I Give a Damn

In Which Mike Goes to the Emergency Room

2009-08-17T17:10:00.004-04:00

I dropped off the health care debate radar for a few days. Friends keep sending me links and articles on the issue. I appreciate all the input and know that there are many out there who have a dog in this fight for many different reasons. I hope to address some of these reasons soon, both left and right. But, right now I want to tell you about the last few days. I'll keep it as brief as I can, but the details are telling.

As a child, I did not visit the dentist very regularly. But, every time I did, I got the same answers: "Not a single cavity. Whatever you are doing, keep it up!" My mother had no trouble with her teeth either. My father did. But it looked like I was taking after mom. My wisdom teeth came in later in life, and I had no difficulty, pain, etc. So many people I knew were having their wisdom teeth cut out or pulled. I really thought I was lucky.

Fast forward to about 1999. One day, a hole appeared in one of my molars, on the top (the chewing surface). Not a "cavity", a freaking hole! It looked like someone had taken a nail and punched a hole in my tooth. I got to the dentist, paid out of pocket to have it drilled and filled, and went on my merry way. No other troubles to speak of.

Fast forward to 2003. Another molar suddenly broke. Broke! Then another. I spoke to insurance agents about dental insurance, knowing I would have some serious work to do. I was told bluntly that the insurance they could sell me would not be worth much. I bought anyway. Basically, it's a discount plan for maintenance, and wouldn't cover much more. I was, and still am, paying out of pocket for dental insurance. Even with part of a procedure being covered, the kind of work I need to have done would be outrageously expensive. I've paid for a root canal, a wisdom tooth extraction, many x-rays. Finally, one helpful dentist told me that I should have had my wisdom teeth removed when they came in, despite not having had any pain. Apparently, they had crowded other teeth, cut off blood supply, and over the years, a chain of problems was quietly forming that had no visible evidence on the surface until that first ominous "nail hole". Even the x-rays at that time had not revealed the trouble to come.

So, for the past 6 years I have had major dental problems. Again, I have dental insurance, but it is only helpful for routine cleanings, simple extractions, etc. I have been to clinic after clinic. I've amassed hundreds of dollars in bills. I've been to the emergency room more times than I can count, only to get some immediate pain relief and an antibiotic (which, of course, is all an ER is required to do).

For the past several days I have been in outrageous pain, popping four Advil and four Tylenol in rotation. Finally, at 3:00 a.m. Saturday morning, I went in to the ER again and laid the problem before yet another doctor. He helped relieve some of the abscess pressure on my gums and sinuses (an extremely painful procedure), wrote me pain med and antibiotic prescriptions (for which I have no discount plan), and told me that I "need to get those teeth out" (surgically removed). I asked him point-blank if he had any suggestions as to how to do that given my circumstance and needs. He did not.

Some problems in this world are not black and white. There are individual circumstances that would take way too long, and reveal way more than we may feel comfortable to explain. Cars break down, jobs end, babies arrive, etc. No one can judge anyone else in terms of what we think WE would have done differently. I keep telling myself that I will remember that when dealing with others in the future. It's the lesson that makes all this not entirely worthless.

The obvious answer in this society to problems like mine is, keep insurance. Oh, if only that were so simple. Insurance companies like to quote that they do insure 86% of this country, as though that were sufficient. One of the most insidious factors in this debate is "under-insurance", that is to say, you are paying for insurance, but it is ineffective for anything that would be big enough to break you anyway. And, dental work is seen as a cosmetic thing most of the time. Far from it. Abscesses can be life-threatening. And the psychological factors faced by people who have dental problems are huge. It always amazes me that dental and vision insurances are lumped together, sold separately, and are barely worth anything.

I've seen quite a lot of coverage lately on an outfit called Remote Area Medical (RAM). (Check out the video below for more on them.) RAM was originally intended to help people in Third World countries, but has found it necessary to focus more on the United States. Think about that. We are being aided by organizations as though we were a Third World country! We should be ashamed of this.

Luckily, my wife (who has asthma) and our kids are covered. Of course, we have also been the victim of one of those insurance company charge-backs you've heard of. One day we suddenly owed about $1000 that we had been told was covered. There is, apparently, a (private) bureaucrat standing between us and our doctors.

