Towards the American Dream

The Government Can Create Jobs | AFL-CIO NOW BLOG

2011-12-06T16:23:00.000-05:00

Renewing the American Dream requires opportunity. Opportunity for work. Opportunity to get a job.

Unfortunately, we are obviously beset by a crises in the lack of jobs (not to mention good jobs).

In looking to solutions, there is this troubling message about claiming that "the government can't create jobs."

Clearly, this claim flies in the face of history and reality:

The Government Can Create Jobs | AFL-CIO NOW BLOG

It also flies in the face of the fact that the alternative job creator that is suggested we should rely upon -- private industry -- is creating a woefully inadequate number of jobs currently. Furthermore, it is clear that we cannot depend on it to do so anytime soon as long as exists the economic reality of depressed demand for their products and services. And that demand will not rise as long as average Americans -- the long-neglected middle class and 99% -- continue to suffer through chronic joblessness, underemployment, and wage stagnation. It is a vicious cycle (which will not be fixed by the other big deception: that somehow "less regulation" and "lower corporate taxes" will somehow spur job growth).

One thing that would really help to take us out of this viciousness is a WPA-CCC type government jobs program. There are plenty of jobs that need to be done -- from repairing bridges to cleaning up parks -- and personally I am convinced that not only would the unemployed by happy to be able to earn some real wages, but most Americans would be happy to see tax dollars to something so worthwhile.

The Ongoing Price of 9/11

2011-09-26T10:08:00.000-04:00

This sums up some of the most important facts surrounding the wars and defense budgets since 9/11:

Anthony Gregory: The Priceless Price of the Post-9/11 Decade

The only thing missing here is the answer to the question: what do we do now?

The additional fact is that we can make ourselves more secure, and have the forces to combat the real 21st century threats to this country, while savings hundreds of billions a year. Well respected and thoughtful individuals and groups have studied the issue and offer some suggestions for how to proceed:

http://www.cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=37

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/10/barney_frank_ron_paul_and_55_o.html

What stands in the way is a military-industrial complex, a group of powerful and wealthy interests that are using their influence to get their way in Congress -- whether or not those decisions are indeed in the best interests of our armed services or our country.

Certainly, we need to eliminate the military trappings, systems, and weapons that were designed for the large-scale conventional and nuclear wars that were planned for during the Cold War of the last century, but which contribute nothing -- and in fact detract -- from our ability to fight the conflicts of the new century. This includes main battle tanks, pursuing numerous advanced stealthy bombers and fighters, nuclear submarines, and maintaining so many (11) carrier battle groups. It also includes our massive nuclear arsenals and network of hundreds of military bases around the globe -- in addition to our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan -- are not only unnecessary and expensive, but actually make us less safe, contributing to resentment of American military presence. The increasingly costly and unwise use of mercenary forces ("independent contractors") must be ended as well.

At the same time, we need to renew focus on defending us from the real threat posed by militant violent Islamacism. In combating this threat on the modern "battlefield," we must have the special forces, asymmetrical (non-traditional conventional) forces, and intelligence forces sufficient to do so. However, we must also better acknowledge that non-military means are at least as effective in opposing, diffusing, and reducing this threat.

In addition, not only must better provision be made to ensure that those on the battlefield have the equipment they need -- it is unacceptable to ever send soldiers and Marines into combat without proper body armor or armoured vehicles -- but our veterans must be honored with the medical (included mental health care) they need, as well as more adequate assistance with paying for education and obtaining employment in the civilian sector.

In a broader sense, a government and society which such a massive focus on militarism and war-fighting (we do, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, at the very least because we spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined), is not conducive or compatible with either democracy or fulfillment of the American Dream. Our current levels of military spending are not sustainable. We need to not only face this reality, but do something about it, before it is too late.

The Exploration of Space and the American Dream

2011-07-20T10:34:00.000-04:00

AFP: Astronauts brace for emotional shuttle landing

Unfortunately, along with the shuttle, we are going to lose so much of our experience and expertise in space exploration. We are instead left with an uncertain future.

This uncertainty is due to no small part to a decade marked by a lack of leadership. We are beset by presidents more concerned with launching missiles to destroy our fellow human beings than with building the rockets that will help lift humankind up in a spirit of cooperation; more committed to spending hundreds of billions on destruction than a relative paltry sum on exploration; more focused on sending talented, devoted Americans off to be maimed and scarred forever, rather than on missions that leave us all with a legacy of hope and wonder.

We must demand a future devoted to our best instincts and values, rather than plagued with war and death.

The dream of space exploration has become inextricably woven into the American Dream. To lose it, we lose a piece of ourselves. For even though a relative few have ventured into the heavens, they have take all of us with them. Whether it's the display of bravery or the hope of discovery, the lure of the unknown or the frontiers of science, the human story or the history of the universe, we are drawn into the spectacular drama of it all. It embodies so much of the best of our values as Americans, as well as the best of humanity. Especially when the course is laid through the efforts of individuals heralding from all corners of our Earth.

In our fascination with spaceflight, we all capture a youthful spirit. As a kid, I was caught up in the fascination. The children of tomorrow should be able to be similarly inspired. Let us make it so.

"No We Can't"?

2011-04-18T12:27:00.000-04:00

"We shall extract our resources, and we shall provide a market for products. We will provide a government that is as pliable as possible towards the encouragement of those two things, and all else is communism."

Daily Kos: No We Can't

This sentence, in my mind, is the essence of the American Nightmare that Hunter describes here and attributes to the Republicans. And the idea that America as a society, as a country, can accomplish nothing Together anymore -- with the possible exception of ongoing war, as he hints at briefly -- is truly disheartening. And unfortunately, despite the rhetoric of "Yes We Can," it doesn't appear that the Democrats, whom Hunter doesn't mention, for the most part offer much of an American Dream as an alternative. The vision that was heralded in 2008 seems to have proven to be largely an empty one. The results serving as merely a pale shadow of the possibility that could be represented by a real New American Dream. This would be a realized vision of a country in which militarism and empire are shed in favor of health care for all, the best education in the world, full employment, real democracy, and incredible national accomplishments such as a completely sustainable energy economy, the banishment of crippling diseases, and exploration of space. While fascinating, wonders of the consumer marketplace such as the iPad is not truly the product of "We the People" that will help fulfill and sustain the American Dream. While the American Dream is deeply personal, at the same time integral to it is the attainment of "great things" as a people, as a country, and as a society.

Warfare on Working People Threatens the American Dream

2011-02-25T09:57:00.000-05:00

Fire the Rich — Features — Utne Reader

The author here is indeed correct: the American Dream is under threat, as the wealthiest among us continue to use their greater influence to make the system benefit them, at the detriment of 95% of the rest of the population. If class warfare has been declared, is was declared long ago by the wealthy and not -- as too-opt alleged -- by working people who are trying to restore balance, fairness, and a chance at attaining the American Dream.

Are we fatally distracted by faulty political assumptions in this post-election period?

2011-02-20T16:34:00.000-05:00

If we are going to renew the American Dream, and make progress towards it in the political realm, we need to keep our eye on the ball, and operate from a place of political reality. Our understanding of the needs and wants of the American people must be correct. When considering compromise positions, we must have a factual perception of where the parties involved stand. Unfortunately, in the most recent post-election environment, our politics are driven by significant misunderstandings that are keeping us from making desperately needed progress.

The following piece features two of these misunderstandings:

NationalJournal.com - The Cook Report: Hang On Tight - Friday, February 18, 2011

While the general analysis of it is interesting, there are two unfortunate assumptions which have been all too common in this recent post-election period.

1. That the focus of American's concerns is the budget deficit.

This is a misnomer, and revisionist history. All the polls both pre- and post- election revealed what Americans are really concerned about. And my personal experience talking to literally hundreds of voters over many weeks during the election can attest to it. People are concerned about jobs and the economy. Period. Health care and education are a distant second. Our wars and the budget are barely on the radar right now.

Now, we can certainly debate over whether this is what we should be most concerned about, but this conservative fantasy that somehow Americans are obsessed with cutting spending and balancing the budget asap has infected our media and public dialogue. On the contray, Americans want to see good jobs, and farbeit from anti-government on this issue, are closely divided on whether the stimulus even went far enough. We need to change the dialogue, guiding by a correct understanding of the real desires of the American people.

2. The Republicans are "good at cutting spending."

A conventional wisdom that has little basis in reality. One only has to look at the 8 years of the Bush administration for evidence to the contrary. And Republicans (generally) have never seen a defense program, a war, a corporate tax expenditure, a fossil fuel industry subsidy, or a highway funding project that they didn't like. We need to change our language to reflect reality. Only then can we have a real discussion regarding federal government expenditures and revenues, and how best to address the budget situation into the future. For while the budget problem needs to be addressed in the long term, the short-term emergency is an unacceptably high employment rate and declining real wages. This is a problem that left unattended will destroy the middle class, and our country with it. However, the good news is, if it is properly addressed, it will go a long ways to resolving the budget deficit, as the relatively good economic times of the mid and late '90s can attest.

