Military Industrial Swamp
October 30th, 2009 by Jon Taplin
From this morning’s Washington Post.
Nearly half the members of a powerful House subcommittee in control of Pentagon spending are under scrutiny by ethics investigators in Congress, who have trained their lens on the relationships between seven panel members and an influential lobbying firm founded by a former Capitol Hill aide.
Five of the seven are Democrats. Obama and Pelosi need to clean house. Get this ethics investigation going immediately so that if they are guilty we can get new candidates in place to run in 2010. As Obama said yesterday, the task of reforming the Pentagon has just begun. What he didn’t say was that the forces arrayed against that reform are mighty and corrupt.
Let’s see… the “investigators” gather some facts, do some interviews, get lobbied by folks who tell them that too many apple carts will turn over if they raise a speed bump on the highway to Hellandgone, and maybe write up some kind of report. The report gets slightly leaky on its way to the committee of legislators who are supposed to be overlooking, oops, overseeing, the “ethical behavior” of their colleagues in that “world’s greatest deliberative body.” The leaks let all the steam out of the general moral outrage, so that by the time the deliberations that are supposed to lead to strong finger-shaking and possibly even tongue-lashing, by the same people who write the rules that tell them what’s ethical and who themselves are deeply into the campaign financing/mother’s milk of politics trough, get under way, well, like who will give a rat’s ass as long as the “programs” and procurement keep on keepin’ on?
And even if by some miracle of diligence there are some prosecutions started, my money is on the Philadelphia and DC lawyers hired to defend the best representative government money can buy to Delay and hornswoggle ’til the cows come home. So if there’s to be a prayer of sending any Mr. Smiths to Washington via the bi-election, better get started putting ‘em up last week.
Quoth the lawyer, “My client has not violated any law,” and he can say it with a straight face, because the guys (including his client) who write the laws and their terribly bright staffs and lobbyists have made sure “the law” does not proscribe and punish “Seein’ their opportunities, and takin’ them.”
Rule of law? Government of laws and not of men? Har-de-har-har-har.
But the sentiment, to clean House (intentional pun?) is right on the money… so to speak.
Let’s see… the “investigators” gather some facts, do some interviews, get lobbied by folks who tell them that too many apple carts will turn over if they raise a speed bump on the highway to Hellandgone, and maybe write up some kind of report. The report gets slightly leaky on its way to the committee of legislators who are supposed to be overlooking, oops, overseeing, the “ethical behavior” of their colleagues in that “world’s greatest deliberative body.” The leaks let all the steam out of the general moral outrage, so that by the time the deliberations that are supposed to lead to strong finger-shaking and possibly even tongue-lashing, by the same people who write the rules that tell them what’s ethical and who themselves are deeply into the campaign financing/mother’s milk of politics trough, get under way, well, like who will give a rat’s ass as long as the “programs” and procurement keep on keepin’ on?
And even if by some miracle of diligence there are some prosecutions started, my money is on the Philadelphia and DC lawyers hired to defend the best representative government money can buy to Delay and hornswoggle ’til the cows come home. So if there’s to be a prayer of sending any Mr. Smiths to Washington via the bi-election, better get started putting ‘em up last week.
Quoth the lawyer, “My client has not violated any law,” and he can say it with a straight face, because the guys (including his client) who write the laws and their terribly bright staffs and lobbyists have made sure “the law” does not proscribe and punish “Seein’ their opportunities, and takin’ them.”
Rule of law? Government of laws and not of men? Har-de-har-har-har.
But the sentiment, to clean House (intentional pun?) is right on the money… so to speak.
Let’s see… the “investigators” gather some facts, do some interviews, get lobbied by folks who tell them that too many apple carts will turn over if they raise a speed bump on the highway to Hellandgone, and maybe write up some kind of report. The report gets slightly leaky on its way to the committee of legislators who are supposed to be overlooking, oops, overseeing, the “ethical behavior” of their colleagues in that “world’s greatest deliberative body.” The leaks let all the steam out of the general moral outrage, so that by the time the deliberations that are supposed to lead to strong finger-shaking and possibly even tongue-lashing, by the same people who write the rules that tell them what’s ethical and who themselves are deeply into the campaign financing/mother’s milk of politics trough, get under way, well, like who will give a rat’s ass as long as the “programs” and procurement keep on keepin’ on?
And even if by some miracle of diligence there are some prosecutions started, my money is on the Philadelphia and DC lawyers hired to defend the best representative government money can buy to Delay and hornswoggle ’til the cows come home. So if there’s to be a prayer of sending any Mr. Smiths to Washington via the bi-election, better get started putting ‘em up last week.
Quoth the lawyer, “My client has not violated any law,” and he can say it with a straight face, because the guys (including his client) who write the laws and their terribly bright staffs and lobbyists have made sure “the law” does not proscribe and punish “Seein’ their opportunities, and takin’ them.”
Rule of law? Government of laws and not of men? Har-de-har-har-har.
But the sentiment, to clean House (intentional pun?) is right on the money… so to speak.
