it’s a bit complex, but the primary thing to remember is, the people involved in this intelligence stuff often aren’t that intelligent. they’re not gods, they’re just humans trying to manipulate ideology to further their own ends. often they get what’s called blowback, where a covert operation backfires and ends up bringing violence to the people who initiated it. this can come from left wing reaction to right wing violence or, in this case, the tendencies inherent in right wing violence itself. for example, the american business community promoted the nazis heavily. union bank, coca cola, ibm, general motors all helped promote the third reich before and during its time in power. however, the sort of aggressive capitalism they promoted also has a tendency to turn against metropoles because of its basis in reaction. it’s not common that you can push urban dwelling left liberals to violence. typically, it has to be your socially backwards peasants and upwardly mobile middle class professionals who do it. take a look at some of the jobs of nazis and members of al qaeda and you find that they tend to be university educated (although because of the different time periods, nazis tended to be lawyers and bureaucrats more often, while al qaeda tends to be doctors and engineers). these are people who have been subsumed in the norms of their societies and see no reason to question them, but do have a problem with the way they can’t seem to get better jobs, so they come to believe the rich are promoting the “lesser classes” above them. they go to cities and see Others living there, americans in riyadh and jews in vienna, and conclude that their existence in that space is the problem. their solution is to put better rich in charge, to fix up capitalism so that it works “correctly”, rather than to end capitalism. now i’m not saying al qaeda and the nazis are the same of course, but rather going to the roots of right wing violence. the issue is, it’s the only sort of pro-capitalist violence that can be motivated, thus the metropole needs to use a force that is antagonistic towards the people of the metropole to defend itself. if it can manage that space well, as it did with indonesia, then there’s no blowback. if it’s handled poorly however, and by all accounts prince bandar hasn’t been handling it very well which was why he was removed from the portfolio, then you do get blowback. now there’s other issues too, of course, for why saudi arabia would sponsor wahhabis. there’s the deal made in 1745 that provided the initial class configuration for the saudi state, and the bureaucratic inertia that’s built up since for using islamist fighters to achieve policy goals. most of all, there’s the fact that it typically works. qatar’s success in turkey has been magnificent for them over the past decade and a half. even better has been the saudi conversion of syria and libya, formerly potential threats that needed to be appeased, into basket cases that threaten their own people more than the house of al-saud. in afghanistan in the 1980s, the potential for a functioning example of radical rule in another muslim majority country was effectively destroyed. in palestine, the communist-leaning PLO was co-opted into a capitalist institution in part by the threat of hamas. in egypt, nasser’s socialist cadre were cleansed from state institutions by members of the muslim brotherhood after sadat’s ascension. the class basis of the pakistani people’s party was wiped out by the islamization of zia ul-haq, whose coup was sponsored by the saudis. more often than not, the system functions. the issue is the contradictions produced by it, the problems i noted with right wing violence where it can sometimes realize the source of its problems, albeit in a disjointed manner, and turn on them.
Helena + storytelling
↳ 2x06 // 2x10
Since Colorado voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use in January, that vote has created more then 20 white marijuana millionaires who the Government has allowed to store their millions in U.S. Banks.
Keep in mind that there are more then 100,000 black and latino people who are in American prisons for the same simple possession and intend to sell marijuana.
BUT THEY MAKING WHITE BOYS MILLIONAIRES FOR COMMITTING THE SAME ACT!
Hey, so remember how Israel always falls over itself reminding us how much it cares about the well-being of the LGBTQ community? How it’s the “only safe haven for queer people in the middle east”? How it benevolently cares for injured Palestinians even though we’re all undeserving savages”?
Well, in a statement released by IDF intel officers refusing to serve, it was revealed that the IDF and Israeli intelligence in general blackmail sick and queer Palestinians into becoming collaborators and informants.
This is part of the testimonies of these officers:
"If you’re homosexual and know someone who knows a wanted person – and we need to know about it – Israel will make your life miserable. If you need emergency medical treatment in Israel, the West Bank or abroad – we searched for you. The state of Israel will allow you to die before we let you leave for treatment without giving information on your wanted cousin. If you interest Unit 8200 as a technological unit, and don’t have anything to do with any hostile activity, you’re an objective."
This is standard operating procedure. This is nothing out of the ordinary, this is not a special case. This is the logic of Israel, this is the logic of a colonial state, one built on ethnic supremacy, built on genocide.
At this point, any person saying that the IDF is a moral army, or that Israel cares in the slightest about human rights, then they need to do a 5 second google search, because this information is everywhere.