The People of Egypt Have Taugh Us Something About Liberty & Democracy

2011-02-11T13:49:00.000-05:00

The People of Egypt Have Done It! They Have Driven Mubarak Out! | Common Dreams

They have indeed done it. And it is more than just a victory for themselves. In doing so, they teach us an important lesson about liberty and democracy. These are lessons which should inform and inspire. There are in fact 4 important lessons which we as Americans should take to heart as we consider how view the world, how we act here at home, and how we fulfill the American Dream:

1. The Nature of Arab & Muslim Societies & Cultures

For some time -- and especially after 9/11 -- our media, entertainment, and culture has generally portrayed Muslim and Arabic peoples and cultures in a negative light, as extremists and terrorists. It is emphasized on a daily basis by political pudits and in action movies. It was evident in the comments of news reporters in their analysis of the days recent events, in their words of surprise that the demonstrators had not erupted into violence rebellion.

Now, the people have Egypt, in a profound and powerful way, have demonstrated the inappropriateness of those comments, the inaccuracy of those words, the offensiveness of those images, and the untruth in those portrayals. (Hopefully it will bring to light a history that stands in contrast to the negative characterizations: http://www.davidswanson.org/content/nonviolent-activism-middle-eastern ). They have shown not just incredible courage and resilience, but restraint and savvy. In fact, their movement has not only done us one better in terms of rejecting violence, but also in effectiveness.

2. The Nature of Leadership & Democracy

From almost the beginning, media also kept looking for a leader for this movement. Oft heard was the refrain "there is yet to be a face of this movement." On the contrary, there was a face. Or rather, a multitude of faces. They have shown not only the possibility, but the power and benefit, of movements which are democratic and decentralized, leaderful and not simply led. Their power was in their number and their commitment, and not simply in the speeches of visages of a single individual.

3. The Power of Nonviolence

Over and over again, we demonstrate how we believe that political change against oppressive regimes and illigimate dictators is accomplished through clash of arms and military force. It was a message that our country's "leaders" repeated ad nauseum as we invaded Iraq, and continue to do so as we continue the war in Afghanistan. But as the nonviolence revolutions demonstrated in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union two decades ago -- and Gandhi before them in India -- the Egyptian people remind us of the power of nonviolent action to effect real change. And it is change much preferable to that which comes from war, as we compare the dignity and hope of recent days in Egypt with the death and destruction of recent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. In truth, this contrast shows that the idea that real peace can come from war, that democracy can come from the decision of the few to invade, that justice can come from unjust conflict, is a big lie.

4. The Power of the People

We look to leaders and military might as the impetus and force for change. That, when the true power lies within ourselves as citizens. The people of Egypt reminds us how there is nothing that the people cannot accomplish if they unite together, with courage and determination, organized and committed.

*******

These are the lessons for us. The only question is: will we heed them? Will our elected officials do so? I have real hope that the American people will be inspired. Unfortunately, I have less faith in our elected "leaders." It begins with the policies that lead us to (once again) support self-aggrandizing oppressive dictators and brutish police forces using American-made tear gas. It continues with the belated and hesitant support of the protestors by our government, the ongoing billions to a military that stood by and watched peaceful demonstrators were killed by molotov cocktails, and the government support for a Patriot Act that commits into law some of the very trappings of tyranny that we decry in the Egyptian authoritarian rule (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/02/11-2).

We are now faced with a choice: are we going to be on the side of independent peoples striving for justice, liberty, opportunity, democracy, and self-determination, or are we going be compelled by militarism, fear, nativism, empire, and selfishness. Are we going to be guided by the values of the American Dream, or the perverse American Nightmare that threatens to destroy us.

Wind Power: A Preferable Alternative

2011-01-31T08:31:00.001-05:00

I have grown increasingly weary over time of the ignorant opposition to wind power in this state (and country). The following letter to the editor provoked me to finally send my own:

Wind farms, other boondoggles a burden on Ohio's economy | mansfieldnewsjournal.com | Mansfield News Journal

Dear Editor:

Subject: Wind Power: A Preferable Alternative

The letter entitled "Wind farms, other boondoggles a burden on Ohio's economy," which appeared in the January 24, 2001 edition, made several unsubstantiated claims. While all energy sources have some negative effects, alternatives such as wind power must be compared to conventional sources. In Ohio, this means coal. Such an evaluation shows that wind power wins on all counts.

Let's consider birds: fossil fuel based electricity causes many times more fatalities than wind farms per gigawatt hour. Even with more turbines, many times more birds are killed by each of automobiles, electric lines, hunting, cats, and even windows! (I'm sure the letter author would not advocate getting rid of cars to protect birds.) As for other environmental and health costs, while wind power is negligible, coal mining and burning contaminates water with mercury, destroys wildlife habitat, scars the landscape, puts harmful particulates into the air, and causes global warming. Worse, coal power has terrible health effects, including contributing to childhood asthma and causing estimated thousands of premature deaths each year. In terms of noise and appearance, wind turbines are much more benign and beautiful than dirty, ugly, loud, smoke-belching and smelly coal fired plants. With regard to space: wind farms also serve as agricultural farms. Meanwhile, coal mines destroy the land and produce toxic water ponds, while coal plants harm the livability of the areas surrounding them for miles. Addressing cost, wind power easily achieves parity with coal (or is cheaper!) if all the social, environmental, and health costs are factored in. Finally, conventional sources have are the unreliability of variable fuel costs, and plants shut down occasionally without notice. As a result, reserves are and will be integrated into any system with. In addition, no one is advocating depending totally on wind power: a mix of renewable sources are necessary.

Wind power may not be perfect, but an honest and fact-based assessment clearly shows that it is far preferable than the main alternative of coal. Farbeit from hurting Ohio's economy, wind power is an essential element if we are to ensure the clean and cost-effective energy sources on which a prosperous future depends.

Nathan Ruggles
Cincinnati (formerly of Akron)

So Much Accomplished!

2010-12-17T11:18:00.002-05:00

More funding for endless wars. Check.
Escalation of Afghan War. Check.
Taking military cuts off the table for deficit reduction. Check.
Inability to pass arms treaties. Check.
Closed-door meetings in the White House with CEOs. Check.
Taxpayer funding for massive giveaway to health insurance companies. Check.
Billions for banks (and not Americans threatened by foreclosure). Check.
Billions for corporations (and not small businesses and workers). Check.
Free trade agreements (that benefit corporations at the expense of workers and small business). Check.
Continued tax cuts for the well-to-do. Check.
Tax cuts on the estate tax on millionaires. Check.
Continued tax cuts for the wealthy. Check.
Still more tax breaks for the wealthiest with their investment income. Check.
No climate change legislation. Check.
No immigration reform and more funding for border guards. Check.

Boy, they got a lot done in two years! At least the minority in Congress got scraps from the table on health care, unemployment, and tax breaks for the neediest. Don't worry, things will get better once Dems get the Congressional majority and we get McCain out of office.
Oh, wait a minute....

America needs trains.

2010-12-04T17:25:00.001-05:00

Chinese Passenger Train Tops 300 MPH During Test Run : The Two-Way : NPR

We need more affordable, reliable, safe, clean transportation in this country. Trains offer us all of the above, compared to both cars and planes, which are relatively dirty, expensive, unsafe, and unreliable. (To those who say trains are unreliable in this country, I say: they do it well in Europe, while cars will always be plagued by traffic jams, accidents, and breakdowns, while planes are now saddled with security.)

Attaining the American Dream requires affordability, especially in this day and age with a disrupted and unreliable economy, declining competitiveness via other countries, and higher unemployment. Trains (especially when combined with good public transit in cities) offers this to us. It is more sustainable both as individuals and as a society. We then have more time and resources to pursue our American Dreams....

The Voter Fraud Myth

2010-11-09T13:58:00.000-05:00

Voter fraud would be a real threat to our democracy. That is, if it existed.

The truth is, it hardly exists at all (let alone systemically, as some would have us believe with their accusations towards those of us who worked to register voters in our with ACORN.)

This piece nicely sums us the facts and the argument:

Why would anyone commit voter fraud? - By Christopher Beam - Slate Magazine

Debunking any myths about voter fraud helps to pave the way towards good reforms like universal voter registration, something truly worth our time, attention, and efforts if we truly care about ensuring fair, secure, and genuinely democratic elections in this country. It would be a real step towards strengthening American democracy....and securing the American Dream.

Letter to Voinovich: Global Warming, Nuclear Energy, and Renewable Alternatives

2010-11-09T11:51:00.000-05:00

Clean, renewable, sustainable energy sources are essential if we are to continue and renew the American Dream.