Let’s see… the “investigators” gather some facts, do some interviews, get lobbied by folks who tell them that too many apple carts will turn over if they raise a speed bump on the highway to Hellandgone, and maybe write up some kind of report. The report gets slightly leaky on its way to the committee of legislators who are supposed to be overlooking, oops, overseeing, the “ethical behavior” of their colleagues in that “world’s greatest deliberative body.” The leaks let all the steam out of the general moral outrage, so that by the time the deliberations that are supposed to lead to strong finger-shaking and possibly even tongue-lashing, by the same people who write the rules that tell them what’s ethical and who themselves are deeply into the campaign financing/mother’s milk of politics trough, get under way, well, like who will give a rat’s ass as long as the “programs” and procurement keep on keepin’ on?
And even if by some miracle of diligence there are some prosecutions started, my money is on the Philadelphia and DC lawyers hired to defend the best representative government money can buy to Delay and hornswoggle ’til the cows come home. So if there’s to be a prayer of sending any Mr. Smiths to Washington via the bi-election, better get started putting ‘em up last week.
Quoth the lawyer, “My client has not violated any law,” and he can say it with a straight face, because the guys (including his client) who write the laws and their terribly bright staffs and lobbyists have made sure “the law” does not proscribe and punish “Seein’ their opportunities, and takin’ them.”
Rule of law? Government of laws and not of men? Har-de-har-har-har.
But the sentiment, to clean House (intentional pun?) is right on the money… so to speak.
I’m all for crucifying Democrats who get caught with their thumb in the pie.
If we root out all of the corrupt members of Congress, we’ll be about 430 members short of a quorum.
I’m all for crucifying Democrats who get caught with their thumb in the pie.
If we root out all of the corrupt members of Congress, we’ll be about 430 members short of a quorum.
I’m all for crucifying Democrats who get caught with their thumb in the pie.
If we root out all of the corrupt members of Congress, we’ll be about 430 members short of a quorum.
Don’t forget the ludicrous joke that is Charlie Rangel as top dog for House Ways and Means and Barney Frank as chair of the Financial Services Committee. These guys are full blown criminals.
And while we’re gnawing on our tongues, here’s one for John P (maybe you’ve seen it already) — ought to turn up the fires for you:
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/363428/Feds-Massive-Secret-Wall-Street-Bailout-Still-Going-Strong
We whine about corruption in the Land of Almond Eyed People and Where The Oil Flows From, but how about the above little reminder?
There’s a disease process, very fatal, called “disseminated intravascular coagulation,” where the unfortunate patient’s lifeblood is so screwed up that clots form everywhere, removing all the stable clotting factors from the blood so that the patient bleeds out from every tiny fissure and orifice.
“It seems to me
That I have heard this song before,
It’s from an old familiar score –
I know it well, this melody…”
indeed JTMcPhee. That one is a great. And by great, I mean the most enormous boondoggle in history.
One thing is for sure, it’s amazing watching these children in DC play around like it’s a game as they jockey for position and spend away our children’s future. They are parasites.
I can only agree with your anger , things are not working as they should. Tough times ahead. I dont understand Obama anymore , I know he inherited a mess but then where are the correctives ?
I believe it was Gore Vidal who said “Republican, Democrat – same suit, different tie.” I’m starting to feel a bit foolish for getting teary-eyed optimistic last election. Unless something dazzling happens soon, then it’s just business as usual.
I admire Obama, the man, for his accomplishments. I don’t admire the President for what he’s accomplishing. Or failing to.
I believe it was George C. Wallace that said, “Not a dime’s wutha difference between ‘em.”
Accomplishments? List a few. Then sit back and ask yourself exactly why people are so easy to fool. The answer is, because they want to be. Same trick; different party.
He isn’t Bush. Anything is up from that and the world will believe anything to keep from noticing the makeup crew, but the facts are the Beltway is one tough nut and if you don’t show up with a tough nutcracker, it’s a popcorn only movie.
I was just mulling this feeling that Obama isn’t getting much changed.
And it occurs to me that people who wish a President could just sweep aside opposition and dictate a new game are wishing for the same totalitarian rule they would undoubtably despise if held by an opponent.
It isn’t likely to do a Republic any good if it bounces from strong ruler to strong ruler.
I think history has borne out many times the folly in that.
A President is not supposed to be ruling, but responsibly executing a duty. And that office is not responsible for the flaws of Congress.
You have a point there, on the other hand to stop a war your administration didn´t start requires a bit of a strong sentiment for peace. Anyway I am no expert nor do I have a full briefing on the facts so my opinion is personal.
I don´t like wars nor kids getting killed (both way) for some obscure reason. In any country. Violence brings violence. But again I am just an old hippy.
On the other hand if a strong leader brings peace and prosperity to the world , hey, nothing wrong with that, and lets not fool ourselves, all leaders are strong , you tell me ( Vietnam, ect…) .