To keep repeating this lie means you’re either incredibly ignorant/being misled in an age where information is at your fingertips, or you’re an imperialist bigot.
#israel #Palestine #Gaza #ethnic cleansing #genocide #racism #homophobia #transphobia #biphobia #queerphobia #queer #ableism #torture #extortion #imperialism #zionism
Don’t trust white boys named Kyle
Long article but good stuff on Canadian health care. I cut out some of the history to save space, but you should check out the whole thing if you’re not familiar with the historical development of the national health care system.
Canada’s universal public health care system is a political football in American politics. Liberals cite it as a model, while conservatives use it is an example of government inefficiency that leads to substandard care and, even worse, death panels.
Liberals do have a stronger argument. Canada’s single-payer system has obvious advantages over its private-heavy American counterpart. There are lower administrative costs. A catastrophic illness will not result in bankruptcy for low- and middle-income households. Regardless of class, people generally get the care they need.
But the successes of the single-payer are habitually overstated — not because of outsized government involvement, but because public provision isn’t generous or expansive enough. Gaps have always existed in Canada’s system, and despite 90-plus percent public support, there’s been a slow-but-determined chipping away at the social program.
Universal health care in Canada may now be part of the national identity, but it was not inevitable. Constitutionally, health care falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government, however, is free to supplement its funding. This has led to many periodic clashes between the provinces — whose largest budget item is health care — and the federal government, without which a universal health system with certain minimum standards would be impossible.
But this history, which has taken on a hagiographic cast in Canada, omits the gaps in the system.
There was strong opposition during its creation, and conservative forces have continued to push for greater private involvement in health care as Canada restructures itself along neoliberal lines. As inequality has increased, the gaps have grown wider.
The two largest holes in Canada’s health care system are the lack of universal coverage for dental care and the inadequate defraying of optical and prescription drug costs. As of 2012, an estimated one in five Canadians — disproportionately women, the unemployed, and freelancers — did not have the supplementary private health insurance that foots the bill for these services.
While employer-offered supplementary coverage was once ubiquitous, the rise of precarious work has helped produce this two-tier system. And though First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples are eligible for public health coverage that other Canadians lack, colonialism and racism have contributed to lower health outcomes.
Canada has undergone a rightward shift over the past couple decades. Transfers to the provinces for health and social programs were slashed in the 1990s (though they increased modestly in the early 2000s during a time of budget surpluses). What was supposed to be 50 percent federal government funding for health care became 10 percent during the austere 1990s, and 20 percent in the early 2000s.
Now, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government is threatening to cut health expenditures again. A ten-year health accord between the federal government and the provinces expired on April 1. The federal government chose not to renew it, instead announcing that health care outlays will increase 6 percent per annum until 2017; subsequently, it will be tied to the rate of economic growth with a minimum annual increase of 3 percent. In the first ten years of the formula, this amounts to a $36 billion cut in provincial funding — wholly inadequate given Canada’s demographic shifts.
Provinces with older populations will be hit the hardest. Given the prevailing neoliberal logic, they will turn to more private delivery of services. It’s a strategic move to introduce the profit motive by structurally engineering the conditions for it.
The Harper government imposed further austerity when it acceded to the European Union’s demands on drug patents during negotiations over the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).
Canada’s pharmaceutical costs are the second highest in the OECD. (The US, of course, is first.) A full $11 billion could be saved through a pharmacare program. Instead, CETA will cost Canadians anywhere from $850 million to over $1.6 billion per year in higher drug costs, likely exacerbating the already-inequitable access to medication.
Then there is the Harper government’s almost sociopathic decision to cut refugee health care. Refugees from countries the Canadian government do not classify as dangerous will not receive comprehensive health care. The shrinking of coverage has been aimed at refugees like the Roma from Hungary. Although a recent court ruling deemed the cuts cruel and unusual and thus illegal, the government is vowing to appeal.
Canada finds itself in a vicious cycle. The often long wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery are played up by the press. Government deficits are adduced to justify a greater private role in health care delivery. Then amid the deficit hysteria, some provinces quietly drop coverage for certain services.
Universal health care is not just being eroded via underfunding. The federal government has been unwilling to enforce the Canada Health Act, which makes funding contingent on meeting certain standards. The lax regulatory environment has led to a proliferation of private clinics across Canada and inequitable access to some medical services.
Abortion access is also being curtailed. In July, a nonprofit women’s health clinic in New Brunswick was forced to close its doors after the provincial government refused to fund it.