So, pardon my absence. The swelling has gone down, I have been off the pain meds for two days, things are returning to "normal". Which, of course, means that I am waiting for the next disaster, knowing that it's not a matter of "if", but "when".

Bill Clinton Explains Why Some Are Opposed To Health Care Reform

2009-08-14T14:04:00.003-04:00

Pres. Bill Clinton opened the Netroots Nation event yesterday with a keynote address that touched on several issues, not the least of which was health care. He succinctly listed three reasons why this issue is so divisive.

1) "It's complexity... Anything that complex can be easily, honestly misunderstood, and dishonestly manipulated."

2) "A lot of things that will make the most difference over the long haul are tough to cost out."

3) (Quoting Macchiavelli) "'There is nothing so difficult in all of human affairs than to change the established order of things.'... because, the people who have got it are certain of what they're gonna lose, and the people who will gain are uncertain of their advance."

The first two points make is much easier to understand honest debate and honest uncertainty on the part of those who do not have the time in their busy days to factcheck every issue they see on the news.

That third point is where the devil comes out to play. It's about profits and ulterior motives. Profits are not bad. Making money is not evil. But, the things that are done to make these profits are, firstly the deaths of insured and uninsured Americans, and secondly the lies that are being spread now to guarantee that those profits keep coming. There is a very simple issue that Clinton makes plain as day:

"If we [currently] spend 16% of GDP on health care, Canada spends 11% and all our other major competitors are between 9 1/2 and 10%, that means we're spotting all of our other competitors 750 to 800 billion dollars a year. If we insure 84% and they all insure 100%, where is the money going?... Follow the money."

Remember Two Things

2009-08-14T13:27:00.000-04:00

Dr. Howard Dean, speaking at Netroots Nation today, made two very key points about the health care debate. While this is certainly a complex issue, there are certain aspects of it that are simple and can turn the entire issue.

1) "Are we going to allow the American people to choose for themselves? This is not a debate about whether the single-payer is better than the public option or is better than the private health insurance system. Are we going to give the American people a full range of choice? Do they deserve that? Or shall we do that ourselves, us politicians, bureaucrats and insurance companies?... Do the American people get to choose? Or do the people in Washington choose for you?"

2) [To the Congressmen, particularly the Dems on the fence on the reform issue:] "Whose side are you on? The American people have spoken. They want the choice. Are you with the insurance companies who want your money? Or, are you with the people who pay your salary and sent you there?"

These two things, if seriously considered, would set aside much of the bickering that is obfuscating the issues today. Some say that a public option would be so popular that it would drive the insurance companies into obscurity. Well, if that is the case, isn't that a choice that we are free to make? If we decide that our needs are better met through a co-op, or even a single-payer system, shouldn't that be our choice to make?

And, if we want that choice, why would a Congressman stand in our way?

Meghan McCain. Fair?... No!... FAT!!

2009-03-16T15:21:00.000-04:00

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain and herself a Republican, finally said what everyone was thinking about Ann Coulter:

"I straight up don't understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time."

Meghan appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show, confirming her beliefs as a Republican, yet her disbelief at and disgust with Ann Coulter.

Enter Laura Ingraham, conservative. On her radio show she responded to Meghan McCain by... making fun of her weight. Damn, that's some classy, family values kind of material to toss out... If your family is all fourth-grade girls!

It's incredibly hard for earnest, honest Republicans (and there are MANY) to rise above the stigma and reputation of their party being the playland of rich white guys when a) the first black chairman can't catch a break from his own party b) a blowhard like Rush Limbaugh is seen as the foundation of the party c) their leaders in Congress offer no alternatives to the Dem's proposals, only obstructionism d) women of note in the party attack one of their own who stated a fair opinion and use her WEIGHT as a nasty word-weapon.

You've come a long way... baby.

Swingin' from the Gallup Poll

2008-09-19T15:39:00.003-04:00

The video below from the fine folks at Gallup was done back in June. Way back then, Obama was seen as stronger than McCain on the economy and energy/gas prices. Not a marginal lead: a gap in the upper teens. And, these were issues that Americans said mattered to them most.