If the president is not responsible for the flaws of congress then where does the buck stops ¿
I want to say that I think Obama has already changed a tremendous amount both in this country and around the world. We will see how much in the coming months and years. Washington is a big battle ship that takes a little time to turn. In the meantime, if he does not get health insurance reform passed before the next congressional election (which means maybe this year? I don’t know), we will likely see a replay of 1994, and things will change for the worse.
The left has been intimidated by the John Birch Society and its heirs for so long that they begin to echo their narrative.
You are right, I just hope that all that saber rattling would stop cause I ll rather go on a song and not on a bang.
Mr. Burnett,
“The left has been intimidated by the John Birch Society and its heirs for so long that they begin to echo their narrative.”
Terrifyingly true. I just heard this interview on WNYC’s RADIO LAB (link below) – a sociologist has been asking random people the question – “will man ever stop fighting wars?” Apparently in the 80′s two out three interviewed optimistically said “yes”. Now only one out of ten hold out any hope for peace on earth. I can’t help but feel that that growth in cynicism has more to do with conditioning than observation or behavioral discoveries. Warmongers have framed the paradigm. We are to believe that man as a species is essentially aggressive and territorial – NOT hardwired for community and cooperation as Darwin so naively put forth.
And the worst part of it is that these days, those who don’t buy the meme, who hold a belief in man’s potential for co-existence, have to add a conditional to their opinion, like (apologies Bernard) they’re old hippies.
That’s bull. A desire for unity and peace still beats at the heart of man. It just gets the crap beaten out of it by those who’d profit the most from war, from the extremist to the Military Industrial Complex.
Anyway, here’s the link for those interested.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2009/10/02
Good analogy. It takes a well-coordinated and disciplined crew to turn a battleship.
And practice. Even very good players take time to get a crisp sound. Health care is just one act.
Bernard: the chief executive is not responsible for congress. Separation of powers is built into the constitution to prevent exactly that. Unfortunately, what the founders did not account for is a time when the money required to be elected is so large that as soon as a member is elected, they immediately have to raise money. That leaves them subject to the contributors and the party. The president is head of the party. That gives them some influence but the overlap of the contributors and the party creates a byzantine dynamic.
Today they don’t fear the people. They fear the money Obama’s machine raised. Somehow we have to change that from representation controlled by fear into representation led by values.
Old hippie thinking maybe but a lot of young realize the DFHs are right.
It takes a worried man to sing a worried song.
You don’t have to apologize to an old Hippie. I understand your drift and hope and work for unity in a common ideal as well, without dogmas, pure creation. Maybe mankind will finally get tired of fighting and shoot for the stars.
Money controls politics…not always, there comes a time when words ( the French revolution) have a meaning.History will tell you that when politicians loose grasp of the reality they falter. The moral of this is that you cannot build the future with your head buried in the past.
Ien. I know that the chief executive is not responsible for Congress but at the end he is responsible for the outcome of his administration.
Bernard, the “shot for the stars” seems to have been militarized from the get-go…
We are. He is responsible for the political capital he spends but not the price tags. The old saying is “pick your battles”. From the beginning Obama has been the focus of uneasy and conflicting coalitions who all want what they want as soon as possible. Given the times, the expectations are too high and the goals unrealistic in some cases.
Priorities clearly conveyed seem optimal but they come at the cost of letting some allies go wanting. When the press and the Beckbaugh is hammering at every sign of weakness or retrenchment, one has to learn to stay focused some number of spin cycles ahead. It’s a little like sailing; back and forth toward the dock.
Well said Ien.
Shoot for the stars is an analogy it means , end the wars , a new approach to medicine. transportation, energy, climate , rational use of resources food and a general political approach more in tone with peace and prosperity.. .
“Those who have eyes to see, let them see. those who have ears to hear, let them hear. Those who have mad up ‘military mission requirements,’ let them go to Israel Aircraft International or Grumman-Northrop or Textron or Saab or Oerlikon or FAL or Colt…” All of which are such whores of Babylon that they happily sell weapons of ass destruction to present and potential “enemy” states for whatever the traffic will bear.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/RUSSIA110309.xml&headline=Russian Air Force Seeks New UAVs&channel=defense
Hey, it’s not just about a steady income stream — it’s about finding every possible permutation of combat and conflict and niche of infliction of destruction, and designing and peddling a weapon system to fit. And then not giving a shit if it ends up being used on your own people, or on people who, having been shot up by your weapons, decide maybe YOU are an enemy too, or their government, even an elected one, gets killed off or deposed, and suddenly there’s a new swirl of chaos where you thought you had a “valued trading partner” or “trustworthy ally.”
Too bad we soft targets who pay for all this shit can’t get it through our thick skulls that the military industrial slime mold is a global organism, no respecter of nations or boundaries or decency, speaking a different and inhuman language, thinking machine thoughts, and living off pretexts of adversity just to make a good buck.
A bad omen indeed. So wars are created in order to sell more and better guns. No matter what ” have a gun will travel” is it ?
You know it comes to a point where reality becomes a total cliche of bad taste. Kish.
Dante´s inferno in 3D. awesome. I think I ll go and have a beer and meditate for a while…