Well, the MSNBC damnfool idiot pea-brain loudmouthed moron personality Ed Schultz has made waves again. And this time, he did it on Twitter.
Here’s a recent Tweet (since deleted) from Shultz. Fortunately, it was preserved for posterity before it was deleted:
Geez. What. A. Freaking. Tool.
Wonder if the rest of the libidiot mainstream media will call him on this bit of idiocy?
Personally, I’m guessing we’ll hear crickets. But I could be wrong.
So, this fairly disingenuous fellow, Charles Lane, writes in the Washington Post opinion section about how we veterans don’t deserve Tricare as it currently exists. Apparently, we shouldn’t expect the government to honor it’s promises after we’ve fulfilled our commitment;
Since 2000, however, Congress has repeatedly expanded the access of former military personnel to Tricare. By 2010, the eligible population had increased from 6.8 million a decade earlier to 9.7 million — nearly 85 percent of whom were not active-duty service personnel, according to an excellent May 2012 Armed Forces Journal article by Brittany Gregerson of the Institute for Defense Analyses.
[…]
Once former military personnel turn 65, they are eligible for Medicare, like everyone else. But in 2002, Congress gave them “Tricare for Life” — essentially, a free Medigap plan. Roughly 2 million people take advantage of this perk, at a projected cost to taxpayers of $9.7 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Yeah, well the “expansion” of Tricare eligibility in 2002 was because in the 1990s, the Clinton Administration kicked veterans over the age of 65 off of Tricare and forced them into Medicare. So it wasn’t an “expansion” as much as it was a “restoration” of medical care. The Republicans only gave back to veterans that which veterans thought they had earned instead of tossing us into the confusing and completely alien Medicare system. You know, the last time the Democrats balanced the federal budget on the backs of veterans.
In anticipation of a lot of hate mail, I would note that I respect and honor America’s veterans. They should be well provided for, including reasonable health benefits. But no one — not even a veteran — is entitled to taxpayer support regardless of competing public needs.
In the case of Tricare, this is what the veterans’ lobbies have demanded of Congress, and what Congress has given them.
I wouldn’t bother mailing your ignorant ass, Mr. Lane. Especially someone who feels a need to say that he respects and honors veterans, you know, right before he throws us under the bus. That’s probably the most disingenuous statement one of these mighty mouths can make. I respect and honor journalists at the Washington Post, but they should all be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail. See how that feels, Mr. Lane? At least he spared us the usual “My grandfather’s neighbor’s doctor’s dog’s mother’s owner was a veteran, so I respect and honor veterans.”
I wonder what Mr. Lane has to say about hiking costs of healthcare on Medicare seniors? Or Medicaid families? I don’t see anyone suggesting that healthcare should be more expensive for those groups in order to save the federal budget. How about we pick on another “group” of Americans who should be punished by raising the cost of their access to healthcare. Pick a group – how about miners or railway workers? How about we raise the healthcare costs of gay or transgendered Americans on Medicare?
Of course, I don’t think that we should raise healthcare costs based on any arbitrary societal measure, but while our president is promising that health care costs will be lower for every American because of his Affordable Healthcare Act, why would his administration want to hike the costs to one group? Why would the Washington Post and Mr. Lane want to pick out veterans from all of Americans to shoulder the burden of the federal budget alone, when there are no other Americans or group of Americans willing to take up part of the work that needs to be done?
Thanks to Chockblock for the link.
ChockBlock sends us a link to New Yorker in which journalist/Yale grad, Jane Mayer strains to make a comparison between the Obama Administration’s tribulations in comparison to President Reagan and the Beirut bombing;
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials’ feet. But unlike today’s Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding “very serious errors in judgment” by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.
In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report’s findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)
In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.’s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.
If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.
Yeah, well, there are vast differences between the two incidences which resulted in the murders of Americans by jihadists. In Benghazi, warnings were made to people in Washington to reinforce security personnel. In Beirut, there were already hundreds of troops, but they weren’t deployed properly with sufficient security measures employed to protect the facility. Although some of that was the fault of Washington, and ultimately the president, the culpability was also shared by commanders on the ground who didn’t foresee a truck bomb attack, although that method of attack had been employed in the recent past.