A recent e-newsletter from our Ohio Senator George Voinovich prompted me to send a brief email his office on the subject (text below). As part of his "legacy," he is strongly supporting (re)development of nuclear energy. In addition to addressing what would be a horrid mistake, I addressed a related issue: All of his earlier e-newsletters began with the headline "The REAL Inconvenient Truth" followed by the current budget deficit amount. I felt a need to address this misguided feature.

We'll see if a get a response from the Senator's office.

Email text:

"Two items:

1. E-Newsletter

As a recipient of the newsletter, I am glad to see that you no longer headline it with the phrase "The REAL Inconvenient Truth." I agree wholeheartedly that the budget deficit is a real problem. But there is no reason to denigrate another real problem -- global warming -- while bringing attention to the budget concern. They both need attention.

2. Nuclear Power

I hope that if the Senator supports pursuit of nuclear energy, that he also believes in folding the FULL cost of safe storage, transport and disposal of the waste, as well as the cost of adequately protecting facilities from terrorist attack (by ground or air), into the cost of the electricity to the consumer. Anything less would be an unfair subsidy to be borne by the taxpayer.

Alternatively, I would encourage the Senator to redirect his efforts towards renewable sources that do not have the ill effects of extremely dangerous radioactive waste: wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal power.

Thank you.

Nathan Ruggles"

A Note on Third Parties: The Goal Must Be to "Spoil"!

2010-11-09T10:52:00.000-05:00

"Power never concedes anything without a demand; it never has and it never will."
- Frederick Douglas

I have believed for some time that one of the essential reforms needed to Save Our Democracy -- and therefore the American Dream -- is a multiparty political system in this country. We are too big and diverse for being restricted to "Coke vs. Pepsi" choices at election time when so many people may demand tea, or coffee, or some other "beverage" to quench their thirst for a responsive representative democratic system.

I engaged in a recent Facebook exchange on the recent election, and the question of the impact of third party candidates was broached, them being accused of "messing up" the election (for Dems).

With all due respect, we really need to stop with the third party blame game. I have grown so weary of Dems and Dem supporters wining about third party candidates (i.e. Nader, Greens) of spoiling their time. It is borne out of a rather arrogant and elitist attitude that someone their (major) party candidates automatically "own" or are "due" the votes from people who hold certain view or values (which mean they are reinforcing one of the key problems with the existing two party system). Furthermore, they essentially are complaining at fellow voters for not voting for their Dem candidates. Well, if you want someone to vote for your preferred candidate, my first response to that is: that's is the purpose of the campaign! You have your chance to convince people that your candidate is worthy of their vote. I say, take advantage of that opportunity (and frankly, for the two major parties, this is much easier than third parties). It you can't or won't, that's your own fault. If your candidate is essentially unworthy, blame them. It is unfair to scold people for voting for candidates that they actually like, and candidates for running on values and issues that are underrepresented.

If there is blame to be cast in this electoral system, the blame falls on the Reps and Dems for continuing a system that excludes third parties when they easily could allow us to rank candidates 1, 2, 3 (and thereby eliminate "spoilers.") The truth is that third party candidates wouldn't run if the major party (candidates) actually stood up for what the people wanted. And what better way to force major parties to rethink things than to deny them a seat that they somehow think that they own.

The sad fact is that we might wish third parties candidate to be able to "compete" first, but history and facts show that they will never be able to really compete in the system as it stand today, with the rules stacked against them. Also, in "safe" races third party candidates are seen as irrelevant by both the two major parties and the media.

The rules must change. But the Reps and Dems won't change a system that serves them well. They must perceive it's in their interest to change. I see the only way that that may happen is if third party candidates "spoil" their elections enough so that they will change the election rules to prevent it (by instituting Instant Runoff/ranked preference/choice voting). It may mean short term pain, but it is in the service of reform for the long term.

I am speaking as someone who has been on both sides, actively campaigning for third party as well as Democratic candidates. My conclusion is the same. Even having served the campaign of a Dem I understand the desire to vote third party. Even after dedicating my life for a time to getting a Democratic governor and congressional rep elected. Don't get me wrong; I believed strongly in my cause. At that time I tried my best to convince everyone -- including those considering third party candidates -- to voter our way. However, in the end, I do not "blame" anyone for voting third party. If I failed to convince, that's on me. If there are legitimate criticisms of my candidate(s) from the left, I have to acknowledge them and not cast stones. Anything else on my part would be sour grapes.

One benefit of third parties on the left is that is makes the Dems listen to progressives (and counter our overall rightward slide in this country). The recent gubernatorial election is a case in point. Strickland pulled out the rug from progressives when he torpedoed the ballot initiative for sick days in Ohio. He didn't pay attention to progressive forces (who helped get him elected the first time), leaving people to turn to third party candidates, or not vote at all out of lack of enthisiasm, or outright disgust (believe me, I talked to dozens of such people at the doors of their homes as part of my campaign job.) A strong third party in Ohio on the left might have helped wake Strickland up (and save him from himself electorally.)

Historically, third parties have also served an important purpose in our democracy, of being the originators of many reforms that are eventually adopted/coopted by the two major parties (witness Social Security and other reforms from the Socialists, and others from the Populists).

If those who whine about third parties (or actively try to illegitimately torpedo their efforts, as the Dems did to Nader in Ohio in '04) would spend their time pushing their candidates to listen to progressives, and get out there trying to convince voters that their candidates are worthwhile, we'd all be a lot better off.

Kasich Derails Our Future

2010-11-09T09:04:00.001-05:00

Passenger Rail would help take us into a better future in Ohio. Too bad our Governor-elect doesn't realize this:

Kasich to Strickland: Cancel all passenger rail contracts | Politics Extra

Even worse, his letter to Obama is nothing but political grandstanding. It's a poor attempt to try to cover himself from inevitable criticism for refusing $400 million from the feds, and getting in a plug on deficit reduction and highway funds. He knows that this money only can go towards high speed passenger rail projects, according to the law, the stimulus package passed by Congress. He knows that Obama can't change that. He knows that Governor elect Cuomo of New York has already asked for the funds to be sent to his state after he heard of Kasich's rejection:

http://online.wsj.com/article/APe7a07d45af0f46b9a850f2f7be2263ca.html

If this type of poor decision-making and political posturing is any foreshadowing of things to come under this new governor, we will see further cracks in the American Dream for Ohioans.

For some good info on Ohio high-speed rail:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ohio-3C-Quick-Start-Passenger-Rail-Plan/134456767470?v=wall

Energy-Independent Future for the American Dream....by the way of comedy.

2010-09-28T15:01:00.001-04:00

Once again, Jon Stewart provides a little bit of brilliance. Insightful. Enlightening. And of course, funny:

An Energy-Independent Future - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 6/16/2010 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

And I cannot resist sharing some choice quotes from it:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times...am I a %#$@ing idiot?"
"%$&! it, let's just use oil....I will not allow the dinosaurs to have died in vain."
"WE ARE AN UNSTOPPABLE OIL-DEPENDENCY BREAKING MACHINE! Unfortunately, that machine runs on oil."

The only think lacking is an answer to the question: how do we get out of this "sad, somewhat Groundhog-Dayish saga"?

For the American Dream to be fulfilled, for our country to know economic health and success -- not to mention (possibly, hopefully) freedom from entangling wars in oil-rich regions of the globe, and for the future health of our Earth -- it is clear we need to end our oil dependence. However, it is also clear that the rhetoric from both sides of our political partisans has not been matched by real action. The fact that it has gone on so long forces us to ask: why? For one thing, it must go beyond the issues or idosyncracies of any one Presidential Administration, or one decade. Our political system is broken when it cannot accomplish those tasks which we agree are necessary for our own prosperity, nay, survival. Our democracy is dysfunctional. Fixing it is the key to moving forward on this issue (and many others....but that is a discussion for another time).

There are some people who feel and know the power of the American Dream: immigrants

2010-09-26T14:31:00.001-04:00

A friend posted this to facebook recently and I'm so glad I took the time to watch it.

30 Days: Immigration on Vimeo

Morgan Spurlock has done some good work, but never has one touched my like this one, or caused me to reflect so much.

It brought a few things to mind, and now into words.

First, that there is something beyond our impersonal principles and politics, our theoretical polemics and postulates, our lofty ideas about how we think the world works or our often black and white view of how things should be. For these things can be so far removed from the reality of the world and the truth of our existence. Beyond them, there is something that can contain so much more truth, and holds greater importance: that is, our relationships with people, what we learn from the interaction with others, the understanding we gain from human experience, the connection we have as we look someone in the eye and really listen and realize who they are.

To paraphrase Frank, the central character in this excellent short program: "you can cling to political ideas, but an idea does not laugh, an idea does not cry, an idea doesn't have memories....an idea is not a human being." This is a story of human beings. And it is well worth watching.