In the past week, gas prices spiked due to Hurricane Ike, Wall Street went into a panic over finance giant collapses, and the US Embassy in Yemen was attacked by al Qaeda. The news from the financial sector blew away almost everything else broadcast.

Perhaps all the lipstick wasn't enough.

Barack Obama on the Economy (Stupid)

2008-09-19T15:39:00.002-04:00

If anyone asks for specifics, now you know.

For the Record

2008-09-19T15:39:00.001-04:00

I voted for Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential Primaries. Barring some outrageous revelation that shakes my faith, I intend to vote for him in November. I have my reasons for this decision, which you can be sure I will touch on in the next couple of months. I also have reasons for being quite opposed to the McCain/Palin ticket. Like many Americans, I have found something to like/dislike about both campaigns and all nominees. In the end, I will total it all up and cast my vote here in a state that is all-but-guaranteed to vote Red regardless of what I do.

But, ain't it fun?

A Blog? With No Apps, Wall or Photo Album?

2008-09-19T15:39:00.000-04:00

After the 2006 mid-term elections, which I was quite happy with, I let this blog lie fallow for a while. I've been posting a bit on Facebook and such, but I like this medium. Let's see how it goes.

By the way, Rick "Man-On-Dog" Santorum is still not a U.S. Senator!

Why Politics is Bullshit (or, Who Do You Believe When Everybody Looks Professional in Those Neat Boxes on Television?)

2006-10-23T13:29:00.000-04:00

Recently my wife and I went to see Robin Williams' new movie "Man of the Year". Williams throws out many insightful observations about politics in the U.S., but the best bit of the evening is delivered by co-star Lewis Black. (I don't have a script here, so I will have to muddle through from memory as best I can.) Black said that he has a love/hate relationship with television as far as politics is concerned. He said that television makes everyone seem credible by putting every opinion-holder in the same lights, makeup and neat little box next to another person who is asserting the opposite view. We can't trust our own bullshit detectors. Everyone seems credible, which results in no one being credible.

An extreme example of the veracity of this is "The Yes Men", a group of political tricksters who impersonate representatives of organizations such as the WTO, Halliburton, HUD and Dow Chemical (links go to YouTube). They manage to get themselves interviewed on television news programs espousing ridiculous ideas and views in an effort to lampoon and undermine the organizations they oppose. Their entire "hijinks" agenda is based on the credibility issues that Lewis Black talked about. People believe them because they are on the news.

The fact is, you can manufacture credibility. All you have to do is construct the appearance of something that is credible. And news organizations play into the myth-spreading all the time. They put up impressive sets, run flashy intros, shoot their programs with other office workers running around in the background to give the illusion of a newsroom hard at work, green-screen in backgrounds to mock up locations, run tickers across the bottom of the screen, etc. Is any of this wrong? No. It's show business. But it does have the undesirable effect of lending credence to views that are not fact-based or even are entirely fraudulent. Everyone *looks* credible. And, as a result, no one *is* credible. As a result, people trust the news less and less. The electorate is uneducated and it feels duped.

Another facter to this is outlined in the book "Why Americans Hate Politics" by Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne. The upshot of the book is that Americans are asked by political parties and candidates to make ridiculous choices. We are presented with these choices in A/B pairs that do not necessarily reflect how Americans believe. We may choose answer A (thus, party or candidate A) some of the time, but answer B some of the time. Yet, we are expected to be okay with these "options" and to understand that we can never have it exactly how we want it.

Add to these the fact that many Americans believe that Congress operates for the benefit of corporations and special interests, that they are never told the whole story in any dispute, that their vote does not count (or will not be re-counted), that their President is an idiot and his opponents are wimps and that they simply do not have the time to personally sort through everyone's bullshit to figure out who/what to believe...

Is it any wonder American's stay away from the polls in droves? Is it any wonder that they list "politics" as one of the most undesirable and divisive topics for conversation ever? Is there a way that decent politicians can reassure voters and help educate them as to the real facts of their government? Are there any such "decent politicians"? Or would all of them be beter off giving us the mushroom treatment? Does the responsibility for education lie solely with each citizen, then? And where do you turn for reasonably accurate information with which to make decisions?

