Make no mistake, I am a big fan of Joe Biden and also of the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation has done incredible humanitarian work with neither Bill nor Hillary taking a dime of profit from it. Having said that, let’s take a look at an interview by Casey Hunt on MSNBC today, Thursday, September 1, 2016 at a little after 12:00 pm.
This interview epitomizes the problem of the press and interviewees. Nothing really big or earthshaking, but just a small example of how the press fails in its efforts to get at the truth.
Hunt: Do you think Americans should be concerned at all about the ethics of the Clinton Foundation? Has the Clinton Foundation always been 100% ethical in your view?
Biden: Look, I think that the Clinton Foundation, like all foundations have found themselves in a position where things are changing and I think she’s gonna change and adjust to the realities of how complicated it’s all become.
This is a masterful piece of meaningless rhetoric, saying nothing, not answering the question. The question was “Has the Clinton Foundation always been 100% ethical in your view?” The answer is yes or no. I don’t mind if he wants to clarify or qualify his answer.
He says the Clinton Foundation has found themselves in a position where things are changing. Does that mean that they’ve been caught being unethical and won’t do it anymore? How have things been changing? The light has been shone on them and so what do we see? All Biden says is that they are going to have to change.
So one of the changes will be that they won’t accept foreign donations. But that doesn’t do anything, really. Any donor, domestic or foreign, could be wanting favors in return. So far no one has shown any case of a quid pro quo in donations to the Clinton Foundation. Only donors who have also had relationships with the US Government.
Here’s a question: How likely is it that any major donor would not have some interaction with our government? Anyone with enough money to make a million dollar or more donation to any foundation would be bound to have other things going on.
But I digress. Here’s Biden giving a non answer and making it sound like an answer. Casey Hunt seems to think it’s an answer and goes on to her follow up question.
Hunt: And is she clearing herself up with that? Should the Foundation have stopped taking foreign donations now?
Biden: Well, I think you’ll see them stop taking foreign donations.
He doesn’t put it in a time frame. The Clinton Foundation has already said they would stop taking foreign donations if she is elected. So his statement is meaningless.
Does this bore you? Is it too much hair splitting over nothing?
That’s why they do it and get away with it. The press and politicians are just going through the motions of seeming to have a rational discussion, each acting as if the other has addressed the issue. And it all goes breezing by the public eye. All the people who hire the broadcasters want to know is: are people watching?
Just think about the questions that remain after this short conversation between Hunt and Biden. Are these interviews even worth it?
In the best of all worlds Casey Hunt would have said, “But do you think the Clinton Foundation has been 100% ethical? What percent ethical would you say they have been?” And she would insist on an answer, and the viewers would want an answer to the question.
That’s in the best of all worlds, which it certainly isn’t right now, at least with regard to honesty in politics.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Veteran's Benefits
Senate Republicans defeated a bill by Bernie Sanders that would have addressed a wide range of current veterans problems. We are all appalled by the fact that many veterans do not receive proper care after they have fought for this country. We all know that those who fought for our country deserve to be taken care of. There's no question.
I hate the commercials that urge us to support veterans by making donations to charitable organizations for their care. It rings the bell loud and clear: Why do we need to do that? Isn't the government taking care of our wounded soldiers?
There is a lot of quacking about taking care of our troops by the same Republicans who voted against this bill. Their false devotion to the troops is obscene.
It would have cost 21 billion dollars over a ten year period. That's a little over 2 billion dollars a year. The U.S. military budget for 2015 was 598 billion dollars. The proposed legislation would have cost .3% of the total military budget.
The total expenditure for veteran's benefits was 160 billion dollars in 2015. The federal budget was 3.8 trillion dollars. These numbers are so incredible that the mind balks at understanding what they mean. Simply speaking the increase of 2 billion dollars is mind boggling. But that is actually .05% of the national budget, 5/10,000ths of the national budget.
Like Senator Everett Dirksen (R) Illinois said many years ago, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
I personally cannot think of anything in the military costs that tops taking care of our wounded soldiers. They protect us, do the actual fighting. They need weapons, planes, boats to be sure. But we need them and we need to protect them.
Now the above is the truth. The numbers are correct. I believe the national sense that we should take care of our wounded soldiers is correct.
The vote was 56-41. It needed 60 votes to keep it alive. Only 2 Republicans voted for it. I said at the beginning of this blog that Republicans defeated the bill. That, too, is a fact.
The logic was that we can't afford it. I say that the cold pencil, the accounting mentality in the face of serious human need is unconscionable. The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a perfect example of the kinds of problems we face when representatives fail to do what is right for the people of the United States. And the problem is not the legislature. It's the Republicans in the legislature.
So when the newscasters say that congress is deadlocked it is grossly misleading. Some of them do say that the Republicans defeated a proposition, but generally they are a little vague about it.
Put this in the context of how we want to run our country, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be partisan, I'm not really all that fond of the Democrats either. But they certainly seem to be the lesser of two evils.
One last thing. Mathematicians say that when you have a difference in the order of magnitude you have a difference in kind. I may not be all that crazy about the Democrats but the Republicans are taking it to another level, another order of magnitude.
I hate the commercials that urge us to support veterans by making donations to charitable organizations for their care. It rings the bell loud and clear: Why do we need to do that? Isn't the government taking care of our wounded soldiers?
There is a lot of quacking about taking care of our troops by the same Republicans who voted against this bill. Their false devotion to the troops is obscene.
It would have cost 21 billion dollars over a ten year period. That's a little over 2 billion dollars a year. The U.S. military budget for 2015 was 598 billion dollars. The proposed legislation would have cost .3% of the total military budget.
The total expenditure for veteran's benefits was 160 billion dollars in 2015. The federal budget was 3.8 trillion dollars. These numbers are so incredible that the mind balks at understanding what they mean. Simply speaking the increase of 2 billion dollars is mind boggling. But that is actually .05% of the national budget, 5/10,000ths of the national budget.
Like Senator Everett Dirksen (R) Illinois said many years ago, "A billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money."
I personally cannot think of anything in the military costs that tops taking care of our wounded soldiers. They protect us, do the actual fighting. They need weapons, planes, boats to be sure. But we need them and we need to protect them.
Now the above is the truth. The numbers are correct. I believe the national sense that we should take care of our wounded soldiers is correct.
The vote was 56-41. It needed 60 votes to keep it alive. Only 2 Republicans voted for it. I said at the beginning of this blog that Republicans defeated the bill. That, too, is a fact.
The logic was that we can't afford it. I say that the cold pencil, the accounting mentality in the face of serious human need is unconscionable. The only conclusion I can draw is that this is a perfect example of the kinds of problems we face when representatives fail to do what is right for the people of the United States. And the problem is not the legislature. It's the Republicans in the legislature.
So when the newscasters say that congress is deadlocked it is grossly misleading. Some of them do say that the Republicans defeated a proposition, but generally they are a little vague about it.
Put this in the context of how we want to run our country, and I'm sorry, I don't mean to be partisan, I'm not really all that fond of the Democrats either. But they certainly seem to be the lesser of two evils.
One last thing. Mathematicians say that when you have a difference in the order of magnitude you have a difference in kind. I may not be all that crazy about the Democrats but the Republicans are taking it to another level, another order of magnitude.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)