Second, this program reminds me of the power of the American Dream. Frank has a powerful idea of what American is, and what it should be. Armida has her own idea of what she whats to accomplish in life; it is something deeply tied to the American Dream. It is interesting -- and shouldn't be surprising -- that people who have risked so much, tied so much of themselves and their hopes for a better life to this country, would have a particularly strong idea of what the American Dream is. It brings to mind how this country has been shaped by immigrants, and an immigrant spirit, one which has created and defined that American Dream. And these people in this program, give the American Dream life, a reality that goes beyond that idea to something deep in the human spirit.

The Decade: What Have We Wrought?

2010-09-20T18:40:00.000-04:00

The following chart, in stark terms, reveals to us what we have wrought during the last decade:

In Iraq, Still A Relative – And Deadly – Universe | CommonDreams.org

Nine years after 9/11, and nearing the end of this decade, this causes me to reflect. What began (at least from the point of view of most Americans) with 19 hijackers and 3000 victims, has escalated to hundreds of thousands of combatants and approaching a million innocent lives lost. (I take note -- a fact absent from the chart -- that a majority of those lives lost have been as a direct result of American military action, and not from that of al-Qaeda, terrorists, insurgents, etc). The response was ostensibly directed at exacting revenge against the director of the attacks, along with his organization, allies, and sympathizers. This number, mostly unacknowledged, certainly encompassed a relatively small number of individuals. This response soon exploded into massive military invasions costing billions in dollars. A response exacted upon peoples having nothing to do with the perpetrators of the attack on 9/11, other than possibly sharing a religious affiliation, perhaps a language, or maybe living in the neighborhood. And it continues on, despite rhetoric proclaiming otherwise.

What does this mean? What have we learned? What are the long-term consequences for our country? For our budget deficit, for how we are viewed around the world, or for the very soul of America? For the American Dream? Unfortunately, while what it means for us is inestimable, I fear we have not learned much. Or, at least, we have not learned the right lessons, beyond the aching hearts of the families of lost service members, and the lost hopes of those at home who suffer while our tax dollars are spent on death and destruction abroad. Beyond that, we rarely seem to think about these ongoing wars anymore, let alone discuss them, and would much rather forget about them. But the body counts and budget woes will not allow us to do that completely.

History is unfortunately littered with the carcasses and lost souls of civilizations who wasted themselves on military misadventures (as well as materialistic excess), at the expense of their economic and spiritual health. I hope that we can avoid that fate, and find our way again. I believe that path and inspiration comes may come with a change focus upon our American Dream.

Home Ownership is an Integral Part of the American Dream!

2010-08-17T11:10:00.000-04:00

Government Guarantees and Mortgage Loans | The Diane Rehm Show from WAMU and NPR

It seemed disgustingly easy for the program guests -- who undoubtedly own their homes -- to relegate numbers of their fellow citizens to a lifetime of rental housing. I find that abhorrent. It is not only an American value to own your own home, but it (generally) produces stability both in families, neighborhoods, communities, and the country as a whole. Why must we discard this bedrock American value because of mismanagement by private and pseudo-private entities? Perhaps it mean smaller homes, or more condos rather than houses, but why throw the home ownership baby out with the market mismanagement bathwater?

Military Still Failing To Diagnose, Treat Brain Injuries : NPR

2010-06-13T20:26:00.000-04:00

Military Still Failing To Diagnose, Treat Brain Injuries : NPR

This is disgusting. Men and women willing to give their lives for our country, for something bigger than themselves, and this is how they are repaid: with disregard and substandard care. Meanwhile we spend billions on weapons systems that we neither need nor the Pentagon really wants. There is something wrong with this picture....

The State Ground Zero is Grounds for Shame and a Sad Commentary on the Condition of our State

2010-02-25T02:28:00.000-05:00

Ground Zero - 60 Minutes - CBS News

We should be ashamed.

There is no excuse.

As the report said, they built the Empire State Building in a year in the middle of the Great Depression.

We went to the Moon in a decade.

When the ten year anniversary of 9/11 rolls around we'll be lucky if there's anything more than a big hole of dirt.

This is an unfortunate sign and symbol of the decay that has set in in this country. We have not headed warnings from the founders about the corrupting influences of corporate power and monied interests. We have ignored words of caution from the likes of Eisenhower ("beware the military-industrial complex") and MLK ("A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.") and wise political scientists (Paul Kennedy's "Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" of two decades ago warned of US "imperial overstretch). Comparisons with the Roman Empire are current and apt.

We not only don't make things of substance much anymore, it also seems we can't build anything anymore. Numerous countries build new skyscrapers while we can't even get our act together at an important site like this.

We are doomed and the American Dream will die a horrible death if we don't turn this ship around.

Fear Mongering with "15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind"

2010-02-25T02:09:00.000-05:00

The American Dream is unfortunately being replaced by fear.

15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind

While much of this is just interesting facts, the thing that blows my mind is ridiculous fear-mongering in fact #8:

"China has 150% more soldiers than America does, plus a high tech 'Kill Weapon' the U.S. can't deal with."

What this doesn't go into is whether these troops are active duty or simply some kind of reserves. Or how well trained or equipped they are. Or what kind of missions they are prepared for. I am sure we best them on all counts....

As for some kind of special weapon, it's almost laughable. The USSR spent decades spending a hell of a lot more making all kinds of antiship missles aimed at our aircraft carriers. Carrier battle groups are defended by the most sophisticated air defense radar and missiles systems in the world. Besides, if you compare the US military to China's, it's not even a contest: we spend almost 8 times as much as China (and btw true estimates put us now at more than the rest of the world combined). We have probably hundreds of times as many nuclear weapons. We have dozens of nuclear subs; they have none. We have like a dozen aircraft carriers; they have none. We have experienced troops while the only thing Chinese troops have done since Korea is beat up on poor Tibetan civilians, and fly too close to a US spy plane. We have hundreds of bases around the world and the ability to project real power globally. They do not.

To pump up some perceived threat from China would be really funny if it weren't to seriously dangerous. That's all we need is a new arms race.

We have to stop allowing unsubstantial fears dictate our foreign policy if this country is ever going to get back on its feet.

Zero Diversity of Opinion: Diane Rehm Gives Free Air Time to NATO Apologists

2010-02-24T12:14:00.000-05:00

Mission of NATO

(Comments I send to the Programming Department at WAMU, which produces the Diane Rehm Show)

I am disappointed and frankly horrified at the poor quality of the second half of Diane Rehm Show program on this date. I don't know what she and your producers were thinking by inviting on three individuals who are all apologists for NATO and its member governments. There are many and strong alternative points of view that do not have a place at the table today. You have deprived your listeners of the expert knowledge and opinions that could be presented by alternate guests. The reasonable discussion of the issues that results from a panel that gives a fair representation of the spectrum of opinion was impossible.

I hope that you will follow up with a program with three guests representing the following points of view not represented formally today: (1) the problematic modern history of NATO and reasons for its abolishment; (2) the historical and current problems caused by militarism and colonialism by Europe and the United States, and; (3) the unwise, illegal, and immoral nature of the continued occupation and war in Afghanistan.

Nathan Ruggles
Cincinnati, Ohio

*********

(I recognize that the Diane Rehm Show is not formally an NPR program. However, it does appear on many of the same public radio stations.)

Charlotte Would Have Insisted on Antibiotics for Wilbur the Pig in Today's Corporate Web

2010-02-24T03:11:00.000-05:00

The American Dream has so often in the past invoked the idea of a family homestead, or farm. It also would indicate a desire for security and confidence in our food supply.

This piece involves both.

Facebook | Champaign County Farm Bureau: American Farm Bureau Federation Voices Concerns to CBS News, Katie Couric

I must first mention that I have not seen the original CBS report. However, I hardly think it matters to the points below.

First, we must recognize that this letter comes from industry groups. They represent livestock companies and large factory farms.

(As an aside, I enjoy how they reject the terms "factory farms" and "industrial farms" yet they claim to represent an "industry" – some even have "industry" in their titles. The term they use – "modern" farm -- does not adequately describe the farms they represent, since there is a very big difference from the small family farm and the gigantic industrial farms in this country. The other terms, on the other hand, are indeed accurate; they just don't like them because they have expensive market research studies -- not to mention common sense -- that tells them that they don't play well in the public relations/marketing world. But I digress...)

In any case, the goal of these companies (and the groups that represent them) is to make money. Period. And as it should be. Naturally. They are businesses, after all. Money is the one and only thing we can count on them to value. However, if we recognize that fact, we also must understand that if any other things are to be valued -- public health, animal rights, human life, worker's rights, the environment, public safety -- then the public either as consumers or through their government have to introduce and enforce those values upon industry. Consumers are starting to speak by buying organic, for instance. And all those pesky regulations that industry hates so much -- because it costs them money, naturally -- are what keeps us and our families safe and allows us to sleep at night.