Mayers claims that Hillary Clinton took responsibility for Benghazi, and something about the “dismissal of four employees”. If I remember correctly those four employees were just moved to other jobs, and Hillary Clinton told us that the deaths of those Americans at Benghazi don’t matter.
The Reagan Administration were forthcoming with information to Congress in regards to Beirut, the Obama Administration has not – they let it out in drips and drabs to drag out the investigation, ala Bill Clinton so that America tires of hearing about it. All of the surviving victims of Beirut were allowed to have their say abut the investigation. There are 30 surviving victims of the Benghazi whose names we don’t even know yet.
She claims that there are Republicans calling for the impeachment of the President. Yeah, no one rational is doing that, but there are impeachable offenses in regards to the lack of candor in the executive branch. Not to mention that the Reagan Administration took their portion of the blame immediately, they didn’t blame some virtually unknown movie or video.
But you can bet that the low-information voters are going to eat this vacuous shit up like applesauce. Mayer just wanted us to know that she was at Beirut back when she considered an unbiased reporter, but years of drinking the koolaid has made her an apologist for the naked emperor.
We all know that the myth of the “messed up Vietnam vet” is a persistent one, at least as applied to Vietnam vets in general. Despite clear evidence to the contrary it persists to this day. IMO it’s the genesis of the recent media efforts to demonize more modern vets due to PTSD.
The term “myth” is absolutely apropos. Truth be told, a tiny fraction of vets did come back from Vietnam with serious issues; this has been the case in every war in history. But the vast majority came back and got on with their lives successfully. Despite the media’s portrayal of Vietnam era vets as “messed up losers” Vietnam veterans – those who actually served in-theater – as a group are actually more successful and well-adjusted than their non-vet peers.
During the 1960s and 1970s the music industry bought into that media myth. It persisted into the 1980s as well. Hell, even Springsteen made mucho dinero off of the myth with “Born in the USA”. It’s perhaps the quintessential ode to the myth.
Regardless, the Vietnam veterans simply continued with their lives. In general they became, and stayed, well-adjusted and successful. They simply kept their mouths shut and tended to business – just as their fathers and uncles from World War II and Korea had done.
But they also knew that they’d gotten a raw deal from a very influential segment of society. As a group, they were portrayed as brutes and losers; in reality, they were anything but. And no one seemed willing to defend them.
That freaking hurt. So they simply suffered their bad days in silence, and kept on keeping on.
But in the mid-1980s things changed a bit. The music industry began to alter its perspective. (I wonder if the POTUS at the time might have had anything to do with that, albeit indirectly?) And a few tunes that IMO captured the reality of the Vietnam veteran were released.
One of those songs in particular IMO captured their post-war experience. No, it’s NOT “Born In the USA”; that POS of a tune did nothing but reinforce the media myth. The tune I’m speaking about IMO gave voice to the real Vietnam vet’s frustration – the guy who came home, got on with his life, and put things behind him. Mostly.
It wasn’t a plea for help, or a “woe is me” story. It was a simple statement of fact, and of disappointment – and a well-deserved accusation of ingratitude aimed at much of US society.
It damn sure opened my eyes. I think the first time I heard it was when it dawned on me how badly our Vietnam vets got the shaft after they came home.
Why do I say “ingratitude”? Because that’s exactly it was – from US society in general. Vietnam vets got treated damn shabbily because many people didn’t support that conflict. So they shunned the people who were sent there.
Soldiers don’t choose the wars we’re sent to fight. Rather, we go where we’re ordered, and fight – and sometimes die – because the nation sent us. All that we ask is that we get treated fairly afterwards.
The Vietnam generation didn’t want a hero’s welcome. But they sure as hell didn’t deserve to be spit on and called “baby killers”, either – or portrayed like a bunch of losers or ticking time bombs by the press.
Vietnam vets didn’t complain much at all about getting screwed over. But they sure as hell remembered. And after Desert Storm, they were instrumental in making sure it didn’t happen again.
IMO, we’re seeing much the same today. The media is once again resurrecting the specter of the “messed up vet” – this time due to PTSD – and using it to portray all vets as “messed up losers” because a few have been badly affected by their war experiences.
. . .
Here’s the tune that opened my eyes. No video accompanying this one. IMO, none is needed.
