Psychopolitik 2.0

Found this amusing.  All emphasis mine:

The U.S. government admitted in April that it had wrongly deported a North Carolina native, but newly released documents show that federal investigators ignored FBI records and other evidence showing that the man was a United States citizen.

At the time of Mark Lyttle’s deportation, immigration officials had criminal record checks that said he was a U.S. citizen. They had his Social Security number and the names of his parents. They had Lyttle’s own sworn statement that he had been born in Rowan County, N.C.

None of this stopped them from leaving Lyttle, a mentally ill American who speaks no Spanish, alone and penniless in a country to which he has no ties.

Lyttle’s 350-page federal Department of Homeland Security file, released to The News & Observer, shows that the government deported him entirely on the basis of some of his own conflicting statements, even though agents knew that Lyttle is bipolar and has a learning disability.

I guess they got bored with “papers, please” & decided to give “never mind your papers, we don’t care” a spin…

I’ve had the following bouncing around in my head for a bit, figured I’d let it out and see what response it got…

It’s happened throughout human history: sometimes people have unexpected problems come up. Sure, if an individual has the resources they can stock up in preparation, but then that would mean by definition they weren’t unexpected. Realizing this, some decided over time to pool small amounts, basically as a hedge on the possibility of some among the group facing a hardship they couldn’t address alone.

Historically, these kinds of groups started out based solely on cultural & immediate geographical ties. From crude tribal ties, to things like mutual aid associations, to the modern concept of insurance, the idea has remained simple, that you regularly pool some resources with the assumption that should the worst occur you can get enough to help.

Or, to put it another way, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Sound familiar?

Now, when Marx said it he envisioned people with unequal abilities only getting what was absolutely necessary, so it’s not the exact same thing. However, the concept is related in that with insurance you pay what you can and take out what you need, just with an emergency-centric definition of “needs”. If I understand the basics right, then the departure from direct administration of such pooling of resources to the current system is that people are paying a 3rd party to operate the pool for them. To reattach with the latest debate, the argument towards health insurance companies is that the administrators are abusing their position, defeating the purpose of the pools they run for their own gain.

That charge is an understandable one. Keep in mind though, we don’t just pool resources to pay for health care. Ostensibly, collective responsibility for defense against force is the most basic purpose of the modern state, and they haven’t exactly been faithful humble servants either. In fact many people, myself included, think the administrators of this “insurance policy” are a living contradiction, and would like to see them put out of business.  Where’s my option?

A couple of thoughts I’ve reached based on this:

-If collective provision for things is somehow evil, as the Right insinuates, then I’m not sure how they even explain insurance itself as a concept. As if the convenient nudging aside of the military wasn’t dissonance enough…
-I can understand why mainstream liberals question the insurance companies, and I’m no fan of them either. But at the same time, and for similar reasons, I question government as well. Why is it seen as so awkward to question both?

(cross-posted to FreedomDemocrats)

Josh Marshall, earlier today:

I’ve been poking around. And I’ve heard of several major national corporations planning to dramatically scale back the health care coverage they offer employees starting this fall.

I wonder why…

Flipping through channels, stopped on ESPN2 & heard the following before commercial: “There could be rallies for AND against Michael Vick outside of the next Eagles game.  Does race play a factor?”

I dunno.  Maybe ask this guy about it…

Coprophilia cop·ro·phil·i·a
N. An abnormal, often obsessive interest in excrement, especially the use of feces for sexual excitement.

Example:

A CIA inspector general report released Monday in a less-redacted version reveals that “prolonged diapering” was on the agency’s list of approved “enhanced” interrogation techniques. The revelation is in Appendix F, included in the IG’s report on page 149, as part of a set of guidelines for “medical and psychological support to detainee interrogations.” The document is dated Sept. 4, 2003.

According to American Civil Liberties Union staff attorney Jameel Jaffer, this is the first document released publicly which categorizes diapering as an enhanced interrogation technique. Another ACLU source told RAW STORY that while they are familiar with the use of diapers on clients being transported, this is “news to us.”