With that in mind, we have to remain ever skeptical of absolutely anything that these industry groups say, understanding that it will ever be in the self-interest of the industry, and therefore in the service of the almighty dollar. (The companies pay these industry groups handsomely to represent them and they darn well want their money's worth) Other values and the interests of us the citizens – let alone truth -- may well be damned, if it doesn't suit their interests. We must take everything they say -- including this letter -- with a grain of salt. (Hell, a whole salt mine wouldn't be a bad idea).

It also must be made clear that these industry groups only really represent the factory farms. Not the average family farm that built this country and created sustainable agriculture. Not the average farmer who works and cares for their own land. They could care less about them -- except when the interests of the factory farms and the family farms happen to coincide -- and would just as soon put them out to pasture by buying them out or crushing them as to represent them. Though of course, they love to claim to represent them, and play to American's love of the family farm when they do so (I especially love this photo on the homepage of the Livestock Marketing Assocation). As an example, the Ohio Farm Bureau (made up mostly of larger corporate farms) is not the Ohio Family Farm Coalition (which represents real people), though they may claim otherwise.

(As another aside, by representing factor farms they also claim to represent "conventional" farms. Which begs the question: as opposed to what? Family farms? Organic farms? One would assume "unconventional" farms at least. However -- in support of this term it seems -- they cite that antibiotics have been "used in livestock for half a century," implying it has been a lengthy time. On the other hand, agriculture has existed for thousands of years without antibiotics. Now, who is really being "unconventional?")

With that being said, there is an inescapable logic that this letter and the industry ignores (because it is not in their interest). That is, it has been conclusively shown without a doubt that overuse of antibiotics -- whether in humans or in livestock -- promotes the growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is more conclusive in humans, I believe, but what is good for the goose, in this case, is good for the swine. It has become more widely accepted that physicians for this very reason should avoid prescribing antibiotics unless they know that an illness is driven by a bacteria that can be combated by that antibiotic. This has not always been the practice in the past. Physicians have (and still do) prescribe antibiotics for patients begging for medication but who suffer from viruses that only time and rest will cure. And it is not even the case that we give antibiotics to people who aren't even sick, but whom we merely suspect might have been exposed. Or even given to people that have not even been expose, as a mere preventative. To suggest such a thing would be laughable in the medical community. Yet this is regular practice now in the livestock industry. There is a study in which the Union of Concerned Scientists -- a well-respected non-profit organization with no financial stake in the outcome -- found that 70% of antibiotics are given to livestock that are perfectly healthy. This is a recipe for disaster. That is, if we value the long-term public health.

But this is not what industry values. As a reminder, they (and rightly so) value the dollar above all. They perceive that antibiotics in the short term seem to promote healthier livestock. They see results of all these and other chemicals and methods in terms of fatter, larger pigs. They have also bought into the sales pitches of other industries that produce and sell the antibiotics and the alleged benefits they produce. This may be good for the bottom line, but is it good for the average American?

Just as pharmaceutical companies can trot out study after study that they pay for and which seem to show that their drugs are wonderful so therefore we all should buy them, the livestock industry can do the same. They can make all kinds of claims about this strain or that strain, and whether it has shown up or not, or been actually proven to spread between livestock and humans. But what if we actually wait for the proof? How many would have had to die of the Black Death before the rat lobby would have admitted that the proof existed that rodents were indeed the ones guilty of spreading the disease? How much of the ice cap has to melt before we have the "proof" we need to show that global warming exists? Does the rising ocean waters actually have to reach our bottom lips? Likewise, with the knowledge that bacteria routinely mutates into hardier and more deadly strains, and that they evolve to jump species from animal to human, how much proof do we need that the next lethal bacteria has actually spread to humans before we take action to prevent what could be the worst health crisis to hit humankind since smallpox and polio reigned or before penicillin existed?

I also know that all of Europe has now adopted the Danish methods that these American industry groups attempt to trash. It hardly makes sense that they would do so if the results weren't worthwhile.

I do not claim to be an expert on this subject. And I do know that antibiotics can be used safely, responsibly, and beneficially in livestock (and humans). However, I will forever remain wary of the claims made by self-interested money-worshipping industries – whether borne in a letter, in a "scientific study," or by the lips of Rush Limbaugh -- that have shown time and again that they are far from truthful and will lie, deceive, and fabricate if it benefits them (can we say the cigarette industry, for but one example), and that money is really all that they love. If I care about values other than money and the welfare of myself and the ones that I love, then it is the only responsible thing to do.

Racism is alive and well in the U.S.: Part 1

2010-02-24T02:43:00.000-05:00

So. Very. Offensive.

Not to mention dangerous.

Tancredo Says Obama Won Because We Lack a ‘Literacy Test Before People Can Vote’ « SpeakEasy

(I actually find the grassroots concerns of average working people -- expressing their genuine hopes and fears -- which are reflected by some of the Tea Party activists both interesting and powerful. But these are not the people at this convention, by and large, which was populated by elites that could afford the pricey entry ticket.)

Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com

2010-02-09T16:06:00.000-05:00

Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com

Klugman makes some good points here. A response and the implications for the American Dream.

1. If we keep it up, despite what Klugman says, we will indeed emulate the Romans (and the Hapsburgs, and the French, and the British, and the Russian Soviets....), both in terms of imperial overstretch, and the non-functioning and the corruption of the Senate -- along with their ceded of power to the executive -- which was an integral part of it's downfall. Poland was never an Empire...

2. We should separate the sources of the current problems. Some stem from the current Senate as it stands today in terms of how it operates. Then there are those whose source is traceable to the institution as it was formed and evolved.

In terms of today, our Congress is wholly owned by monied interests, who demand these special favors that Krugman mentions in return for all the financial support they provide candidates. This will only get worse with the recent Supreme Court rulings. Founders foresaw some of this: Jefferson warned of monied interests. However, I don't think they could have seen how incredibly powerful and corrupting it could be.

As an aside, this prompts the question: so even without Republican obstructionism, would something gloriously substantial be happening? Passage of so-called health care reform?

In terms of the Senate institutionally, it always has been fundamentally undemocratic. Even following reforms from a century ago, it still violates the basic principle of one person one vote. A Senator from Wyoming represents the voices of like a half a million people, and on from CA like 30 some million. This creates a core problem.

If these issues are not addressed -- the current corruption and fundamental undemocratic structures -- then the American Dream will continue to be in jeopardy.

What if there had been Slavery Reform...like current Health Care Reform?

2009-11-17T16:22:00.000-05:00

Imagine it is 1861. Newly elected Abraham Lincoln is giving a major address to the nation, regarding slavery. He begins by talking about the injustices of slavery. How it violates not only our sensibilities, but the basic rights of human beings. He discusses the numerous harms created by the then current system. He goes to address to the need to do something about it. He states that "If we were starting a system from scratch, I think that the idea of a society and economic system that is not based upon slavery makes sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most advanced countries around the world. The only problem is, we're not starting from scratch. We don't want a huge disruption as we go into reform where suddenly we're trying to completely reinvent one-sixth of the economy....We’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside."

Lincoln does not have a specific proposal, but rather asks Congress to come up with a solution based upon some key principles:

1. Financial Viability: for both slaves and slaveholders. Bankruptcy (financial, if not moral) must be prevented.

2. Affordability: for businesses and slaves to continue working and producing, and reduce inefficiency

3. Universality: rules must apply to all slaves and slaveholders.

4. Portability: Providing rules for how slaves transition owners, and making the process easier. Just because a previous owner may have thought a slave to be disruptive or disobedient, that does not mean the new owner can treat them harshly as a result.

5. Guaranteed Choice: Slaves should be able to choose which job or jobs they perform on plantations (as much as possible). If they like their current job, they shouldn't be forced to do a different job (without extraordinary reason, and within financial limits).

6. Invest in Prevention: Invest in measures to prevent disputes among slaves and slaveolders from happening in the first place.

7. Improve Safety & Quality Slaving: address bad working conditions, and create way of promoting slaving "best practices."

8. Sustainability: creating a system that can continue well over time.

Now, understand that the pro-slavery lobby is very strong. There is opposition on Congress to radical proposals, and advocacy for incremental approaches. Abolitionist groups, who supported Lincoln's election a the basis that he advocated strong change, continue to support him despite the fact that he is abandoning real reform (which he really only vaguely promised in the first place, despite their belief in the contrary). Therefore, they encourage Congress to take strong action on the principles. The slim Congressional majority cobbles together a controversial plan that proposes several measures. While it does leave the current slavery system in place, new rules are intended to help insure better working conditions for the slaves. Slave mothers would be allowed to choose whether or not they want to keep their newborns with them -- in which the children would then become slaves -- or else give them away to families in the north who would raise them in freedom. A system would be set up whereby slaves could save up to eventually buy their freedom. Slaves would have some input into what chores they had to do. Slavemasters could only whip slaves under certain specific circumstances, and under threat of arbitration in which they would have to pay a small penalty if found in violation. They could also only take slave women into their beds if they themselves as well as the slave were unmarried.

