankle-biters, yipping out such original slogans as "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!"
my stock answer is, "then get back to me with something good and we'll talk!"
From Truthout:
Youth in Revolt: Why Millennials Are the Key to Future Social Transformation
Saturday, September 16, 2017
By Anthony DiMaggio, Truthout | Op-Ed
I've sent the article to my Millennial granddaughters.
Hi Karen,
Since I discovered your blog (about a year ago) I eagerly wait to read it fully together with the comments.
I think you are one of the very few best writers around. I like very much most of your commenters as well. Actually, I believe a couple of them are almost as good as you. Well, the best attracts the best.
Let me tell you something you shouldn't doubt for a minute: you are doing a great service to the American people.
On a less serious note... Has somebody else noted that your logo resembles to a naked person holding with both arms the huge feather in his hair? It would be probably a stretch to also consider the gigantic feather as a sort of a compensation for the rather twisted, two-colored legs.
Krugman has gone full bore Republican. Higher taxes? That is not a good faith argument. What are insurance premiums? Even if your taxes went up by the amount you pay in insurance premiums, you would have the benefit of at least not losing coverage when you lose a job. It would allow for more labor mobility giving workers more power too. And certainly the guy who wrote the column on how great Medicaid keeps prices down might be able to see that single payer just might do the same thing too.
Did people read the article about the various systems in other countries? All had something to recommend them. Well, I will say all but the US. All they could say is that we lead in "innovation". There is never any evidence given to support this statement. It is just repeated as an article of faith. how do we lead in innovation? When it comes to health care how do we lead at all?
Readers picked the US system over Singapore's-- it was different and more two tier and a mix of public and private. But it was universal so I still think it is better. They keep the costs down and you know what-- the government takes an active role in ensuring the population is adequately housed and there is great public transportation. These are health issues too.
Thank you, Kris!
My logo is an Aubrey Beardsley illustration called The Writer. I chose it because it aims upward, just as I attempt to do in my own writing. (Molly Ivins called this "punching up" at the powerful.)
But your interpretation is intriguing, given that Beardsley also produced his fair share of Victorian "porn" - so would not be surprised if there is indeed a double entendre in The Writer.
@Kat,
The recent survey which ranked the US dead last in health care compared to about a dozen other countries did allow that we are the champions of extraordinary end-of-life care; no amount is no small to artificially extend life by a couple of days or weeks. We're also #1 in cardiac and stroke care and the bedside manners of doctors. Whoopee.
"Innovation" is one of neoliberalism's favorite buzzwords, for good reason. It masks the underlying inhumanity of American health care with lots and lots of shiny cool gadgetry.
D'oh! Meant to write "no amount is too large" in above comment.
While I'm at it, what do you make of all those TV commercials selling the new anti-cancer drugs? From what I've read, these monstrously expensive drugs offer a lot of false hope to the terminally ill.
This is one good reason to go for single payer health care; it will take a lot the grotesque profits away from Big Fat Pharma and we won't have to watch their disgusting and misleading sales pitches on TV.
Another one I find especially offensive is the marketing of a Diabetes drug to black people. I think it's called Farxiga. It comes with a Motown style soundtrack and lots of dancing black folk with a new lease on life. And they can even lose some of that weight!
Funny you should mention that! My husband just said something about some lung cancer drug last night while watching the news and speeding thru the big pharma extravaganza of ads. "do you really want your life extended a month when you are end stage lung cancer?" Of course you never know until you're there but right now I'm thinking "no". It is not like there is a drug out there without side effects and I think we've all seen enough drugs and procedures hyped as the newest, most fabulous miracle only to find out (more quietly) that hey, its not really great and by the way it can cause say, a blocked intestine.
There is a good riposte to the "innovation" claim from a French reader at the NYT.
Post a Comment