US politics

The neoliberal consensus

Capitalism, US politics
Published on

Alas, a Blog on the political arena and the
room for discussions therein:

The American media largely limits its view of politics to questions that are at issue between the big two parties. Abortion is a major issue of contention between the two parties, therefore it is discussed. Monica Lewinsky was a major issue of contention between the two parties, therefore it is discussed.

Where the parties agree, there is no discussion in major media. The benevolence of so-called “free trade” is agreed on by the two parties, so is not discussed. The idea that “social security is in crisis” is agreed on by the two parties, so the alternative (that social security is in pretty good shape) is not discussed. Real election reform is opposed by both major parties, so cannot be discussed in the mainstream press; only faux-reforms like the ridiculous McCain-Fiengold bill can be discussed.

Liberal extremism

liberalism, Pointlesss centrism, US politics
Published on

Eschaton on “liberal extremism”:

The wingnuts run the Republican party. The center runs the Democratic Party. The ‘liberal extremists’ only hurt the center because people like CalPundit keep apologizing for them. It’s a great way to get a Fox News gig – you know, “Even the liberal CalPundit doesn’t like those icky Gay Rights parades. Not because there’s anything wrong with that, but because they’re hurting their cause which he cares so deeply about.” Calpundit might want to look into the recent history of the gay rights movement, particularly ACT-UP. They realized quickly that the only way to get media attention to the fact that people were dying was to Make a Big Noise. They did, it worked.

Bill Frist, the pharmas’ friend

Capitalism, US politics
Published on

Remember when, back in January, Senator Frist tried to tack on a rider to the Homeland Security Bill, indemnifying Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical campaign contributors from lawsuits about their use of mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal, which may be one of the causes of autism? Well, he’s up to his old tricks again, as Wampum details:

But what would motivate Frist to be so cruel? His cat-killing history aside, he is still a doctor, and supposedly sympathetic to the injured and ill. I suspect that his motivations on vaccine liability legislation correlate to those on medical malpractice tort reform. Its not the injured who are the targets: They are just collateral damage. The real target is Democratic campaign funding, and a big chunk of that comes from trial lawyers. Limit attorney fees, either by capping payouts or by restricting who can actually file. Thirty million children were injected with dangerous amounts of Thimerosal from 1990 onward alone. Even if only a small fraction of those children file claims, there are attorney fees to be paid by the NVICP. If those children’s claims are accepted, but then later denied by the court, they can still be pursued in civil court, and may be deemed valid by a jury. More, and possibly larger, attorney fees.

But secondly, I think Senator Frist’s final provision of his bill, now resurrected in its entirety in S15, tells of an additional motive.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines shall report to the Secretary regarding the status of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, and shall make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the allocation of funds from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.

The Republicans want to raid the billions in the Trust Fund. But if you allow thousands of new claims, the fund will dry up.

Top Stories Thursday 30 Jan, continued

Bloody Lawyers, US politics
Published on


P.L.A. warns about the Washington Legal Foundation:

The WFL will spend hundeds of thousands of dollars to litigate a $20 case to the Supreme Court of the United States if doing so provides an opportunity to “deal a death blow” to a program that allows poor people access to justice.

That is WFL’s idea of promoting “the principles of freedom and justice.” WFL apparently believes that we cannot have a “balanced criminal and civil justice system” unless we prevent poor people from obtaining legal representation.

Untitled

US politics, War on Terror
Published on


Shadow of the Hegemon responds to Junius:



…

I think Chris misses the point, however, in that the pre-emption doctrine is clearly meant by its creators to be applicable solely and exclusively to the United States, not to any other regime (whether democratic or not.) In this, it’s far less of a expression of what the United States would consider to be good foreign policy and far more a simple declaration that the United States government can and will intervene whenever and wherever it sees fit, not caring about international law, international bodies, allies (who are allies only as long as they do not oppose the U.S.; witness the reaction of the Bush administration and its policy satellites to naysayers on Iraq) or even public opinion. If anybody else attempts to employ the doctrine, the U.S. can (and probably will) respond that the preemption doctrine is a privilege solely of the U.S. government, as it alone has the power and the moral authority to wield it. (Look at the “we will allow no rivals to appear” part of the Doctrine. It only makes sense if one believes that the only state with the right to hegemony or even Great Power status is the United States.)