This sounds crazy, of course. The logical and just path would be to end slavery. Anything else seems ludicrous to even contemplate. Why cite eight principles when one will do: a real and acknowledged right to freedom from slavery. So the above scenario would never have happened. In fact, nothing like that would ever realistically be allowed to happen.

You may think so. But nevertheless it is happening right now. It is happening in our current health care reform debate, in what has been proposed by Obama and Congress.

Do you doubt this? The hypothetical Lincoln quote above is drawn almost word for word from a statement by Obama on why he feels a single-payer guaranteed health care for all type system would be good, but only if they were "starting from scratch.* (After all, such a system is based upon proven ideas that work better than our "system" in all aspects). The principles of reform are similarly sourced.**

Plenty of similar analogies can be made to other historic struggles in the U.S.

Just imagine if:

* Martin Luther King, Jr. acknowledged that civil rights make sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and that complete freedom for blacks in American would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, instead he advocates for a couple extra rows at the back of the bus. And for blacks to be able to eat at lunch counters, though in special designated areas, and only only between 2 and 3 o'clock, and not on Tuesdays because that's when local KKK grand dragons like to come in to eat. And that literacy tests for voting are alright, as long as we make the questions a little easier.

* Alice Paul and suffragists acknowledged that giving women the right to vote makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for complete women's suffrage would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, she concedes to a conditional right to vote: women be allowed to vote with the understanding that they would be required to vote the same as their husbands (or fathers). And only in off-off-year elections. And only in uncontested races.

* John Adams and other American colonial leaders acknowledged that requiring that the colonists have a democratic say in laws governing them makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for complete representation would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, him and others concede taxation without representation, but advocate for lower rates.

* The peace movement acknowledged that ending the Vietnam War makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for an end the war that already started would be too disruptive to the existing situation. Therefore, they ask that that the US military use 500 lb. bombs instead of the 1000 lb. variety when carpets bombing heavy civilian areas in the North, that Vietnamese be warned before the debilitating chemical defoliant Agent Orange is dumped on the countryside, and that wealthy and well-connected draft-age Americans actually have to cough up an official fee in order to secure their deferments.

* Rachel Carson and environmentalists acknowledged that ending the use of the poisonous pesticide DDT makes makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for a complete ban would be too disruptive to the existing system. Therefore, they concede to it's continued use, as long as the containers that it is transported in are recyclable.

* Child labor reform activists acknowledged that ending unjust child labor practices in sweatshops makes sense, but only if they were starting from scratch, and to advocate for a complete ban would be too disruptive to the existing economy. Therefore, they concede that 8 year olds can continue to work long hours in hazardous conditions, but advocate that industry be required to pay an extra penny per hour, and 2 cents on holidays, and that the kids be allowed to use the bathroom twice a shift instead of just once.

To imagine any of these things is to conceive of an American very different from the one we have known, one that would be hardly recognizable, if such a creature could even be considered to be anything related to the American nation which we have created.

Unfortunately, the current health care reform situation is unfolding in such a way that departs similarly from the progressive legacy of the past in this country.

This is due largely to the fact that the current administration and Congress is a political courage-free zone. And a real leadership free zone. And a principle-zone free (at least, free of any honorable principles). A government which is truly that the best that money (in terms of campaign contributions) can buy.

I don't know which is worse: the Republicans who want little real change, but who at least virtually acknowledge being led by the insurance companies. Or the Democrats, who while the claim they do want some reform and demonize the insurance companies in word, but don't acknowledge that they are still beholden to them and don't really want to bite the the hands that feed their reelection prospects.

It is clear that the current "reform" efforts are political calculated, and not based on any concept of true reform. One indication of this is the aforementioned "we're not starting from scratch" mantra (of the Democrats). Another is their open desperation to pass "something, anything" for fear of losing seats in Congress next time around. Another is the fact that possible reforms wouldn't be scheduled to kick in for years, ensuring that the results of their (mis)steps are years away and disconnected from their present actions, at the expense of years of suffering by Americans under the existing "system."

This current rights struggle -- to establish a genuine right to health care -- is one of THE pivotal and defining political struggles of our era. Such a right can only be established in actuality by replacing our current ridiculous "system" -- one which costs too much, covers too little, excludes too many, and is getting worse -- with one that will actually solve the problem: a single-payer guaranteed health care for all. We must demand real reform, guided by political courage and not expendiency, based on leadership and not political calculation, and founded on rights rather than legalized bribery.

To accept anything less is to give in to selfish monied interests who exercise their power at the expense of the rightful rulers of this country: the people. It is to allow problems to continue. It is to accept injustice. It is to fail as a country, as a society, and as individuals. And it would be to accept the demise of this nation, in spirit (and inevitably, eventually, in its very existence).

We must not, we cannot, allow that to happen.

* President Barack Obama: "If I were starting a system from scratch then I think that the idea of moving toward a single-payer system could very well make sense. That's the kind of system that you have in most industrialized countries around the world. The only problem is that we're not starting from scratch. We have historically a tradition of employer-based healthcare. And, although there are a lot of people who are not satisfied with their health care, the truth is that the vast majority of people currently get health care from their employers, and you've got this system that's already in place....We don't want a huge disruption as we go into healthcare reform where suddenly we're trying to completely re-invent one-sixth of the economy.

If you’re starting from scratch,’ he [Obama] says, ‘then a single-payer system’-a government-managed system like Canada’s, which disconnects health insurance from employment-’would probably make sense. But we’ve got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that’s not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they’ve known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.’

** Obama's 8 Principles of Health Care Reform:
1. Protect Families’ Financial Health. The plan must reduce the growing premiums and other costs American citizens and businesses pay for health care. People must be protected from bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness.
2. Make Health Coverage Affordable. The plan must reduce high administrative costs, unnecessary tests and services, waste, and other inefficiencies that consume money with no added health benefits.
3. Aim for Universality. The plan must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.
4. Provide Portability of Coverage. People should not be locked into their job just to secure health coverage, and no American should be denied coverage because of preexisting conditions.
5.Guarantee Choice. The plan should provide Americans a choice of health plans and physicians. They should have the option of keeping their employer-based health plan.
6. Invest in Prevention and Wellness. The plan must invest in public health measures proven to reduce cost drivers in our system—such as obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and smoking — as well as guarantee access to proven preventive treatments.
7. Improve Patient Safety and Quality Care. The plan must ensure the implementation of proven patient safety measures and provide incentives for changes in the delivery system to reduce unnecessary variability in patient care. It must support the widespread use of health information technology and the development of data on the effectiveness of medical interventions to improve the quality of care delivered.
8. Maintain Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability. The plan must pay for itself by reducing the level of cost growth, improving productivity, and dedicating additional sources of revenue.

Question: What has a couple decades and lots of techno-wizardry wrought? Answer: a few inches of legroom.

2009-10-26T16:49:00.003-04:00

1985 Honda CRX HF vs. 2010 Honda Insight - Modern Automotive Technology vs. Past Technology - Automobile Magazine

What does it say that 25 years ago they produced a car that got as good or better mileage than our fancy and pricy new hybrids with all of their computer-techno-wizardry?

Is newer always better?

Is the latest technology always better than the tried and true?

Has over two decades simply given us more complexity and a few inches of legroom?

The Definition of Heinous

2009-10-21T00:31:00.000-04:00

Republicans for Rape - Blog - The Daily Show gets it

I try to understand. I really do. In fact, I have become a trained moderator and facilitator in community dialogues and deliberations with the express purpose of trying to better understand. That is, understand the thoughts and opinions of others. And particularly on political and social issues. And particularly of those with whom I may differ.

However, in this case, I simply don't understand. I have found no way to justify what is in effect a vote to condone rape: a vote against legislation that would bar the government from contracting with companies that require employees to agree not to sue the company if they are raped by fellow employees on the job. As Jon Stewart says -- be sure to watch the video on the link -- shouldn't this be a "slam-dunk"? A no-brainer?

Apparently not. At least to the 30 Republicans Senators who voted against it.

The only motive that I can see is a desire to protect Halluburton/KBR and other contractors/big campaign contributors.

This is heinous. No, wait: it is the definition of heinous.

When we have leaders of our country who take these sort of actions -- not to mention undertake the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents in wars and consigning tens of thousands more to premature preventable death due to inadequate health care -- I fear for our country. When the interests of the American people are not being well represented, and those of powerful monied interests are served instead, I fear for our country.

Now, if we, the American people, sit back and don't do anything about our democracy being stolen from us, and don't do anything to take it back, then I fear our country is dead.

With that in mind, I encourage people to contact your Senators should you be unfortunate enough to have one of these guys as yours (and I do mean guys...or perhaps I should say old rich white guys):

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

By the way, the website at the link is satirical (in case you wondered).

Nathan Ruggles

Obama Wins Nobel (?!?)