The document in Appendix F of the IG report reads: “Captured terrorists turned over to the CIA may be subjected to a wide range of legally sanctioned techniques, all of which are used on U.S. military personnel in SERE training programs. They are designed to psychologically ‘dislocate’ the detainee, maximizing his feelings of vulnerability and helplessness, and reduce or eliminate his will to resist our efforts to obtain critical intelligence.” [...] The appearance of diapering on the list [of approved techniques] seems to contradict an Office of Legal Counsel memo written by former Bush administration lawyer Steven Bradbury in 2005. (emphasis mine)

There’s no other explanation for that.  Much like the other torture methods that were used, watching someone shit himself and be forced to stew in it has zero intelligence use, so the remaining conclusion is that Bush’s OLC contained people who either themselves were scat-fetishists or assumed that CIA interrogators were.

Q: When can you take a position, do so terrible at it that you end up fulfilling the exact opposite of the alleged goal your job is supposed to have, prompting people who previously didn’t even think about it to question why your job exists at all, and still get recommended to keep it?

A: When that position is Federal Reserve Chairman:

U.S. President Barack Obama will nominate Ben Bernanke to a second term as chairman of the Federal Reserve Tuesday, keeping him on the job of guiding the world’s largest economy out of its deepest downturn since the Great Depression.

Obama will make the announcement in Massachusetts with Bernanke at his side and will praise Bernanke’s “bold actions” to save the financial system from collapse, a senior administration official said Monday.

Bernanke, whose appointment to a new, four-year term as head of the U.S. central bank must be confirmed by the Senate, has flooded crippled financial markets with hundreds of billions of dollars in Fed liquidity and stepped in to attempt rescues of failing financial institutions such as Bear Stearns and AIG.

Obama’s Democrats control the Senate, but Bernanke has faced criticism from lawmakers of both parties who say he has gone too far in extending Fed support that will be difficult to unwind, threatening future inflation.

Yeah, those were some bold actions alright.  So bold in fact that the bill to audit the Federal Reserve currently has enough co-sponsors in the House to pass.  Considering how the Fed came to exist in the first place, using its power in such a way that so many in congress suddenly feel the need to at least pretend they give a fuck what it does reeks of Fail.

BTW: I love how transcripts of these kind of announcements and speeches end up leaked ahead of time.  The more reminders that politicians, like actors, make their living reading nonsense off a script, the better.

@Mike G re: this, in the order listed:

• This is, at least to me, more open ended than it sounds.  What definition of “private property” (or even “impossible”) are we working with here?  I personally believe that property in land & natural resources is already impossible without government (recognizing such subsidizes their separation and depletion), but obviously the question goes beyond that.  Do you mean “impossible” as inconvenient to the point where no one would bother, or do you mean LITERALLY impossible?  Not to say I’d prefer the state, just wondering where the line is.
• Hell no.  That’s what actually happens anyway, that’s not a reason to support government.
• Seeing as how I don’t have any of those type of benefits I can discern, I don’t see why not.
• Um…define “beat”.  If you include spanking, then whose gonna stop me?
• I’d still do it.  Besides, it’s not like it’s all that great now anyway.
• The state is just formalized force anyway, if someone seriously decided they rejected freedom then they could go join some group that was left over that’d tell them what to do & leave everyone else alone.  They’d have a choice, as opposed to now where I don’t.
• Nope, good riddance!
• Like I said about land above, IMO they are in fact impossible.  Hell, IP is to an extent impossible even in current society, being subject to death by millions of tiny cuts every day.
• No.

BTW: from what I can tell, Mike means to indict utilitarian reasoning for anarchism.  I get how fragile it is alone, but at the same time I don’t think rejecting it 100% is helpful to achieving a post-state outcome.  If this is the first thing you drop on the average person they’re likely to think you’re nuts.

“We’ve replaced the fear of firearms ownership they’re used to with a pro-gun argument from the Left.  Let’s see if they can tell the difference…”

BTW: Before anyone barks, I’ve already explained before what I think of such displays.  My issue is obviously with the consistency of the sentiment expressed, not their right to express it.

Edit: Wow, I’m already getting accused of being not only a teabagger, but a racist troll.  Maybe I should’ve picked a different name for TPM, damn my boredom with having one web identity…

Edit: That went south quick.  Anyone know if TPM bans people?

Whoever this is, it’s more accurate to say they’re a fierce proponent of capitalism, not of free markets.  Read between the lines.

Psst…Belinda: It wasn’t the shorts.  They’re just not used to someone stepping off of Air Force 1 that looks like THAT in shorts, and you know what I mean.  She’s black, get over it.