To a man, they were neither “losers” nor “babykillers”. They were damn fine men. Those who are still alive today still are.
They got treated shabbily as hell afterwards by US society in general and by the media in particular. And that’s a damn shame, bordering on the criminal.
Again? Oh hell no. We got this one, elder brothers-in-arms.
Never again.
Remember those “fine folks” over at Media Matters? Those stalwart “progressive” people who think the mainstream media does a great job, who profess to speak for the “little guy”, and who often support organized labor?
Well, it seems as if the folks who actually work for Media Matters want to form a union. So, since they’re a good progressive organization with a track record of supporting labor, that means Media Matters’ management should be happy about that . . . right?
Apparently not. The management at Media Matters has gone on record opposing the formation of a union by their workforce. Seriously.
Their employees are, predictably, “not amused”.
I never knew “hypocrite” was spelled using two capital “Ms.” I guess it is now, though.
It also looks to me like this shows there is a God – and His sense of humor tends towards irony. Although based on this collection of Biblical quotes, He also doesn’t have much use for hypocrites.
. . . I think you can stop wondering.
Remember Cliven Bundy – that dipstick in Nevada who got local militias to side with him after he refused to pay his legally-obligated grazing fees for 20 years and was being kicked off his Federal leased land? The media – specifically, the NYT – dragged up some quotes from an interview with Bundy that made him look damn near like a KKK Kleagle.
Well, I’m shocked, shocked. Seems like what Bundy said was actually very selectively quoted. Large portions of the interview were omitted.
The complete pertinent portion of the interview transcript is quoted here. It tells a very different story. Bundy’s actual remarks clearly indicate he’s not a blatant racist – and that he neither advocates nor wants to return to the “bad old days” of institutional racism.
In short, the NYT spun the hell out of the story to make Bundy appear to be a blatant racist. In reality, he doesn’t appear to be a racist at all.
Look, I think Bundy is a fool; IMO, he’s just trying to take something to which he no longer has any legal right. He’s also IMO conned a huge number of other fools into buying his BS and supporting him. He doesn’t deserve support; he needs to pay what he owes and comply with the law – whether he agrees with it or not.
And he certainly could have phrased his comments in that interview better. Some of the language is today offensive.
But the full text hardly shows what the NYT claims. The man is 67 years old, is naïve, and didn’t realize the mainstream media’s inherent bias and agenda. He assumed that the person to whom he was talking could be trusted, so he spoke honestly using plain language. The NYT took full advantage of that to make him look like a racist bastard virtually advocating a return to the “bad old days” via selective quotation, omission, and innuendo. The full transcript clearly shows that’s not the case.
In short: the NYT used a grain of truth and a ton of spin to send a message very different from reality. In effect, they lied in the most effective way possible: by selectively using tiny bits of the truth taken out of context to send an overall message that is false.
I think we all know precisely why the NYT did this. I won’t bother to restate the obvious.
Significantly, most of the rest of the media bought the NYT’s lie – hook, line, and sinker. Fact check, anyone?
Sheesh. Maybe the NYT should change their masthead motto from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the spin that helps our cause.” Afterwards, at least that much of what they print would be true.
They won’t, of course. But IMO they damn well should.
The Washington Post‘s editorial board took hard right turn this morning when they decided to criticize the Obama Administration for dithering when it comes to the “red line” that John Kerry drew for the Russians last week;
Thursday, Secretary of State John F. Kerry was very explicit about U.S. expectations. “We fully expect the Russians?.?.?. to demonstrate their seriousness by insisting that the pro-Russian separatists who they’ve been supporting lay down their arms [and] leave the buildings” in eastern Ukraine, he said. “I made clear to Foreign Minister [Sergei] Lavrov today that if we are not able to see progress?.?.?. this weekend, then we will have no choice but to impose further costs on Russia.”
The weekend has come and gone, and far from standing down in eastern Ukraine, Russia has continued to escalate. Its operatives and those they control have not withdrawn from the government buildings they occupy. In Slovyansk, the crossroads where Russian military operatives appear to be headquartered, a shooting incident early Sunday morning has been seized on by Moscow’s crude propaganda apparatus, which is claiming — based on what looks like fabricated evidence — that a Kiev-based right-wing group was involved.