2009-10-09T10:02:00.001-04:00

In Surprise, Nobel Peace Prize to Obama for Diplomacy - NYTimes.com

This. Is. Ridiculous.

An analogy inspired by an old friend:

It's like getting kudos for winning "Biggest Loser." Before actually losing the weight. Based on promises to lose weight. And others hopes that the weight might be lost. But meanwhile, for the most part, the same old fast food is being consumed (if perhaps under different wrappers, and a medium fry instead of a large). And there is no real workout plan in place.

But really. What has he actually DONE? Oh, wait! Forgive me. He has done a couple things: continued to prosecute two unjust wars, causing the deaths and injury of thousands of innocents, and wasting billions that could actually be used for peaceful purposes.

Oh, and then there's Columbia: support for continued militarism. And the U.S. defense budget: INCREASES, and well beyond $600 billion a year (more than the next 16 or so countries, several times more than all of the potential enemies of the U.S. combined).

How about a list of what he hasn't done. Peace in the Middle East? No progress there. Iran? Rising tensions. North Korea? Nothing. Darfur? Still waiting. Nuclear weapons reduction? Only promises. Closing Guantanamo Bay? Broken promises. AIDS and global infection diseases? Hardly a word. World poverty? Silence. Torture and civil rights under the "war on terror"? Harmful and illegal policies continued.

Hope is not substance. This award historically has been for work, not simply words.

For instance, Jimmy Carter received it for negotiating a substantial peace treaty that still holds, and years of post-presidential works supporting democracy and peace. Woodrow Wilson spearheaded the birth of the League of Nations, the first real international organization dedicated to avoided war and promoting peace between countries.

There are also many other deserving nominees this year.

Gandhi never received one; one could be considered posthumously.

And Peace Prizes have not been awarded in some years for the lack of worthy candidates; better that than this.

This is all not to say that Obama can't reverse course, and actually perform accomplishments that are truly worthy of an honor for doing "the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses". However, the prestige and significance of the Noble Prize for Peace will be forever diminished by this undeserved, misplaced (and only potentially premature) award to Barack Obama.

Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.

2009-10-01T17:59:00.001-04:00

Liberals Aren’t Un-American. Conservatives Aren’t Ignorant.

I strongly believe in the need for better dialogue in our social and political world, especially in this country. I strongly believe there needs to be less extremism and more understanding. So therefore, I looked with interest to this article. Unfortunately, I almost didn't continue reading the article after Haidt disdain for the bumper stickers in the beginning of the article.

Speaking for myself, as well as many people I have known in the peace movement opposing the the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would say that they strongly believe in the messages of “Support our troops—bring them home” and “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.” If you believe that troops should only be sent into war under certain circumstances, in which the nation is threatened, then to support troops sent into an unjust war would be supporting them. If you believe that dissent is not only allowed but encouraged by democratic form of government -- historically and by principle -- then to express it using your First Amendment rights is indeed patriotic.

Haidt's apparent disbelief that these messages could be genuine -- when they indeed can -- points to a lack of understanding of the political view of people. This puts his entire enterprise into question.

Also, to divide people's beliefs up into such distinct and opposing groups, and maintaining generalist and stereotypical view towards all "liberals" and "conservatives" -- terms which do not adequately describe the diversity and complexity of political-ethical view in this country, a fact acknowledged by a good political scientist now for some years -- also calls into question that he has an adequate understanding of his subject.

Yet, I will nevertheless check out the websites mentioned. Though I will be considering them with a big grain of salt.

The real ACORN story

2009-09-25T14:24:00.001-04:00

I normally do not watch MSNBC, but a friend shared this.

Finally, someone in the mainstream media telling the bigger story on the supposed ACORN scandal. For instance, it more often than not goes unmentioned that ACORN self-reported voter registration problems in the first place. It usually goes unreported that one of the offices these "journalists" visited called the police, and that the videos were heavily edited.

Thousands are dying and going bankrupt without good health care, and thousands more innocents are dying in Afghanistan, and we are actually concerning ourselves with this non-story of ACORN?!?!

******

The media fails ACORN Sept. 24: Rachel Maddow is joined by Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier, who authored a study on how myths about ACORN were manufactured and how easily the mainstream media - not just the right wing media - was led into reporting falsehoods. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/33013202#33013202

Ignorance & Misinformation Among Anti-Obama Activists

2009-09-16T11:16:00.003-04:00

Some excellent footage from the recent demostration in DC.

I have honestly tried really hard to understand these people. I do understand some of their legitimate concerns about taxes, the bailout, government spending, fears of losing (good) health care if there were changes, and general concerns over the effectiveness of proposed health care reform. However, this represents a small minority. And even then, that fact remains that:

a) spending and bailouts started under Bush, and this crowd largely supports him (making them hypocritical), and

b) their health care reform concern are not based on real facts (e.g. Obama is not proposing a government takeover of health care.)

After listening carefully and looking at the signs I saw, here is a list of other concerns these people have:
Obama is like Hitler
Obama is a good speaker (like Hitler)
Obama is a Muslim
Obama "already destroyed most of the country"
Obama is going to arm volunteers with weapons
Barack Obama = the Antichrist (according to the Bible)
"Obamacare"
"we didn't vote for this health care plan"
commies
socialists
fascists
"shame on the press"
abortion
lies
people on welfare
czars

And here are some things they want:
God
a Christian in the White House
ruled by God
freedom
change in government
"take our country back"
abolish Medicare
Glenn Beck

My response to these is that while some of these may be legitimate things to be concerned about generally (i.e. fascism) or to support generally (i.e. freedom), the specific connections to Obama and current actual or proposed policies are either mistaken or nonexistant. As for the rest, many of these are just plain ignorant and offensive on the face of it. My overwhelming sense is that what they have to say is largely based in ignorance and misinformation.

One may ask how this is possible in the "information age." But with so many sources of information, you may easily find some (or one) source of (mis)information that suits your preconceived notions and/or perceived values. These people have apparently done so.

I have been worried about this country's future for awhile now, about the possibility of making the American Dream a reality. Sadly, this makes me scared even more.

But at the same time, I must have hope...and continue to work for progress, peace, and justice.

The Edwardses: Complicated?

2009-05-07T11:20:00.003-04:00

My comment on the following Op-Ed:

New York Times
A Complicated Question

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: May 6, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06dowd.html

We are asked here to consider Elizabeth Edwards' motives; the piece calls them into question. It is difficult to judge her motives without reading the book, the Time article, and seeing her Oprah appearance. My instinct says to avoid being judgmental considering what she's been through; to do so risks seeming to minimize her pain and condone his behavior. Frankly, any public embarrassment he suffers as a result is deserved; he best grin and bear it. His self-destruction and public excoriation should serve as a warning and deterrent to men (politicians) who would contemplate similar behavior.

In the end, Dowd did seem a bit hard on her; I'm not sure why.

One statement that confused me: the criticism that "She may be smart, but she doesn’t seem to know much about men." It seems to imply that she doesn't understand that men are going to be unfaithful given the opportunity. If that is a correct interpretation, I resent such generalizations about us "men." Not all of us are like Mr. Edwards in this way.

Finally, in addition to the suffering of Elizabeth and her family, and the ending of an at least somewhat laudible political career, perhaps the biggest loss in my mind is that of a champion of the poor. There aren't many, sadly. Low income Americans need more allies in places of power...

Some Worst Fears Realized

2009-04-15T01:11:00.001-04:00

Story: An emerging progressive consensus on Obama's executive power and secrecy abuses
Link: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/

Some of my worse fears are now realized. I just didn't think -- or maybe hoped against hope -- that it wouldn't be so blatant, so extensive, so flagrant, and so soon.

As this essay indicates, the Obama administration is guilty of supporting and even extending some of the worse abuses of the Bush administration with regard to secrecy, executive power, and human rights.

Now, we must acknowledge -- as does the essay -- that there have been some progressive successes and victories since the Obama administration came to power. However, they are minor and limited when considered in light of the disappointing record so far on much larger issues, i.e.:

continued bailout and subsidy of corporations and the powerful and wealthy;
continued rising military budgets;
continued illegal, immoral, unwise, and unconstitutional wars;
continued escalation of such wars (simply trading Afghanistan for Iraq), and;
continued non-solutions to the health care crises.

This bears out the correctness of the contention that some of the severest problems that plague our country and government have become sadly institutional, left unaffected and smoldering whether it is a D or R sitting in the Oval Office.

Now, whereas the new attitude from the White House is refreshing, when it comes to the imperative issues of war and peace, human and constitutional rights, executive power and privilege, corporate power and abuse, and the health and well-being of the people: whether it comes with a smirk and stumbling Texas drawl, or delivered with a pleasant smile and pretty words....bad policy is still bad policy.