Though there is no law regulating abortion in Canada, all provinces have varying restrictions on government-funded abortions. Women seeking an abortion have to meet a particularly high bar in New Brunswick. There, abortions are only covered when: performed before the sixteen-week mark, carried out by an obstetrician or gynecologist in a hospital, and after two doctors have signed off on the procedure.
Prince Edward Island (PEI) is even worse. The province doesn’t have a single medical facility that can perform abortions. This has led to instances in which women have harmed themselves because they didn’t have abortion access. Pro-choice activists have long argued these regional variations violate the Canada Health Act. Still, PEI Premier Robert Ghiz said this spring, “I believe the status quo is working.” He can get away with such comments and policy positions because the federal government has never intervened to ensure equitable access.
Finally, some physicians are using the courts to try to marketize Canada’s heavily public delivery model. The case of Dr. Brian Day in British Columbia (BC) could be the most serious legal challenge ever to single-payer. Day contends that patients should be able to access and pay for medical treatment without the wait times found in the public system. However, to really understand Day’s motivations, one needs to take into account that in 2012, the BC Ministry of Health found that his for-profit clinic was double billing — that is, sending a bill to both the patient and the provincial health plan.
Single-payer activists in the US have much to learn from the Canadian experience.
First, as far away as victory may seem, it doesn’t mean that one can demobilize upon achieving it. The only reason the overwhelmingly popular Canadian system is experiencing retrenchment is because of mass disengagement. Popular social welfare programs have long been under attack in the US as well. Even the Affordable Care Act, which extends coverage mostly by shoring up the private insurance system, was excoriated, and will continue to be excoriated. Winning single-payer will require people in the streets, before and after the bill-signing ceremony.
Second, universal in theory doesn’t mean universal in practice. There are still inequalities in health in Canada based on one’s economic position. The US is even more unequal. That’s why fighting for things like dental coverage and cheaper prescription drugs is so important.
The third lesson is to keep expanding. Even if certain services become universally covered, keeping the pressure to extend coverage is essential. Though there have been some calls from Canadian progressive organizations for a prescription drug program, there is very little pressure to do so. As long as the system is unable to cover more services, it is easier to undermine.
A fourth takeaway: a federal enforcement mechanism is needed. Given the inequities in Canada’s health care system, there is little choice but to fight for a national solution. That doesn’t mean that fighting for equality of access at the state or local level should be ignored, especially when it comes to abortion access. But a federal commitment to universality is essential.
Finally, look beyond the hospital and doctor’s office. Canada doesn’t do as much as it should when it comes to preventative health care. Politicians in Canada are certainly not talking about the social determinants of health. Poverty and inequality put pressure on the health system. They affect quality of life and impel more people to seek health care. A truly efficient health care system is one that works in tandem with strong anti-poverty programs.
Winning single-payer in the US would be an enormous achievement, one that would both reflect and require a shifting balance of power. While the US couldn’t and shouldn’t blindly ape another nation’s health care system, the Canadian case remains instructive.
It shows a single-payer system is feasible, desirable, and, above all, perpetually incomplete.
NO SCOTLAND CANT GO BECAUSE U KNO WHAT WILL HAPPEN NEXT QUEBEC WILL GO TOO AND WHAT THE HELL SCOTLAND PLZ NO AND WHAT THE HELL PART OF CANADAS HISTORYS GONNA GO TOO AND GREAT BRITAINS HISTORY BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT EVERYTHING IN WESTEN CIVILIZATION IS FALLING APART WITH THE ECONOMY AND YOU KNOW THIS IS TAKING A STEP CLOSER TO THE COLLAPSE OF EVERYTHING IN A SENSE AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I AM GENUINELY CONCERNED FOR QUEBEC AND NOBODY WANTS ANY PART OF A COUNTRY GONE BECAUSE YOU KNOW JUST DONT PLZ
crisse calme toi
7 billion people, 14 billion buttholes
a slight calculative error was madeanus georg
are you implying there’s a human named anus georg who posesses 7 billion buttholes
that is terrifying
he’d have 7 billion AND ONE buttholes
"We are pushing to make it illegal to sleep on the sidewalks of Waikiki, because we’ve heard from our hotel industry that it’s very concerned about keeping Waikiki as an attractive visitor destination," said Jesse Broder Van Dyke, spokesman for Mayor Kirk Caldwell.
Tourism officials say visitors are complaining about the islands’ homeless population, warning that they may not return for another vacation.
Caldwell gets several letters every week from tourists, especially from Asia, who write to complain about interactions they had with Hawaii’s homeless population, Broder Van Dyke said. The complaints range from seeing someone urinate in public to being upset after an intoxicated person confronted a family.