When the White House loses the Post, they’ve lost most of the country. Meanwhile, Joe Biden was in the Ukraine today “pushing for peace” according to Fox News. That doesn’t seem to have worked so well, since, while his seat at the table was still warm, the Ukraine government announced more “anti-terror” operations reports the Associated Press.
Terrorists “are beginning to torture and kill Ukrainian patriots. They are impudently rejecting the calls of not only our country but of all the world’s society when they demonstratively mock the decisions taken in Geneva,” he said.
“These crimes are being done with the full support and connivance of Russia,” Turchynov added.
The acting government, which took over after President Viktor Yanukovych fled to Russia in February, says Russia is behind the outbreak of unrest in eastern Ukraine with the possible aim of provoking violence that could be used as a pretext to invade. Last month, Russia annexed Crimea several weeks after seizing control of the peninsula.
Kerry and Biden should not look for help from Republicans. Bob Dole injected himself into the discussion yesterday by telling the administration they should send small arms to the Ukraine. I just saw Bill Richardson on Fox News saying the same thing.
The time to act tough with Russia passed years ago. A crawler at Fox News says that the Obama Administration wants to deploy 600 troops to the Baltic states to act as speed bumps if the Russians feel froggy. Being a pussy has a price, unfortunately, that price is going to paid by the troops…as always.
ADDED: PintoNag sends and NBC News link about the 600 troops going to the Baltics region.
The first company of soldiers (members of the 173rd Airborne Brigade) will arrive in Poland on Wednesday, officials said.
Three additional company-size units will deploy to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania for similar infantry training and exercises. They will be in place in all four countries over the next week.
Pentagon spokesperson Rear Admiral John Kirby said the bilateral exercises were a result of Russia’s actions in Ukraine.
Kirby added that “since Russia’s aggression in Ukraine” began, the U.S. has constantly been looking at ways to reassure U.S. allies and partners.
Look! It’s an election year! Time for the media to scare the low-information voters again. CNN’s Peter Bergen and David Sterman from the “New America Foundation” write a piece at CNN which warns that right wingers are more dangerous than Muslim extremists based on a simple statistic;
According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).
By contrast, terrorists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology have killed 21 people in the United States since 9/11.
See? That’s how easy it is to understand; 34 is a bigger number than 21, so Bergen and Sterman are right. But, you have to look a little deeper at the people they’re calling “right wing terrorists”. For example;
In 2009, for instance, Shawna Forde, Albert Gaxiola, and Jason Bush raided a house in Arizona, killing Raul Flores and his daughter Brisenia. The three attackers sought to use the burglary to finance their anti-immigration vigilante group, Minutemen American Defense. Forde and Bush were convicted and sentenced to death. Gaxiola was sentenced to life in prison.
Coincidentally, that case was when this blog split from Little Green Footballs’ Charles Johnson. Jason Bush was the ringleader of that little venture, he was pretending to be a retired special forces master sergeant, but he was just a career criminal who had mesmerized a few disorganized anti-immigration bigots. The murder was a crime, hardly terrorism.
Berman and Sterman give only two examples of “right wing terrorism” and then they resurrect the Timothy McVeigh zombie to bolster their vacuous “research”;
Of course, the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing, which was masterminded by Timothy McVeigh, a man with deep ties to far-right militant circles. McVeigh killed 168 people when he bombed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building on April 19, 1995.
Despite this history of deadly violence by individuals motivated by political ideologies other than al Qaeda, it is jihadist violence that continues to dominate the news and the attention of policy makers.
I guess it would be inconvenient if I mentioned a few left wing terrorists at this point like Floyd Lee Corkins, who was influenced by left wing hate speech to try his hand at a mass shooting in the offices of the Family Research Council – that’s terrorism, fellas. Unlike Jason Bush who was only robbing his victims, Corkins’ intent was to just kill people to punctuate his political statements.
But, yeah, I guess this is the next shiny object to use to distract the attention deficit Headline News viewers/voters from the scandals and incompetence of the current administration.
And to distract from this CNN story about 100 decimated al Qaeda leaders at a very public convention in Yemen.
But, yeah, let’s take our eyes off the al Qaeda ball and start hunting people with opinions different from most journalists.