While I am proud I voted the way I did -- for Nader not Obama -- any sense of vindication is and will be overwhelmed by a sense of disappointment, and a concern for all those who did vote for Obama, their deep hopes entrusted to him, and how some of them now may well become cynical, disaffected, and withdraw from civic and political involvement.

My Presidential Vote

2008-11-05T11:38:00.000-05:00

I have worked too hard opposing wars and supporting true health care reform to give my vote to anyone who repeatedly voted to fund the unjust horror and vows to unwisely escalate the unnecessary bloodshed, who proposes inadequate steps to ensure truly universal coverage while denigrating the real solution.

When it comes to politicians, you don't get what you don't ask for, insist on, or vote for.

I voted for the man who proclaims that which I believe, not to mention is the most qualified, possesses impeccible integrity, exhibits unmatched dedication, and has given more to this country and our lives than the major party candidates combined could ever hope to. I cast it with pride, and the bittersweet knowledge that there may well not be another candidate for president in my lifetime that embodies so much of the values of justice and peace that I hold dear.

That being said, I still wish Obama the best, hope for the best, and will give credit where credit is due.

Please don't drill, baby.

2008-09-21T19:13:00.002-04:00

The US House of Reps just passed an energy bill last week (will the full concent of Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats) that would allow offshore oil drilling.

Below is the text of an email I sent to our Ohio Senators. Feel free to cut and paste (and change) and send yourself (contact info below):

*******************

Senator:

Please do not go along with the House on allowing more off-shore (or any other, for that matter) oil drilling. It will not reduce gas prices nor contribute significantly to energy independence. If anything will only provide false hope and prolong our problematic dependence on nonrenewable resources. This could only delay the eventual and inevitable shift to wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and other sources of energy which are relatively environmentally benign. To do so would mean that this country would miss the opportunity of creating the thousands of jobs that would result from be the research and development of the technologies and industries that will come from this shift.

Please make the right decision, and oppose further drilling. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Nathan Ruggles

*********************

For Ohioans:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=OH
http://brown.senate.gov/contact/
http://voinovich.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

For others:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

"A task from God"

2008-09-10T09:24:00.005-04:00

Recent words from Sarah Palin, as referenced here: http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/COLUMN0703/809080321/1049/OPINION

"In June, speaking to ministry students at her former church, she portrayed the war in Iraq as 'a task that is from God.' At the same time, she asked them to pray for a $30 billion natural gas pipeline in Alaska. 'God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built.'"

Even assuming we are even able to know or interpret the "will of God," I do not believe that any God would have as a "task" a war that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis -- not to mention even more numbers of injuries, and millions of refugees and internally displaced -- in addition to the thousands of American casualties. Not to mention the thousands upon thousands that have died and suffered due to the neglect of human needs at both home and abroad as billions are spent on this immoral war: victims of the terror of lack of health care, the terror of joblessness, the terror of homelessness, of malnutrition, hunger, and preventable disease. Not to mention that the invasion and its aftermath was illegal in terms of international law, the U.N. Charter, the U.S. Constituation, and the Geneva Convention. Not to mention that the continued occupation flies in the face of the desire of a majority of the Iraqis, Americans, and the world for us to leave.

I agree with most of the thoughts expressed here:
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080908/COLUMN0703/809080321/1049/OPINION

I am also rather skeptical that God would sanction a pipeline that would continue our nation and the world on a path of destruction: dependence on fossil fuels; unhealthy pollution; damage of ecosystem in Alaska and around the pipeline; global warming, and; a way of thinking about energy policy that is rooted in both the past and dominated by the agendas of corporations, rather than forward-thinking and based on what is best for the people of American and the world.

In general, I find troublesome the idea that we can declare a knowledge of what is the "will of God." Especially in a public setting. Especially as a political statement. Especially from the mouth of a public official. I could also say it is offensive, simple-minded, arrogant, and self-centered. In addition, coming from someone that is a high-profile candidate on the national stage, it is especially unwise and insensitive in the current international political climate. Ongoing perceptions and misperceptions of Christian religious motivations in American foreign policy -- by Muslims in particular, but also by other countries and certainly our European allies -- dog this country, and can have continued negative consequences.

Still Sick Over Sick Days

2008-09-08T00:05:00.007-04:00

How come it is the Democrats who always seem to dissappoint me more?

Maybe because I expect the Republicans to do so. At least I know they are usually against my beliefs. At least I know that they stand against me.

The Democrats, on the other hand, claim not to. Yet by saying so they are being coy. And deceptive. They merely acting like they stand with me, only to step away at the last minute. I guess it hurts more to be betrayed by a (seeming) friend. Of course, then they expect me to vote for them come election time anyway, taking me for granted in that sense, and then have the nerve to then get angry with me if I threaten to withhold my vote or to go elsewhere (or even send thuggish lawyers to confront third party petitioners in dark parking lots at night, like happened to a friend of mine).

Republicans may be wolves, but the Democrats are being wolves in sheeps clothing.

I am now feeling vengeful, and thinking that a Green or independent spoiler of Ted's 2010 reelection bid would be sweet.....

Actually, this is not simply vengeful. Democrats need to learn a lesson, and understand that these actions have negative consequences, that they cannot browbeat me and then take me for granted.

Sick Today Over Sick Days

2008-09-06T16:35:00.003-04:00

Disappointment. Disgust.

That is how I feel towards our governor now.

That's because he is responsible for the decision to pull the Ohioans for Health Families Act from the Ohio ballot for November two days ago.

The "sick days" ballot initiative would have allowed Ohio workers to earn up to 7 paid sick days per year (with pro-rated amounts for part time workers) with companies having over 25 employees. Today, hundreds of thousands of Ohioans have no paid sick days, and cannot afford to take unpaid days off when they are sick, or if they need to care for an ill loved one or child. Or are forced to use precious vacation time. Employees blanche at this idea, and some businesses were lined up to oppose it (as expected). But in actuality, the cost to businesses and society in lost productivity due to sick (and worried sick) employees still going to work, as well as infecting co-workers and customers, is greater than the cost of paying the paid sick days. See the website for more: http://www.sickdaysohio.org/

The campaign's accomplishment was impressive: they not only collected over 260,000 signatures to submit it to the Ohio General Assembly, but after the legislature rejected it, they went back and gathered another 240,000 to get it on the ballot. (in both cases, beyond the 120,000 minimum requirement.) This is hard work. I know firsthand. It is no small accomplishment. Job well done.

However, Strickland had expressed reservations about the initiative for some time. Now, it is clear he has bowed to the business interests, betrayed the unions that supported this initiative -- as well as got him elected -- and turned his back the hundreds of thousands of Ohioans who would have benefited from this law. It must not concern him enough, maybe since I'm sure he gets all the paid sick days -- note to mention vacation days -- that he wants) In any case, he has pressured the campaign, along with supporters such as the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) to pull the plug.

Strickland and Co. have claimed to do so for other reasons:

They say it is because they think that it would be better addressed at the national level. That is not the case, since the 2006 minimum wage initiative -- for which I was a political organizer -- that passed here in Ohio, put decisive pressure on Congress and the federal government to act in turn. There is no reason that would not be the case here.

They say they want to prevent a campaign "with false claims about the impact of sick days." That is not a reason. They knew that would be the case from the beginning.

They also say they want to prevent a "divisive campaign." Well, first: campaigns are usually rather naturally divisive. But what they really refer to here is divisions between Strickland & Co. on one hand, and those campaigning for the initiative on the other. They are all mostly Democrats, and they don't want a rift in the party. While divisions among a coalition in a campaign is certainly potentially problematic, it is not like it is a problem that they have no control over. It is completely self-inflicted; they have the power to end it at any minute, by simply supporting the initiative!

They also say that the scuttling of the initiative was "a course of action that was best for Ohioans, and all Americans." It is clearly not what is best for Ohioans, or all Americans. They made this decision out of self-interest, though ironically, it is not. This decision is actually bad for the Democrats in the fall campaign. Mandatory paid sick days is popular, and just as in 2006 with the minimum wage initiative, people would register and vote who may not have otherwise. In addition to being more Democrat-leaning, these voters would also tend to vote for the candidates and party who supported the initiative: in this case, the Democrats. For this reason, in 2006 the minimum wage initiative was at least partially if not largely responsible for the '06 victories by Strickland, along with Sherrod Brown. The Democrats would reap the benefits from a sick days initiative the same way, as a popular initiative that would drive Democrats to the polls. Ohio could go to Obama as a result. Now that strong electoral influence is lost.

This tragedy is all made worse by the fact that the initiative would surely would have passed, even without much help. Polls show that a wide majority of Ohioans support it. Which makes Strickland's excuses all the more strange, and his apparent threats to oppose it all the more frustrating and disgusting.

I encourage all to contact Governor Strickland's office and voice their disappointment: (614) 466-3555

You call also call the SEIU about dropping their support as well:
(614) 461-1199 or (800) 227-1199

You can ask for the union President, Becky Williams