This is one of the issues Dredd Blog has been pointing out over and over through the years.
For example, in a fairly recent post, we pointed out a major myth, the myth that the military is the most competent institution in America:
In the first post of this series, we pointed out that most Americans polled in an annual Gallup Poll think that the military is the most competent institution in America.(Stockholm Syndrome on Steroids? - 2). Is there a new definition of "competent" like "you're doin' a heckuva job Brownie", or is it that we have forgotten Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, those wars that continue on and on, longer than WW I and WW II combined?
In that post we perused Gallup Poll figures from 2009, as shown on the graphic to the left (red lines added).
Today in 2011, the military is still seen as the most competent American institution, according to this year's Gallup Poll, even though the wars they are prosecuting are not at all popular.
The military destroyed Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, with millions of civilian casualties, and economic catastrophe at home, as well as within those nations.
Their destruction was conducted with a "competence" that leaves nothing to show for it, except dysfunctional government there, and a plutonomy built by the immoral greed and lust of the 1% plutocracy, here at home.
We spend more on the military, all things considered, than the other peer nations combined, so lets ask how "our most competent institution", the military, is paying us back:
How can we gauge what has happened to America in the past few decades and where we stand today? One way is to look at how America now compares with other countries in key areas. The group of twenty advanced democracies—the major countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, the Nordic countries, Canada, and others—can be thought of as our peer nations. Here’s what we see when we look at these countries. To our great shame, America now has(Orion, March/April 2012). Once upon a time there was a better path we were on, when the middle class was growing and prospering, but at some point in time a plutocracy began to form, a plutocracy that fed on military spending.
• the highest poverty rate, both generally and for children;
• the greatest inequality of incomes;
• the lowest social mobility;
• the lowest score on the UN’s index of “material well-being of children”;
• the worst score on the UN’s Gender Inequality Index;
• the highest expenditure on health care as a percentage of GDP, yet all this money accompanied by the highest infant mortality rate,
the highest prevalence of mental health problems, the highest obesity rate, the highest percentage of people going without health care due to cost, the highest consumption of antidepressants per capita, and the shortest life expectancy at birth;
Sly & The Family Stone
• the next-to-lowest score for student performance in math and middling performance in science and reading;
• the highest homicide rate;
• the largest prison population in absolute terms and per capita;
• the highest carbon dioxide emissions and the highest water consumption per capita;
• the lowest score on Yale’s Environmental Performance Index (except for Belgium) and the largest ecological footprint per capita (except for Denmark);
• the lowest spending on international development and humanitarian assistance as a percentage of national income (except for Japan and Italy);
• the highest military spending both in total and as a percentage of GDP; and
• the largest international arms sales.
We came to a fork in the road, then took the wrong path, and thereafter that plutocracy began to eat away at, and to gorge themselves on, the middle class.
Soon enough, a plutonomy replaced the middle class driven consumer economy, which was accelerated by the events following 9/11.
Events that are now seen by many to have been as mythical as the WMD-in-Iraq myth, instilled in the populace by the warmongers of MOMCOM:
At least that is the case if one gives credence to multi-district litigation taking place in the federal district court in Manhattan, concerning the 9/11 attacks, accusing Saudi Arabia of bankrolling that terrorism.(Fighting Terrorism For 200 Years - 2). So Saudi Arabians made up about 80% of the 9/11 attackers, and Saudi institutions bankrolled them.
Saudi Arabia is being sued for taking part in 9/11 by various insurance companies, the estate of a high ranking FBI agent, and family members who say Saudi Arabia conspired to kill their relatives on 9/11/01.
The MSNBC videos at the bottom of this post contain, first, discussions of the case between Chris Matthews of Hardball, ex-CIA agent Baer, and NY Times investigative reporter Lichtblau.
They discuss the sworn testimony of two U.S. Senators, one of whom was a commissioner on the 9/11 Commission, the other was the chairman of the Joint Congressional Committee overseeing the 9/11 issues.
Chris Matthews asks CIA agent Baer why the U.S. government did not go after Saudi Arabia back then, and why they still are not doing so now.
Agent Baer replied that it is because we needed Saudi Arabia to be on our side in the Iraq war then, they had big oil then, and still have big oil now.
But all we can do is hold hands with them, as we invade and destroy other nations abroad, all the while driving our middle class here at home into the ground.
In the post When You Are Governed By Psychopaths, we pointed out that this is not something to dance about.
The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.
Sly & The Family Stone perform "Everyday People":