Increasingly, Americans are getting their news from comedians like Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert and Dennis Miller. They figure if they're gonna be dazzled with flash and thin rhetoric they may as well get a laugh out of it.

"All Your Base Are Belong to (B)Us(h)"... or, How Evangelicals Got in Bed with Neocons and Ended Up With the Clap

2006-10-14T16:14:00.000-04:00

David Kuo is an "insider". As a former Special Assistant to President George W. Bush and the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Kuo saw the inner workings of the relationship between Bush and the evangelical Christians who comprise his deepest-rooted base. Kuo is still a conservative Christian, but he left the employ of the White House in 2003. And now he has written a book. Uh-oh.

Recently the Bush White House has come under scrutiny as a result of revelations published by seminal political publisher Bob Woodward in his book "State of Denial". In Woodward's latest installment of the 'Bush at War' series he exposes the misinformation and myopia that have plagued this Administration's handling of the ill-fated war in Iraq. Woodward's previous two installments were kind to Bush. This one was not. Needless to say, the Bush crew has set about trying to discredit it as quickly as possible.

David Kuo's book, however, is different. This guy knows where the bodies are buried because he helped swing the shovels. He names names and gives details only an insider could. And the tale he has to tell is astonishing. After years of support from evangelicals in their narrow election wins, the Bush Administration is now exposed as having used the Christian Right for its own ends and then... well, here are a few snips:

"Sadly, the political affairs folks complained most often and most loudly about how boorish many politically involved Christians were."

"National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as 'ridiculous', 'out of control' and just plain 'goofy'."

The Bush offices handed out "passes to be in the crowd greeting the President" when he flew around on Air Force One, 'tickets to a speech he was giving", "little trinkets like cufflinks or pens or pads of paper". "...Christian leaders could give them to their congregations or donors or friends to show just how influential they were." "Making politically active Christians personally happy meant having to worry far less about the Christian political agenda."

"White House staff didn't want to have anything to do with the Faith-Based Initiative because they didn't understand it any more than did Congressional Republicans."

"Just get me a f---ing faith-based thing!" - Karl Rove

According to Kuo, Bush made promises to his evangelical friends year after year and did not deliver. He got them little 'victories' like the National Day of Prayer, but kept asking for patience and handing out trinkets to placate those on the religious right who wondered aloud where their political clout was being spent. In fact, the Office of Faith-Based Initiateives ended up being used as a tax-payer funded campaign tool for Republicans.

The upshot of the book is that the Bush Administration has taken the Christian Right for a bunch of suckers and that those Christians are now starting to see it.

MSNBC's "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (of which I am definitely a fan) has run three installments on the book so far. Here is Part One:

Separated at Birth?

2006-10-03T15:31:00.000-04:00

William Kristol (PNAC Pusher) and...

Bob Woodward (Watergate Smasher)

I've puzzled at the similarity between these guys everytime I see either of them on the news with the sound turned down.

Oh well.

It could be irony... but it's really just sad.

2006-10-03T12:27:00.000-04:00

Mark Foley, Republican Representative from Florida... oops, make that *former* Republican Rep. from Florida.

Mr. Foley served in the House from 1995-2006. Among other activities, Rep. Foley was one of the foremost opponents of child pornography. Foley had served as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He introduced a bill in 2002 to outlaw websites featuring sexually suggestive images of preteen children, saying that "these websites are nothing more than a fix for pedophiles." (Much of his work was later set aside since the language would have shut down many other legitimate photographic businesses.)

Foley's legislation to change federal sex offender laws was supported by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, America's Most Wanted host John Walsh, and a number of victims' rights groups. Foley publicly stated that pedophiles were "sick people [who] need mental health counseling. They certainly don't need to be interacting with children."

Turns out, though, that Mr. Foley is involved in the very behavior he has been championing against. A teenage Congressional page came forward with emails (though these look more like chat messages) he said were sent from Foley under the screen name 'Maf54'. Excerpts follow:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.
----
Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.
----
Maf54: You in your boxers too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.
----

These are the excerpts that ABC News released to the public. The rest they say were too graphic to be broadcast. They involve Foley asking the teen about his masturbation practices, including insisting on details. A PDF of the complete chat transcripts can be found here. It is explicit.

