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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Fear Mongering with "15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind"
The American Dream is unfortunately being replaced by fear.
15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind
15 Facts About China That Will Blow Your Mind
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Zero Diversity of Opinion: Diane Rehm Gives Free Air Time to NATO Apologists
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.)
(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
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.
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
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist - America Is Not Yet Lost - NYTimes.com
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
What if there had been Slavery Reform...like current Health Care Reform?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"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.