Conservative spinmeisters have started trying to paint this scandal as homophobic in spirit. However, no commentator I have yet heard speaks of any homosexual issues but rather of the fact that this boy was underage. Stories are now coming to light about how Congressioal pages were warned as far back as 2001 to be careful around Foley.

Nothing Foley said in the transcripts of these chat sessions would be a problem were it not for the fact that this boy was underage. Foley obviously recognizes the hot water he is in. He resigned within hours of getting a call for comment from ABC News on the day this story broke. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has called for a State Police investigation of the emails. Foley has stated that he is enrolling in an alcohol abuse treatment program.

But, here comes the irony... Rep. Mark Foley famously said of Bill Clinton after the Starr Report was released:

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Rep. Foley had been given a score of 84% by the Christian Coalition on family issues. Here's a nice Christian passage for the rest of the Republicans who think they can/should spin this as a partisan attack on Foley.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you." - Matthew 7:1,2 (NKJV)

Us and Them (or, Why Democrats Often Come Off As Unclear, Unfocused and Scattered)

2006-10-02T20:52:00.000-04:00

On July 21, 2006 Bill Clinton spoke at a fundraiser for Jim McDermott (the Representative sued by Ohio Rep. John Boehner over his release to the public of tapes incriminating Newt Gingrich and others in ethics violations). The event was friendly and laid-back. The audio of the event can be found here (mp3 link). The full transcription of Clinton's speech in DOC format is here.

Among other points the 42nd President made was a primer on the differences between Republicans and Democrats. I have always felt that Clinton was a well-read, well-thought fellow and his breakdown of this subject was quite enlightening. It led me to notice several other things lately that have really clarified the differences for me and, I believe, actually helped me understand the Republican view on things better. I almost hate to edit any of this for length. Be sure to check out the full transcript. Following are excerpts from Clinton's speech...

"...there really is a huge sort of philosophical difference between the two parties, deeply held, that has policy and political implications and produces very different results for the American people. They honestly believe the source of America’s greatness is in its big companies, and wealthy elite, and we believe the source of America’s greatness is in its middle class and the promise that everybody who works can be rewarded for it... therefore their primary goal when they get political power is to literally to concentrate wealth and power and that’s what they believe they should do."

Clinton goes on to explain how this "concentration" method affects all decisions Republicans make. He further asserts that Republican thinking is "ideological" rather than "philosophical". The difference being that, with a philosophy there is room for debate and exploration. With an ideology, the result is pre-determined and the facts must be contorted to fit the already-held belief. The difference that this makes in governing style is astounding.

I think this goes a long way toward explaining why Republicans have succeeded in convincing people that they have the answers. They have long preached the notion that they have "principles" and stand by them, come what may. They portray variance and willingness to look at things from the other fellow's point of view as "flip-flopping" and "lacking conviction". They follow the plan of picking one spot, gathering a core group around you, then never budging from that spot- even if all evidence points to something contrary. Pick a mantra and repeat it, repeat it, repeat it. Do any of these sound familiar?

We had to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we didn't have to fight them here at home.
Saddam Hussein wanted to acquire weapons of mass destruction, whether there were any to be found or not. He was a bad man and we did the right thing by removing him.
Those who oppose warrantless wire-tapping are trying to take away the tools we need to protect us from another 9/11.
We didn't want to come out and say this, but 9/11 was really Bill Clinton's fault.
In the eight months between GW Bush's inauguration and 9/11, we did all we could to track down Osama bin Laden. We got bad intelligence.
The democrats want to cut and run. We want to stay and give the Iraqis a chance at freedom.
The Iraqis will welcome us as liberators.
Mission Accomplished!
We don't torture people. We aggressively question terrorists who want to kill Americans .Thus we prevent another 9/11.
The terrorists hate us for our freedom.

These points are well-thought-out and remarkably effective. Karl Rove is a Blofeldian genius with a propaganda apparatus he should rightly be proud of.

So, how do Dems come off looking like pussies? Well, the Democratic party is, by its very nature, inclusive. There is room for a lot of different views and opinions. It is not diametrically the opposite of the Republican. Republicans are red apples. Dems are not green apples. They are grapes. A gathering of many who hope to progress forward under their common banners. But, in times of trouble, people look for someone who will stand fast, look focused and resolute- even if that person is somewhat questionable in methodology. This is exactly what happened to Germany under Hitler. And it is what happened to the United States under George W Bush.

Clinton knows that the Dems strength (their inclusiveness of many reasonable points of view) can be painted as a weakness by those who want to mischaracterize it. So, he has been preaching a lot lately about the need for clarity, the need to think and the willingness to fight back.

"...if somebody asks you when you leave here, and tomorrow or the next day or sometime between now and November, they say, 'I don’t know what the Democrats stand for', you say 'yes, I do! The Republicans believe in concentrating wealth and power because they think that American’s greatness resides in its wealthy elites. The Democrats agree in empowering all of us because they think that America’s greatness resides in its ordinary citizens and their ability to raise their children with the American Dream.'

And you can say the Democrats are for a clean energy future, they are for health care reform.... They are for raising the minimum wage and they don’t think Congress ought to get a pay raise until they raise the minimum wage for ordinary people. They’re for restoring the cuts in the college loan program and the 300,000 kids that were kicked out of after school programs to pay for [Bush's] tax cut. And they’re for a security policy that fights terror and but also seeks to build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists."

Concentration vs. diversity. Sounds a lot clearer than the simplistic "strength vs weakness", "resolve vs indecision" that we get fed by Fox News, huh?

Dick Cheney, Halliburton and unbelievable stuff

2006-10-02T08:52:00.000-04:00

My wife and I were discussing some of the shady goings-on in the Bush Administration the other day and she enunciated clearly one of the biggest misgivings that most people in this country have about these stories:

"This all just sounds too fantastic. It sounds like some made-up bull from a movie."

And, so it does sometimes. That fact is one of the biggest hurdles that truth-seekers have to over come, first in themselves, then in others they try to spread the truth to. Sometimes the things that are uncovered just seem too crazy to possibly be true! After all, surely the kinds of misconduct we hear about could never happen in a world where the President of the United States can't even get a little oral on the side without the whole world finding out about it. Oh sure, maybe Kennedy had dozens of bimbos and maybe Eisenhower had a mistress living in the White House, but this is the 21st Century and there are snoops, cameras and microphones everywhere now. Every financial transaction and plane trip any politician might ever be near will be scrutinized and muck-raked by a bloodthirsty media. We can rest assured that our freedoms, rights and best interest are closely guarded by an intertangled web of ACLU lawyers, reporters, oversight committees and deep-cover media sources. Everybody is watching everybody else and any false moves will be reported with startling speed and vehemence. You just can't lie in government and get away with it anymore. By the way, you also can't print untruths in any form, mislead in advertising and cheat on your taxes. You will always be found out. I mean, look at Enron! We can all relax and trust that this self-sustaining mutual over-the-shoulder-looking will keep us safe.

Of course, things do not work that way at all. Sure, scams are being uncovered everyday. We do have tons of watchdog agencies looking over many aspects of American life. But, there are still plenty of ways to skirt the laws and dodge the cameras. We'd like to think that the just are rewarded and that the criminal are penalized. But the fact is that the meek can't inherit the earth if the assholes are keeping the will tied up in probate court.

But, on to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Rather than spew out tons of argument on this matter, I would like to simply list a few facts (and the source material for them). Let's see what you think about all this.

As Secretary of Defense under Bush I, Cheney paid Brown and Root services (now Kellogg Brown and Root) $3.9 million to report on how private companies could help the U.S. Army as Cheney cut hundreds of thousands of Army jobs. Then Brown and Root won a five-year contract to provide logistics for the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers all over the globe. In 1995, Cheney became CEO and Halliburton jumped from 73rd to 18th on the Pentagon's list of top contractors, benefiting from at least $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans, according to the Center for Public Integrity. (source)
Cheney repeatedly said, during the 2000 election campaign that he had a "standing policy" against doing business in Iraq while at Halliburton. But, according to the Washington Post, "Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to [Saddam Hussein-controlled] Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer." (source) (source2)
In fact, the much maligned "oil-for-food" program put in place during Saddam's regime is reported to have been corrupted using "a web of front companies and used shadowy deals with foreign governments, corporations, and officials to amass $11 billion in illicit revenue" for Saddam. One of the companies involved in that corruption was Halliburton, under the leadership of Dick Cheney. (source)
Under Cheney's tenure, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries in offshore tax havens increased from 9 to 44. Meanwhile, Halliburton went from paying $302 million in company taxes in 1998 to getting an $85 million tax refund in 1999.
Cheney resigned as CEO of Halliburton on July 25, 2000 and put all of his corporate shares into a blind trust. These "blind trusts" are commonly used by politicians to supposedly eliminate conflicts of interest when they direct government funds to the private sector. However, lawyer Kenneth Gross, an expert on congressional ethics who has helped establish trusts for elected officials, opines that such trusts are "merely cosmetic" and states: "I don't know that you can realistically blind" trusts when "you know what's in there" at the start. This same topic is now haunting Sen. Bill Frist. (source)
After testimony from observers and KBR employees of misconduct and overbilling, Halliburton lost its exclusive contracts in Iraq. (source) However, questions about Dick Cheney's conflicts of interest with Hallibuton and his decisions and duties as Vice-President remain.

In the end, the question remains: Do you want your government officials to be making decisions on national security and welfare, especially when those decisions involve getting American soldiers killed, when their friends and former companies profit from those decisions?

Things I dig: Keith Olbermann

2006-10-01T20:04:00.000-04:00

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, commenting on the fifth anniversary of 9/11.

Olbermann is crass, irreverent and damn funny. His ongoing feud with Bill O'Reilly is the stuff of legend (Bill Orally, or Billo), as is his disdain for Ann Coulter (Coultergeist). His "Countdown" program on MSNBC is hilarious and startlingly informative. Occasionally he chases a tangent and comes up with nothing. Occasionally his own guest commentators disagree with him. But, he always seems sincere and well-read. I especially like his occasional Special Comments, which hearken back to a news delivery style of yesteryear. He has adopted Edward R. Murrow's sign-off as his own: Good-night and good luck.

Check Olbermann out on MSNBC, weeknights at 8:00 and midnight. Note that the website is, of course, a Microsoft medium and that you will be "required" to have Internet Explorer to view video. Baloney! If you are using Firefox (and who isn't?), simply grab the IE Tab extension and plow right on. Great stuff from Olbermann is always available on YouTube, as well.

Well, let's see if this baby will still start...

2006-10-01T19:24:00.000-04:00

According to my Blogger Dashboard, I actually opened this blog on 15 December, 2004. I was happy to find that the name/URL was available and grabbed it. The intent was to post my own thoughts and observations on the political front at the time (post-election '04). My life took several interesting turns shortly thereafter and I put the project on hold. There are several such projects that I have started over the past few years. The fact that I abandon them at some point does not bother me. They have a lifespan and then they are done. Others, such as my independent music podcast, simply go on extended hiatus.

"For the record, we never broke up. We just took a fourteen-year vacation." - the Eagles, Hell Freezes Over

Some things I start, only to discover that they weren't really what I wanted to do at all. I am not embarassed by this. I know many, many people who sit and wonder and do nothing at all.

"For God's sake, DO SOMETHING... even if it turns out to be wrong!" - my dad, when I was 18.

I also held off on plastering up political rants and observations because a good friend of mine had a really nice site already dedicated to politics and such. In case you missed that link, be sure to check out Nero's Fiddle. I was content to comment on his site from time to time. But, I fear I will end up abusing his hospitality with my verbosity. I'll still hang there, but there are some things I want to do that require their own forum.

A good chunk of the inspiration for starting this now is my wife. I bore her to tears, bitching and moaning and pontificating over whatever is floating through my mind politic at the time. Maybe this will give her respite.

Maybe.